Slashdot Mirror

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Thanks for your concerns. Link to whatever you want. Again, I'm talking about the fact that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.

But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?

In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.

Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.

Ah, you must be talking about real men. ;-)

If you actively support laws that will discriminate a minority based on your religious believes, then, yes, in my opinion, you are a bad person. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the majority of Christians and Jews do not support the discrimination of gay couples, but obviously Brendan Eich did. And that is the only issue here: that Eich supported a law that is designed to discriminate a minority.

Here is Prop 8.
"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That discriminates any marriage that is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman by the state of California. Yes there are same-sex marriage in California, as the California Council of Churches states: “By allowing the religious views of some faith communities to be imposed on all faith communities, our religious liberty has been severely eroded,” [1]
Even the church itself is calling Prop 8. bigotry
"Rev. Schlosser affirmed, “As faith leaders, we know that bigotry, exclusion and discrimination are not faith-based family values. We are committed to standing together for equality for all Californians, no matter how long it takes." [1]

[1] http://www.webcitation.org/que...

You could rephrase it to:
"Sec. x.x. Only marriage between a white man and a white woman is valid or recognized in California."
Would you still be Ok with that?

I would have modified your first line to have a period after:

The progressive model doesn't have GPS. Theoretically,

With many modern cars having built in GPS, that data is (or can be) available on the CAN Bus, which is what Progressive plugs tap into.

Further, OnStar equipped cars were already collecting that information and saving it for sale to insurance companies. When this became known, the backlash caused them to roll back this decision, but their initial announcement of this is still available on the web, but no longer on GM's site.

Re GITMO: Obama had control of the Senate and House for 2 years, plus he can submit an Executive Order. Don't blame anybody but Obama and the Dems if you think GITMO should be closed.

Only partially correct. The opposition to moving GITMO detainees to the United States for trial was widespread and came from both parties. The Senate voted 90-6 to block all funding associated with moving any GITMO prisoners to the US. Blame the Democrats, sure, but also blame the Republicans. Almost nobody in the Senate was willing to see GITMO closed. (See the Associated Press story.)

And please, let's put that canard about "control of the Senate and House" to bed. Remember that it takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, not 50, if there is even one member of the opposition willing at assert a fillibuster. And Republicans used the filibuster a record number of times in 2009 and 2010. According to the American Enterprise Institute:

"Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels. Look at the things that the House (of Representatives) has passed that can't make it through the Senate. The list just keeps growing," said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization.
(source)

The chart accompanying that article shows 112 cloture votes (used to try to end a filibuster) in 2009. The previous record was 61. Blaming Obama and the Democrats for anything on the excuse that they could have passed Program X when they controlled the House and Senate is flatly untrue. At no time during the Obama administration did the Democrats ever have functional control of the House and Senate.

You really are an intolerant bunch, when it comes to matters of faith - any deviation from extreme alarmism is unacceptable. Here I was thinking Lomborg was one of you. ... [Eric Worrall, 2013-01-26]

Contrarians often use Lomborg to support their misinformation, possibly because he's getting better at pretending to accept the science. When brucmack described Lomborg as more pragmatic than skeptic, I replied that "I've never heard of Lomborg before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with."

But when I actually read his claims, it became clear that Lomborg is repeatedly misrepresenting science. Like many contrarians, Lomborg also misrepresents his own position by claiming to accept the science while simultaneously misrepresenting that science. Lomborg's books are often used to support accusations like these:

... Last time the Eugenics catastrophists, confident in their scientific consensus that genetic pollution would return us to the stone age, killed 7 million Jews to improve the race. Now poor people are dying because only rich people can afford the self inflicted expense of trying to appease the Carbon God. ... How many poor Africans and Asians will die because of the great global warming swindle, before their pseudo scientific bluff is finally called? ... [Eric Worrall, 2008-02-05]

... Mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be the kiss of death. The U.S. is about to undergo this madness in the form of a deluge of Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide regulations that will strangle the economy and kill jobs. Unless the Congress can eliminate them via legislation, it will constitute a form of national suicide. ... If successful, the U.N. will lead the world back to a new Dark Ages. [Alan Caruba (Heartland Institute), 2012-12-10]

