The reason there are 6 billion humans alive today is the ability to cooperate. Morality (which is actually an odd manifestation of selfishness) is what allows this.
Hopefully one day, we as a species, and not just as scattered individuals, will be able to overcome the Judeo-Christian ethic, and take on a more Anthrocentric ethic. Of course, by then, we probably won't be the same species. Hopefully technology will whip up some truly cooperative beings. Ah well... not in my life time.:)
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
"How does the fact that your government is screwing you over make it OK for you to revolt?" "How does the fact that laws are unjust make it OK for you to break them?" This is not a valid parallel. The artists are not ripping us off, I don't think many contest this fact. I think the price of a CD is fair. Admittedly, record companies may be a bad idea, but if you're really worried about your so called revolt, why don't you tell artists that you will continue to support them if they leave their label? Why don't you start a campaign to free them from their bonds?
If you want to draw the parallel your way, a revolt would consist of killing random citizens and government leaders in order to free the people. Stealing from artists is not the way to bring about change.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
I agree with that to an extent. Sure, maybe the first time you get on Napster it's this awesome system where you can get anything you want. But when you start exploiting it, it becomes pure selfishness. I don't know anyone who uses Napster regularly who is still infatuated with the whole idea.
For a reason that would take a long post to explain, people like bad things, rebellious things, painful things. Stealing is cool. Hurting people is cool. Stealing or hurting impersonal things is even cooler, because there is nothing bad.
There are two big portions to the motivation and execution of theft:
It saves you the money. This is the primary motivation. You have a thing, and wow, its FREE. I used to do it all the time in my younger years.
Stealing is cool. One can expect support and admiration from others. You have shown prowess, and can defeat other sentients at a competitive game. Hence the existence of wArEz gr00pz and 31337 BBSes:)
It's good to find someone who agrees with me, though. I can't believe how overwhelmingly people don't realize the damage they are doing with Napster and the like. (AND BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES TO THIS, READ MY OTHER 5 POSTS, PLEASE!)
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
See my other post about why music piracy is immoral.
Stealing information is not wrong. However, exploiting information is. Negligence that could harm other people is also wrong.
Case in point, if I hacked a military stem to obtain the remote login to a system that could launch a nuclear missle (which doesn't exist hopefully!), that would not be immoral. If I in turn posted it on my web page, that would be immoral. There is a difference between free information and negligence in releasing information. The lives of a million people are worth more than an invalid (IMO) principle.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
I agree, information (at least in the form of art... I'd have to think about other forms) is not property.
If you copy someone's CD, you haven't harmed them at all.
Again I fully agree. However, if you listen to that cd with frequency, I feel that you have an obligation based on the wishes of the artist to support them. They created the art with the tacit assumption that they would reimbursed for spending their time creating art for themselves and for the world. As we do not live in a socialist society (at least in the states), the government does not take on this role. Instead, the capitalistic system reimburses these artists for their time creating art through the transfer of currency. To simply take this art away is not technically hurting them, it is hurting society by sending a message to the artist that his art is not respected nor wanted by his society, or at least not enough to warrant pursuing such a career full time.
The piracy of music is not immoral because you are stealing property from an artist.
Rather, it is the failure of human beings to reimburse a desired artist for their art that is immoral. An artist unpaid but well liked will cease producing art, because they must have money to survive. This hurts society, this hurts the artist, and this hurts you.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Hehe, I'll presume that was a troll post. But.... 4. dude grow up! outside usa everything is 2X the price with 1/2 the wages of USA, $15USd is too much!
So you're telling me that buying a CD in other countries costs about 4 hours wages on average? Ouch. If that is the case, that is a definite yuckyness.
Average wages in the states are at about $14 an hour. That comes to about an hour of work per cd. That seems acceptable to me. 3. I dont have 20000 minutes to listen to it all so why pay for it.
Its not hurting anyone then. What I was saying that if you like a song, and you listen to it with frequency, you should support the artist. Not that the possession of the information is evil.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Who the heck wants to pay as high as $19 for a CD that you only want 2 songs off of?
