This is like banning a V-6 equipped Camaro because "it looks fast".
No doubt there are people who would like to do that as well; especially out here in California where there are many wussy lefties hard at work destroying the traditions, rights, and values that made this country great.
THEN show them the phone, when asked. They'll make a big deal out of "checking" it to see if it really is unlocked. But since they've started the paperwork already....
Why even show them the phone at all? Or if you must, bring in a older GSM phone that uses the same sim card. Companies have no compunction about lying to you so why should you tell them the truth when a lie will do? The real world plays hardball, so should you.
Do you inform your opponent in a game of chess that the move which he is about to make is a mistake or do you instead exploit that mistake to win the game? Perhaps in a friendly game, one between student and master for example, such service may be rendered as part of the learning process. However, eventually everyone must learn to compete in the real game where there are winners and losers and ignorance has a price tag attached. If you don't like a deal or believe that the other side is holding out or obfuscating then threaten to walk away and follow through if you aren't satisfied. People get poor deals on telephone service, mortgages and financial services because they are ignorant and lazy not because they are unable to do better if they put some effort into the negotiations.
But at times, I might have no connection to the network, or I might have such a slow connection (either low bandwidth or high latency) that interacting becomes unbearable.
This brings up an important point concerning how 'cloud' (I really hate that word actually, it smacks of marketing attempting to 're-brand' what is basically a hosted networked service) computing services are pitched to potential clients. I agree with you that a 'desktop replacement' approach (aka the thin client) will NOT succeed for the reason(s) that you have mentioned (among others). There is really no need to replace all localized computing services with networked equivalents, especially when a decent desktop can be had for less than $500 upfront and netbooks for even less (a couple hundred dollars). Developers and other power users who demand more from their machines will obviously need more expensive gear, but they were the least likely to be satisfied with a 'desktop replacement' thin client anyway and besides; any manager who will pay $80,000+ USD/year for competent developers yet cheap out by giving them 'desktop replacement' thin clients (which waste seconds on every transaction) is an idiot. Joel Spolsky has written several articles addressing point (i.e. not getting the most out of developers because of poor management decisions).
Neither patents nor copyrights nor indeed any other laws would not exist or have any weight without the military might of nations to back them up. For those of you out there who maintain the pleasant fiction of "international law" just remember that at any time a sovereign nation can always appeal to the court of last resort, or as Cicero put it: silent enim leges inter arma. International law is a useful fiction that nations maintain as long as it suits common interests. However, it has no force without the sword, and the willingness to use the sword, to back it up.
What ever happened to quality? What ever happened to people, and companies, recognising that lower cost came at the expense of higher quality? What ever happened to production and purchasing being an optimisation problem with price, quality, speed and other factors thrown into the mix?
You might want to take a look at this discussion and this article on the "good enough" theory of consumer behavior. The basic premise is that consumers know that less money equals lower quality, but they are willing to make do or believe that spending more money for higher quality would not give them enough additional satisfaction to justify the additional expense. In other words, they prefer products that are "good enough" at lower prices rather than ideal or perfect at higher prices.
It would be interesting to know if other countries' ISPs commit to provide the advertised throughput.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Verizon (I subscribe to their DSL service because it was available before Comcast was in my area and I like Comcast even less than Verizon which is the only other choice), but I can understand where they are coming from with regard to guaranteed speeds. The problem in the United States is that lawyers are sue happy and if Verizon failed to meet the promised speed 100% of the time then some enterprising attorney would file a class action lawsuit against Verizon for "failing to meet the advertised speeds". In my experience Verizon really does try to offer the full advertised speed on their DSL (although they often come up a bit short), but they cannot promise anything because of lawyers and lawsuits (and the US is the land of lawsuits, we spend 4% of our GDP on them every year). On the other hand, their attempt to have the minimum "broadband" speed defined as exactly what their current DSL service offers is a bit self-serving (i.e. the FCC shouldn't pay to much attention to that argument).
