"The world's first singing synthesis software, Vocaloid, was released by Yamaha this month at the Los Angeles NAMM show.
Feh! They might be able to program something that sings better than Britney, but until they integrate it with something like this, Ms Spears' talents will continue to be in demand...
As a guitarist I can't help but think about the original Tom Scholtz Rockman from the 1980's.
I've got one of those! I haul it our every so often and play around with it. It gives you that classic Boston sound, and hence is only really useful when you want to sound like Boston.
FWIW I think that Tom Scholtz is brilliant. Second only to Les Paul when it comes to guitar innovation.
When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media
I bought the "Finding Nemo" DVD for my neice. Inside the case, I was surprised to find a note directing me to their website. If you register the DVD with Disney, they have a
media replacement policy in which they will replace a damaged disk for $10. (cost plus, plus apparently!)
So it appears that Disney sold me a license to view Finding Nemo, and not a DVD containing that film.
That does not make Disney any less malevolent than any of the other copyright cartel members, but at least they are being clear about what they sold me.
Linux itself is only the kernel of a Unix-like operating system. It can be easily replaced with a clean-room implementation, that is absolutely unencumbered
That reminds me, what is the current status of the HURD?
It seems to me that the culture in the United States revolves around violence. Check out "Bowling for Columbine" some time. You may not agree with Moore's politics, but he raises some critical issues that simply are not discussed. I guess the bottom line is that violence leads to more violence. If you kick my ass in the schoolyard and humiliate me, I will look to take revenge on you. And so on, and so on.
I cannot quote the statistics, and I haven't checked google, but the number of murders a child today sees in television or in the movies by the time they reach 12 is huge. It is rather hypocritical of our society in a way. We panic if a naked breast is seen on television, but think nothing for the hero to pull out a gun and pop a few caps into the villain, or his minions.
Images of violence are so prevalent, it is no wonder why the kids of today are so desensitized to it all. We have exposed them to so much violence which has no negative consequences that violence is now seen as commonplace and a valid solution to problems.
As much as we wonder what it is with kids these days, it seems to me that they are a product of the society they are raised in. I wish I knew how to fix the problem, but people who are much smarter than me cannot find the answers...
it just shows a young person when raised correctly has no problem with guns or acting responsibility.
Hey, I'm glad that things worked out for you and all, but one counter example does not invalidate the argument. Reputable psychological research clearly shows that exposure to violence leads to violent behavior in children.
My father's uncle smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 60 years, but that does not invalidate the claims that cigarette smoking kills...
Since Linux is far more popular and prevalent, I'm guessing there'll soon be a lot fewer UNIX licensees, with only those four people left who absolutely can't get by without their Unix
I don't agree with that statement at all. Linux may be more popular and prevalent on the desktop, but I do not think it is more popular in the data centers. I use Linux on my workstation, but my servers are all Solaris and AIX. We have no intention of migrating any of them to Linux any time soon. (Linux on a Dell) != ((Solaris on a UltraSparciii) || (AIX on a Power4)). It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Use Linux where it makes sense to do so, and use UNIX where it makes sense to do so.
Since Linux is far more popular and prevalent, I'm guessing there'll soon be a lot fewer UNIX licensees, with only those four people left who absolutely can't get by without their Unix
I don't agree with that statement at all. Linux may be more popular and prevalent on the desktop, but I do not think it is more popular in the data centers. I use Linux on my workstation, but my servers are all Solaris and AIX. We have no intention of migrating any of them to Linux any time soon. (Linux on a Dell) != ((Solaris on a UltraSparciii) || (AIX on a Power4)). It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Use Linux where it makes sense to do so, and use Linux where it makes sense to do so.
the chances are simply too great for other life to _not_ exist somewhere.
Not according to this book I read:
4 POPULATION: None It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
Now if I could only remember where I left my towel at...
They had a sale recently when it was $10 for 40 CD's
It's called a loss-leader. The merchant advertises and sells something at a loss just to get you inside the store. The probability is that while you are in the store, you will buy other items and that will make up for the loss on the CDR's.