This sort of thing I do not mind. Namely, because a lot of musicians create a few songs that are not representative of their music at the behest of a record company, and then the other songs on the cd are different entirely. CDs should not sell on the basis of one song. This is why I like the whole buying by track idea. The reason it was impossible before is that it was technologically and economically infeasible. The internet makes this quite possible. That is why I praise emusic.com highly.
I paid for Windows. Upgraded the Windows 3.1 that came with my computer ages ago. Luckily, I go to the University of Texas, so SE was only $5 for me. (I bought the first edition of win98 for $70 or whatever it was a couple of years back) Sure you can complain that it's buggy, but Microsoft did spend a few years and millions of dollars on it, and it really isn't that bad!.
The interesting thing is, when it comes to unique goods and services, such as Windows (which is unique because it is ubiquitous (sorry, I love that word (and parenthesis))), or the newest Metallica CD, you have no choice but to buy it from that one source. It is a mini-monopoly. So the idea of capitalism, "Don't buy it if it costs too much, get it somewhere else!" doesn't work.
It becomes fuzzy at this point. Who determines what the fair price of Windows is? I think that for software I use for a good majority of the time that I am on my computer, I feel that $80 is perfectly fair. It runs stably on my system, and I rarely (RELATIVELY!) have a crash. Average uptime of maybe 3 days, a few days longer if I don't run Netscape during that time.
I think the reason that $17 is thought of as too much for a CD, or $80 too much for windows is that it is cool to complain about these prices. Seriously, it seems like it is one of the things that people are allowed to officially gripe about and get unanimous agreement.
I personally think that $100 for tennis shoes is too much, and a few of the same people who complain about these damnably expensive CDs are the ones who buy brand name shoes for the brand name. Not accusing anywhere here, thats more of an adolescent thing, but it does happen:).
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
I never said you couldn't free them. That didn't factor into the analysis. If an artist wants to, he is perferctly free to produce on his own. I'm just saying that pragmatically, a huge number of artists (particularly musicians) have some kind of managing firm, and in the case of the music industry, those firms, the record labels, are notorious for being somewhat oppressive.
Freeing the slaves constitutes paying them directly, as opposed to not paying them at all, which would be the equivalent of killing the slaves and taking their clothes (and whatever they happened to be producing) in order to drive the immoral slave-owner out of business.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Well, I'm not saying that you have to buy it to even listen to it. I have no problem whatsoever with using Napster to download music.
What I do have a problem with, is liking that music, habitually listening to that music, but not purchasing that music. I personally feel that if you are going to enjoy this art, you have an obligation to help support the artist, because the only people who can are the people who enjoy said art.
Is it immoral to pirate music? It depends on the artist. Some artists don't mind their music being pirated. Some do. For those that do, I find it to be indicative of a good person if they respect that artist's wishes.
I personally pay them all. I feel better that way, not only because I feel that it is the right thing to do, but that I am supporting my favorite artists.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
There are not set rules as to what a job really is. The only point of a job is to obtain currency, which allows you to survive. Or you can circumvent this, techically, and live off the land.
A job is simply a common way of diverting cashflow to your person. Music is a beauitful and alternative way of doing this. For people to actually be able to dedicate their lives to making art is a very cool thing. However, in order to do so, either:
1. The artist must be subsidized (i.e. patronage, government programs). 2. The artist must sell his art.
The very wealthy and governments used to do the first. Artists still get some money from the government, but I don't think you can start a hip-hop group and try to get a check from the govrenment. This is because it is EXPECTED for them to sell their art. Changing this social paradigm would take a lot of time, and would likely not occur under a capitalistic system.
The second goes on now. Someone mentioned earlier a sort of Music Industry Darwinism. I agree. Subjectively bad artists do not make money, and therefore cease making art. However, your vote for who gets to stay in the industry is money. If you steal their music, they will not have money, and you are effectively contributing to said artists demise.
I presume most people download artists they like, as the strategy of downloading artists you dislike to harm their art production will not work:) So remember, when you steal their music, you are ever so subtly discouraging them from continuing.