Is it too much to ask that every soldier have a custom molded and properly fitted helmet? Which is more cost effective: custom helmets or lifelong treatment for traumatic brain injuries? If my ski boots can be custom fitted for a couple hundred dollars then why can't we fit soldiers with a decent helmet? It sounds like the Army and DoD have their spending priorities out of whack.
Does that remind anyone else of the infamous Hanoi Hannah propaganda broadcasts by the NVA during the Vietnam War (i.e. "watch out GI Joe, the enemy will get you...")?
I have heard similar sentiments from US Navy pilots. The Russian Su-30s may have an advantage in maneuverability (this also assumes a competent pilot and Indian pilots probably don't get as many training hours as American pilots); but other than impressing audiences at airshows, it is largely useless in combat situations for several reasons. First, most modern air-to-air missiles, including the latest generation US Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles, also include thrust vectoring and with less mass and momentum they are even more maneuverable than the similarly equipped piloted aircraft. In other words, no amount of dodging around is likely to confuse or evade modern air-to-air or even air-to-ground missiles. Second, almost no fighter pilot would choose a sustained turning dogfight (old school style) with guns when missiles are available instead; it might happen by chance but at the speeds jets fly the encounters are likely to be brief before one or the other uses the afterburners to escape to medium range for a missile attack instead. This type of encounter is also made even less likely against US pilots because of AWACS and other long range airborne early warning radars so it is very unlikely that enemy fighters would successfully surprise US pilots (i.e. "out of the sun"). Is the Russian Su-30 more maneuverable than similar generation American fighters (not sure about the F-22 which does include thrust vectoring, but was recently canceled by the Obama administration before the full run of aircraft could be completed)? Maybe. Does it matter? Not really.
Frankly, Marvel is very much kiddified to begin with, so Im not sure what grittiness you're hoping to preserve.
It is more a lament for the way that Marvel used to be in the past, say mid to late 1980s and somewhat into the early 1990s, when the material was still edgier and original. I will grant you that for at least a decade now Marvel has been in decline and this latest news seems more like the final nail in the coffin rather than a sudden revelation of how crappy Marvel has become (as others have pointed out in this discussion); but for those of us with fond memories of Marvel comics during our early years, the end of the road to decline is still disappointing for an organization that was once known as 'The House of Ideas'.
Yes, except now Disney-fied and sanitized (look no blood!) to assure parents that little johnny won't be lead astray by those no-good comic books. If you thought that the Comics Code Authority was bad, just wait until Disney sinks their claws into the Marvel brands. I do not see how this can be considered to be good for comics in general and Marvel in particular. In fact, it will probably hasten the decline of American comics in favor of edgier manga and graphic novels coming out of Japan (a trend which was already clearly evident even before this latest deal).
They're looking for talented engineers and scientists with LOTS of imagination to take important projects from concept to reality!
and willing to work nearly unlimited hours for less than $35K per year. Yeah right, thanks but no thanks. They say that they want more scientists and engineers, complaining all the while that there aren't enough "qualified American applicants" (while at the same time attending conferences put on by law firms on "how not to hire an American for your H1-B job"), and yet they don't want to actually pay what that would cost.
Another major problem these days is that few companies, if they can possibly help it, want to hire people who
have potential but require some training or apprenticeship before they can really be productive. They expect whomever they hire to simply hit the ground running and be up to speed in a couple of weeks. That might work for non-technical and non-scientific office jobs, but in reality almost no scientists and engineers come out of school ready to make serious contributions to the company's bottom line right now. Scientists, engineers and R&D are all longer term investments that require proper care and feeding over a long period of time to really bear fruit. Companies these days don't want to invest in something that could take years to pay off; they are concerned about the next quarter not the next decade (by which time the manager in charge will have long since moved on with his bonus check and another notch in his belt).
what the fuck else are they supposed to do? Make shit up?
