Most companies these days seem to have no qualms about tossing good workers out on the street when it suits their needs. Why shouldn't the employess be able to enjoy this as well? There is no loyalty by employers anymore, folks. All but a very very few will go out of their way to make room for employees when times are tight.
I once worked for a small software house where the owner took out a 2nd mortgage to make payroll. This guy deserved loyalty. I havn't heard of a company since then that would make that kind of sacrifice for its employees.
To the original poster: Make those 15 months worth it for your employer. If you have a good relationship, they may want you back when you're done travelling. If not, say goodbye and don't look back.
Also, according to the proposal, an individual company would be allowed to call you, even if you placed your number on the registry, as long as you gave the company your express verifiable authorization to do so - for example, by giving them written permission to call you.
This will end up just like that bogus "privacy" Act that went into effect a year or two ago. For every service you subscribe to, the ultra-fine print will have a clause like, "You hereby give the Company, and all of its Affiliates [read: anyone we want to sell the list to], permission to call you so that we may provide your service efficiently."
Can you believe the whining some of these "employees" are making on the comments page? I love this one, as it's particularly bleeding-heart:
"
As an employee of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I am writing to state my opposition to the FTC's proposed changes to the TSR. Passage of this new rule will negatively impact my company and it's employees. My job is important to me; I am a single mother with a family and I am concerned about losing my job if you pass the proposed changes. Despite current publicity and perceptions, telemarketing provides a service for individuals and offers a variety of services and products to customers. The majority of customers we call want to hear about our services and if they are not interested, they say so. If they want to be put on a DNC list, we gladly honor their request. I think the current company practices, along with the State DNC and DMA DNC lists should be sufficient to regulate do not call requests. Adding another list would just be more confusing for customers. Thank you for allowing my input. I hope you will consider the negative impact this could have on business industry and the economy! Sincerely, Carol J. Darling"
(Emphasis mine) Can you buy that? I worked for a small company once, and had to support a Sales department. One lunch I got into a debate about the role of sales. The guy honestly believed that society, the economy, and the universe would fall apart if there were no salesmen to peddle products.
And how the hell can having one centralized list be more confusing that maintaing a list of who you asked to put your number on their Do Not Call list? Sheesh!
Boo-freakin-hoo, Carol! Maybe you shouldn't have picked such a slime-bag job.
I don't think this is quite the same thing as the poster asked for.
However, binaural beats are cool to play with. There's a lot of discussion about this somethines on the alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup.
If you want to try "brainwave" stuff, check out either Cool Edit from Syntrillium software (Windows) or use the open source program sbagen. The latter is pretty cool, and I have hopes for it, but it's not nearly as easy to work with as Cool Edit.
Can't say the brainwave sync stuff has done much for me except help me fall asleep more easily. Of course, I haven't been a diehard user, so I'm no authority.
Is anyone surprised that the challenge has broad support from libraries and librarians? I've worked in libraries pretty much solidly since 1994, and I've never never ever met any librarian who thought that censorware was a good idea. The reason? Censorware is simply too broad.
I agree. While the standard for "obscene" has been hammered out (though still a hot potato), "harmful to minors" could mean anything.
Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down.
Is the right to access speech protected by the 1st? I know the right to produce speech is, but I'm uncertain of the other. It's a no-brainer that I can produce objectionable material, but as a consumer, do I have a right to access it at the public library? Not that I agree with the law, mind you. However, I'm not sure it'll be a slam dunk to get it struck down.
From what I gather, the speed of the drive has a positive relation to the heat of the drive. I don't know whether it's due to friction (the bearings?) or the power consumed. With increased heat comes a reduction in the life of the supporting electronics. Also, a higher temperature change when powering on and off will mean more wear-n-tear, too.
Also, with a faster speed, the spin-up will be more harsh on those drives.
I wonder how the failure rates of 10,000 and 15,000 rpm SCSI drives compares to those of lesser speeds.
Firstly, you obviously do not have children. If you did, you'd understand that having a cell-phone aleviates a great deal of worrying when you do get the opportunity to get away from the kids. Rather than sit and worry about whether you're going to come home to an empty house and a police officer in the driveway, you recognize that if something happens, you are always ten digits away.