And to those who say "They shouldn't need money, they're artists, they should give away their art."They can no more not need money, than they can choose not to eat. Of course they can get a job, but then they wouldn't be artists, and you wouldn't be downloading their MP3s anymore, because they wouldn't be making them anymore.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
People pirate things that they should be paying for.
It's very simple. I pay for EVERYTHING I own. I consider getting on Napster and downloading a CD's worth of MP3s as equivalent to walking into the label's manufacturing plant and stealing a CD. (I don't say store, because then the store loses, not the record company)
Sure, record companies exploit artists, but if you don't pay for your music, neither record company NOR artist gets paid. If you are so worried, then send money to their fan club or something, and get their MP3s, but these people are selling their music so they can eat and get someplace to live. Admittedly, many of them are mega-wealthy, but as the article points out, NAPSTER KILLS SMALL TIME MUSICIANS. This particularly applies to those who sell their music in MP3 form on the internet.
And if you think that $15 a CD is too much, you have absolutely no right to go steal that music and pay nothing. You try working in a job where you aren't paid by the hour, but by your success as a celebrity.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
I personally have no expectation of privacy at work. I'm using their equipment, on their time, and I'm being paid for it. They have every right to know what I am doing, because they're paying me to do it!
However, what I do have a problem with, is people being fired without warning for criticizing management as the article implies. I can understand your boss telling you that they can't allow you to do so, because it is bad for morale or whatnot, but to fire them on the spot is reprehensible. Of course, I only inferred this, so this may not actually happen.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Why is He-3 based fusion better than using the hydrogen in the ocean? I thought that fusion power would allow us to just take all that extra water and make it into electricity... ?
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who just got back from the Phillipines tells me that people supe up their cell phones. At first I was thinking battery life and transmission strength, which I figured was pointless. Of course, what she meant was decorating them, making custom cases, stuff like that.
Quite interesting, really.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Then we find another fuel source. Nothing lasts forever. The longest term viable fuel source in this solar system that I know of is solar power. 5 billion years from now it won't be very useful anymore.
By then, hopefully, intelligent life will be all over the galaxy. But in a trillion years or so (don't remember the time frame), the last star will finally die completely, cooled to the temperature of interstellar space. Life gets tricky after that. Good luck to all the sentient beings when the last power sources run out.
Too far off to make any remotely likely scenarios, though. -Dobbs
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
The Subscriber ID slashdot is not available. We suggest slashdot95 instead. To accept it, click the Submit button, or, enter a new ID and click the Submit button to try again.
Now that is just a WEE-bit creepy. Who the hell would choose the name slashdot, find it already taken, but settle for slashdot32 or slashdot66? Why are there 94 people named Slashdot??
There's a Pedant, a ubiquity, a sneer, a fermion, a kettle, a television, an automobile, a mustard, a ketchup, a mayonnaise, a table (63!), a chair, a telephone, a he-man, 664 with the name Jesus, a mundane, a boring, a banal, an insipid, a daikatana (only one!), a backpack, a platform, a hinge, a lever, an inventory, a baggage, a wheelbarrow, a shovel, a couch, a bathroom, a paperclip, an armchair, an obtain, an acquire, a devour, a permit, a conjugate, a decline, a translate etc...
Mind you, most of those had at LEAST 10 people! Especially the mundane ones! Paperclip has 12 people. About three of those had only one person.
In fact, there are a lot of televisions, I think there were at least 30. Who picks TELEVISION for a user name? (I'm just curious as to whether or not I can find a word in common usage, or at least semi-common usage that isn't taken)
Quite creepy, I must say. Mind you, I don't mind people living vicariously through internet nomenclature, but for thousands of people to assume pseudonyms that are words for common household items is quite frightening!
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
"...an increase of a factor of 240 in information capability. This trend will continue until displays approach the size of a desk and the practical resolution of the human eye (an additional factor of 340)"
Speaking of which, what is the maximum resolution we can see and be unable to distinguish from the next higher one? (At two feet from the monitor, for instance)
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Eh? I do reside in Texas, currently, and in fact, at this moment, I am sitting in the most polluted city in the country! I do not attempt to hide this fact.