How about they write about things they know or else save their damn ink and write nothing at all. It is not my problem that they cannot be bothered to learn the sort of expert knowledge required to write intelligently about IT. Besides, who wants to read their bullshit trade-rag packed to the gills with advertising and PR "press hits" (i.e. article length stealth ads) masquerading as articles? Not me, thanks.
I wonder if it's because it implies there is no perfect financial solution,
I think that this is necessarily true. People are not perfect and therefore any system created by people for the governance of people is bound to be imperfect. However, I also know that some solutions are more perfect than others and ever bigger government is not my idea of the right direction.
or if it's because it's an argument against defense spending and medicare.
Some spending on defense is unfortunately necessary because, as I stated previously, people are imperfect and the world is full of violent people who will kill you and take your property by force. So some resources must be spent to prevent the barbarians from coming over the proverbial hills seeking loot and pillage. As I have said, I view defense as a very necessary evil because without it nothing else matters because we will all be either dead or enslaved (as recorded history so amply demonstrates). I view health care in general and medicare in particular as a much less defensible (pardon the pun) expenditures of taxes. I would like to see more efficient spending in defense too (I think we spend too much for what we get) and even though that is highly unlikely, hence my original statement concerning government waste, I am not prepared to go the full on anarcho-capitalist route and dispense with centralized government entirely. The only reasonable and feasible course then is minimization and I fail to see how expanding the government massively, as our current President Obama is doing more rapidly than any other president since FDR, will lead us all to a good end.
Trying to eliminate individualism and personal liberty is the mark of authoritarianism, not socialism.
Socialism on any large scale (i.e. a nation) must necessarily involve elimination or at least curtailment of personal liberty by definition because many people would choose not to cooperate if given the choice. If it involves coercion, and socialism always involves coercion at least in some form and to some degree, then it is the opposite of liberty. For a more thorough rebuttal of socialism != liberty might I suggest The Road to Serfdom (dedicated to socialists everywhere) by Frederick Von Hayek? If you still want to defend socialism then fine, but at least be honest and admit the socialism is against freedom (the usual response from socialists is that freedom is not inherently more valuable than other things, a point which I disagree with, but at least an honest, if misguided, position).
Government wastes your money, news at 11. Seriously, what do you expect? Competent government? Next you will be telling me that people want the government to run their health care for them.
One of my projects for a comp sci class in college was a scheduling system, of sorts
I also had to write a scheduling system as part of the intro to software engineering course for my comp sci degree. Of course, being that we were all rank amateurs at the time most of our programs were embarrassingly bad. However, it did serve as a good lesson for us that writing good software is actually difficult and problems that seem simple can actually be quite complex; the devil is in the details as they say. For those of you who didn't have the pleasure of implementing the class or exam scheduling program in your comp sci curriculum, let me just say that scheduling a large number of courses and exams such that as many possible combinations can be selected without conflicts is NOT a simple problem. In fact, the scheduling problem is a variation of the Graph Coloring problem which is known to be NP-Complete. For those who are interested, a discussion of the relationship can be found here.
Credit unions make great financial sense but only the largest ones have the kind of IT and security resources most of us associate with a bank.
And yet smug credit union users always mock those of us who use larger banks for our personal banking because they charge a few bucks more for services. It seems that you really do get what you pay for. How much is security worth? It is worth a few bucks more to me that's for sure.
Even with the original hard drive gone, I still wouldn't use these laptops if I were the governor. Where did they come from and who arranged the shipping? It could be that foreign intelligence agencies (the Chinese in particular) specially crafted these "gifts" and then attempted to ensure that they would fall into the hands of important people within our government. No, these laptops are best turned over to the FBI or the CIA and left unused by their recipients.
And be sure to remember to uncheck that "share your information with third parties" box.
That is why one should never give real information to third parties if it can possibly be avoided; or in other words, never tell the truth to a marketer when a lie will do.
