> Anyone with a packet sniffer on your network can see there's an ssh server when it's in operation.
Do you know what a port knocker is, or are you posting blindly? The POINT is that your SSH port ISN'T OPEN FOR SNIFFING until you knock the correct sequence of ports. Then you are able to connect. So unless the scan happens w/in 10 seconds (or whatever predetermined time) of the conclusion of the knock, no, they WON'T see there's an ssh server running. THAT IS THE WHOLE FRIGGING POINT.
Okay, I lied. I'm replying to point out that you are, in fact, clueless. Everything you write, including EMail, is instantly copyrighted by you. There is no "arguable" about it, it is a fact, backed up by case law. Saying it's arguable does not make it so.
> have a look at Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii's photos
WOW. Simply amazing. I've never been much for photography as art, but some of those images are stunning. In some of them, the colors almost seem "more real" than color photos from today. I especially like the close-up images with water, as the time between snaps on moving water creates an awesome unintentional rainbow effect in the river. It makes the photos sorta mysterious looking. Thank you VERY much for the awesome link.
> Can they copyright this stuff (that is, the movie), so long after the actual photos were taken...?
I think that they can copyright that exact movie they made, but since the original plates are (I'm assuming) Public Domain, you could make your own movie from the originals.
> Personally, I would say that the problem in Africa is poverty and lack of education, not promiscuity.
Before you can solve a problem you have to know where the problem is. "Lack of $$$ & lack of knowledge" != "gotta fuck like goddamned rabbits."
The problem is that they are constantly screwing multiple people, and that is the ONLY problem. The only reason to blame it on something else is because you are uncomfortable discussing the real cause.
If they weren't promiscuous, AIDS would not be spreading an fast as it is -- plain and simple, that is the ONLY reason. Now, you can argue WHY they are promiscuous, but I am sure it is not because they don't know that 12^2=144... And I don't even think you can blame it on lack of sexual education. These people, for the most part, know damn well there's an epidemic going on that half of their fellow country(wo)men are suffering from, and is spread only by having sex. They do it anyway. Why? Who knows, they must not care.
> You CAN cut your own version. You CAN'T sell that cut version,
These people aren't selling a cut version. They are basically selling you a DVD player. You just get a list of times to Fast-Forward for certain movies along with it. Then they take the convenience one step further and let you auto-FFW at these predetirmined times.
> But the effect of doing this in an automated way, as this device does, is to create a new version of the work without the consent of the creators or copyright owners.
So then, the contents of the DVD are magically altered when placed in this particular DVD player with this feature turned on? No, the full work of art is there on the Disc still, but you choose parts of the work that you prefer not to see.
> > you must be against SPEWS > I don't understand how you could imagine that. > choosing not to receive a message at all [...] is not a violation of anyone's rights.
WHAT??? SPEWS CENSORS YOUR EMAIL!!! You do not have direct control over what entries are put into SPEWS, but you trust them to make the "right" decision over what constitutes unwanted mail which, in a sense, IS a work of art -- as soon as you write it, the contents are copyrighted by you. Or in this case, copyrighted by the spam author. How in the world is this different than trusting another company to make the "right" decision as to what constitutes material I do not wish to view. That is not a violation of anyone's right either.
> Aside from the creators having their work presented by a third party without their consent,
As soon as you bought a copy of that DVD, THEY GAVE YOU THEIR CONSENT in return for money. At that point you are free to do whatever the hell you want with it, as long as YOU do not take that movie and give/sell a copy to someone else, unless it is the original w/ no copies.
> what really bothers me about this is that it could become a default setting
This is one brand of DVD player IN EXISTENCE! IT IS NOT IN EVERY PLAYER ON THE MARKET. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT, but don't blame me if I decide to buy one.
> the edits defined by some group with their own agenda, moral, political, whatever
Oh, and SPEWS has no agenda? Of course they do. All groups have an agenda of some kind, otherwise they wouldn't be a group. The key point here is that NO ONE is forcing their agenda on you. Individuals DECIDE whether or not they want to put their movie-watching trust into a group with an agenda. But if that indvividual is buying this stupid POS device, they probably have a darn good idea what it is supposed to do, and most likely share that same agenda, however misguided it is. The key point is that it is the CHOICE OF THE PURCHASER.
> enforced with the full might of the DMCA legally and DRM
This is the worst argument you have come up with. A slippery-slope of the worst kind. Do I need to remind you again that this is one product on the market? NO ONE IN THE FUCKING WORLD is suggesting that this will become mandatory on all players. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE how to view the movie.
I'm a Libertarian, so I believe people should be able to choose how they watch things. What does it matter to you if someone skips over the "racy" parts of Lolita? It affects you in no way. What if you are the creator/producer/publisher/finincial backer? Still, NONE OF THIS AFFECTS YOU. You have already made your money from the sale of the DVD, and the RIAA still makes money off the sale of the player (that they had no part in making, except CSS).
What about playing albums over movies, like Dark Side of the Moon played over The Wizard of Oz? You are changing the presentation of the movie to a way it was not intended. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to because the creator of TWoO thinks it's stupid? And Pink Floyd says "You've gotta be high if you think that it matches." I legally bought a copy each of DSotM and TWoO, so what does it matter how I use them?
All this will effectively do is add to the stress level of people in general. If someone is speeding to get somewhere and they get stopped by a red light, what happens when it goes green? Well, you're even later now, so you are going to slam the gas as soon as it's green, end up going even faster than you would have.
And the cost? Other than the HUGE FUCKING WASTE OF MONEY (no damn wonder California is bankrupt, they keep wasting money on stupid crap -- tho, I realize this is just SF), you know people will still race (or try harder) to get past a yellow (and end up running a red), while others are waiting to floor it on green -- EVEN BIGGER ACCIDENTS! YAY, more money for Media corporations -- must be a conspiracy.
This is stupid and dangerous, plain and simple. There is no good reason to do it other than imposing the traffic-light-maker's will to employ power over someone else. Many people take perverse pleasure in punishing others for annoying them (even indirectly).
> you're really not going to prove me wrong on that.
No one will:)
> many people don't want to vote for an independant that just isn't going to come close to winning. It just detracts votes from one of the two real candidates with a chance
And a reason they don't have a chance is because people don't think they have a chance. If every frustrated citizen voted for the same 3rd-party candidate, we could have a HUGE upset on our hands. Or maybe people really are happy with the way things are... dunno... I'm not dumb enough to suggest that an upset will happen, but I can dream, no?
> When a third party closely resembles... say, the Democratic candidate, he just takes votes away from the D. candidate that actually has a chance at beating the R. candidate.
But, as you said, the D's and R's are the same, so what does it matter if votes are "taken away" from one or the other? If Nader had pulled out & Gore had won, he'd still be part of one of the "entrenched bigwig parties."
> I suppose it's possible, just doesn't seem probable.
I sure as heck hope it's not probable! Is it about as probable as an entire corporation (quite a large one, at that) being "in" on a national scandal to fix an election? With very few leaks to prove it? (I would say "none," but their president screwed that up.)
> you fail to distinguish between what you do to your own copy of a work, which no one contests, and what you "publish" so others may see that, which is what the proposed legal action is about.
Woah, I may have stepped into the middle of a conversation I didn't understand... We are still talking about the same article, aren't we?
What legal action are you talking about? The one briefly mentioned at the end of the article? This has nothing to do with publishing, but production -- and the argument is a lie anyway. Hollywood publishes a movie, you buy the rights to view a copy of it. Then you view parts of it. You are watching it, not publishing it. I would CERTAINLY agree with you that it would be legally, morally, ethically, [etc] wrong for a company to edit the bad parts out of a movie and republish it, but that is not what is happening in this case (if we are really talking about the same thing).
I think this device is a horrible, horrible idea, but I also believe they have a right to make it & people have a right to use it. By saying I can't view movies with parts cut out, you are effectively saying that I can't watch just half a movie -- otherwise I am "producing" a different version of the movie with the second half cut off ('cuz really, the second half is crap anyway:).
Brought closer to home (for most of us), you must be against SPEWS and all DNS blacklisting services as well, since they are censoring content in almost exactly the same way? I'm assuming you are, but just want to make sure.
> The problem is you can't decide without actually seeing the work, if you let anything or anyone else assess the work for you, it is censorship.
So, if you heard from someone that Track 4 on the Newest "My Band Sucks" album (that you have never heard before) has naughty words in it, so you skip that track every time you listen to the CD it's censorship?
If you are broad in your terms and leave out all connotations, you may be technically correct -- someone else HAS "assessed and expurgated" the work. What seems to be at question here is whether that is a good thing or not.
BUT, the word "censor" has come to mean more than that. Like it or not, admit it or not, the meanings of words depends on how it is used in reality. Languages change -- they just don't suddenly appear, whole & unchangeable.
So, in the end, what you are saying is that it is wrong to let others make decisions for you. Governments do it all the time. If they didn't, they would be unnecesary (well, I think they really are unnecessary, but that's another topic entirely).
> But ads are part of a package, not a "work" in the artistic sense.
If I buy the original Mona Lisa, very much a "'work ' in the artistic sense," I have every right to shred it. Or, to make it more clearly related to the topic, what if I think she's smiling and, since smiling is (obviously) the devil's work, I wanted to use a marker to cover up the corners of her mouth?
Do I have the right to do that, since it is not what the original artist wanted?
I might get screamed at by millions of people, but I could do it (if I had the money & desire).
If you argue this is invalid because the painter is dead and we can't tell if he would hate me for it, imagine that it is a COPY (just as a DVD is a COPY -- the original is data on Hard Drives or on film, the original was not in DVD form) of the Mona Lisa that I "improve" (IMRZO). I can buy a copy of the Mona Lisa for a few bucks, but if I change it no one cares. It's damned close to the original, except possibly for the missing brushstroke details, but live-action-to-film loses detail as well.
Just because you claim that "moral rights" means that the creator(s) can restrict what you do with their stuff, it is not necessarily legally (or morally) true. Actually, I think morality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a made-up term so that creators can feel like they have more control that they do not have. In some ways, it is valid, but just because you can remotely construe something to fall under it, it does not mean it SHOULD.
> Yes, their site is piss-poor. Despite the [...] lack of CSS [...]
So, you're saying that a good site requires CSS. Hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of sites on the Internet do not use CSS. HTML is good enough for most people. Yeah, the site looks crappy, but maybe that's because they spend more time making a good product than advertising it. Granted, good business usually requires good advertising, but not always.
> Perhaps they could, but that's a lot more trouble than rigging an election with closed systems.
Yes, I thought the person who replied was a moron for making such an off-the-wall comment. If there is any proposed system that is guaranteed more secure (unless it's nearly insignificant & expensive) than a current system, it should be replaced. No question. Also, as your post points out, it doesn't have to be difficult. In fact, the more simple each piece is, the more secure the whole can be (excluding OS exploits, buffer overrun vulns, etc).
> you have to get what is probably a whole team of programmers, reviewers, and management in on a conspiracy to lie about results received
No, all you need is one person with access to the code or machines after it has "passed" QA/QI. Then everyone works like good little ants, knowing the code they write is secure. Then there's just one person who writes a patch to be installed, oh let's say the night before the election, and it is distributed to all precincts, who are too technologically ignorant (and probably legally unable to stop it anyway) to realize anything is "up."
> i'll still vote republican, and no matter which party we have in office neither one is REALLY better
Since you are basically saying your vote doesn't matter, but you do it anyway, why not vote for someone who is different.
(this isn't directed at just you) I get SOOOO pissed off when people complain about the idiots we keep electing, yet they keep voting for the SAME FUCKING IDIOTS. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU????
I hear tell that a lot of them are COMPLETELY FAKE. Go look at reviews on a lot of big sites, notably Amazon.com. There are nearly-identical reviews praising the CD for being a breakthrough performance, or whatever buzzword is hip. Reviews are are as trustworthy as the verifiable source. If the source is a trusted friend, great. Unfortunately, "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog," an RIAA lackey, or just some lame fanboy that posts a thousand 10-star reviews for his favorite crappy Emo band.
Also, as others pointed out, you will find a positive & glowing review for almost any album available. Does that mean I'll like any of them? Nope.
> the avg number of days between people getting fired or quiting and I believe towards the end I was nearing 1 day/person
I think you mean one person per day.... One day per person means that most of the employees worked there for one day before quitting. I mean, come on, it's not like McDonalds... Or is it?
> it just was underground. I miss those days when the RIAA didn't bug you, but the selection sucked.
Yes, and my 850Meg hard drive was getting full of them. "Wow," I thought, "I bet I have one of the biggest collections of MP3s ever." Hah. Now I had to buy a 120GB hard drive because my 15G & 20G were both full, but I don't think my collection is anywhere near "big" any more...
Slashdot Mirror
> Anyone with a packet sniffer on your network can see there's an ssh server when it's in operation.
Do you know what a port knocker is, or are you posting blindly? The POINT is that your SSH port ISN'T OPEN FOR SNIFFING until you knock the correct sequence of ports. Then you are able to connect. So unless the scan happens w/in 10 seconds (or whatever predetermined time) of the conclusion of the knock, no, they WON'T see there's an ssh server running. THAT IS THE WHOLE FRIGGING POINT.
> I heard "I've heard that old joke before" back during the Reagan administration.
Oh yeah??? Well I heard the "I heard that you heard that..." uh... um... yeah, take THAT!
> if it were copyrightable, which is arguable,
Okay, I lied. I'm replying to point out that you are, in fact, clueless. Everything you write, including EMail, is instantly copyrighted by you. There is no "arguable" about it, it is a fact, backed up by case law. Saying it's arguable does not make it so.
> This from someone who says "WHAT??? SPEWS CENSORS YOUR EMAIL!!!
Okay, I'm done trying here, you simply refuse to stick to the points.
Spews censors your Email in exactly the same way this company censors your movie. Q.E. fucking D.
> have a look at Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii's photos
WOW. Simply amazing. I've never been much for photography as art, but some of those images are stunning. In some of them, the colors almost seem "more real" than color photos from today. I especially like the close-up images with water, as the time between snaps on moving water creates an awesome unintentional rainbow effect in the river. It makes the photos sorta mysterious looking. Thank you VERY much for the awesome link.
> Can they copyright this stuff (that is, the movie), so long after the actual photos were taken...?
I think that they can copyright that exact movie they made, but since the original plates are (I'm assuming) Public Domain, you could make your own movie from the originals.
> Personally, I would say that the problem in Africa is poverty and lack of education, not promiscuity.
Before you can solve a problem you have to know where the problem is. "Lack of $$$ & lack of knowledge" != "gotta fuck like goddamned rabbits."
The problem is that they are constantly screwing multiple people, and that is the ONLY problem. The only reason to blame it on something else is because you are uncomfortable discussing the real cause.
If they weren't promiscuous, AIDS would not be spreading an fast as it is -- plain and simple, that is the ONLY reason. Now, you can argue WHY they are promiscuous, but I am sure it is not because they don't know that 12^2=144... And I don't even think you can blame it on lack of sexual education. These people, for the most part, know damn well there's an epidemic going on that half of their fellow country(wo)men are suffering from, and is spread only by having sex. They do it anyway. Why? Who knows, they must not care.
> You CAN cut your own version. You CAN'T sell that cut version,
These people aren't selling a cut version. They are basically selling you a DVD player. You just get a list of times to Fast-Forward for certain movies along with it. Then they take the convenience one step further and let you auto-FFW at these predetirmined times.
> But the effect of doing this in an automated way, as this device does, is to create a new version of the work without the consent of the creators or copyright owners.
So then, the contents of the DVD are magically altered when placed in this particular DVD player with this feature turned on? No, the full work of art is there on the Disc still, but you choose parts of the work that you prefer not to see.
> > you must be against SPEWS
> I don't understand how you could imagine that.
> choosing not to receive a message at all [...] is not a violation of anyone's rights.
WHAT??? SPEWS CENSORS YOUR EMAIL!!! You do not have direct control over what entries are put into SPEWS, but you trust them to make the "right" decision over what constitutes unwanted mail which, in a sense, IS a work of art -- as soon as you write it, the contents are copyrighted by you. Or in this case, copyrighted by the spam author.
How in the world is this different than trusting another company to make the "right" decision as to what constitutes material I do not wish to view. That is not a violation of anyone's right either.
> Aside from the creators having their work presented by a third party without their consent,
As soon as you bought a copy of that DVD, THEY GAVE YOU THEIR CONSENT in return for money. At that point you are free to do whatever the hell you want with it, as long as YOU do not take that movie and give/sell a copy to someone else, unless it is the original w/ no copies.
> what really bothers me about this is that it could become a default setting
This is one brand of DVD player IN EXISTENCE! IT IS NOT IN EVERY PLAYER ON THE MARKET. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT, but don't blame me if I decide to buy one.
> the edits defined by some group with their own agenda, moral, political, whatever
Oh, and SPEWS has no agenda? Of course they do. All groups have an agenda of some kind, otherwise they wouldn't be a group. The key point here is that NO ONE is forcing their agenda on you. Individuals DECIDE whether or not they want to put their movie-watching trust into a group with an agenda. But if that indvividual is buying this stupid POS device, they probably have a darn good idea what it is supposed to do, and most likely share that same agenda, however misguided it is. The key point is that it is the CHOICE OF THE PURCHASER.
> enforced with the full might of the DMCA legally and DRM
This is the worst argument you have come up with. A slippery-slope of the worst kind. Do I need to remind you again that this is one product on the market? NO ONE IN THE FUCKING WORLD is suggesting that this will become mandatory on all players. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE how to view the movie.
I'm a Libertarian, so I believe people should be able to choose how they watch things. What does it matter to you if someone skips over the "racy" parts of Lolita? It affects you in no way. What if you are the creator/producer/publisher/finincial backer? Still, NONE OF THIS AFFECTS YOU. You have already made your money from the sale of the DVD, and the RIAA still makes money off the sale of the player (that they had no part in making, except CSS).
What about playing albums over movies, like Dark Side of the Moon played over The Wizard of Oz? You are changing the presentation of the movie to a way it was not intended. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to because the creator of TWoO thinks it's stupid? And Pink Floyd says "You've gotta be high if you think that it matches." I legally bought a copy each of DSotM and TWoO, so what does it matter how I use them?
> there is a direct link between action and consequence.
Yeah, but you need to define the consequence.
In this case, the only consequence I see is aggravating drivers, whether they speed or not.
All this will effectively do is add to the stress level of people in general. If someone is speeding to get somewhere and they get stopped by a red light, what happens when it goes green? Well, you're even later now, so you are going to slam the gas as soon as it's green, end up going even faster than you would have.
And the cost? Other than the HUGE FUCKING WASTE OF MONEY (no damn wonder California is bankrupt, they keep wasting money on stupid crap -- tho, I realize this is just SF), you know people will still race (or try harder) to get past a yellow (and end up running a red), while others are waiting to floor it on green -- EVEN BIGGER ACCIDENTS! YAY, more money for Media corporations -- must be a conspiracy.
This is stupid and dangerous, plain and simple. There is no good reason to do it other than imposing the traffic-light-maker's will to employ power over someone else. Many people take perverse pleasure in punishing others for annoying them (even indirectly).
> you're really not going to prove me wrong on that.
:)
No one will
> many people don't want to vote for an independant that just isn't going to come close to winning. It just detracts votes from one of the two real candidates with a chance
And a reason they don't have a chance is because people don't think they have a chance. If every frustrated citizen voted for the same 3rd-party candidate, we could have a HUGE upset on our hands. Or maybe people really are happy with the way things are... dunno... I'm not dumb enough to suggest that an upset will happen, but I can dream, no?
> When a third party closely resembles... say, the Democratic candidate, he just takes votes away from the D. candidate that actually has a chance at beating the R. candidate.
But, as you said, the D's and R's are the same, so what does it matter if votes are "taken away" from one or the other? If Nader had pulled out & Gore had won, he'd still be part of one of the "entrenched bigwig parties."
> I suppose it's possible, just doesn't seem probable.
I sure as heck hope it's not probable! Is it about as probable as an entire corporation (quite a large one, at that) being "in" on a national scandal to fix an election? With very few leaks to prove it? (I would say "none," but their president screwed that up.)
> you fail to distinguish between what you do to your own copy of a work, which no one contests, and what you "publish" so others may see that, which is what the proposed legal action is about.
:).
Woah, I may have stepped into the middle of a conversation I didn't understand... We are still talking about the same article, aren't we?
What legal action are you talking about? The one briefly mentioned at the end of the article? This has nothing to do with publishing, but production -- and the argument is a lie anyway. Hollywood publishes a movie, you buy the rights to view a copy of it. Then you view parts of it. You are watching it, not publishing it. I would CERTAINLY agree with you that it would be legally, morally, ethically, [etc] wrong for a company to edit the bad parts out of a movie and republish it, but that is not what is happening in this case (if we are really talking about the same thing).
I think this device is a horrible, horrible idea, but I also believe they have a right to make it & people have a right to use it. By saying I can't view movies with parts cut out, you are effectively saying that I can't watch just half a movie -- otherwise I am "producing" a different version of the movie with the second half cut off ('cuz really, the second half is crap anyway
Brought closer to home (for most of us), you must be against SPEWS and all DNS blacklisting services as well, since they are censoring content in almost exactly the same way? I'm assuming you are, but just want to make sure.
> good post [...] see this link.
:)
Thank you for your support -- I don't really care about the moderators, as long as someone got something out of it.
Link: Hehe, now I know
> it was so obvious how they forced it to leave and open ending to then milk more cash in a sequel.
Yeah, a book sequel was done by some people living in Utah, but it was not authorized by the original author.
> The problem is you can't decide without actually seeing the work, if you let anything or anyone else assess the work for you, it is censorship.
So, if you heard from someone that Track 4 on the Newest "My Band Sucks" album (that you have never heard before) has naughty words in it, so you skip that track every time you listen to the CD it's censorship?
If you are broad in your terms and leave out all connotations, you may be technically correct -- someone else HAS "assessed and expurgated" the work. What seems to be at question here is whether that is a good thing or not.
BUT, the word "censor" has come to mean more than that. Like it or not, admit it or not, the meanings of words depends on how it is used in reality. Languages change -- they just don't suddenly appear, whole & unchangeable.
So, in the end, what you are saying is that it is wrong to let others make decisions for you. Governments do it all the time. If they didn't, they would be unnecesary (well, I think they really are unnecessary, but that's another topic entirely).
> But ads are part of a package, not a "work" in the artistic sense.
If I buy the original Mona Lisa, very much a "'work ' in the artistic sense," I have every right to shred it. Or, to make it more clearly related to the topic, what if I think she's smiling and, since smiling is (obviously) the devil's work, I wanted to use a marker to cover up the corners of her mouth?
Do I have the right to do that, since it is not what the original artist wanted?
I might get screamed at by millions of people, but I could do it (if I had the money & desire).
If you argue this is invalid because the painter is dead and we can't tell if he would hate me for it, imagine that it is a COPY (just as a DVD is a COPY -- the original is data on Hard Drives or on film, the original was not in DVD form) of the Mona Lisa that I "improve" (IMRZO). I can buy a copy of the Mona Lisa for a few bucks, but if I change it no one cares. It's damned close to the original, except possibly for the missing brushstroke details, but live-action-to-film loses detail as well.
Just because you claim that "moral rights" means that the creator(s) can restrict what you do with their stuff, it is not necessarily legally (or morally) true. Actually, I think morality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a made-up term so that creators can feel like they have more control that they do not have. In some ways, it is valid, but just because you can remotely construe something to fall under it, it does not mean it SHOULD.
> Yes, their site is piss-poor. Despite the [...] lack of CSS [...]
So, you're saying that a good site requires CSS. Hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of sites on the Internet do not use CSS. HTML is good enough for most people. Yeah, the site looks crappy, but maybe that's because they spend more time making a good product than advertising it. Granted, good business usually requires good advertising, but not always.
> Perhaps they could, but that's a lot more trouble than rigging an election with closed systems.
Yes, I thought the person who replied was a moron for making such an off-the-wall comment. If there is any proposed system that is guaranteed more secure (unless it's nearly insignificant & expensive) than a current system, it should be replaced. No question. Also, as your post points out, it doesn't have to be difficult. In fact, the more simple each piece is, the more secure the whole can be (excluding OS exploits, buffer overrun vulns, etc).
> you have to get what is probably a whole team of programmers, reviewers, and management in on a conspiracy to lie about results received
No, all you need is one person with access to the code or machines after it has "passed" QA/QI. Then everyone works like good little ants, knowing the code they write is secure. Then there's just one person who writes a patch to be installed, oh let's say the night before the election, and it is distributed to all precincts, who are too technologically ignorant (and probably legally unable to stop it anyway) to realize anything is "up."
> i'll still vote republican, and no matter which party we have in office neither one is REALLY better
Since you are basically saying your vote doesn't matter, but you do it anyway, why not vote for someone who is different.
(this isn't directed at just you) I get SOOOO pissed off when people complain about the idiots we keep electing, yet they keep voting for the SAME FUCKING IDIOTS. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU????
> He works for the BUSH campaign,
At least try more original jokes. Or more recent. I heard that early during Clinton's presidency, and I doubt that was the first either.
> I hear tell that they're called MUSIC REVIEWS.
I hear tell that a lot of them are COMPLETELY FAKE. Go look at reviews on a lot of big sites, notably Amazon.com. There are nearly-identical reviews praising the CD for being a breakthrough performance, or whatever buzzword is hip. Reviews are are as trustworthy as the verifiable source. If the source is a trusted friend, great. Unfortunately, "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog," an RIAA lackey, or just some lame fanboy that posts a thousand 10-star reviews for his favorite crappy Emo band.
Also, as others pointed out, you will find a positive & glowing review for almost any album available. Does that mean I'll like any of them? Nope.
> the avg number of days between people getting fired or quiting and I believe towards the end I was nearing 1 day/person
I think you mean one person per day.... One day per person means that most of the employees worked there for one day before quitting. I mean, come on, it's not like McDonalds... Or is it?
> it just was underground. I miss those days when the RIAA didn't bug you, but the selection sucked.
Yes, and my 850Meg hard drive was getting full of them. "Wow," I thought, "I bet I have one of the biggest collections of MP3s ever." Hah. Now I had to buy a 120GB hard drive because my 15G & 20G were both full, but I don't think my collection is anywhere near "big" any more...