Cool, I love anti-Texas stereotypes. (Sigh) We only have anti-Alabama and such around here.
-Phredrick Dobbs Emperor of the Universe Grand and High Protector of Everything
Slashdot Mirror
The reason there are 6 billion humans alive today is the ability to cooperate. Morality (which is actually an odd manifestation of selfishness) is what allows this.
Hopefully one day, we as a species, and not just as scattered individuals, will be able to overcome the Judeo-Christian ethic, and take on a more Anthrocentric ethic. Of course, by then, we probably won't be the same species. Hopefully technology will whip up some truly cooperative beings. Ah well... not in my life time. :)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Anyone who happens to run into this thread, please read my refutation of the music piracy argument.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
"How does the fact that laws are unjust make it OK for you to break them?" This is not a valid parallel. The artists are not ripping us off, I don't think many contest this fact. I think the price of a CD is fair. Admittedly, record companies may be a bad idea, but if you're really worried about your so called revolt, why don't you tell artists that you will continue to support them if they leave their label? Why don't you start a campaign to free them from their bonds?
If you want to draw the parallel your way, a revolt would consist of killing random citizens and government leaders in order to free the people. Stealing from artists is not the way to bring about change.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
I agree with that to an extent. Sure, maybe the first time you get on Napster it's this awesome system where you can get anything you want. But when you start exploiting it, it becomes pure selfishness. I don't know anyone who uses Napster regularly who is still infatuated with the whole idea.
For a reason that would take a long post to explain, people like bad things, rebellious things, painful things. Stealing is cool. Hurting people is cool. Stealing or hurting impersonal things is even cooler, because there is nothing bad.
There are two big portions to the motivation and execution of theft:
It saves you the money. This is the primary motivation. You have a thing, and wow, its FREE. I used to do it all the time in my younger years.
Stealing is cool. One can expect support and admiration from others. You have shown prowess, and can defeat other sentients at a competitive game. Hence the existence of wArEz gr00pz and 31337 BBSes :)
It's good to find someone who agrees with me, though. I can't believe how overwhelmingly people don't realize the damage they are doing with Napster and the like. (AND BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES TO THIS, READ MY OTHER 5 POSTS, PLEASE!)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Grr.. I need to send those moneygrubbing bastards their $30. I've been meaning to for about 5 years. :)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
See my other post about why music piracy is immoral.
Stealing information is not wrong. However, exploiting information is. Negligence that could harm other people is also wrong.
Case in point, if I hacked a military stem to obtain the remote login to a system that could launch a nuclear missle (which doesn't exist hopefully!), that would not be immoral. If I in turn posted it on my web page, that would be immoral. There is a difference between free information and negligence in releasing information. The lives of a million people are worth more than an invalid (IMO) principle.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
I agree, information (at least in the form of art... I'd have to think about other forms) is not property.
If you copy someone's CD, you haven't harmed them at all.
Again I fully agree. However, if you listen to that cd with frequency, I feel that you have an obligation based on the wishes of the artist to support them. They created the art with the tacit assumption that they would reimbursed for spending their time creating art for themselves and for the world. As we do not live in a socialist society (at least in the states), the government does not take on this role. Instead, the capitalistic system reimburses these artists for their time creating art through the transfer of currency. To simply take this art away is not technically hurting them, it is hurting society by sending a message to the artist that his art is not respected nor wanted by his society, or at least not enough to warrant pursuing such a career full time.
The piracy of music is not immoral because you are stealing property from an artist.
Rather, it is the failure of human beings to reimburse a desired artist for their art that is immoral. An artist unpaid but well liked will cease producing art, because they must have money to survive. This hurts society, this hurts the artist, and this hurts you.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Hehe, I'll presume that was a troll post. But.... 4. dude grow up! outside usa everything is 2X the price with 1/2 the wages of USA, $15USd is too much!
So you're telling me that buying a CD in other countries costs about 4 hours wages on average? Ouch. If that is the case, that is a definite yuckyness.
