I'll have to say that I too got a better deal online then I could have had at any local retailer. I bought a Sony DCR-TRV30 when they first came out, and I snagged it at $500 under the Best Buy / Circuit City price by hunting around online. I managed to find some 128MB Sony memory sticks for that camera at a severe discount, too (more than $75 less than retail). Of course, this was back in August. Even so, I'm looking to do a round of computer upgrades now, and the prices I can find online are consistently less than what I find locally, even from my wholesale supplier.
I don't know about a passport. I'm thinking it would be something more like DVD region codes for the 'net. The media (or 'content') corporations will buy traffic choke points or huge chunks of namespace (see AboveNet, current Dark Demon of traffic censoring), and then enforce content versions based on region. Eventually typing Sony Japan's web site address while in the US will simply dump you at Sony America's website. The router will 'handle' it for you.
Well, if the music could carry itself and not have to rely on promotion, then perhaps they could knock those budgets down a bit. But instead they pour billions into the craft of manufacturing Britney Spearses so that they can have a predictable stream of music that they can sell to a predictably manipulated market. If you simply buy CDs from the same label, you're helping to feed the machine. So instead, STEAL it. I'm all for it, and I'm normally a lawful, free-market kind of guy. In this case though, they cannot fudge the numbers enough to even come close to looking like they aren't gouging you when you buy a CD. Production costs of a CD ARE dirt cheap, in relation to sales. I have a friend who is a video editing technician at a company that does some work for some very big record labels. The record companies have enough spare cash just laying around that they can pay for her airfare, hotel, admission, and entertainment to attend industry conventions. They do this for no solid reason, other than she's loosely associated with the label and they usually end up using some of her footage in their displays. That's it. All of that for a technician. All that money down the shitter, and then they turn around and whine about how their $16-$20 CDs aren't bringing in enough profit. These people aren't in the business of selling music; they're in the business of wasting money on incredible scales, and they have no sympathy from me.
Some people here in Florida got busted a while ago for charging sales tax on bills that mixed goods and services (services are not taxed in FL). When they turned around and paid their taxes to the state, they reported the items correctly and then made off with the difference. Sounds like a similar little game going on here. Charge to cover all avenues, and just keep the profit if it happens to be cheaper to produce.
I don't know about that. I have a web / database server that runs Linux. We used to run Windows NT 4. The previous machine did the same tasks as the current one, and I'll have to say that WinNT had a similar uptime record as the Linux box (no, really). Granted, we kept on top of SPs and other patches, but generally speaking the box was setup-and-forget. The only reason we switched to Linux was because of a change in the way we handled e-mail (qmail was a better option than WorldMail). Of course, when I installed Red Hat on the new system, I didn't even install X. I used to have a desktop that ran Linux, but I dumped it in favor of Windows98. I wanted to spend my time generating documents and reading e-mail, not compiling kernels and rooting through makefiles to get software to install correctly. In my opinion it's not the desktop environment that's a killer for Linux to the average user; I ran GNOME and it was very pretty and could be configured as I pleased. The process of configuration and software installation needs to be streamlined to the point where the end user never even needs to know that there's a compiler on their system, let alone modifying code. Sorry, I think I rambled a bit there, but the point was made.
I must take exception to the "first class / coach class" analogy (I realize it isn't yours). The problem with that comparison is that you are, in fact, paying for more. You get a larger seat, better service, better food, more movies, etc. For zoned games and DVDs though, there is no change in content or quality. You are paying more for item X because the company says so. You're paying first class fares to ride in coach. If you hunt around, you could buy a coach class ticket, but then you're not allowed to board the plane.
An excellent debunking effort. I wonder; if, in fact, the authors were to produce their source materials, would their logic hold? Or is it more likely that there aren't any source materials? The rebuttal is better written than the article.
They'll probably still be using it in 2101, too. Watch out; they're a rabid bunch. To imply that OS/2 is on its way out will surely result in a swift and vicious attack.
And you're probably on the "Replace ASAP" list, too. The Corporatii don't like being kicked around by developers (as much as they might need it sometimes). The first smooth-talking Windows wrangler to walk in the door may end up in your chair.
Yes! We are at war, and must remain vigilant lest infiltrators tear us apart from within! Eastasia is in the grip of Emmanuel Goldstein and mus...er, I mean, Afghanistan is in the palm of Osama Bin Laden! We must root out the wrongthinkers before it's too late!
In case you didn't catch the sarcasm; wartime is no excuse for the sacrifice of liberty. It may happen, but sustained government action and policy cannot be tolerated. Be wary of the myriad "Anti-Terrorism" bills hitting the floor of Congress. Some of the terms of these are downright scary.
I have a cable modem and Time Warner service. I have never encountered serious problems with either speed or reliability, nor have my neighbors. But I live very close to a university where most of the housing is apartment complexes. According to a friend of mine at the cable company, service in my area had been planned for "a long time," and that TW had anticipated a lot of subscribers and had beefed up their pipes accordingly. Perhaps the biggest problem is underestimation of residential demand outside of areas that might be easily predicted as high bandwidth use areas? I know plenty of people around here have access, especially when the apartment places advertise cable w/ high speed internet access as part of their move-in packages.
My father works(ed) for Trans World Airlines, and although he is a resident of Florida, he has communicated with and received personal responses from Rep. Dick Gephardt (Missouri). This is doubtlessly due to the fact that TWA has a major hub in St. Louis, so the welfare of TWA affects a lot of Rep. Gephardt's constituents. From representatives in my own state of Florida, I've received responses directly from the top when I have sent letters or emails concerning pending legislation. I once received a very negative response from Bob Graham, but it didn't bother me much since I didn't vote for him anyways.
Yeah...um, why don't you go ahead and give me the oil export numbers for Afghanistan then. Just the simple stuff, you know, millions of barrels exported per year, etc.
Oh that's right, there are no oil exports from Afghanistan. Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.
People love to rail at the U.S. for its foreign policy history. In truth we have always responded cosistently, regardless of who may have come to our door. For many years following WWII the U.S. had a rigid anti-communist policy. If someone was fighting a communist insurgency, then we offered help. Period. This policy has led to some problems after the fact, especially when some of the resistance groups turned out to be less than knights in shining armor. We also moved to protect American interests overseas. If this meant stabilizing regions on which we depended for crucial materials, then it was undertaken. If you mean oil, then yes; we "interfered" in the politics of the middle east to ensure that our oil supply would not be threatened. For any American who decries this as a horrible act, I ask that you consider your comfortable life and how big a role petroleum plays in it. Gasoline, oil, plastics, asphalt, electricity; all of these depend exclusively on oil for existence. Would you rather live with or without these things? The prosperity of our nation to this day rests heavily on oil. To ensure this prosperity is the duty of the U.S. government to its citizens. And it's not like the U.S. offers a bad deal to the oil-supplying nations. We simply ask (strongly) that the oil supply remain steady, and we'll pay for as much as we can carry. The countries of the middle east have become fabulously wealthy under this arrangement. But for some reason they can't be happy with it. This I cannot explain.
The United States is not pursuing just Osama Bin Laden. He may be the primary target at the moment, but he is not the only. The idea is to prevent large scale attacks in the future. By squeezing off financial supplies, we force the terrorists (any terrorists) to operate on a smaller scale. You are correct in surmising that it does not take much to build a bomb and explode oneself in public, but to orchestrate an attack with a massive payload takes a bit more. US investigators now know that the perpetrators of the attacks on Sept. 11th spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on training and living expenses, far exceeding their apparent income. If this financial system had not paid their way, they may have been restricted to something much smaller. Granted, you cannot find every single potential fanatic in the world. But you can (through specific intelligence and coordinated efforts) make sure that they do not ally into large networks capable of killing thousands of people at once.
...will finally have found the justification they crave to escalate this...
This is the perceived problem with response. You need to realize that these people need no further justification for anything. They are at "maximum justification" already, if you will. If someone walked up to Osama Bin Laden with a button and said "Pressing this button will completely eliminate the United States. Everyone there will die a horrible death," he would push it. He has said as much. We cannot provide any more justification for his cause because it won't make any difference. As far as candidates lining up, they already have.
And this attack is not a cruel, civilian-targeted carpet bombing. From a command standpoint; If a power plant is powering a hospital and an anti-aircraft installation, it must be eliminated. The effect on the hospital is not desirable, but the effect of not cutting the power on your own troops is less desirable.
It's only the "start of an endless war" if it is nothing more than lobbing bombs from a distance. But as part of a coherent plan, it need not be. What we're watching right now is the destruction of systems that allow the Taliban government to resist not only traditional military action, but the more discreet operations as well. The elimination of power, communications, and defense systems allows for the quiet insertion of stealth troops as well as continued reconnaissance of the area from lower altitudes. This mission is very visible. But look now at the actions of previous weeks. The United States and her allies have been pursuing the financial networks of terrorist organizations and seizing their assets. They have been finding their supporters and cutting them off. This is the other half of the operation. I agree that a carpet-bombing of Afghanistan will solve nothing. But a strike such as this has a purpose.
I don't think it's necessary to go near the Afghani general population at all, nor is it necessary to "invade" Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is a known terrorist with a strong financial network. While we haven't seen the hard and fast evidence plastered all over CNN yet (probably because it hasn't been leaked yet), we know that Bin Laden supports and trains terrorists and has threatened the United States and acted against us before (see World Trade Center 1993). If we (the United States) and the rest of the world are truly out to find the terrorists and stop them, then this is as good a place to start as any. We have asked the ruling majority of Afghanistan to hand over Osama Bin Laden, and they have refused. In this case, I see no problem with going in, finding and extracting Bin Laden, and then leaving. It may cost American and allied lives, but they will die for the cause of a world free from random terror attacks. There is no need to harm a single Afghani citizen, lest they stand purposely in the way of our objective. Personally, I'm for a two-pronged attack: subtle and overt. We hunt Bin Laden publicly, while we quietly sabotage his financial system; impersonating his agents and draining his bank accounts, interfering with lines of supply and bankrupting his businesses. After that we identify the next group and put the same tactics to work. It will be slow work, but the results will be concrete. If carefully pursued, very few innocents will be harmed.
Civil disobedience, anyone? This kind of legislation is equivalent to the police smashing down your door because you pop open the TV set you bought labeled "Do not open, refer to authorized service center" on the back. If they're going to sell it to me, there is no one on this Earth that can say what I can and cannot do with it. Oh, I know, they're only "leasing" you the software bits. Uh-huh. I'm all for action. If it gets bad enough, I say we resort to busting crackers out of jail and straight-out open resistance. You can't step on people with laws like this forever.
$1200? Why do people do this? One thousand two hundred US dollars for something so insubstantial. Up to $20 is understandable, from a certain viewpoint. It's something people pay to enhance the experience of the game. But $1200? That's 4 months rent in a low-income housing project. It's 2 +1/2 months' worth of groceries to a family of 4 living there. It's a well used but working car. But instead it's changing hands for some bits on a server disk somewhere, which, at any moment, may be totally obliterated without any notice. Hmph. At least buy some new computer parts with it...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to say that I too got a better deal online then I could have had at any local retailer. I bought a Sony DCR-TRV30 when they first came out, and I snagged it at $500 under the Best Buy / Circuit City price by hunting around online. I managed to find some 128MB Sony memory sticks for that camera at a severe discount, too (more than $75 less than retail). Of course, this was back in August. Even so, I'm looking to do a round of computer upgrades now, and the prices I can find online are consistently less than what I find locally, even from my wholesale supplier.
Here they are:
AOL, in the kernel.
I don't know about a passport. I'm thinking it would be something more like DVD region codes for the 'net. The media (or 'content') corporations will buy traffic choke points or huge chunks of namespace (see AboveNet, current Dark Demon of traffic censoring), and then enforce content versions based on region. Eventually typing Sony Japan's web site address while in the US will simply dump you at Sony America's website. The router will 'handle' it for you.
Well, if the music could carry itself and not have to rely on promotion, then perhaps they could knock those budgets down a bit. But instead they pour billions into the craft of manufacturing Britney Spearses so that they can have a predictable stream of music that they can sell to a predictably manipulated market. If you simply buy CDs from the same label, you're helping to feed the machine. So instead, STEAL it. I'm all for it, and I'm normally a lawful, free-market kind of guy. In this case though, they cannot fudge the numbers enough to even come close to looking like they aren't gouging you when you buy a CD. Production costs of a CD ARE dirt cheap, in relation to sales. I have a friend who is a video editing technician at a company that does some work for some very big record labels. The record companies have enough spare cash just laying around that they can pay for her airfare, hotel, admission, and entertainment to attend industry conventions. They do this for no solid reason, other than she's loosely associated with the label and they usually end up using some of her footage in their displays. That's it. All of that for a technician. All that money down the shitter, and then they turn around and whine about how their $16-$20 CDs aren't bringing in enough profit. These people aren't in the business of selling music; they're in the business of wasting money on incredible scales, and they have no sympathy from me.
Some people here in Florida got busted a while ago for charging sales tax on bills that mixed goods and services (services are not taxed in FL). When they turned around and paid their taxes to the state, they reported the items correctly and then made off with the difference. Sounds like a similar little game going on here. Charge to cover all avenues, and just keep the profit if it happens to be cheaper to produce.
I don't know about that. I have a web / database server that runs Linux. We used to run Windows NT 4. The previous machine did the same tasks as the current one, and I'll have to say that WinNT had a similar uptime record as the Linux box (no, really). Granted, we kept on top of SPs and other patches, but generally speaking the box was setup-and-forget. The only reason we switched to Linux was because of a change in the way we handled e-mail (qmail was a better option than WorldMail). Of course, when I installed Red Hat on the new system, I didn't even install X. I used to have a desktop that ran Linux, but I dumped it in favor of Windows98. I wanted to spend my time generating documents and reading e-mail, not compiling kernels and rooting through makefiles to get software to install correctly. In my opinion it's not the desktop environment that's a killer for Linux to the average user; I ran GNOME and it was very pretty and could be configured as I pleased. The process of configuration and software installation needs to be streamlined to the point where the end user never even needs to know that there's a compiler on their system, let alone modifying code. Sorry, I think I rambled a bit there, but the point was made.
I must take exception to the "first class / coach class" analogy (I realize it isn't yours). The problem with that comparison is that you are, in fact, paying for more. You get a larger seat, better service, better food, more movies, etc. For zoned games and DVDs though, there is no change in content or quality. You are paying more for item X because the company says so. You're paying first class fares to ride in coach. If you hunt around, you could buy a coach class ticket, but then you're not allowed to board the plane.
An excellent debunking effort. I wonder; if, in fact, the authors were to produce their source materials, would their logic hold? Or is it more likely that there aren't any source materials? The rebuttal is better written than the article.
They'll probably still be using it in 2101, too. Watch out; they're a rabid bunch. To imply that OS/2 is on its way out will surely result in a swift and vicious attack.
And you're probably on the "Replace ASAP" list, too. The Corporatii don't like being kicked around by developers (as much as they might need it sometimes). The first smooth-talking Windows wrangler to walk in the door may end up in your chair.
Yes! We are at war, and must remain vigilant lest infiltrators tear us apart from within! Eastasia is in the grip of Emmanuel Goldstein and mus...er, I mean, Afghanistan is in the palm of Osama Bin Laden! We must root out the wrongthinkers before it's too late!
In case you didn't catch the sarcasm; wartime is no excuse for the sacrifice of liberty. It may happen, but sustained government action and policy cannot be tolerated. Be wary of the myriad "Anti-Terrorism" bills hitting the floor of Congress. Some of the terms of these are downright scary.
I have a cable modem and Time Warner service. I have never encountered serious problems with either speed or reliability, nor have my neighbors. But I live very close to a university where most of the housing is apartment complexes. According to a friend of mine at the cable company, service in my area had been planned for "a long time," and that TW had anticipated a lot of subscribers and had beefed up their pipes accordingly. Perhaps the biggest problem is underestimation of residential demand outside of areas that might be easily predicted as high bandwidth use areas? I know plenty of people around here have access, especially when the apartment places advertise cable w/ high speed internet access as part of their move-in packages.
My father works(ed) for Trans World Airlines, and although he is a resident of Florida, he has communicated with and received personal responses from Rep. Dick Gephardt (Missouri). This is doubtlessly due to the fact that TWA has a major hub in St. Louis, so the welfare of TWA affects a lot of Rep. Gephardt's constituents. From representatives in my own state of Florida, I've received responses directly from the top when I have sent letters or emails concerning pending legislation. I once received a very negative response from Bob Graham, but it didn't bother me much since I didn't vote for him anyways.
Yeah...um, why don't you go ahead and give me the oil export numbers for Afghanistan then. Just the simple stuff, you know, millions of barrels exported per year, etc.
Oh that's right, there are no oil exports from Afghanistan. Maybe there's some other dark government secret you can dig up for me.
People love to rail at the U.S. for its foreign policy history. In truth we have always responded cosistently, regardless of who may have come to our door. For many years following WWII the U.S. had a rigid anti-communist policy. If someone was fighting a communist insurgency, then we offered help. Period. This policy has led to some problems after the fact, especially when some of the resistance groups turned out to be less than knights in shining armor. We also moved to protect American interests overseas. If this meant stabilizing regions on which we depended for crucial materials, then it was undertaken. If you mean oil, then yes; we "interfered" in the politics of the middle east to ensure that our oil supply would not be threatened. For any American who decries this as a horrible act, I ask that you consider your comfortable life and how big a role petroleum plays in it. Gasoline, oil, plastics, asphalt, electricity; all of these depend exclusively on oil for existence. Would you rather live with or without these things? The prosperity of our nation to this day rests heavily on oil. To ensure this prosperity is the duty of the U.S. government to its citizens. And it's not like the U.S. offers a bad deal to the oil-supplying nations. We simply ask (strongly) that the oil supply remain steady, and we'll pay for as much as we can carry. The countries of the middle east have become fabulously wealthy under this arrangement. But for some reason they can't be happy with it. This I cannot explain.
The United States is not pursuing just Osama Bin Laden. He may be the primary target at the moment, but he is not the only. The idea is to prevent large scale attacks in the future. By squeezing off financial supplies, we force the terrorists (any terrorists) to operate on a smaller scale. You are correct in surmising that it does not take much to build a bomb and explode oneself in public, but to orchestrate an attack with a massive payload takes a bit more. US investigators now know that the perpetrators of the attacks on Sept. 11th spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on training and living expenses, far exceeding their apparent income. If this financial system had not paid their way, they may have been restricted to something much smaller. Granted, you cannot find every single potential fanatic in the world. But you can (through specific intelligence and coordinated efforts) make sure that they do not ally into large networks capable of killing thousands of people at once.
...will finally have found the justification they crave to escalate this...
This is the perceived problem with response. You need to realize that these people need no further justification for anything. They are at "maximum justification" already, if you will. If someone walked up to Osama Bin Laden with a button and said "Pressing this button will completely eliminate the United States. Everyone there will die a horrible death," he would push it. He has said as much. We cannot provide any more justification for his cause because it won't make any difference. As far as candidates lining up, they already have.
And this attack is not a cruel, civilian-targeted carpet bombing. From a command standpoint; If a power plant is powering a hospital and an anti-aircraft installation, it must be eliminated. The effect on the hospital is not desirable, but the effect of not cutting the power on your own troops is less desirable.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!
It's only the "start of an endless war" if it is nothing more than lobbing bombs from a distance. But as part of a coherent plan, it need not be. What we're watching right now is the destruction of systems that allow the Taliban government to resist not only traditional military action, but the more discreet operations as well. The elimination of power, communications, and defense systems allows for the quiet insertion of stealth troops as well as continued reconnaissance of the area from lower altitudes. This mission is very visible. But look now at the actions of previous weeks. The United States and her allies have been pursuing the financial networks of terrorist organizations and seizing their assets. They have been finding their supporters and cutting them off. This is the other half of the operation. I agree that a carpet-bombing of Afghanistan will solve nothing. But a strike such as this has a purpose.
I don't think it's necessary to go near the Afghani general population at all, nor is it necessary to "invade" Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is a known terrorist with a strong financial network. While we haven't seen the hard and fast evidence plastered all over CNN yet (probably because it hasn't been leaked yet), we know that Bin Laden supports and trains terrorists and has threatened the United States and acted against us before (see World Trade Center 1993). If we (the United States) and the rest of the world are truly out to find the terrorists and stop them, then this is as good a place to start as any. We have asked the ruling majority of Afghanistan to hand over Osama Bin Laden, and they have refused. In this case, I see no problem with going in, finding and extracting Bin Laden, and then leaving. It may cost American and allied lives, but they will die for the cause of a world free from random terror attacks. There is no need to harm a single Afghani citizen, lest they stand purposely in the way of our objective. Personally, I'm for a two-pronged attack: subtle and overt. We hunt Bin Laden publicly, while we quietly sabotage his financial system; impersonating his agents and draining his bank accounts, interfering with lines of supply and bankrupting his businesses. After that we identify the next group and put the same tactics to work. It will be slow work, but the results will be concrete. If carefully pursued, very few innocents will be harmed.
Civil disobedience, anyone? This kind of legislation is equivalent to the police smashing down your door because you pop open the TV set you bought labeled "Do not open, refer to authorized service center" on the back. If they're going to sell it to me, there is no one on this Earth that can say what I can and cannot do with it. Oh, I know, they're only "leasing" you the software bits. Uh-huh. I'm all for action. If it gets bad enough, I say we resort to busting crackers out of jail and straight-out open resistance. You can't step on people with laws like this forever.
$1200? Why do people do this? One thousand two hundred US dollars for something so insubstantial. Up to $20 is understandable, from a certain viewpoint. It's something people pay to enhance the experience of the game. But $1200? That's 4 months rent in a low-income housing project. It's 2 +1/2 months' worth of groceries to a family of 4 living there. It's a well used but working car. But instead it's changing hands for some bits on a server disk somewhere, which, at any moment, may be totally obliterated without any notice. Hmph. At least buy some new computer parts with it...