Obviously, you are mistaken.:) I have 2 kids under the age of 10. However, my wife and I are probably a bit more pragmatic about things than many people. Cell phone or not (since I turn mine off at restaurants and movies, anyway), we don't worry a bit about our kids when we leave them with trusted people.
Sure, having Mom and Dad at hand would be more comforting in the event of some emergency, but kids are truly resiliant, and are not the fragile porcelain dolls people sometimes regard them as. If our kids are going to survive a major trauma, they will do so whether we are there or not. You really can't cheat fate, even with technology.
Many people in the Armed Forces (active force or reserve) have to carry cell phones or pagers while they are on call. _At no time_ are they allowed to be inaccessible to both their home phone and their pager/cell phone while on call. If jamming becomes legal in Canada and the United States, it must come with a clause that all persons must be informed that their cell phone/pager has been turned off.
I agree with the idea of posting (very much obviously) the use of jammers. However, if you chose a job which requires you to be contacted at any time, then you must deal with the bother of staying home or choosing your entertainment in a jam-free zone.
And yes, places that do use jammers will lose buisiness from people who want to be able to get phone calls (such as some one waiting for a friend in a restaurant, a doctor watching a movie while on call, etc).
Are you serious? As low of an opinion I have of the general populace, I highly doubt that most people are that anal. Here in Utah, the Clean Air Act prohibits smoking in a lot of places, including restaurants. In spite of the huge number of nicotine-additced people, reastaurants seem to be doing quite well here.
However, having a child doesn't mean I become a slave to my home...
Then get a competant babysitter! If the person can't dial 911 or handle non-threatening situations, then they have no business watching your (or anyone's) kids. If Little Johnny choked on a lambchop during dinner, and the babysitter got him to a hospitol, would the extra hour or two you couldn't be reached in a theater really matter? Not to be mean, but shit happens, and most of the time our presense doen't make any difference.
You think my folks were slaves to their home when I was young? Hell no -- they found smart sitters. This ain't rocket science, folks.
I've seen a few comments from people saying how we've lived fine without cellphones for centuries. Apparently, they don't see the irony in typing out that comment on a computer, which we also got along fine without for centuries.
No irony that I see. Note that I said that I was a cell phone user myself, but I use it when appropriate. I love computers, but I would not be the least bit bothered by a "laptop jamming" device the minute laptops become an enormous bother at restaurants, etc.
There's a big difference with using technology and being an behaving like an idiot with technology. Like someone else pointed out, this is indeed a manners thing. However, using technology to help isn't that bad is it? I mean, would you object to the Lucky 7 motel using tons of sound insulation to prevent you from hearing the couple next door fighting?
All of these modern conveniences are nice. And make no mistake that most people complain about the convenient uses of them. I've yet to hear people bitch about the auto, but the complete and totally gross over-use of the auto in American society is causing problems. Likewise, cell phones are great -- I got mine after a large pothole stranded my family on the road and I had to go door-to-door for a phone -- but I don't use them in theaters, restaurants, on the bus, or at the grocery store. I see no problems with the jamming technology.
Doctors, by career choice, must make certain sacrifices. My father is a dentist for the Army. I remember when he used to take shifts on call, in case there was an emergency after hours. While they eventually got pagers, before that he simply stayed at home for that night/weekend.
I wish they'd do that here in the States. I'm so sick of people yapping on their cell-phones, mostly trying to appear self-important. And don't give me the "emergency" argument -- we survived just fine in the pre-cellphone era.
Having been a cell-phone user for the past 6 years, I still don't understand why anyone must talk to someone everywhere they go. I mostly keep my (employer-issued) phone off. If I must call anyone, I wait until I park the car and discreetly talk in the car. For the most part, if I'm not at my home or my office, I can't be reached and I like it that way. If I didn't use a modem, I wouldn't have a home phone at all.
I just wish someone would invent an "oxygen jamming" device, so I don't have to pass through clouds of noxious cigarette fumes on the sidewalk. That, and a "screaming child jammer".:)
I like the food David Bowman discovers in 2001 (the novel). If I remember correctly, it was a blue-colored stuff that takes on the properties (taste, texture) of the food you think it is. It's been maybe 15 years since I read it, so my recall might be off.
I thought it was pretty cool, anyway.
Fungi have this property, too
on
Phytoremediation
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ok, I'll have to hunt for a suitable glass vessel.
Go to Home Depot or any home improvement store and go to the lighting department. You can get glass globes for light fixtures for a couple of bucks. I can only assume they are heat tolerant, as lightbulbs get prety hot.
I fully support the scan scene. They provide a service that none of the big publishers do: indexed, full catalogs of the magazines (well, at least the pics, for now). I would pony up probably $100-$200 for a DVD of every issue of Playboy, complete with pics, ads, and articles. I think PDFs would be awesome, but an HTML layout would be nice, too. I'm sure a lot of the porn fanboys would agree.
Actually, I wish the ebook scene (the ones who scan novels and post as decent PDFs or HTML collections on P2P) would do this for magazines of all sorts.
My point (a little remote, I admit) is that these companies shouldn't go after people who scan/post pics. Yeah, maybe the ones making money, but not the little guys. After all, they actually purchase the materials to scan. And I would bet a large market for these scans are -- you guessed it -- under-aged boys, so there is no legit market for them anyway.
The lawyer does raise the decent point that thubnails may (maybe) satisfy the market need for the product, thus hurting sales of the real product. I have to wonder... if there was absolutely no way to get nudies online without paying, would the online porn industry really do any better? I personally tend to think it would not.
The offending sites spanned the spectrum, from basic home pages where some college student had posted a picture of his favorite Penthouse Pet, to multi-million dollar pornographic pay sites that were stealing virtually the entire catalogue of Penthouse's previously published photos.
Show me one "multi-million" dollar porn pay site today (never mind in the early-to-mid 90's). From what I hear, due to the glut of porn out there, it doesn't pay that much. Even Playboy's own site is losing money.
Re:Caffeine? (was Re:The full quote)
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 2
How did caffeine get onto your list?
To place it in its rightful rank along with other addictive substances. Tobacco and alcohol are not supposed to be directly marketed to kids. Caffeine can and is, which makes it even more of a problem. Britney singing, "For those who think young." That overly-cute little Pepsi girl. The teen targets of the Mountain Dew and Surge ads. Hell, there's a bloody Coke/Pepsi machine in damned near every public school, now.
Why do you think caffeine became an additive (in addition to the natural caffeine in Kola nut) after its original addictive ingredient (coca -- natural cocaine) was outlawed? Gotta keep 'em hooked!
Like most drugs, it isn't inherently bad. It's just that it is consumed far in excess (by most people, at least) of what is healthy. If you drank alcoholic beverages of any proof as frequently as most consume caffeinated drinks, your liver would revolt. The chronic presence of any toxin in your blood will trash your liver, which in turn causes all kinds of grief.
Re:The full quote
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So, in the spirit of the quoted drug context, would the hyperreal "chemistry" archives be pushing these limits? Or does this only apply to sites that say things like "here's why the gov'ment shouldn't ban drugs..."?
Quite frankly, if I knew a kid who wanted to do drugs (parental/adult advice be damned), I would send them to a site like the above for at least some decent high-level info about some drugs. I'd rather someone make an informed choice about drugs than an ignorant one, regardless of the law.
Drug laws are pretty amusing, anyway. I can go to prison for possessing weed, but not nutmeg?:) Anyone with half a brain and a local library card can read up on things legally attainable in the produce department, the spice rack, or a local plant nursery that are just as potent and fun and the banned substances.
Besides... this entire "agenda" thing is bunk. Show me a Pepsi ad (pushing caffeine), a Marlboro ad (pushing nicotine), or a Budwiser ad (pushing alcohol) which doesn't have an agenda! Granted these are legal substances, but they are arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned substances combined (plus they make a few companies a lot of money).
Good point. Maybe we'll see a convergence of media players and PDAs (it's already happening with cell phones).
In fact, this raises a very good point. Moore's law will ensure that handheld devices will eventually reach a very good general-purpose state, much like the PC. In 5 years when the iPAQ can hold 20GB of data, run 30-fps MPEG2 decompression, and play any media file you want in addition to running most general PC software, what then? Will they tax that, too?
This law is simply a knee-jerk cure for a symptom, and not an underlying cause. It'll only get worse.
Read the article, as they post a clip of the law itself:
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play music. (approx. $13.26 USD per GB)
Simple work around. Sell players (without any storage included) that support commodity computer components for storage, and sell these items next to the players.
Like I said before, if they tax standard hard drives this way, or they tax the device on its potential storage capacity (can accept devices from 1-120GB), then there will be hell to pay for the lawmakers.
Since the tax is on "non-removeable" storage, I see a shift in player construction. All devices will be sold (fairly cheaply) sans the storage. When you purchase the device, you can buy an optional card/stick/hd/whatever.
Of course, then all medial will get taxed, then all hell will break loose as the hard drive and memory makers challenege the law into oblivion.
Somebody in Canada's government is sucking some serious corporate dick. Not that the U.S. is any better. My own beloved Mr. Hatch of Utah is guilty of the same thing, "Napster Hearings" or not. But then again, don't all senators?
Someone needs to organize a well-publicized "pirate" day. Buy an MP3 player or some blank CD-Rs, or anything that gets "taxed" in this way. Contact the news media, and say since you've already paid the price for piracy, you're gonna go out in front of some huge media chain and give out copies of a ripped-n-burned popular CD (choose a band you don't like:P) in front of the cameras.
Being hauled off by the police will make great media coverage. Get some womderful group to take the case (EFF?) and fight this up 'till the bitter end and have these laws squashed.
The problem with that argument is that the list of what constitues "terrorism" is growing very fast. Isn't there a new law that makes computer crime "terrorism"? If I port-scan some joker who is probing my own machine and some intervening ISP notices and reports me, I could (by a stretch, I admit) be put on some watch list.
What if you exhibit odd financial patterns (see my post about using cash). Could that get me pegged as suspicious?
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked for a small software house where the owner took out a 2nd mortgage to make payroll. This guy deserved loyalty. I havn't heard of a company since then that would make that kind of sacrifice for its employees.
To the original poster: Make those 15 months worth it for your employer. If you have a good relationship, they may want you back when you're done travelling. If not, say goodbye and don't look back.
Also, according to the proposal, an individual company would be allowed to call you, even if you placed your number on the registry, as long as you gave the company your express verifiable authorization to do so - for example, by giving them written permission to call you.
This will end up just like that bogus "privacy" Act that went into effect a year or two ago. For every service you subscribe to, the ultra-fine print will have a clause like, "You hereby give the Company, and all of its Affiliates [read: anyone we want to sell the list to], permission to call you so that we may provide your service efficiently."
Can you believe the whining some of these "employees" are making on the comments page? I love this one, as it's particularly bleeding-heart:
" As an employee of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I am writing to state my opposition to the FTC's proposed changes to the TSR. Passage of this new rule will negatively impact my company and it's employees. My job is important to me; I am a single mother with a family and I am concerned about losing my job if you pass the proposed changes. Despite current publicity and perceptions, telemarketing provides a service for individuals and offers a variety of services and products to customers. The majority of customers we call want to hear about our services and if they are not interested, they say so. If they want to be put on a DNC list, we gladly honor their request. I think the current company practices, along with the State DNC and DMA DNC lists should be sufficient to regulate do not call requests. Adding another list would just be more confusing for customers. Thank you for allowing my input. I hope you will consider the negative impact this could have on business industry and the economy! Sincerely, Carol J. Darling"
(Emphasis mine) Can you buy that? I worked for a small company once, and had to support a Sales department. One lunch I got into a debate about the role of sales. The guy honestly believed that society, the economy, and the universe would fall apart if there were no salesmen to peddle products.
And how the hell can having one centralized list be more confusing that maintaing a list of who you asked to put your number on their Do Not Call list? Sheesh!
Boo-freakin-hoo, Carol! Maybe you shouldn't have picked such a slime-bag job.
However, binaural beats are cool to play with. There's a lot of discussion about this somethines on the alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup.
If you want to try "brainwave" stuff, check out either Cool Edit from Syntrillium software (Windows) or use the open source program sbagen. The latter is pretty cool, and I have hopes for it, but it's not nearly as easy to work with as Cool Edit.
Can't say the brainwave sync stuff has done much for me except help me fall asleep more easily. Of course, I haven't been a diehard user, so I'm no authority.
There's a thought. Does the Apex support DVD-R?
I agree. While the standard for "obscene" has been hammered out (though still a hot potato), "harmful to minors" could mean anything.
Anyway, bottom line -- this is Yet Another Totally Unconstitutional Load of Bull-Plop that even the lizards on the current Supreme Court will probably strike down.
Is the right to access speech protected by the 1st? I know the right to produce speech is, but I'm uncertain of the other. It's a no-brainer that I can produce objectionable material, but as a consumer, do I have a right to access it at the public library? Not that I agree with the law, mind you. However, I'm not sure it'll be a slam dunk to get it struck down.
Also, with a faster speed, the spin-up will be more harsh on those drives.
I wonder how the failure rates of 10,000 and 15,000 rpm SCSI drives compares to those of lesser speeds.
Obviously, you are mistaken. :) I have 2 kids under the age of 10. However, my wife and I are probably a bit more pragmatic about things than many people. Cell phone or not (since I turn mine off at restaurants and movies, anyway), we don't worry a bit about our kids when we leave them with trusted people.
Sure, having Mom and Dad at hand would be more comforting in the event of some emergency, but kids are truly resiliant, and are not the fragile porcelain dolls people sometimes regard them as. If our kids are going to survive a major trauma, they will do so whether we are there or not. You really can't cheat fate, even with technology.
I do concede that my motel analogy was weak.
I agree with the idea of posting (very much obviously) the use of jammers. However, if you chose a job which requires you to be contacted at any time, then you must deal with the bother of staying home or choosing your entertainment in a jam-free zone.
And yes, places that do use jammers will lose buisiness from people who want to be able to get phone calls (such as some one waiting for a friend in a restaurant, a doctor watching a movie while on call, etc).
Are you serious? As low of an opinion I have of the general populace, I highly doubt that most people are that anal. Here in Utah, the Clean Air Act prohibits smoking in a lot of places, including restaurants. In spite of the huge number of nicotine-additced people, reastaurants seem to be doing quite well here.
Then get a competant babysitter! If the person can't dial 911 or handle non-threatening situations, then they have no business watching your (or anyone's) kids. If Little Johnny choked on a lambchop during dinner, and the babysitter got him to a hospitol, would the extra hour or two you couldn't be reached in a theater really matter? Not to be mean, but shit happens, and most of the time our presense doen't make any difference.
You think my folks were slaves to their home when I was young? Hell no -- they found smart sitters. This ain't rocket science, folks.
I've seen a few comments from people saying how we've lived fine without cellphones for centuries. Apparently, they don't see the irony in typing out that comment on a computer, which we also got along fine without for centuries.
No irony that I see. Note that I said that I was a cell phone user myself, but I use it when appropriate. I love computers, but I would not be the least bit bothered by a "laptop jamming" device the minute laptops become an enormous bother at restaurants, etc.
There's a big difference with using technology and being an behaving like an idiot with technology. Like someone else pointed out, this is indeed a manners thing. However, using technology to help isn't that bad is it? I mean, would you object to the Lucky 7 motel using tons of sound insulation to prevent you from hearing the couple next door fighting?
All of these modern conveniences are nice. And make no mistake that most people complain about the convenient uses of them. I've yet to hear people bitch about the auto, but the complete and totally gross over-use of the auto in American society is causing problems. Likewise, cell phones are great -- I got mine after a large pothole stranded my family on the road and I had to go door-to-door for a phone -- but I don't use them in theaters, restaurants, on the bus, or at the grocery store. I see no problems with the jamming technology.
Seemed to be part of the job.
Having been a cell-phone user for the past 6 years, I still don't understand why anyone must talk to someone everywhere they go. I mostly keep my (employer-issued) phone off. If I must call anyone, I wait until I park the car and discreetly talk in the car. For the most part, if I'm not at my home or my office, I can't be reached and I like it that way. If I didn't use a modem, I wouldn't have a home phone at all.
I just wish someone would invent an "oxygen jamming" device, so I don't have to pass through clouds of noxious cigarette fumes on the sidewalk. That, and a "screaming child jammer". :)
I thought it was pretty cool, anyway.
Overall, very cool stuff. Check out this site. It's great if you're into mushrooms (no, not those kind!).
Go to Home Depot or any home improvement store and go to the lighting department. You can get glass globes for light fixtures for a couple of bucks. I can only assume they are heat tolerant, as lightbulbs get prety hot.
When will nakednews.com support this format?
I fully support the scan scene. They provide a service that none of the big publishers do: indexed, full catalogs of the magazines (well, at least the pics, for now). I would pony up probably $100-$200 for a DVD of every issue of Playboy, complete with pics, ads, and articles. I think PDFs would be awesome, but an HTML layout would be nice, too. I'm sure a lot of the porn fanboys would agree.
Actually, I wish the ebook scene (the ones who scan novels and post as decent PDFs or HTML collections on P2P) would do this for magazines of all sorts.
My point (a little remote, I admit) is that these companies shouldn't go after people who scan/post pics. Yeah, maybe the ones making money, but not the little guys. After all, they actually purchase the materials to scan. And I would bet a large market for these scans are -- you guessed it -- under-aged boys, so there is no legit market for them anyway.
The lawyer does raise the decent point that thubnails may (maybe) satisfy the market need for the product, thus hurting sales of the real product. I have to wonder... if there was absolutely no way to get nudies online without paying, would the online porn industry really do any better? I personally tend to think it would not.
Show me one "multi-million" dollar porn pay site today (never mind in the early-to-mid 90's). From what I hear, due to the glut of porn out there, it doesn't pay that much. Even Playboy's own site is losing money.
To place it in its rightful rank along with other addictive substances. Tobacco and alcohol are not supposed to be directly marketed to kids. Caffeine can and is, which makes it even more of a problem. Britney singing, "For those who think young." That overly-cute little Pepsi girl. The teen targets of the Mountain Dew and Surge ads. Hell, there's a bloody Coke/Pepsi machine in damned near every public school, now.
Why do you think caffeine became an additive (in addition to the natural caffeine in Kola nut) after its original addictive ingredient (coca -- natural cocaine) was outlawed? Gotta keep 'em hooked!
Like most drugs, it isn't inherently bad. It's just that it is consumed far in excess (by most people, at least) of what is healthy. If you drank alcoholic beverages of any proof as frequently as most consume caffeinated drinks, your liver would revolt. The chronic presence of any toxin in your blood will trash your liver, which in turn causes all kinds of grief.
Quite frankly, if I knew a kid who wanted to do drugs (parental/adult advice be damned), I would send them to a site like the above for at least some decent high-level info about some drugs. I'd rather someone make an informed choice about drugs than an ignorant one, regardless of the law.
Drug laws are pretty amusing, anyway. I can go to prison for possessing weed, but not nutmeg? :) Anyone with half a brain and a local library card can read up on things legally attainable in the produce department, the spice rack, or a local plant nursery that are just as potent and fun and the banned substances.
Besides... this entire "agenda" thing is bunk. Show me a Pepsi ad (pushing caffeine), a Marlboro ad (pushing nicotine), or a Budwiser ad (pushing alcohol) which doesn't have an agenda! Granted these are legal substances, but they are arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned substances combined (plus they make a few companies a lot of money).
Disclaimer: IANAP (I am not a pharmacist)
In fact, this raises a very good point. Moore's law will ensure that handheld devices will eventually reach a very good general-purpose state, much like the PC. In 5 years when the iPAQ can hold 20GB of data, run 30-fps MPEG2 decompression, and play any media file you want in addition to running most general PC software, what then? Will they tax that, too?
This law is simply a knee-jerk cure for a symptom, and not an underlying cause. It'll only get worse.
You are correct, of course. Man, this bites.
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play music. (approx. $13.26 USD per GB)
Simple work around. Sell players (without any storage included) that support commodity computer components for storage, and sell these items next to the players.
Like I said before, if they tax standard hard drives this way, or they tax the device on its potential storage capacity (can accept devices from 1-120GB), then there will be hell to pay for the lawmakers.
Of course, then all medial will get taxed, then all hell will break loose as the hard drive and memory makers challenege the law into oblivion.
Someone needs to organize a well-publicized "pirate" day. Buy an MP3 player or some blank CD-Rs, or anything that gets "taxed" in this way. Contact the news media, and say since you've already paid the price for piracy, you're gonna go out in front of some huge media chain and give out copies of a ripped-n-burned popular CD (choose a band you don't like :P) in front of the cameras.
Being hauled off by the police will make great media coverage. Get some womderful group to take the case (EFF?) and fight this up 'till the bitter end and have these laws squashed.
What if you exhibit odd financial patterns (see my post about using cash). Could that get me pegged as suspicious?