I read in an interview that Linus suspected that he could be drawn into this lawsuit, although he wasn't particularly interested in being drawn into a disagreement between SCO and IBM over contractual arrangements.
It's surprising that they didn't include Bruce Perens and/or ESR in their list. Those two have been pretty involved in pointing out SCO's FUD. SCO even implied that ESR was being paid by IBM to attack them!
I'm not sure what the point of sending a supoena to RMS is though. Perhap the braintrust at SCO is unaware that free software != open source software? I'm sure he would be happy to send them a copy of the free software manifesto. It might not hurt if he sent them a copy of the BSD ruling as well.
If SCO ever had a plan beyond:
1) Sue IBM
2) Get bought out by IBM
3) Profit
they are doing a very good job of hiding it. It just looks like one ad-hoc decision after another.
Since they initiated the proceedings against IBM, the chewbacca defense isn't an option, and it is difficult to see any coherent strategy at work here.
Of course, slashdotters are not the intended audience. SCO is playing to the analysts who will repeat what they have been told about SCO's claims being legitimate in order to keep those share prices up there. It is obvious that SCO is not interested in speaking to people who know something about software and technology.
Your dismissal of cina is typical of a communist apologist. Ive lived in acountry where people have been killed by communists so you can take you stupid ignorant academic crap and shove it.
First of all, Government doesn't solve problems. People do, specifically free people. Liberty and freedom are what generated the great wealth that the US and other free nations enjoy. Once people start relying on the Government to solve social ills, the long slow spiral to despotism begins.
Dude, take a reality break for just a moment.
Did it *ever* occur to you that the world is a more "socialist" place now than it has ever been before? What public infrastructure existed 200 years ago? Museums, schools and libraries existed only for the privileged class, and now they are there for everyone. Go farther back and tell me what we had by way of public transit and publicly available health care?
Face it, we are gradually moving in the direction of looking out for the entire society and not just those who have money and power. The pace of change is slow because people are generally stupid and greedy. We tend to be interested in immediate gratification regardless of the long-term impact of our choices. Slowly though, we mature and begin to make informed choices about what is really in our best interests.
Spare us the rhetoric about freedom and liberty. Western governments are quite content to deal with tyrants and despots provided that behave as we tell them to.
As for the cost of the space race being effectively zero in the long run, that may be true. However, we are dealing with the allocation of scarce resources in the short run, and thousands of people die every day on this planet because they lack adequate food, water and shelter. Pity that we choose instant beverages and foam mattresses over human lives...
Exactly! The problem is that the areas in which we could make the biggest difference don't generate good photo-ops or publicity. We are able to view poverty and homelessness in our own cities with total indifference. It is no great wonder that we are oblivious to the fact that thousands of children die each and every day because they lack the basic necessities of life. Necessities that we take completely for granted.
It isn't just the first world that has screwed up priorities. It is absolutely immoral that Pakistan and India should divert resources to a Nuclear weapons program when the needs of their own citizens are so great.
GWB wants to spend another $87 billion to fight terrorism. That would purchase a lot of books, medicine and food for people who have nothing compared to us.
im sorry, what else do you expect from a leftwing gov?
Actually, I am sorry that you appear to be rather uninformed. China has a totalitarian regime which calls itself communist. It is not the communism of Lenin or Trotsky. As with all totalitarian regimes, life is good if you are well-connected and at the top. Life sucks if you are one of the masses.
most human rights organizations dont complain about it
I take it you are unfamiliar with Amnesty International, to name but one?
This may well be remembered as the beginning of the second space race.
If so, it will be interesting to see whether history judges it to have been worth it. I would think that there are immediate problems down here on earth that need to be solved and spending lots of money on a really interesting dream may not be the best way to allocate scarce resources...
On a separate note, I wonder if the people who argue that NASA faked the moon landings will question this as well?
For such a mark in history, I'm sure the world would have liked to see the launch live on TV, and known about it in advance so they could plan their evenings accordingly.