Average wages in the states are at about $14 an hour. That comes to about an hour of work per cd. That seems acceptable to me. 3. I dont have 20000 minutes to listen to it all so why pay for it.
Its not hurting anyone then. What I was saying that if you like a song, and you listen to it with frequency, you should support the artist. Not that the possession of the information is evil.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
This sort of thing I do not mind. Namely, because a lot of musicians create a few songs that are not representative of their music at the behest of a record company, and then the other songs on the cd are different entirely. CDs should not sell on the basis of one song. This is why I like the whole buying by track idea. The reason it was impossible before is that it was technologically and economically infeasible. The internet makes this quite possible. That is why I praise emusic.com highly.
I paid for Windows. Upgraded the Windows 3.1 that came with my computer ages ago. Luckily, I go to the University of Texas, so SE was only $5 for me. (I bought the first edition of win98 for $70 or whatever it was a couple of years back) Sure you can complain that it's buggy, but Microsoft did spend a few years and millions of dollars on it, and it really isn't that bad!.
The interesting thing is, when it comes to unique goods and services, such as Windows (which is unique because it is ubiquitous (sorry, I love that word (and parenthesis))), or the newest Metallica CD, you have no choice but to buy it from that one source. It is a mini-monopoly. So the idea of capitalism, "Don't buy it if it costs too much, get it somewhere else!" doesn't work.
It becomes fuzzy at this point. Who determines what the fair price of Windows is? I think that for software I use for a good majority of the time that I am on my computer, I feel that $80 is perfectly fair. It runs stably on my system, and I rarely (RELATIVELY!) have a crash. Average uptime of maybe 3 days, a few days longer if I don't run Netscape during that time.
I think the reason that $17 is thought of as too much for a CD, or $80 too much for windows is that it is cool to complain about these prices. Seriously, it seems like it is one of the things that people are allowed to officially gripe about and get unanimous agreement.
I personally think that $100 for tennis shoes is too much, and a few of the same people who complain about these damnably expensive CDs are the ones who buy brand name shoes for the brand name. Not accusing anywhere here, thats more of an adolescent thing, but it does happen :).
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Freeing the slaves constitutes paying them directly, as opposed to not paying them at all, which would be the equivalent of killing the slaves and taking their clothes (and whatever they happened to be producing) in order to drive the immoral slave-owner out of business.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
What I do have a problem with, is liking that music, habitually listening to that music, but not purchasing that music. I personally feel that if you are going to enjoy this art, you have an obligation to help support the artist, because the only people who can are the people who enjoy said art.
Is it immoral to pirate music? It depends on the artist. Some artists don't mind their music being pirated. Some do. For those that do, I find it to be indicative of a good person if they respect that artist's wishes.
I personally pay them all. I feel better that way, not only because I feel that it is the right thing to do, but that I am supporting my favorite artists.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
A job is simply a common way of diverting cashflow to your person. Music is a beauitful and alternative way of doing this. For people to actually be able to dedicate their lives to making art is a very cool thing. However, in order to do so, either:
1. The artist must be subsidized (i.e. patronage, government programs).
2. The artist must sell his art.
The very wealthy and governments used to do the first. Artists still get some money from the government, but I don't think you can start a hip-hop group and try to get a check from the govrenment. This is because it is EXPECTED for them to sell their art. Changing this social paradigm would take a lot of time, and would likely not occur under a capitalistic system.
The second goes on now. Someone mentioned earlier a sort of Music Industry Darwinism. I agree. Subjectively bad artists do not make money, and therefore cease making art. However, your vote for who gets to stay in the industry is money. If you steal their music, they will not have money, and you are effectively contributing to said artists demise.
I presume most people download artists they like, as the strategy of downloading artists you dislike to harm their art production will not work :) So remember, when you steal their music, you are ever so subtly discouraging them from continuing.
And to those who say "They shouldn't need money, they're artists, they should give away their art." They can no more not need money, than they can choose not to eat. Of course they can get a job, but then they wouldn't be artists, and you wouldn't be downloading their MP3s anymore, because they wouldn't be making them anymore.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
People pirate things that they should be paying for.
