One other person says that Dr.Kalam is a Jesuit Alumni and now you say he's a Muslim - I say, what does it matter? Software has no religion, neither does democracy - so when the head of a democratic setup makes a decision on the type of software that would be most suited for his country, his religion should have zero-relevance.
Being educated at a Jesuit school (which he may or may not have--I don't know) doesn't necessarily make one a Jesuit, a Catholic, or even a Christian. Especially in India and Africa, the educated elite even today often come from religious schools set up by colonial European powers. IIRC, Abdul Kalam is from Tamil Nadu, and the Jesuits did have signifigant influence in the South. Incidentally, he's not the "Head of a democratic" setup--the Indian president is simply not that powerful--and that was my prime point--he's much more of a figurehead than anything else.
Not to contradict any of your points, but ultimately the Indian president isn't _that_ powerful. Kalam is very interesting as the first Muslim president of India, and a major player in the development of the bomb! Beyond that, he is interesting as a muslim, he is a golden boy of the BJP, and they are in fact responsible for his election. Kalam is in short the type of Muslim that the BJP likes--secular, known to have read the Ghitas, etc. An interesting character!
Apologies wrt the search assistant--I actually like the XP interface.
I've never used remote desktop. But I'm sure it comes in handy, though I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that by default the remote desktop/registry service is on in XP.
I don't think it DOES come enabled--are you sure? I nany case, I would _highly_ recommend you give it a shot. I've got all my friends using it..it's just such a nice thing. One of the least pimped features of XP imho.
Wow, you "hacked" the registry to get rid of the search assistant? Holy crap, and to think I went to all the effort of right clicking on it to disable. And MSN Messenger--if you couldn't figure out how to stop it from running, here's a hint--it's preferences within MSN Messenger--or you could just uninstall it and/or disable it with SP1. Big icon added to the start menu to show you how to do it.
Also, let me tell you a big advantage of XP over 2000--remote desktop. Really huge. I work at a small company, and we now have 3-4 people who regularly remote desktop in if they can't make it to the office. Not to mention i can easily access my XP box from just about any OS in existence.
1. You seem to be saying that "America is not scary with it's nukes, because it saved western Europe in WW2" is a flawless logical statement. I don't see it. Seems to me that America could both be prone to use nuclear weapons and have saved Europe 60 years ago. And that's true even if it didn't actually use nuclear weapons in that very war.
I disagree. My point was, look at the ONE war in which the US used nukes. I see no evidence that the US is prone to running about using nukes randomly. I DO think the original poster was a frothing anti-American, yes.
think his point was more that any war is nearly unthinkable in Europe, and nuclear war many times more so. Not so for the US who routinely fights several wars a decade, has used these weapons before, and has recently signalled it's looking into tactical nuclear weapon. I suspect the unstated premise is that once a nuclear war starts, however small it may seem, it can easily escalate and end the world.
And my point is that that is an utterly ahistorical and STUPID point of view. Are you not familiar with the cold war? The fauklands (sp)? The recent unilateral French incursions in Western africa? Barely 40 years ago European powers seized the Suez canal. There has been huge amounts of fighting in eastern Europe and the balkans. The french do nuclear tests in the pacific. Europe can pretend to be different from the US all it wants, but that's not the reality. I could go on and on and on..
Like others have pointed out, such pictures can be misleading. How do you know the people asking for Bush's "protection" weren't supporters of one or the other faction in the civil war?
I have no doubt that they were indeed from the other faction. Does it make a difference? The army in Cote d'Ivoire wasn't a multinational UN coalition.. it was the French moving in to protect their interests. Now, I'm not trying to knock the French here, I'm just pointing out a possible inconsistency in how we view US / EU actions.
I agree with your point about economic power. The EU is not minor, and it will be huge after expansion. Now just because a league of such what, 25? nations economic stats (post expansion] bigger than the US does not mean that Europe far exceeds the US in economic power (or vice versa). They are close.
I have to make my points in a strident way, or no one responds:)
As for diplomacy... I do agree to a point. I'm not claiming the US is the sole arbiter of international diplomacy, or that Europe doesn't participate in a lot. I do think it's hard to say that the US isn't far and away the most important country with regards to international diplomacy though.
I also do think it's hard not see direct casual between North Korea opening up, Libya opening, Syria seemingly starting to open, Saudi getting serious etc, with recent U.S. policy shifts. Having said that, as a Libertarian leaning individual, I hate much recent foreign policy (especially with regards to Israel)--but it's hard to say that the US's current policies and actions isn't having major impacts internationally.
European: "I think X is true, because of Y". American: "We saved your ass in WW2. Therefore X is false. QED." American: "We saved your ass in WW2. Therefore X is false. QED."
It's not a logical fallacy if X is "America is a force of evil and always attacks people for the wrong reasons!" or "America is scary with its nukes!".. I was refuting those specific points, not trying to make any other wider points.
There's been a lot of harping on about WW2 lately and how the USA saved the world.
I don't think the US saved the world. It's hard to deny that Germany would not have been stopped in Europe without the US entry into that theater. It's also hard to deny that nuking Japan saved *American* lives--the Pacific theater was not one that we wanted to enter, the Japanese brought us in, nukes effectively ended the war very quickly.
You know, as odd as it seems, I am not terribly worried about Iran's future. The population of Iran is VERY young. the majority of the population has been born after 1978 and the Religious revolution. The older generations remember the Shah and American aid and forced westernization.. The younger generations only know the strict religious rule and forced Islamic law etc. There is GREAT disatisfaction amongst the youth in Iran.
Ironically enough, the religious revolution brought the form of a true democracy to Iran, without the full function (since the Religious supreme leader and Guardian Council essentially can veto candidates and anything the democratically elected can do). Yet the people in Iran now EXPECT democracy. Things are changing, and I seriously expect that very soon things will change in a big way due to popular social movements.
Having said that, I agree completely with the point of your post.
Well, I would say that American imperialism really started in about the 1840's. The period after Andrew Jackson was president, and the strong period of the Jacksonian Democrat party. there was the whole concept then of "Manifest Destiny," where the US had a destiny of expansion that MUST be fulfilled. I would really call this the earliest imperialism in America (though I suppose you could make a case for it going even farther back). And then yeah, as you say, I the Spanish American war, stuff in Cuba, etc, Roosevelt, is when its full-blown.
Did it ever stop? I'm not sure I would say it did.
Post WW2 we've done some pretty crappy things...but, in my view, out of necessity. I forget who said it, about some banana dictator "he may be a petty dictator, but he's OUR petty dictator" (roughly remembered). The US post ww2 was really obsessed with stopping the spread of communism. This has had some good results, as well as some bad. The Middle East today is the bad! We didn't support the mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Baath Arab nationalists in Iraq for the hell of it -- we were fighting Soviet and communist expansion. Which is of course its own form of imperialism (both by us and by Russia).
Ok, well that rambled on, but anyway--I don't particularly see the US's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in imperialist terms. It's up for argument sure, but I see both as cleaning up our past mistakes.
In fact, the US is worse in this respect. European farm subsidies are a drop in the bucket compared to those of the USA.
Have any stats to back that?
As for peace in the middle east... Real good job there. Iraq is showing every sign of turning into another Vietnam or, worse, another Cold War Afghanistan, now that Saddam's gone. And Bush has done wonders for the Israel/Palestine peace process. Clinton had them very nearly signing a treaty after eight years of hard work. Bush managed to demolish that in less than three, and now Israel's talking about more expansion of its Golan Heights territory.
Well, answer me this. How many suicide attacks have there been in Israel of late? Libya and Syria are both looking like they are more open than ever.. Iraq is very unstable, no doubt about it, but before declaring it another Vietnam, how about we give it even a year? Afghanistan? I think there is nothing that anyone can do there. Afghani tribal structures go back thousands of years, relatively unchanged. You can't just bring about mass changes in a small amount of time. Not to mention that the US didn't attack Afghanistan for any reason OTHER than the destruction of al-Qaeda.
Yes, we all know how the US is not protectionist at all with its own market, *sigh*.
That said, I'm French, and not happy at all with the way France has supported dictators, but frankly do you really believe that the USA are better in this respect??
I do believe that the US is _better_ than much of Europe... but not GOOD (and maybe overall not much better!) with regards to support of dictators and also protectionism. I tried not to be overly defensive of the US in my original post, and you're certaintly right--there are no innocents or saints in the world at the moment (if there ever were).
My point was mainly that the original poster was not presenting a reasonable point of view (which was Europe = great, US = terrible).
Europe is somewhat different. Western Europe is very much a post-modern society, whose power is economic and diplomatic (and in those areas FAR exceeds the US's power). And has little interest in Imperialism of any kind.
Ok, first of all--Europe is a post-modern society?? What the hell does that mean?!
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!" Better yet, tell that to all the struggling 3rd world farmers who are oppressed by subsidized European agricultural goods. Economic imperialism at its finest!
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation, and the I'll refute the second below!
Also, show me some European led international diplomacy that has gone succesfully without US participation? They've certainly managed to do a bang up job in the middle east! Who is spear heading peace in the Middle East right now? The US. Who was responsible for peace between Israel and Egypt. Largely the US! Who is responsible for Libya opening? The US! Who is responsible for recent NK negotiations? The US. Show me ANY comparable European led initiatives.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Inaccurate representation of American history--you need to go much farther back. Hell, start looking back to the 1840's if you want to see American imperialism in its nascent form. You absolutely cannot say that American imperialism starts post-ww2. I can list examples if you don't know them, or are interested, just reply, I'd be glad to.
So personally I'm relaxed about West European countries (and I include Canada, Australia and New Zealand in that group as culturally they are) having nukes. The US, India and Pakistan owning nukes however scares the crap out of me.
If you're European all I can say is, WW2 would have been much nicer had the US not joined the European front, and had the US not nuked Japan. Things would have been rosy and happy all around! And since then, America's nuclear atrocities are absolutely unforgivable. Your post is truly insightful!
Don't mean to be a pedant--but Farsi is actually an Indo-European language--meaning it's related to Latin, German, Spanish, etc (and Hindi!). You can see this in some cognate words--mother in Farsi is madar, father is pedar, brother baradar, etc.
Arabic is a semitic language, related to Hebrew. In Arabic these words are very different. (My Arabic is weak but mother can be "umm," father "ab".. very different).
Both languages do use the same basic script--the Arabic script, though Farsi does have several additional letters.
I can't comment on the newer models, but I've been enormously happy with ours! We've had it...I guess about 1.5-2 years, no problems at all.
Channel guide updating has never failed for me (you sure you have settings right??)..I have a wireless hookup (a dlink product) too.
Commercial skip (not in newer versions) is godly, and far and away the best feature!
Also, I love the fact that I can very, very easily download shows from the ReplayTV to my PC.
--Also, I don't know, but I've had very good experiences with their customer service reps. They helped to optimize control of my digital cable box when it was a little slow, and the wait wasn't long, and the people helpful. admittedly, never had any more in depth problems, or any payment issues, but good service from what I've seen.
Having said all this, I'm not sure I would buy one without commercial skip...
Well if you think about it in slightly different form...
Let's assume that the average CD has maybe 15 tracks? so she had somewhere around 60-70 cd's worth of music. Should there be a higher punishment if she was giving away copies of 60-70 cd's to anyone that asked..in public?
I think most people would agree that that is clearly wrong and deserves (imho, stiff) punishment. I don't see how sharing mp3s is much different.
Now, I do think they can (and probably SHOULD) argue the case that it was unintentional, she didn't know, due to her age, etc etc etc. However, having said that, I think that's crap--you'd have to be a moron living in a cave with your head under a rock to not know that the RIAA is going after file sharing and that it, as is, is illegal.
Yup, some kid is accused of having copyrighted material on her hard drive. Coming to the RIAA's defense by saying "she's guilty, she's a thief, what they're doing is right!" isn't insightful, it isn't informative, and it sure as hell isn't interesting.
NO, you're completely wrong. The problem isn't that she merely HAD copyrighted stuff on her computer, the problem is that she SHARED it. Big difference.
A simple wall-shaped opponent pressed right against the net, with a large enough surface area, will beat any opponent. Well, maybe with a hole in there for serving.
But then it wouldn't be playing tennis--it would be a wall. Not to mention the fact that anyone could easily beat the wall merely by hitting the balls at such an angle that they don't hit inbounds on the "return."
That still happens a lot of the time. For instance, primary elections and other (primarily) local elections. Some of them even have a checkbox for "vote the party line."
Slashdot Mirror
What state-run propaganda distribution network?
Also, since the vision of Iraq presented in this article is MUCH better than the one seen in the news, what does that mean?
My mistake--I could have sworn I read otherwise. Thanks for the catch!
One other person says that Dr.Kalam is a Jesuit Alumni and now you say he's a Muslim - I say, what does it matter? Software has no religion, neither does democracy - so when the head of a democratic setup makes a decision on the type of software that would be most suited for his country, his religion should have zero-relevance.
Being educated at a Jesuit school (which he may or may not have--I don't know) doesn't necessarily make one a Jesuit, a Catholic, or even a Christian. Especially in India and Africa, the educated elite even today often come from religious schools set up by colonial European powers. IIRC, Abdul Kalam is from Tamil Nadu, and the Jesuits did have signifigant influence in the South. Incidentally, he's not the "Head of a democratic" setup--the Indian president is simply not that powerful--and that was my prime point--he's much more of a figurehead than anything else.
Not to contradict any of your points, but ultimately the Indian president isn't _that_ powerful. Kalam is very interesting as the first Muslim president of India, and a major player in the development of the bomb! Beyond that, he is interesting as a muslim, he is a golden boy of the BJP, and they are in fact responsible for his election. Kalam is in short the type of Muslim that the BJP likes--secular, known to have read the Ghitas, etc. An interesting character!
Apologies wrt the search assistant--I actually like the XP interface.
I've never used remote desktop. But I'm sure it comes in handy, though I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that by default the remote desktop/registry service is on in XP.
I don't think it DOES come enabled--are you sure? I nany case, I would _highly_ recommend you give it a shot. I've got all my friends using it..it's just such a nice thing. One of the least pimped features of XP imho.
Wow, you "hacked" the registry to get rid of the search assistant? Holy crap, and to think I went to all the effort of right clicking on it to disable. And MSN Messenger--if you couldn't figure out how to stop it from running, here's a hint--it's preferences within MSN Messenger--or you could just uninstall it and/or disable it with SP1. Big icon added to the start menu to show you how to do it.
Also, let me tell you a big advantage of XP over 2000--remote desktop. Really huge. I work at a small company, and we now have 3-4 people who regularly remote desktop in if they can't make it to the office. Not to mention i can easily access my XP box from just about any OS in existence.
1. You seem to be saying that "America is not scary with it's nukes, because it saved western Europe in WW2" is a flawless logical statement. I don't see it. Seems to me that America could both be prone to use nuclear weapons and have saved Europe 60 years ago. And that's true even if it didn't actually use nuclear weapons in that very war.
I disagree. My point was, look at the ONE war in which the US used nukes. I see no evidence that the US is prone to running about using nukes randomly. I DO think the original poster was a frothing anti-American, yes.
think his point was more that any war is nearly unthinkable in Europe, and nuclear war many times more so. Not so for the US who routinely fights several wars a decade, has used these weapons before, and has recently signalled it's looking into tactical nuclear weapon. I suspect the unstated premise is that once a nuclear war starts, however small it may seem, it can easily escalate and end the world.
And my point is that that is an utterly ahistorical and STUPID point of view. Are you not familiar with the cold war? The fauklands (sp)? The recent unilateral French incursions in Western africa? Barely 40 years ago European powers seized the Suez canal. There has been huge amounts of fighting in eastern Europe and the balkans. The french do nuclear tests in the pacific. Europe can pretend to be different from the US all it wants, but that's not the reality. I could go on and on and on..
*cough*Until about 100 years ago the US was way behind Europe in general and the UK in particular.
Way behind in what metric?
Like others have pointed out, such pictures can be misleading. How do you know the people asking for Bush's "protection" weren't supporters of one or the other faction in the civil war?
I have no doubt that they were indeed from the other faction. Does it make a difference? The army in Cote d'Ivoire wasn't a multinational UN coalition.. it was the French moving in to protect their interests. Now, I'm not trying to knock the French here, I'm just pointing out a possible inconsistency in how we view US / EU actions.
I agree with your point about economic power. The EU is not minor, and it will be huge after expansion. Now just because a league of such what, 25? nations economic stats (post expansion] bigger than the US does not mean that Europe far exceeds the US in economic power (or vice versa). They are close.
:)
I have to make my points in a strident way, or no one responds
As for diplomacy... I do agree to a point. I'm not claiming the US is the sole arbiter of international diplomacy, or that Europe doesn't participate in a lot. I do think it's hard to say that the US isn't far and away the most important country with regards to international diplomacy though.
I also do think it's hard not see direct casual between North Korea opening up, Libya opening, Syria seemingly starting to open, Saudi getting serious etc, with recent U.S. policy shifts. Having said that, as a Libertarian leaning individual, I hate much recent foreign policy (especially with regards to Israel)--but it's hard to say that the US's current policies and actions isn't having major impacts internationally.
Cheers indeed!
European: "I think X is true, because of Y".
American: "We saved your ass in WW2. Therefore X is false. QED."
American: "We saved your ass in WW2. Therefore X is false. QED."
It's not a logical fallacy if X is "America is a force of evil and always attacks people for the wrong reasons!" or "America is scary with its nukes!" .. I was refuting those specific points, not trying to make any other wider points.
There's been a lot of harping on about WW2 lately and how the USA saved the world.
I don't think the US saved the world. It's hard to deny that Germany would not have been stopped in Europe without the US entry into that theater. It's also hard to deny that nuking Japan saved *American* lives--the Pacific theater was not one that we wanted to enter, the Japanese brought us in, nukes effectively ended the war very quickly.
You know, as odd as it seems, I am not terribly worried about Iran's future. The population of Iran is VERY young. the majority of the population has been born after 1978 and the Religious revolution. The older generations remember the Shah and American aid and forced westernization.. The younger generations only know the strict religious rule and forced Islamic law etc. There is GREAT disatisfaction amongst the youth in Iran.
Ironically enough, the religious revolution brought the form of a true democracy to Iran, without the full function (since the Religious supreme leader and Guardian Council essentially can veto candidates and anything the democratically elected can do). Yet the people in Iran now EXPECT democracy. Things are changing, and I seriously expect that very soon things will change in a big way due to popular social movements.
Having said that, I agree completely with the point of your post.
Well, I would say that American imperialism really started in about the 1840's. The period after Andrew Jackson was president, and the strong period of the Jacksonian Democrat party. there was the whole concept then of "Manifest Destiny," where the US had a destiny of expansion that MUST be fulfilled. I would really call this the earliest imperialism in America (though I suppose you could make a case for it going even farther back). And then yeah, as you say, I the Spanish American war, stuff in Cuba, etc, Roosevelt, is when its full-blown.
Did it ever stop? I'm not sure I would say it did.
Post WW2 we've done some pretty crappy things...but, in my view, out of necessity. I forget who said it, about some banana dictator "he may be a petty dictator, but he's OUR petty dictator" (roughly remembered). The US post ww2 was really obsessed with stopping the spread of communism. This has had some good results, as well as some bad. The Middle East today is the bad! We didn't support the mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Baath Arab nationalists in Iraq for the hell of it -- we were fighting Soviet and communist expansion. Which is of course its own form of imperialism (both by us and by Russia).
Ok, well that rambled on, but anyway--I don't particularly see the US's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in imperialist terms. It's up for argument sure, but I see both as cleaning up our past mistakes.
In fact, the US is worse in this respect. European farm subsidies are a drop in the bucket compared to those of the USA.
Have any stats to back that?
As for peace in the middle east... Real good job there. Iraq is showing every sign of turning into another Vietnam or, worse, another Cold War Afghanistan, now that Saddam's gone. And Bush has done wonders for the Israel/Palestine peace process. Clinton had them very nearly signing a treaty after eight years of hard work. Bush managed to demolish that in less than three, and now Israel's talking about more expansion of its Golan Heights territory.
Well, answer me this. How many suicide attacks have there been in Israel of late? Libya and Syria are both looking like they are more open than ever.. Iraq is very unstable, no doubt about it, but before declaring it another Vietnam, how about we give it even a year? Afghanistan? I think there is nothing that anyone can do there. Afghani tribal structures go back thousands of years, relatively unchanged. You can't just bring about mass changes in a small amount of time. Not to mention that the US didn't attack Afghanistan for any reason OTHER than the destruction of al-Qaeda.
Yes, we all know how the US is not protectionist at all with its own market, *sigh*.
That said, I'm French, and not happy at all with the way France has supported dictators, but frankly do you really believe that the USA are better in this respect??
I do believe that the US is _better_ than much of Europe ... but not GOOD (and maybe overall not much better!) with regards to support of dictators and also protectionism. I tried not to be overly defensive of the US in my original post, and you're certaintly right--there are no innocents or saints in the world at the moment (if there ever were).
My point was mainly that the original poster was not presenting a reasonable point of view (which was Europe = great, US = terrible).
Europe is somewhat different. Western Europe is very much a post-modern society, whose power is economic and diplomatic (and in those areas FAR exceeds the US's power). And has little interest in Imperialism of any kind.
Ok, first of all--Europe is a post-modern society?? What the hell does that mean?!
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!" Better yet, tell that to all the struggling 3rd world farmers who are oppressed by subsidized European agricultural goods. Economic imperialism at its finest!
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation, and the I'll refute the second below!
Also, show me some European led international diplomacy that has gone succesfully without US participation? They've certainly managed to do a bang up job in the middle east! Who is spear heading peace in the Middle East right now? The US. Who was responsible for peace between Israel and Egypt. Largely the US! Who is responsible for Libya opening? The US! Who is responsible for recent NK negotiations? The US. Show me ANY comparable European led initiatives.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Inaccurate representation of American history--you need to go much farther back. Hell, start looking back to the 1840's if you want to see American imperialism in its nascent form. You absolutely cannot say that American imperialism starts post-ww2. I can list examples if you don't know them, or are interested, just reply, I'd be glad to.
So personally I'm relaxed about West European countries (and I include Canada, Australia and New Zealand in that group as culturally they are) having nukes. The US, India and Pakistan owning nukes however scares the crap out of me.
If you're European all I can say is, WW2 would have been much nicer had the US not joined the European front, and had the US not nuked Japan. Things would have been rosy and happy all around! And since then, America's nuclear atrocities are absolutely unforgivable. Your post is truly insightful!
Don't mean to be a pedant--but Farsi is actually an Indo-European language--meaning it's related to Latin, German, Spanish, etc (and Hindi!). You can see this in some cognate words--mother in Farsi is madar, father is pedar, brother baradar, etc.
.. very different).
Arabic is a semitic language, related to Hebrew. In Arabic these words are very different. (My Arabic is weak but mother can be "umm," father "ab"
Both languages do use the same basic script--the Arabic script, though Farsi does have several additional letters.
I can't comment on the newer models, but I've been enormously happy with ours! We've had it...I guess about 1.5-2 years, no problems at all.
Channel guide updating has never failed for me (you sure you have settings right??)..I have a wireless hookup (a dlink product) too.
Commercial skip (not in newer versions) is godly, and far and away the best feature!
Also, I love the fact that I can very, very easily download shows from the ReplayTV to my PC.
--Also, I don't know, but I've had very good experiences with their customer service reps. They helped to optimize control of my digital cable box when it was a little slow, and the wait wasn't long, and the people helpful. admittedly, never had any more in depth problems, or any payment issues, but good service from what I've seen.
Having said all this, I'm not sure I would buy one without commercial skip...
Well if you think about it in slightly different form...
Let's assume that the average CD has maybe 15 tracks? so she had somewhere around 60-70 cd's worth of music. Should there be a higher punishment if she was giving away copies of 60-70 cd's to anyone that asked..in public?
I think most people would agree that that is clearly wrong and deserves (imho, stiff) punishment. I don't see how sharing mp3s is much different.
Now, I do think they can (and probably SHOULD) argue the case that it was unintentional, she didn't know, due to her age, etc etc etc. However, having said that, I think that's crap--you'd have to be a moron living in a cave with your head under a rock to not know that the RIAA is going after file sharing and that it, as is, is illegal.
Yup, some kid is accused of having copyrighted material on her hard drive. Coming to the RIAA's defense by saying "she's guilty, she's a thief, what they're doing is right!" isn't insightful, it isn't informative, and it sure as hell isn't interesting.
NO, you're completely wrong. The problem isn't that she merely HAD copyrighted stuff on her computer, the problem is that she SHARED it. Big difference.
But then it wouldn't be playing tennis--it would be a wall. Not to mention the fact that anyone could easily beat the wall merely by hitting the balls at such an angle that they don't hit inbounds on the "return."
Windows Media Player is not a DVD player. It only plays what you have codecs for, and you must install a DVD codec before WMP will play DVD's.
Secondly, anyone can remove WMP, it's easy. Also, nothing stops you from installing any other software.
Like post on slashdot! ;)
No denying that Taiwan is HUGE, but why is this an of course?
Let's look at the other main graphics card companies--Nvidia, ATI, Matrox.
Nvidia--California based.
ATI--Canada based.
Matrox--Canada based.
Now, if we were talking motherboard manufacturers, things might be different...
That still happens a lot of the time. For instance, primary elections and other (primarily) local elections. Some of them even have a checkbox for "vote the party line."