They haven't done anything, except outlawing robocalls from US telemarketers to US residents. One country down, 202 to go.
If it becomes a large enough problem, the US politely reminds the other country that robocalls to US residents are not permitted. If said country continues to flout our rules then well; lets just say that they get the message eventually whether the phone rings or not.
The politicians always exempt themselves from their own pesky rules because, after all, what is good for the average citizen cannot be applied to the political elites. This is one of the major reasons why I find politicians and politics in general and LIBERAL politics and politicians in particular so distasteful. IMHO, everyone would be much happier and better off if they followed a few simple rules: respect your neighbor's property, live within your own means and mind your own damn business. The United States is one of the last mostly free countries on earth and yet the democratic socialists are screwing it up for the next ten generations. If some people want socialism and other such bullshit then they should move to Europe and sign themselves up for crushing taxes, universal health care and small apartment dwellings, but quit trying to force the rest of us live like Europeans...we don't want it damnit.
Let me try to help:.0001% of your hardcore customers find a way around your DRM and you lose a few cents at most.
It only takes one smart horse to open the gate for the rest of herd. This is a primary reason why DRM ultimately fails as an effective deterrent and particularly so in non-US countries where copied music, software, and games are available for $1 a pop from street vendors in the local marketplace (and at flea markets and other transient outdoor venues here in the US for those too lazy or lacking in sophistication to download the materials themselves).
Slashdot Mirror
This is like banning a V-6 equipped Camaro because "it looks fast".
No doubt there are people who would like to do that as well; especially out here in California where there are many wussy lefties hard at work destroying the traditions, rights, and values that made this country great.
THEN show them the phone, when asked. They'll make a big deal out of "checking" it to see if it really is unlocked. But since they've started the paperwork already....
Why even show them the phone at all? Or if you must, bring in a older GSM phone that uses the same sim card. Companies have no compunction about lying to you so why should you tell them the truth when a lie will do? The real world plays hardball, so should you.
Do you inform your opponent in a game of chess that the move which he is about to make is a mistake or do you instead exploit that mistake to win the game? Perhaps in a friendly game, one between student and master for example, such service may be rendered as part of the learning process. However, eventually everyone must learn to compete in the real game where there are winners and losers and ignorance has a price tag attached. If you don't like a deal or believe that the other side is holding out or obfuscating then threaten to walk away and follow through if you aren't satisfied. People get poor deals on telephone service, mortgages and financial services because they are ignorant and lazy not because they are unable to do better if they put some effort into the negotiations.
But at times, I might have no connection to the network, or I might have such a slow connection (either low bandwidth or high latency) that interacting becomes unbearable.
This brings up an important point concerning how 'cloud' (I really hate that word actually, it smacks of marketing attempting to 're-brand' what is basically a hosted networked service) computing services are pitched to potential clients. I agree with you that a 'desktop replacement' approach (aka the thin client) will NOT succeed for the reason(s) that you have mentioned (among others). There is really no need to replace all localized computing services with networked equivalents, especially when a decent desktop can be had for less than $500 upfront and netbooks for even less (a couple hundred dollars). Developers and other power users who demand more from their machines will obviously need more expensive gear, but they were the least likely to be satisfied with a 'desktop replacement' thin client anyway and besides; any manager who will pay $80,000+ USD/year for competent developers yet cheap out by giving them 'desktop replacement' thin clients (which waste seconds on every transaction) is an idiot. Joel Spolsky has written several articles addressing point (i.e. not getting the most out of developers because of poor management decisions).
Neither patents nor copyrights nor indeed any other laws would not exist or have any weight without the military might of nations to back them up. For those of you out there who maintain the pleasant fiction of "international law" just remember that at any time a sovereign nation can always appeal to the court of last resort, or as Cicero put it: silent enim leges inter arma. International law is a useful fiction that nations maintain as long as it suits common interests. However, it has no force without the sword, and the willingness to use the sword, to back it up.