I read that the Chinese government used to broadcast satellite launches until a rocket exploded on the lauchpad, killing the ground crew.
The powers that be were probably worried about the potential for a similar accident. Keep in mind this is the same governmnet that denied the existence of SARS this year, and only last year acknowledged that some people in China had been diagnosed with HIV.
While this is no small achievement, does it *really* matter? The space race ended some time ago...
No doubt their are factions within the Chinese government who really want the propaganda coup, but is there any more to this than just some positive press?
Good for them and all, and I hope their astronaut gets back in one piece. Yet I have to wonder if it's all worth it. I suspect that there are more important things that their goverment could spend money on. Parts of China are quite backwards, and surely the money could be better spent on solving immediate social and ecological problems there.
In all fairness though, governments in many different nations have their spending priorities all messed up.
Not in and of themselves, but it s arguable that blackouts will be more prevalent under free market conditions than if the power supply and grid are regulated.
The demand for eletricity is relatively inelastic. Regardless of price, we need to turn on the lights, run our refrigerators and cook our meals. Electricity is an unusual commodity insofar as once it is generated, it cannot be stored for future use. We have to use it or lose it.
If the electricity market is operating under free market conditions, the power generator will be interested in producing only as much electricity as can be sold (as excess goes to immediately to waste) and wants to sell this power at the highest possible price.
There is no virtue in over-supply as that serves to drive the prices down. If anything, the power generators will attempt to create artificial shortages in order to use the laws of supply and demand to their advantage. Hence the concept of "gaming" which we saw in California in which the power generating companies would temporarily take functional generating capacity offline in an attempt to drive up the price of power. The demand was relatively constant, and when the prices rose sufficiently high, the offline generators would be plugged back into the grid and the power companies would make a premium.
Under ideal free market conditions, other investors would notice that the existing power companies were making out like bandits and invest in additional power generation utilities in hopes of getting a piece of that action. The demand curve is relatively constant, so as the supply increased, the price charged to consumers would ultimately decrease to something more reasonable. The reality is that it takes several years in order to go through the regulatory process to get approval to build a power generator. Rightly so, as it would not be appropriate to build nuclear generating plants just anywhwere, nor would it be acceptable to build dams for hydro-electric generators ad-hoc. So, it is simply not the case that other sources of power generation would show up in the short term to increase the supply (resulting in lower prices) in the short term. For all intents and purposes, electricity generation is a monopoly where there is little opportunity for competitors to enter the market place, and no incentive for existing manufacturers to increase the supply of electricity beyond a certain minimal level.
Western society has progressed to the point where electrical power is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity that is vital to our existence and economy. From that perspective it makes sense that power generation (and transmission) should be at the very least a heavily regulated monopoly where the existing operators are permitted a reasonable profit but are required to meet certain levels of service.
Personally, I would prefer to see power generation and transmission run as not-for-profit ventures and the consumers should be charged on a cost-recovery basis.I do not think that for-profit enterprises would voluntarily invest in redundancy or the necessary capacity planning for the future. It is difficult to make a business case and calculate ROI for a project that may take 20 years to complete. It the private sector, many companies and investors are focused on the next quarter, and there is apparently no interest in the long-term for those day-traders.
That's my $.02 and I experienced the blackout in North America earlier this summer first-hand, for whatever that is worth...
when they discovered she thought 'Kazaa' was a magician playing at local kids' birthday parties. The story is as reported in the Boston Globe."
I can see that/. has lived up to the highest standards of journalistic integrity...
Note, the magician crack is a joke;)
Not a particularly funny, or appropriate joke.
Surely the story can stood on it's own merits without the need for hyperbole. I thought it was the bad guys who had to resort to shouting that the sky was falling...
I wonder if the editor actually RTFA before adding the clarifying remark...
Then find a way to take them to court in their country by their violation of US law."
That will never happen. No sovereign nation would agree to try their own citizens domestically for a violation of US law. It is not the responsibility of any country other than the US to enforce US laws. Nor is it the responsibility of the US to enforce the laws of another country.
At best, you could try to negotiate reciprocal extradition treaties and have the spammers sent over to the US for trial. Of course, if sending spam is not unlawful in the country that the spam really originates from, that government is *highly* unlikely to spend the time and resources to investigate and hand over the person(s) responsible.
Why do people worship old pop bands as if they were some untouchable example of musical perfection, while simultaneously scorning the modern day equivalents? The Beatles were nothing more than a 60's N'Sync. They were "Pop" music. Actually, with them bursting onto the scene, the term "pop" music was pretty much coined, just for them.
Time to feed the trolls...
First off, you are right - the Beatles were the first. They produced an original sound. Contrast that with the boybands of today. Additionally, the Beatles (with the exception of Ringo) were talented musicians in their own right. This is in stark contrast to the popstars of today. The Beatles still get radio play today, 30 years later. By comparison, the Backstreet Boys are so 1990's that even the Top 40 pop stations don't play them now. They are already in the "Where are they now?" file. That does not bode well for their future...
They were entertaining to listen to, but so is Britney, sometimes. Let's keep some perspective here.
Whatever Britney may be, she is not an artist. If you ever listen to her, it is clear that she is (at best) an average singer, and that is with the benefit of an autotuner! She does not play any instruments, she does not write any of the words, and she badly lip-sync's to the studio track. Where is the artistic talent there?
Contrast that with the Beatles' ability to craft music. Is it high art on par with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5? Perhaps not, but it is clearly several magnitudes beyond anything Britney (or her record company) could manage. There is no doubt that she is way hot, but then again her status is based on her visual appearance and not her musical talents.
I definitely agree that some perspective is required here. It is ludicrous to equate Britney with the Beatles!
Slashdot Mirror
"The world's first singing synthesis software, Vocaloid, was released by Yamaha this month at the Los Angeles NAMM show.
Feh! They might be able to program something that sings better than Britney, but until they integrate it with something like this, Ms Spears' talents will continue to be in demand...
As a guitarist I can't help but think about the original Tom Scholtz Rockman from the 1980's.
I've got one of those! I haul it our every so often and play around with it. It gives you that classic Boston sound, and hence is only really useful when you want to sound like Boston.
FWIW I think that Tom Scholtz is brilliant. Second only to Les Paul when it comes to guitar innovation.
When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media
I bought the "Finding Nemo" DVD for my neice. Inside the case, I was surprised to find a note directing me to their website. If you register the DVD with Disney, they have a media replacement policy in which they will replace a damaged disk for $10. (cost plus, plus apparently!)
So it appears that Disney sold me a license to view Finding Nemo, and not a DVD containing that film.
That does not make Disney any less malevolent than any of the other copyright cartel members, but at least they are being clear about what they sold me.
Linux itself is only the kernel of a Unix-like operating system. It can be easily replaced with a clean-room implementation, that is absolutely unencumbered
That reminds me, what is the current status of the HURD?
It seems to me that the culture in the United States revolves around violence. Check out "Bowling for Columbine" some time. You may not agree with Moore's politics, but he raises some critical issues that simply are not discussed. I guess the bottom line is that violence leads to more violence. If you kick my ass in the schoolyard and humiliate me, I will look to take revenge on you. And so on, and so on.
I cannot quote the statistics, and I haven't checked google, but the number of murders a child today sees in television or in the movies by the time they reach 12 is huge. It is rather hypocritical of our society in a way. We panic if a naked breast is seen on television, but think nothing for the hero to pull out a gun and pop a few caps into the villain, or his minions.
Images of violence are so prevalent, it is no wonder why the kids of today are so desensitized to it all. We have exposed them to so much violence which has no negative consequences that violence is now seen as commonplace and a valid solution to problems.
As much as we wonder what it is with kids these days, it seems to me that they are a product of the society they are raised in. I wish I knew how to fix the problem, but people who are much smarter than me cannot find the answers...
it just shows a young person when raised correctly has no problem with guns or acting responsibility.
Hey, I'm glad that things worked out for you and all, but one counter example does not invalidate the argument. Reputable psychological research clearly shows that exposure to violence leads to violent behavior in children.
My father's uncle smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 60 years, but that does not invalidate the claims that cigarette smoking kills...
Doh! Forgot to hit preview first!
Since Linux is far more popular and prevalent, I'm guessing there'll soon be a lot fewer UNIX licensees, with only those four people left who absolutely can't get by without their Unix
I don't agree with that statement at all. Linux may be more popular and prevalent on the desktop, but I do not think it is more popular in the data centers. I use Linux on my workstation, but my servers are all Solaris and AIX. We have no intention of migrating any of them to Linux any time soon. (Linux on a Dell) != ((Solaris on a UltraSparciii) || (AIX on a Power4)). It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Use Linux where it makes sense to do so, and use UNIX where it makes sense to do so.
Since Linux is far more popular and prevalent, I'm guessing there'll soon be a lot fewer UNIX licensees, with only those four people left who absolutely can't get by without their Unix
I don't agree with that statement at all. Linux may be more popular and prevalent on the desktop, but I do not think it is more popular in the data centers. I use Linux on my workstation, but my servers are all Solaris and AIX. We have no intention of migrating any of them to Linux any time soon. (Linux on a Dell) != ((Solaris on a UltraSparciii) || (AIX on a Power4)). It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Use Linux where it makes sense to do so, and use Linux where it makes sense to do so.
Not according to this book I read:
Now if I could only remember where I left my towel at...
They had a sale recently when it was $10 for 40 CD's
It's called a loss-leader. The merchant advertises and sells something at a loss just to get you inside the store. The probability is that while you are in the store, you will buy other items and that will make up for the loss on the CDR's.
It's surprising that they didn't include Bruce Perens and/or ESR in their list. Those two have been pretty involved in pointing out SCO's FUD. SCO even implied that ESR was being paid by IBM to attack them!
I'm not sure what the point of sending a supoena to RMS is though. Perhap the braintrust at SCO is unaware that free software != open source software? I'm sure he would be happy to send them a copy of the free software manifesto. It might not hurt if he sent them a copy of the BSD ruling as well.
If SCO ever had a plan beyond:
they are doing a very good job of hiding it. It just looks like one ad-hoc decision after another. Since they initiated the proceedings against IBM, the chewbacca defense isn't an option, and it is difficult to see any coherent strategy at work here.
Of course, slashdotters are not the intended audience. SCO is playing to the analysts who will repeat what they have been told about SCO's claims being legitimate in order to keep those share prices up there. It is obvious that SCO is not interested in speaking to people who know something about software and technology.
the broken sword used to cut Sauron's hand off was very powerfully magical, and yet doing the deed was enough to break it
According to the movie, the sword was broken before Isildur cut the ring off of Sauron's hand. I can't remember how it happened in the books though.
It is possible that the sword was broken before Sauron was disarmed (dis-fingered?).
Your dismissal of cina is typical of a communist apologist. Ive lived in acountry where people have been killed by communists so you can take you stupid ignorant academic crap and shove it.
Whatever...
First of all, Government doesn't solve problems. People do, specifically free people. Liberty and freedom are what generated the great wealth that the US and other free nations enjoy. Once people start relying on the Government to solve social ills, the long slow spiral to despotism begins.
Dude, take a reality break for just a moment.
Did it *ever* occur to you that the world is a more "socialist" place now than it has ever been before? What public infrastructure existed 200 years ago? Museums, schools and libraries existed only for the privileged class, and now they are there for everyone. Go farther back and tell me what we had by way of public transit and publicly available health care?
Face it, we are gradually moving in the direction of looking out for the entire society and not just those who have money and power. The pace of change is slow because people are generally stupid and greedy. We tend to be interested in immediate gratification regardless of the long-term impact of our choices. Slowly though, we mature and begin to make informed choices about what is really in our best interests.
Spare us the rhetoric about freedom and liberty. Western governments are quite content to deal with tyrants and despots provided that behave as we tell them to.
As for the cost of the space race being effectively zero in the long run, that may be true. However, we are dealing with the allocation of scarce resources in the short run, and thousands of people die every day on this planet because they lack adequate food, water and shelter. Pity that we choose instant beverages and foam mattresses over human lives...
Exactly! The problem is that the areas in which we could make the biggest difference don't generate good photo-ops or publicity. We are able to view poverty and homelessness in our own cities with total indifference. It is no great wonder that we are oblivious to the fact that thousands of children die each and every day because they lack the basic necessities of life. Necessities that we take completely for granted.
It isn't just the first world that has screwed up priorities. It is absolutely immoral that Pakistan and India should divert resources to a Nuclear weapons program when the needs of their own citizens are so great.
GWB wants to spend another $87 billion to fight terrorism. That would purchase a lot of books, medicine and food for people who have nothing compared to us.
I wish I had some mod points for your post.
Instead of wasting resources on social program moneysinks,
Blah blah blah, whatever. Try and find even *one* _reputable_ economist who would agree with that statement.
China is opening the door to the next step in human space exploration.
For what purpose? We cannot manage the affairs of our own planet...
im sorry, what else do you expect from a leftwing gov?
Actually, I am sorry that you appear to be rather uninformed. China has a totalitarian regime which calls itself communist. It is not the communism of Lenin or Trotsky. As with all totalitarian regimes, life is good if you are well-connected and at the top. Life sucks if you are one of the masses.
most human rights organizations dont complain about it
I take it you are unfamiliar with Amnesty International, to name but one?
This may well be remembered as the beginning of the second space race.
If so, it will be interesting to see whether history judges it to have been worth it. I would think that there are immediate problems down here on earth that need to be solved and spending lots of money on a really interesting dream may not be the best way to allocate scarce resources...
On a separate note, I wonder if the people who argue that NASA faked the moon landings will question this as well?
For such a mark in history, I'm sure the world would have liked to see the launch live on TV, and known about it in advance so they could plan their evenings accordingly.
I read that the Chinese government used to broadcast satellite launches until a rocket exploded on the lauchpad, killing the ground crew.
The powers that be were probably worried about the potential for a similar accident. Keep in mind this is the same governmnet that denied the existence of SARS this year, and only last year acknowledged that some people in China had been diagnosed with HIV.
While this is no small achievement, does it *really* matter? The space race ended some time ago...
No doubt their are factions within the Chinese government who really want the propaganda coup, but is there any more to this than just some positive press?
Good for them and all, and I hope their astronaut gets back in one piece. Yet I have to wonder if it's all worth it. I suspect that there are more important things that their goverment could spend money on. Parts of China are quite backwards, and surely the money could be better spent on solving immediate social and ecological problems there.
In all fairness though, governments in many different nations have their spending priorities all messed up.
There is also a lot of multimedia that can't really be adequately conveyed in text. Diagrams, pictures, animations, etc.
What are you doing in powerpoint that you could not do in HTML?
Free markets cause power blackouts?
Not in and of themselves, but it s arguable that blackouts will be more prevalent under free market conditions than if the power supply and grid are regulated.
The demand for eletricity is relatively inelastic. Regardless of price, we need to turn on the lights, run our refrigerators and cook our meals. Electricity is an unusual commodity insofar as once it is generated, it cannot be stored for future use. We have to use it or lose it.
If the electricity market is operating under free market conditions, the power generator will be interested in producing only as much electricity as can be sold (as excess goes to immediately to waste) and wants to sell this power at the highest possible price.
There is no virtue in over-supply as that serves to drive the prices down. If anything, the power generators will attempt to create artificial shortages in order to use the laws of supply and demand to their advantage. Hence the concept of "gaming" which we saw in California in which the power generating companies would temporarily take functional generating capacity offline in an attempt to drive up the price of power. The demand was relatively constant, and when the prices rose sufficiently high, the offline generators would be plugged back into the grid and the power companies would make a premium.
Under ideal free market conditions, other investors would notice that the existing power companies were making out like bandits and invest in additional power generation utilities in hopes of getting a piece of that action. The demand curve is relatively constant, so as the supply increased, the price charged to consumers would ultimately decrease to something more reasonable. The reality is that it takes several years in order to go through the regulatory process to get approval to build a power generator. Rightly so, as it would not be appropriate to build nuclear generating plants just anywhwere, nor would it be acceptable to build dams for hydro-electric generators ad-hoc. So, it is simply not the case that other sources of power generation would show up in the short term to increase the supply (resulting in lower prices) in the short term. For all intents and purposes, electricity generation is a monopoly where there is little opportunity for competitors to enter the market place, and no incentive for existing manufacturers to increase the supply of electricity beyond a certain minimal level.
Western society has progressed to the point where electrical power is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity that is vital to our existence and economy. From that perspective it makes sense that power generation (and transmission) should be at the very least a heavily regulated monopoly where the existing operators are permitted a reasonable profit but are required to meet certain levels of service.
Personally, I would prefer to see power generation and transmission run as not-for-profit ventures and the consumers should be charged on a cost-recovery basis.I do not think that for-profit enterprises would voluntarily invest in redundancy or the necessary capacity planning for the future. It is difficult to make a business case and calculate ROI for a project that may take 20 years to complete. It the private sector, many companies and investors are focused on the next quarter, and there is apparently no interest in the long-term for those day-traders.
That's my $.02 and I experienced the blackout in North America earlier this summer first-hand, for whatever that is worth...
when they discovered she thought 'Kazaa' was a magician playing at local kids' birthday parties. The story is as reported in the Boston Globe."
/. has lived up to the highest standards of journalistic integrity...
;)
I can see that
Note, the magician crack is a joke
Not a particularly funny, or appropriate joke.
Surely the story can stood on it's own merits without the need for hyperbole. I thought it was the bad guys who had to resort to shouting that the sky was falling...
I wonder if the editor actually RTFA before adding the clarifying remark...
Then find a way to take them to court in their country by their violation of US law."
That will never happen. No sovereign nation would agree to try their own citizens domestically for a violation of US law. It is not the responsibility of any country other than the US to enforce US laws. Nor is it the responsibility of the US to enforce the laws of another country.
At best, you could try to negotiate reciprocal extradition treaties and have the spammers sent over to the US for trial. Of course, if sending spam is not unlawful in the country that the spam really originates from, that government is *highly* unlikely to spend the time and resources to investigate and hand over the person(s) responsible.
Why do people worship old pop bands as if they were some untouchable example of musical perfection, while simultaneously scorning the modern day equivalents? The Beatles were nothing more than a 60's N'Sync. They were "Pop" music. Actually, with them bursting onto the scene, the term "pop" music was pretty much coined, just for them.
Time to feed the trolls...
First off, you are right - the Beatles were the first. They produced an original sound. Contrast that with the boybands of today. Additionally, the Beatles (with the exception of Ringo) were talented musicians in their own right. This is in stark contrast to the popstars of today. The Beatles still get radio play today, 30 years later. By comparison, the Backstreet Boys are so 1990's that even the Top 40 pop stations don't play them now. They are already in the "Where are they now?" file. That does not bode well for their future...
They were entertaining to listen to, but so is Britney, sometimes. Let's keep some perspective here.
Whatever Britney may be, she is not an artist. If you ever listen to her, it is clear that she is (at best) an average singer, and that is with the benefit of an autotuner! She does not play any instruments, she does not write any of the words, and she badly lip-sync's to the studio track. Where is the artistic talent there?
Contrast that with the Beatles' ability to craft music. Is it high art on par with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 5? Perhaps not, but it is clearly several magnitudes beyond anything Britney (or her record company) could manage. There is no doubt that she is way hot, but then again her status is based on her visual appearance and not her musical talents.
I definitely agree that some perspective is required here. It is ludicrous to equate Britney with the Beatles!