It's very simple. I pay for EVERYTHING I own. I consider getting on Napster and downloading a CD's worth of MP3s as equivalent to walking into the label's manufacturing plant and stealing a CD. (I don't say store, because then the store loses, not the record company)
Sure, record companies exploit artists, but if you don't pay for your music, neither record company NOR artist gets paid. If you are so worried, then send money to their fan club or something, and get their MP3s, but these people are selling their music so they can eat and get someplace to live. Admittedly, many of them are mega-wealthy, but as the article points out, NAPSTER KILLS SMALL TIME MUSICIANS. This particularly applies to those who sell their music in MP3 form on the internet.
And if you think that $15 a CD is too much, you have absolutely no right to go steal that music and pay nothing. You try working in a job where you aren't paid by the hour, but by your success as a celebrity.
Humans are too damned selfish to pay for anything. I would chance to say that MOST people would steal something if they could get away with it. Especially if it was something that was being sold for profit.
People should realize that they are hurting other humans by theft. Ah well... I have little hope that this will change, ever.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
However, what I do have a problem with, is people being fired without warning for criticizing management as the article implies. I can understand your boss telling you that they can't allow you to do so, because it is bad for morale or whatnot, but to fire them on the spot is reprehensible. Of course, I only inferred this, so this may not actually happen.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Why is He-3 based fusion better than using the hydrogen in the ocean? I thought that fusion power would allow us to just take all that extra water and make it into electricity... ?
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Pardon my American ignorance, but what is RDS? Some kind of digital radio, I gather...?
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Quite interesting, really.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
By then, hopefully, intelligent life will be all over the galaxy. But in a trillion years or so (don't remember the time frame), the last star will finally die completely, cooled to the temperature of interstellar space. Life gets tricky after that. Good luck to all the sentient beings when the last power sources run out.
Too far off to make any remotely likely scenarios, though. -Dobbs
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
I thought that you were going to be Jon Erikson from NPO technolgies. Oh well...
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Now that is just a WEE-bit creepy. Who the hell would choose the name slashdot, find it already taken, but settle for slashdot32 or slashdot66? Why are there 94 people named Slashdot??
There's a Pedant, a ubiquity, a sneer, a fermion, a kettle, a television, an automobile, a mustard, a ketchup, a mayonnaise, a table (63!), a chair, a telephone, a he-man, 664 with the name Jesus, a mundane, a boring, a banal, an insipid, a daikatana (only one!), a backpack, a platform, a hinge, a lever, an inventory, a baggage, a wheelbarrow, a shovel, a couch, a bathroom, a paperclip, an armchair, an obtain, an acquire, a devour, a permit, a conjugate, a decline, a translate etc...
Mind you, most of those had at LEAST 10 people! Especially the mundane ones! Paperclip has 12 people. About three of those had only one person.
In fact, there are a lot of televisions, I think there were at least 30. Who picks TELEVISION for a user name? (I'm just curious as to whether or not I can find a word in common usage, or at least semi-common usage that isn't taken)
Quite creepy, I must say. Mind you, I don't mind people living vicariously through internet nomenclature, but for thousands of people to assume pseudonyms that are words for common household items is quite frightening!
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Speaking of which, what is the maximum resolution we can see and be unable to distinguish from the next higher one? (At two feet from the monitor, for instance)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
DAMNATION. I apologize, I thought you meant my link in the message that I wrote, not my USER URL. Apologies for confirming such stereotypes! :)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
In fact, my emperorship did NOT expire. Just my ownership. There is a difference. I really need to fix that. (Sigh)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Eh? I do reside in Texas, currently, and in fact, at this moment, I am sitting in the most polluted city in the country! I do not attempt to hide this fact.
Cool, I love anti-Texas stereotypes. (Sigh) We only have anti-Alabama and such around here.
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
I like your law. Just for claiming it as a law, I will begin to spread this meme like the plague. -Dobbs
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything