When my wife and I had our children, I wanted to give them somewhat distinctive names, but realized that they would be ostracized if they had to go by them all them time. My solution was to give them a regular sounding first name, and a fanciful middle name. My oldest is ten, and so far so good - he's my kid, so he's been made fun of for being geeky, but not for his name.
Wouldn't fusion have to have been made practical for terrestrial power generation before anything like this should be started on? Or did I miss a memo?
I've grown convinced that the MPAA/RIAA/Software Companies/etc. (copyright holders, in other words) have begun doing this to foil search engines for downloading or circumventing their stuff.
Look at a list of the hit movies for the last couple of years, if you don't believe me... what are you going to get searching for downloads of 'xXx' ?
More to the point, isn't this redundant? But, wait, that's right.... in the US, its illegal to kill someone, AND its illegal to kill someone as a hate crime, AND its illegal to kill someone as part of a serial crime, AND its illegal as an act of terrorism, AND....
I really wish they'd make the punishment fit the crime once, instead of having to make the same act illegal in a bunch of different ways so they can stack punishment to make it what it should be.
That was a standalone "game" product that featured a contest between virtual women made up specifically for it. This is more of a "real" contest between virtual women created for other products.
I sadly have a copy of Ms Metaverse still in my cd holder. (Hangs head in shame.);)
My vote in this contest would be for Pamela Anderson. Nobody's made like Rubbermaid! You have to love a woman who burps to let you know she's sealed.
To all those griping about the Malaysian "help wanted" - prior space exploration experience doesn't HAVE to mean they've been to space. Support, logistics, engineering, etc, done from the ground would fit that description, too - and NASA, for one, has plenty of foreign nationals working in positions like that. Possibly even Malaysians.
The above looks like someone playing Civilization. I'd shift some resources away from science, and more towards luxuries, or the Al Gorians may get unrestful now that we're at war.....
Geek - A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.
Nerd - A small humanoid creature looking comically angry, like a thin, cross Chester A. Arthur.
You know, for a bunch of people who "misuse" these words regularly to describe themselves, you sure do get upset over "pirate". English is a LIVING language. Get with the program.;-)
So, any wagers on how long it will be before Microsoft tries to counter this with a lawsuit against Sherwin Williams based on their trademark on the terms "Paint" and "Paintbrush"?
Her most well known performance is probably "Wild Nights", which she performed with John Mellancamp Jingle Heimer Schmidt. It charted in the Top 10 on the AT40. Can't remember the exact position at the moment, but I DO remember the bloody thing playing every third song for MONTHS on local radio stations.
"The only difference I see is that carrots have a physical manifestation which limits their ability to be easily duplicated and dispersed among a large audience."
Okay. Fine. But's lets look at this argument the other way around - what happens when physical objects ARE just as easy to copy as digital ones? Science is working on it - it won't be long, speaking in terms of historical timeframes.
I think the better answer is to go ahead and use this whole Intellectual Property thing as a testbed to develop ways for us to continue to have progress and further development in a world where (eventually) "financial" concerns will no longer be the driving force behind our civilization(s). Preferably, without abandoning the concept of human rights.
As someone else has already pointed out, Asimov did NOT invent the term "robot". He DID, however, coin the term "robotics" to describe the field of study. And, I probably need not tell you, U.S. Robotics (the real communications company purchased by 3COM) is named for U.S. Robotics and Mechanical Men from Asimov's stories.
I can't believe I just witnessed a list of "top games of all time" that didn't include a variant of Pac-Man, Galaga, or any other arcade game on it! Computer games have come a long way, but in the very beginning, when personal computers still cost insane amounts of money for most people, those 25 cent coin-ops were CREATING this entire industry. The fact that these "top developers" didn't remember these just shows how quickly your 15 minutes of fame passes in the gaming world, and how easy it has become for people to forget life before Windows 95 and Nintendo.
I will be surprised to still see Zork on future lists, as well - not because it doesn't deserve to be there, but because game developers will have lost that much more of their history, or never even been introduced to it.
I'm all for product placement when it contributes to the REALISM of the program, and if it helps the people making the product, more power to them.
Face it, folks. There are products "placed" all around you every hour of every day. For it to be otherwise for our favorite characters on a TV program is unrealistic.
"You push too hard, and make those dreams, reality." - T'Pau
This movie sucked BIG TIME. Worse than "Convoy". Worse than "Maximum Overdrive". WORSE, even, than "Nightfall" and "Superfuzz" combined. However, I MUST give kudos to Forest Whitaker. The man took rotten lemons, and still managed to make drinkable lemonade out of them. Not GOOD lemonade, mind you, that would have been impossible, but drinkable. He played the role given to him with more talent than anyone could have asked for. The subtlety in the look on his face when Terl said he knew Ker would never doublecross him because he had leverage was astounding. You could read on his face that he was thinking that he wouldn't doublecross Terl because it would be wrong, and you felt his confusion when he saw that Terl felt there needed to be more reason than that. And that was just ONE example of his brilliant performance in this movie. So there's your answer.
To Mr. Dvorkin: I never said that wasn't the case. However, that picture is looked at as a whole, and a whole, of course, is the sum of its parts. We've had a lot of positives leading up to now, but I stand by my position that a loss of a sense of spirituality and purpose is and has been a BIG negative. To Anonymous Christian: NEVER be ashamed to say what you TRULY believe. Any mindless detractors reveal nothing but their own lack. BUT - I would be careful advocating a return to TRUE Christianity. Examine Matthew 15:21-28 carefully, for when He speaks of dogs (unless you are Jewish), He speaks of you. And I would never advocate burning people (what Witch in his right mind would?!) or censoring the 'net, either. To SrA_Pus: You may be right. There may be no definitive morality. BUT, there are certain practical morals that evolved covergently in vastly separated societies that are close enough to what I'm talking about for you to get the point. And they have been undermined by political correctness and moral relativity. Apostasy and HunterD: I was not advocating subscribing to any one particular dogma. BE an athiest, an agnostic, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, a Christian, heck, be a Satanist. THAT doesn't matter! What matters is that you remember that magical things are all around you, and that you're one, too. Have dignity, have honor. Sure you will return to mud, and eventually no one will remember your name. That has nothing to do with the wonderment that is RIGHT NOW. To Anonymous Accuser: You are, of course, completely right. I apologize. I meant to say "rampant hypocrisy in many of the members of Christianity", not to show disrespect to all Christians or to Christ Himself.
It's all part of the devaluing of life itself. I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" mentality that seems to be prevalent amongst my generation and in those who are following means that while they still know, for the most part, what is right and what is wrong, they don't care all that much. There is no eternal reward, no eternal punishment, no great purpose, and within a few hundred years your actions, good or bad, are usually completely forgotten. So who cares? I am not advocating a return to the status quo, by any means. There were injustices and inequities and all sorts of problems with the old system. But I don't think that a sense of wonderment or a sense of spirituality were amongst those problems. People know right and wrong. They need a reason to care. "So you scream from behind your door. You say, 'what's mine is mine, and not yours. I may have too much, but I'll take my chances, cause God stopped keeping score.'" - George Michael, "Praying For Time"
All of this is IMHO: I have witnessed the battle between those who claim to protect individual freedoms and those who claim to champion the rights of patent and copyright holders as it has unfolded over the last twenty-some years and more, and I have come to two conclusions: 1. As in most battles, more effort is being expended in arguing the causes of the problem than in finding possible solutions, and 2. A large number of these people are full of grade-A male bovine digestive byproduct, and aren't truly interested in the moral issues they claim to support, but rather in what their side gets for them regardless of the expense, in rights or dollars, to others. I'm about to point a few fingers. I want everyone to realize up front that I do not do this to suggest that these people are "evil" or the culprits in all that has gone wrong, but only to clarify our current situation so that we may move forward to a possible solution that will make the most people happy and that will be honorable. As I see it, we have five kinds of people, some of which overlap, involved in this debate: 1. The Champions of Freedom - these are the very few people whom actually argue against the new laws and the corporate lawyers on the basis that individual freedoms are being violated. They believe, and rightly so, that once a cycle of limiting the rights of individuals for the sake of "public convenience" is begun, that it will be very difficult to stop. For the most part, I believe that we should be proud of these people. The exception to this pride is when they are forced through circumstances to make their stand with: 2. The Hackers, Code-crackers, Slackers - this is the VAST majority of people who are "fighting for their individual liberties". The "liberties" they fight for, in truth, is the ability to continue their quest to rob people of property that is at least lawfully theirs. (More on this later.) I know, I know - the (software, music, movie, publishing, etc.) industry charges an unfair amount for goods that the public "needs", so members of that public have the right to go outside of that system to correct for this grave injustice, right? No. Think about it individually for a moment: I have made a little pot out of clay, and put some amateurish art designs that I came up with onto it. I KNOW, and you know, that the little pot probably isn't really worth more than about $10, and that's being generous. But I decide to sell it, and I decide that my selling price will be $10,000. At this point, you (the consumer) have three courses of action: you can buy the pot (boy, are YOU stupid!), you can walk away and deal with another potmaker who isn't as big an a$$hole as I am (which I may be proving by writing this post), or you can steal it, at which point you are a THIEF. In this country, I have the right to be an a$$hole, but that doesn't give you the right to leave me without a pot to pee in.;-) 3. Joe (or Jolene) Public - this is the largest group, period. These are the people who have yet to realize they are involved with any of this. This is the most telling group, in my opinion. These are the people who steal cable, who copy video cassettes, who download MP3s but haven't become involved with it enough yet for it to be a concern for them. And they are the people who don't do any of that and haven't given much thought to the matter. If you ask most of them about what they're doing, they will tell you that they know it is a bit wrong, but they don't know where to draw the line of right and wrong in these matters anymore. So they go with what gets them what they want and try not to think about it too much, because if they do, they will become one of the other categories, and life will become a headache. 4. Senator Palpatines - these are the industry lawyers and the money grubbing executives and the vast majority of those who are "fighting to protect the rights of patent and copyright holders". These people aren't fighting for any rights other than their own right to make money and gain power, regardless of the morality involved. In many cases, these people will also be found in group 2, as long as it is related to a different industry than the one they are making money in. They don't mind at all making total suckers out of: 5. The Champions of Entrepreneurism - these are people who truly believe, and perhaps rightly so, that it is the right of the originator of a good idea to be the primary benefactor of profits from that idea. That commerce and prosperity cannot exist in a nation that allows thieves to continue unimpeded. And that artists should have the right to insure that their creations are presented in the spirit and with the qualities that they were originally intended to have. They don't necessarily like the exact way that our nations' laws are set up to protect those ideals, but they are willing to work within the system, and they will use those laws to their fullest potential in the pursuit of their cause. Now, as you may have been able to tell, I don't have much respect for types 2 or 4, and I don't think any "right-thinking" person would. But I'm not quick to try to place individual people into any of these stereotypes - as I said, they overlap. The Problem, in almost ALL of these cases, as I see it, goes back to Thomas Edison. Or maybe it was King James. Or maybe it.....well, nevermind exactly who. What both of the people I just mentioned had in common was that they both put their names on other people's work and ideas and were way ahead of their times in the field of "intellectual property". The $10,000,000 question is - Can, and should, information be OWNED? Information is difficult to control. I come up with a joke or a method for keeping bread fresh and tell it to one person, and if its any good it will soon belong to the world. And the argument, perfectly valid, of the Champions of Freedom is that this is good for society, because it encourages innovation. Maybe someone will come up with a better version of my joke that is funnier. On the other hand, I think most people will agree that an artist, whether practicing fine arts or being scientifically creative, should have the right to preserve the integrity of his work. And before you argue against this to serve your own purposes, think about how you felt about what Vanilla Ice did to "Under Pressure" by Queen, and you'll know I'm right. And this right would have to include controlling presentation, which they can't do if unauthorized people are presenting it (i.e. poor quality MP3s). Also, an artist has to eat and has the right to pursue happiness, and so has the right to be compensated for his or her work. What is the solution? Oh, you thought I was going to tell you? I wish I knew. I wrote this post to hopefully clarify the problem to get people thinking ABOUT the overall solution, rather than simply worrying about the morality of downloading any given MP3. (But I'd be willing to wager the answer will be best expressed in a sentence with 42 letters in it. Maybe we should pose THIS to Douglas Adams.;-) Surak Prime out. My.sig is taken from "Spock's World" by Diane Duane, without permission, but also without intent to infringe. Think about it.
As I recall, there was a man who turned up to turn himself in in the 40's or so, claiming to be William H. Bonnie. I wonder if they'll get around to testing that one.....
Slashdot Mirror
When my wife and I had our children, I wanted to give them somewhat distinctive names, but realized that they would be ostracized if they had to go by them all them time. My solution was to give them a regular sounding first name, and a fanciful middle name. My oldest is ten, and so far so good - he's my kid, so he's been made fun of for being geeky, but not for his name.
Wouldn't fusion have to have been made practical for terrestrial power generation before anything like this should be started on? Or did I miss a memo?
- http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/MMPI.html
I had to take this test after suffering brain damage from a car accident when I was 14. I fooled them all, of course.I've grown convinced that the MPAA/RIAA/Software Companies/etc. (copyright holders, in other words) have begun doing this to foil search engines for downloading or circumventing their stuff.
Look at a list of the hit movies for the last couple of years, if you don't believe me... what are you going to get searching for downloads of 'xXx' ?
More to the point, isn't this redundant? But, wait, that's right.... in the US, its illegal to kill someone, AND its illegal to kill someone as a hate crime, AND its illegal to kill someone as part of a serial crime, AND its illegal as an act of terrorism, AND....
I really wish they'd make the punishment fit the crime once, instead of having to make the same act illegal in a bunch of different ways so they can stack punishment to make it what it should be.
That was a standalone "game" product that featured a contest between virtual women made up specifically for it. This is more of a "real" contest between virtual women created for other products.
;)
I sadly have a copy of Ms Metaverse still in my cd holder. (Hangs head in shame.)
My vote in this contest would be for Pamela Anderson. Nobody's made like Rubbermaid! You have to love a woman who burps to let you know she's sealed.
Not sure what his first name is, but the gynecologist in one of my hometowns (we moved a LOT) was named Dr. Finger. Honest!
To all those griping about the Malaysian "help wanted" - prior space exploration experience doesn't HAVE to mean they've been to space. Support, logistics, engineering, etc, done from the ground would fit that description, too - and NASA, for one, has plenty of foreign nationals working in positions like that. Possibly even Malaysians.
So, was this what was supposed to be going on in Spielberg's revisions?
"Oh, right, can't shoot REAL aliens with our walkie-talkies, guys...."
The above looks like someone playing Civilization. I'd shift some resources away from science, and more towards luxuries, or the Al Gorians may get unrestful now that we're at war.....
Marvin probably could have told us about this a while back if WE weren't obscuring his view!
Geek - A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.
;-)
Nerd - A small humanoid creature looking comically angry, like a thin, cross Chester A. Arthur.
You know, for a bunch of people who "misuse" these words regularly to describe themselves, you sure do get upset over "pirate". English is a LIVING language. Get with the program.
So, any wagers on how long it will be before Microsoft tries to counter this with a lawsuit against Sherwin Williams based on their trademark on the terms "Paint" and "Paintbrush"?
Her most well known performance is probably "Wild Nights", which she performed with John Mellancamp Jingle Heimer Schmidt. It charted in the Top 10 on the AT40. Can't remember the exact position at the moment, but I DO remember the bloody thing playing every third song for MONTHS on local radio stations.
"The only difference I see is that carrots have a physical manifestation which limits their ability to be easily duplicated and dispersed among a large audience."
Okay. Fine. But's lets look at this argument the other way around - what happens when physical objects ARE just as easy to copy as digital ones? Science is working on it - it won't be long, speaking in terms of historical timeframes.
I think the better answer is to go ahead and use this whole Intellectual Property thing as a testbed to develop ways for us to continue to have progress and further development in a world where (eventually) "financial" concerns will no longer be the driving force behind our civilization(s). Preferably, without abandoning the concept of human rights.
As someone else has already pointed out, Asimov did NOT invent the term "robot". He DID, however, coin the term "robotics" to describe the field of study. And, I probably need not tell you, U.S. Robotics (the real communications company purchased by 3COM) is named for U.S. Robotics and Mechanical Men from Asimov's stories.
I can't believe I just witnessed a list of "top games of all time" that didn't include a variant of Pac-Man, Galaga, or any other arcade game on it! Computer games have come a long way, but in the very beginning, when personal computers still cost insane amounts of money for most people, those 25 cent coin-ops were CREATING this entire industry. The fact that these "top developers" didn't remember these just shows how quickly your 15 minutes of fame passes in the gaming world, and how easy it has become for people to forget life before Windows 95 and Nintendo.
I will be surprised to still see Zork on future lists, as well - not because it doesn't deserve to be there, but because game developers will have lost that much more of their history, or never even been introduced to it.
I'm all for product placement when it contributes to the REALISM of the program, and if it helps the people making the product, more power to them.
Face it, folks. There are products "placed" all around you every hour of every day. For it to be otherwise for our favorite characters on a TV program is unrealistic.
"You push too hard, and make those dreams, reality." - T'Pau
This movie sucked BIG TIME. Worse than "Convoy". Worse than "Maximum Overdrive". WORSE, even, than "Nightfall" and "Superfuzz" combined. However, I MUST give kudos to Forest Whitaker. The man took rotten lemons, and still managed to make drinkable lemonade out of them. Not GOOD lemonade, mind you, that would have been impossible, but drinkable. He played the role given to him with more talent than anyone could have asked for. The subtlety in the look on his face when Terl said he knew Ker would never doublecross him because he had leverage was astounding. You could read on his face that he was thinking that he wouldn't doublecross Terl because it would be wrong, and you felt his confusion when he saw that Terl felt there needed to be more reason than that. And that was just ONE example of his brilliant performance in this movie. So there's your answer.
To Mr. Dvorkin: I never said that wasn't the case. However, that picture is looked at as a whole, and a whole, of course, is the sum of its parts. We've had a lot of positives leading up to now, but I stand by my position that a loss of a sense of spirituality and purpose is and has been a BIG negative. To Anonymous Christian: NEVER be ashamed to say what you TRULY believe. Any mindless detractors reveal nothing but their own lack. BUT - I would be careful advocating a return to TRUE Christianity. Examine Matthew 15:21-28 carefully, for when He speaks of dogs (unless you are Jewish), He speaks of you. And I would never advocate burning people (what Witch in his right mind would?!) or censoring the 'net, either. To SrA_Pus: You may be right. There may be no definitive morality. BUT, there are certain practical morals that evolved covergently in vastly separated societies that are close enough to what I'm talking about for you to get the point. And they have been undermined by political correctness and moral relativity. Apostasy and HunterD: I was not advocating subscribing to any one particular dogma. BE an athiest, an agnostic, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, a Christian, heck, be a Satanist. THAT doesn't matter! What matters is that you remember that magical things are all around you, and that you're one, too. Have dignity, have honor. Sure you will return to mud, and eventually no one will remember your name. That has nothing to do with the wonderment that is RIGHT NOW. To Anonymous Accuser: You are, of course, completely right. I apologize. I meant to say "rampant hypocrisy in many of the members of Christianity", not to show disrespect to all Christians or to Christ Himself.
It's all part of the devaluing of life itself. I do think there is some validity to the notion that the moral decline in our country is very much due to the mindsets of people who have abandoned any Code, who forsake all religion, just because the primary religion observed in our country (Christianity, but you knew that) for such a long period of time was realized to be tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "from mud to mud and nothing else really matters" mentality that seems to be prevalent amongst my generation and in those who are following means that while they still know, for the most part, what is right and what is wrong, they don't care all that much. There is no eternal reward, no eternal punishment, no great purpose, and within a few hundred years your actions, good or bad, are usually completely forgotten. So who cares? I am not advocating a return to the status quo, by any means. There were injustices and inequities and all sorts of problems with the old system. But I don't think that a sense of wonderment or a sense of spirituality were amongst those problems. People know right and wrong. They need a reason to care. "So you scream from behind your door. You say, 'what's mine is mine, and not yours. I may have too much, but I'll take my chances, cause God stopped keeping score.'" - George Michael, "Praying For Time"
All of this is IMHO: I have witnessed the battle between those who claim to protect individual freedoms and those who claim to champion the rights of patent and copyright holders as it has unfolded over the last twenty-some years and more, and I have come to two conclusions: 1. As in most battles, more effort is being expended in arguing the causes of the problem than in finding possible solutions, and 2. A large number of these people are full of grade-A male bovine digestive byproduct, and aren't truly interested in the moral issues they claim to support, but rather in what their side gets for them regardless of the expense, in rights or dollars, to others. I'm about to point a few fingers. I want everyone to realize up front that I do not do this to suggest that these people are "evil" or the culprits in all that has gone wrong, but only to clarify our current situation so that we may move forward to a possible solution that will make the most people happy and that will be honorable. As I see it, we have five kinds of people, some of which overlap, involved in this debate: 1. The Champions of Freedom - these are the very few people whom actually argue against the new laws and the corporate lawyers on the basis that individual freedoms are being violated. They believe, and rightly so, that once a cycle of limiting the rights of individuals for the sake of "public convenience" is begun, that it will be very difficult to stop. For the most part, I believe that we should be proud of these people. The exception to this pride is when they are forced through circumstances to make their stand with: 2. The Hackers, Code-crackers, Slackers - this is the VAST majority of people who are "fighting for their individual liberties". The "liberties" they fight for, in truth, is the ability to continue their quest to rob people of property that is at least lawfully theirs. (More on this later.) I know, I know - the (software, music, movie, publishing, etc.) industry charges an unfair amount for goods that the public "needs", so members of that public have the right to go outside of that system to correct for this grave injustice, right? No. Think about it individually for a moment: I have made a little pot out of clay, and put some amateurish art designs that I came up with onto it. I KNOW, and you know, that the little pot probably isn't really worth more than about $10, and that's being generous. But I decide to sell it, and I decide that my selling price will be $10,000. At this point, you (the consumer) have three courses of action: you can buy the pot (boy, are YOU stupid!), you can walk away and deal with another potmaker who isn't as big an a$$hole as I am (which I may be proving by writing this post), or you can steal it, at which point you are a THIEF. In this country, I have the right to be an a$$hole, but that doesn't give you the right to leave me without a pot to pee in. ;-) 3. Joe (or Jolene) Public - this is the largest group, period. These are the people who have yet to realize they are involved with any of this. This is the most telling group, in my opinion. These are the people who steal cable, who copy video cassettes, who download MP3s but haven't become involved with it enough yet for it to be a concern for them. And they are the people who don't do any of that and haven't given much thought to the matter. If you ask most of them about what they're doing, they will tell you that they know it is a bit wrong, but they don't know where to draw the line of right and wrong in these matters anymore. So they go with what gets them what they want and try not to think about it too much, because if they do, they will become one of the other categories, and life will become a headache. 4. Senator Palpatines - these are the industry lawyers and the money grubbing executives and the vast majority of those who are "fighting to protect the rights of patent and copyright holders". These people aren't fighting for any rights other than their own right to make money and gain power, regardless of the morality involved. In many cases, these people will also be found in group 2, as long as it is related to a different industry than the one they are making money in. They don't mind at all making total suckers out of: 5. The Champions of Entrepreneurism - these are people who truly believe, and perhaps rightly so, that it is the right of the originator of a good idea to be the primary benefactor of profits from that idea. That commerce and prosperity cannot exist in a nation that allows thieves to continue unimpeded. And that artists should have the right to insure that their creations are presented in the spirit and with the qualities that they were originally intended to have. They don't necessarily like the exact way that our nations' laws are set up to protect those ideals, but they are willing to work within the system, and they will use those laws to their fullest potential in the pursuit of their cause. Now, as you may have been able to tell, I don't have much respect for types 2 or 4, and I don't think any "right-thinking" person would. But I'm not quick to try to place individual people into any of these stereotypes - as I said, they overlap. The Problem, in almost ALL of these cases, as I see it, goes back to Thomas Edison. Or maybe it was King James. Or maybe it.....well, nevermind exactly who. What both of the people I just mentioned had in common was that they both put their names on other people's work and ideas and were way ahead of their times in the field of "intellectual property". The $10,000,000 question is - Can, and should, information be OWNED? Information is difficult to control. I come up with a joke or a method for keeping bread fresh and tell it to one person, and if its any good it will soon belong to the world. And the argument, perfectly valid, of the Champions of Freedom is that this is good for society, because it encourages innovation. Maybe someone will come up with a better version of my joke that is funnier. On the other hand, I think most people will agree that an artist, whether practicing fine arts or being scientifically creative, should have the right to preserve the integrity of his work. And before you argue against this to serve your own purposes, think about how you felt about what Vanilla Ice did to "Under Pressure" by Queen, and you'll know I'm right. And this right would have to include controlling presentation, which they can't do if unauthorized people are presenting it (i.e. poor quality MP3s). Also, an artist has to eat and has the right to pursue happiness, and so has the right to be compensated for his or her work. What is the solution? Oh, you thought I was going to tell you? I wish I knew. I wrote this post to hopefully clarify the problem to get people thinking ABOUT the overall solution, rather than simply worrying about the morality of downloading any given MP3. (But I'd be willing to wager the answer will be best expressed in a sentence with 42 letters in it. Maybe we should pose THIS to Douglas Adams. ;-) Surak Prime out. My .sig is taken from "Spock's World" by Diane Duane, without permission, but also without intent to infringe. Think about it.
As I recall, there was a man who turned up to turn himself in in the 40's or so, claiming to be William H. Bonnie. I wonder if they'll get around to testing that one.....