Consider a group of academics who claim the world faces an imminent catastrophe unless drastic steps are taken. Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs or Climate alarmists? [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-18]

Its not my fault if you guys are pushing for the implementation of harmful policies on the basis of pseudoscientific predictions of imminent catastrophe - just like the NAZIs did. [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-29]

Given your gross advantage in economic and political muscle, its a wonder we've managed so far to hold off your new dark age. ... [Eric Wor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

and pics of the spaceship http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salestes.html&date=2009-10-25+06:41:49 [webcitation.org]

I loved that show as a kid now I just need a cement mixer, fuel tanker, and some recycled tyres

I loved that show as a kid

Did you know that one of the biggest things microsoft got in trouble for was forcing companies to not allow them to bundle other browsers with computers they sold?

You and your other Anonymous Coward friend are wrong. Microsoft never forced companies not to install other browsers. If you look at the judgement against Microsoft, you see that:

"Microsoft did manage to bundle Internet Explorer 1.0 with the first version of Windows 95 licensed to OEMs in July 1995. It also included a term in its OEM licenses that prohibited the OEMs from modifying or deleting any part of Windows 95, including Internet Explorer, prior to shipment. The OEMs accepted this restriction despite their interest in meeting consumer demand for PC operating systems without Internet Explorer.
...
Microsoft knew that the inability to remove Internet Explorer made OEMs less disposed to pre-install Navigator onto Windows 95. OEMs bear essentially all of the consumer support costs for the Windows PC systems they sell. These include the cost of handling consumer complaints and questions generated by Microsoft's software. Pre-installing more than one product in a given category, such as word processors or browsers, onto its PC systems can significantly increase an OEM's support costs, for the redundancy can lead to confusion among novice users. In addition, pre-installing a second product in a given software category can increase an OEM's product testing costs. Finally, many OEMs see pre-installing a second application in a given software category as a questionable use of the scarce and valuable space on a PC's hard drive."

And later, when discussing Window's use of IE in some cases despite the user selecting another browser as a default (eg. Windows Update), the ruling states:

"By increasing the likelihood that using Navigator on Windows 98 would have unpleasant consequences for users, Microsoft further diminished the inclination of OEMs to pre-install Navigator onto Windows."

So you can see, there was no ban on other browsers for OEMs. They were not allowed to delete portions of Windows (including IE), but they could add their own browser if they wished. Microsoft added IE in the hope that OEMs would be disinclined to bundle Netscape Navigator.

http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
There was almost a million km more ice over last winter than there was in the previous low year of 2007.

There was also an exceptionally strong summer storm this year in early August (the time when ice is thinnest) that led to a lot of ice breaking up - hence the relative ice low.
http://earthsky.org/earth/powerful-summer-storm-in-arctic-reduces-sea-ice-even-more

Result is an at least 30 year low, but it is pretty consistent with the 60 year AMO/PDO ocean cycle:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif

So it doesn't actually look like this is a "death spiral" at least in the short term, more like a bit of seasonal variability in an otherwise 5 year upwards trend.

"Because blackberry was - and still does - do a better job for mobile business use"

How? And if that's the case, that must be why business aren't abandoning Rim in droves.

"There was no market for easy to use smartphones for sheeple until mass market GPRS/EDGE arrived allowing reasonable download speeds,"

You might want to check your facts.

http://www.webcitation.org/5yRQRGPgH

"which not coincidentaly was shortly before the iPhone appeared. Funny huh?"

So why did Apple do it first instead of Motorola or Samsung?

Why were the first Android prototypes RIM knockoffs?

It's pretty funny you should ask about risk in the face of the example of underground weapons manufacture in occupied Europe. Those people were summarily executed by the Gestapo or similar agencies. Doesn't get riskier than that, and it still happened.

And as for armed women, the numbers are not ultimately important, the principle of access is. You don't count freedom on your fingers. Which one of these examples would you say to their face 'I would rather you were disarmed to salve my own sensibilities even if it meant you would have been raped and/or killed'?

I think that your comparing the weight of the capsule to the weight of the entire space shuttle (not just the orbiter). And the space shuttle (orbiter) could (unmanned) be sent to mars to assemble a space station, and then return to earth and be use for another mission, something that the dragon capsule could not do.

Why could the dragon capsule not do this? It was in fact designed with this purpose in mind! Read about it here: http://www.webcitation.org/63bnwPQHZ

they takin our jaaabs

Queue jumping rapists more like it

What other culture besides these muslims condone rape and force rape victims to marry their rapist?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/queensland-woman-tells-of-her-jail-hell-in-united-arab-emirates/story-e6freqwo-1226028684306&date=2011-03-27

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/1856/bangladesh-sharia-brutality-raped-girl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/04/france.jonhenley1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/sharia-law-applied-secretly-in-sydney/story-e6freuzi-1226057808947

and, of course, this is where it is all going to end up:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/05/australia-islamic-leader-wants-to-implement-sharia-law-in-heavily-muslim-suburb/

Do you want to have these people in your country?

No, seriously. Australia takes all sorts of refugees from all over the world. Having thousands of muslims forcing their way in is not good.

Someone knocks at your door. Your daughter opens it. A muslim man bashes his way in and rapes your daughter. Your daughter is now forced to marry this rapist or face death by stoning. How do you feel about this?
Just don't say anything to your local cleric or you will stand in the pit with your daughter as they stone her to death.

If you think this is complete horse shit then you either need to read more about the topic, or go live in a muslim country for a while

Australia has taken in the English, the Italians, the Greeks, and a whole host of other countries. So far as I can see they are friendly and welcoming to just about anyone. But. Can you blame them for not wanting a bunch of self admitted rapists?

"I would like to know just what he did to upset the ED people though", 1s44c

Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia

Wikipedia's Hive Mind

Daniel Brandt on the Wikipedia Issue

Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services

We know that in sudden, widespread disruptive events people loot.

Like the Japanese at Fukushima? Not.

In fact there *was* looting after the earthquake ( citation). However the authorities moved quickly to quell the looting, before the looting ignited a vicious circle. Which brings us right back to the predictability of the looting response and the *effectiveness* of steps taken to restrain it.

I store all my cloud data in a Truecrypt image. It can grow dynamically, and according to them it's about a protected as you can get.

alpha isn't a problem unless you eat the emitter

True, but that's usually the problem - alpha emitters getting into air or food. A gamma emitter big enough to be a hazard is easy to detect and tends to be noticed. Japan has a decent monitoring system, and the US has a paranoid one since 9/11. (Back in 1983, there was an incident where a scrapyard in Mexico got a big cobalt-60 radiation source and recycled it into steel. Radiation detectors then went in at US border crossings.)

Monitoring milk is a good check for airborne radioactives, because cows concentrate the radioactives from a large amount of grass. The US EPA stepped up monitoring of milk from March to June 2011, and they were able to detect some iodine-131, about 5000 times below allowed levels. It's an isotope with an 8-day half life, so it faded out quickly.

Oh look, parasites demanding food! Let me note that the people who run change.org would directly benefit from any money tsunamis unleashed by their challenge. And they are for-profit , making their demands unusually self-serving even by the weak standards of the charity industry.

So you don't know what the sources are and just claim that they exist and support your argument in spite of the cited Microsoft blog post. You're full of shit.

I bet you believe that Bill Gates never said 640k should be enough for anyone despite the eyewitness accounts, too. Why don't you just go offer to blow Bill so you can get this Microsoft-worship out of your system? Corporations try to change history through press release and misinformation on a regular basis.

I have already found these sources in the past, so the proof is out there for any subscriber who wants to search my posting history. I lose nothing if I do not find it (not really worried about my credibility with the anonymous coward set) and gain nothing if I do, so why bother? You're not that important.

I take the information from the windowsfordevices link more seriously than an official blog post from a Microsoft droid. Or maybe you should listen to the people emulating the Xbox, who ought to know better than you. Or others who have worked in game development. The prototypes were made from disassembled laptops, so it's certain that THEY were running Windows with few modifications. Since when has Microsoft ever taken anything that worked and significantly improved it before release? Usually they significantly crap it up. Remember WolfPack?

Which is more plausible, that Microsoft developed a third operating system while nobody was looking, one capable of implementing the Win32 and Direct3D APIs with such a high level of compatibility that you can write complex games that will compile for both PC with Windows and the original Xbox without any changes, or that they stripped all the unnecessary parts out of their best version of windows at that time and stuck it into the machine, which is after all nothing more than a limited, legacy-free PC with custom BIOS, and then lied about it? Which is more plausible, that they then created a fourth operating system which not only provides some backwards compatibility but also has the same characteristics vis-a-vis development as the original Xbox, or that the 360's operating system is directly based on that of the original Xbox, which (follow along) being based on Windows 2000 is known to have a kernel portable to PowerPC?

Microsoft has enough trouble keeping one Win32-compatible operating system going, they don't have the ability to maintain two entirely separate and yet compatible operating systems.

causing games to bug out midway through if they fail checks

They've done that before:

http://www.webcitation.org/5vN0X2AgG

I'm seeing a fairly generic fantasy world and a bunch of nice rendering techniques that by now have pretty much all appeared in released games, on consoles even. Am I missing something?

Keep in mind that these demo videos were released in 2005 by a three person team working out of an apartment. It was met with pretty much universal acclaim back then and still holds up extremely well against any engine today.

While this user's wiki-commons userpage;

http://www.webcitation.org/5pWirbCuy

was deleted only a few days ago, much if not all of the linked images still reside in the Commons.

I decided to post the whole thing as a reply here since it is not easily accessible, even though there are a couple of replies there and additional comments by me.

Embedded software developer Joseph Stack allegedly intentionally flew a small plane into government offices in Austin, TX, in an act that has been labeled as domestic terrorism. He cited, among other things, IRS regulations about independent contractor status as well as other issues related to government corruption.

Could his behavior have been partially due to vitamin D deficiency syndrome from indoor work? Could vitamin D deficiency also have contributed to the violent behavior alleged of Hans Reiser or Amy Bishop? And is part of the problem also that Joe Stack was not talking to anyone about any of this to think through real solutions and find positive things to do that, as Mr. Rogers sang, would not hurt himself or anyone else?

Here are some useful resources for preventing more copycat violence to show how there are plenty of alternatives to violence despite Joe Stack's claim otherwise in his manifesto:

Treating Disease With Vitamin D

Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy

Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals

Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science

A wombat talks about a global mindshift

TED | Peter Eigen on moving beyond corruption

The Optimism of Uncertainty

Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence

As another software developer who has done embedded work, here are some non-programming things I've worked on related to helping people see positive alternatives to violence:

Possible cures for a jobless recovery

Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease

Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future

The amazing thing to me is not that stuff like this happens. What is amazing is that it does not happen more often, which is a tribute to most of humanity's basic social nature. In a way, even Joe Stack chose a relatively limited approach; an embedded software developer such as he was could have done far more damage if trying to create general mayhem (he could have tampered with nuclear power plants or medical devices or airplane software). There is also irony here that a person took a very advanced piece of technology — a private airplane, and all that it represents as a technological marvel — and used it to destroy a past instead of to create a future.

What do people think and feel about all this?

First, here's the actual report, without any form to fill out. (Backup copy at WebCitation.) Amusingly, the report is clearly written for a target audience who prints out PDF files on paper. It contains charts in tiny type.

The report covers the usual email issues, which will be familiar to Slashdot readers. New issues for 2009 are the following:

• Anti-virus companies are slowing down. Average time to "patch: (really, release a new identifying signature) has increased from 22 hours to 46 hours. By the time the anti-virus companies catch up, the attack has changed. This indicates the uselessness of signature-based attack detection.
• More attacks are successfully targeting search engines. Google is more vulnerable to hacked SEO than previously thought. Google Trends, which drives Google Suggest (the command completion in Google search boxes) is extremely vulnerable. (I've commented on that before.) "The average number of malicious sites in any Google search using hot/trending topics (as ranked by Google) by the end of the year stood at 13.7% for the top 100 results."
• The "long tail" of the Web is becoming less important as more user generated content moves to the top 100 sites. More attacks now involve injection of hostile code into user generated content on major sites.

The report identifies Google's weak security in their search engine as a problem. Microsoft's Internet Explorer remains a problem, of course, but now Google is now the attack target of choice to drive traffic to a site that can attack the browser. Google still, apparently, hasn't figured out a good way to prevent link farms from driving up search position.

Addendum:

I'm sorry, I don't have the figures, but I'd rather live in a country where the police are rarely seen, and when they are they act with (relative) prudence, instead of like drunken cowboys.

I'd also prefer to live in a country where they don't incarcerate 1/8 of all black males under the age of 30, or detain people without charge indefinitely.

Those topics are far more important to me than some cameras placed in public places.

Tor exit nodes are blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Not according to Our Gracious Leader: http://www.webcitation.org/5QELRL7gf

Nor according to the talk page - the general consensus seems to be soft-blocking of anonymous editing. I was pleasantly surprised by his response to this. Of course, there wasn't really any other response that wouldn't look colossally stupid when you had Admins using Tor nodes left right and center and having free reign, whilst freely employing the "banhammer" on mere mortals.

At the top of the wired blog comments right now is this one: Wikimedia Foundation employee removes source about Wiki Scanner funding by Anonymous Vishal-WMF, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, has removed evidence from a news story that uncovered that Virgil, the scanner's creator, was HIRED by the Wikimedia Foundation! News story that was removed by Wikipedia Employee (not admin, EMPLOYEE): http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_vi ew.asp?at_code=428814 Backup archive link in case the WMF 'vanishes' the evidence: http://www.webcitation.org/5RAEP2kAl Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgil_G riffith&diff=prev&oldid=151814656 Yet Wired has claimed that this is a "false claim": "Update: 8/17/2007 A Wikimedia Foundation employee really did edit Virgil Griffith's entry today, but only to cut a false claim that Griffith was employed by the foundation to create the scanner. " So what makes Wired assume that it is a false claim? This is the same guy that brought us Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services, and he is stating something as fact, not as an opinion. "On July 26, OhmyNews alleged that Wikipedia may have been infiltrated by Intelligence Agencies. The story attracted more than 50,000 readers in just three days, was highly debated on the Web, and translated in several languages. Wikipedia quickly reacted to the news and hired Virgil Griffith, one of the best known American hacker, to investigate the matter." Yet Wikipedia claims its "unreliable". Wikipedia has used ohmynews as a source in 192 of their articles: and has been used in Google news 460 times: http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&q=ohmy news&btnG=Search+News Virgil Griffith does claim that he wasn't paid by Wikipedia: http://virgil.gr/31.html and the Wikipedia staff went so far as to remove the links, and then ban the IP address of the person who had inserted them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special: Log&type=block&page=User:123.2.168.215 Daniel Brandt claims that it is far too expensive for him to have done it himself: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic= 11853&view=findpost&p=43697 But perhaps he really did do all of this just to make himself popular. Spend a few thousand dollars, including the $349 to do the reverse IP lookups: http://www.ip2location.com/ip-country-region-city- isp.aspx , saved presumably through his time as an unemployed student and spent several hundred hours creating something that does nothing more than make him well-known. Perhaps it'll help him to get a job sometime in the future? And perhaps its all one almighty coincidence that all this has happened just a week after Wikipedia was reeling after the massive censorship about the SlimVirgin scandal. Oh, and also note that another IP that reverted edits to the article belonged to Jayjg, the person most closely related to SlimVirgin: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic= 11853&view=findpost&p=43641 Coincidence, coincidence, coincidence. And this over an issue in which we've proven that the CIA edits Wikipedia with a definite aim, as have many other industr

The owners of the mp3 codec only want a cut of profits from people who want to sell mp3 encoders/decoders. From their FAQ at http://www.webcitation.org/5MeUrGbFN

"...no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00..."