What ever happened to quality? What ever happened to people, and companies, recognising that lower cost came at the expense of higher quality? What ever happened to production and purchasing being an optimisation problem with price, quality, speed and other factors thrown into the mix?
You might want to take a look at this discussion and this article on the "good enough" theory of consumer behavior. The basic premise is that consumers know that less money equals lower quality, but they are willing to make do or believe that spending more money for higher quality would not give them enough additional satisfaction to justify the additional expense. In other words, they prefer products that are "good enough" at lower prices rather than ideal or perfect at higher prices.
It would be interesting to know if other countries' ISPs commit to provide the advertised throughput.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Verizon (I subscribe to their DSL service because it was available before Comcast was in my area and I like Comcast even less than Verizon which is the only other choice), but I can understand where they are coming from with regard to guaranteed speeds. The problem in the United States is that lawyers are sue happy and if Verizon failed to meet the promised speed 100% of the time then some enterprising attorney would file a class action lawsuit against Verizon for "failing to meet the advertised speeds". In my experience Verizon really does try to offer the full advertised speed on their DSL (although they often come up a bit short), but they cannot promise anything because of lawyers and lawsuits (and the US is the land of lawsuits, we spend 4% of our GDP on them every year). On the other hand, their attempt to have the minimum "broadband" speed defined as exactly what their current DSL service offers is a bit self-serving (i.e. the FCC shouldn't pay to much attention to that argument).
Is it too much to ask that every soldier have a custom molded and properly fitted helmet? Which is more cost effective: custom helmets or lifelong treatment for traumatic brain injuries? If my ski boots can be custom fitted for a couple hundred dollars then why can't we fit soldiers with a decent helmet? It sounds like the Army and DoD have their spending priorities out of whack.
Eventually they WILL get you.
Does that remind anyone else of the infamous Hanoi Hannah propaganda broadcasts by the NVA during the Vietnam War (i.e. "watch out GI Joe, the enemy will get you...")?
I have heard similar sentiments from US Navy pilots. The Russian Su-30s may have an advantage in maneuverability (this also assumes a competent pilot and Indian pilots probably don't get as many training hours as American pilots); but other than impressing audiences at airshows, it is largely useless in combat situations for several reasons. First, most modern air-to-air missiles, including the latest generation US Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles, also include thrust vectoring and with less mass and momentum they are even more maneuverable than the similarly equipped piloted aircraft. In other words, no amount of dodging around is likely to confuse or evade modern air-to-air or even air-to-ground missiles. Second, almost no fighter pilot would choose a sustained turning dogfight (old school style) with guns when missiles are available instead; it might happen by chance but at the speeds jets fly the encounters are likely to be brief before one or the other uses the afterburners to escape to medium range for a missile attack instead. This type of encounter is also made even less likely against US pilots because of AWACS and other long range airborne early warning radars so it is very unlikely that enemy fighters would successfully surprise US pilots (i.e. "out of the sun"). Is the Russian Su-30 more maneuverable than similar generation American fighters (not sure about the F-22 which does include thrust vectoring, but was recently canceled by the Obama administration before the full run of aircraft could be completed)? Maybe. Does it matter? Not really.
Frankly, Marvel is very much kiddified to begin with, so Im not sure what grittiness you're hoping to preserve.
It is more a lament for the way that Marvel used to be in the past, say mid to late 1980s and somewhat into the early 1990s, when the material was still edgier and original. I will grant you that for at least a decade now Marvel has been in decline and this latest news seems more like the final nail in the coffin rather than a sudden revelation of how crappy Marvel has become (as others have pointed out in this discussion); but for those of us with fond memories of Marvel comics during our early years, the end of the road to decline is still disappointing for an organization that was once known as 'The House of Ideas'.
Yes, except now Disney-fied and sanitized (look no blood!) to assure parents that little johnny won't be lead astray by those no-good comic books. If you thought that the Comics Code Authority was bad, just wait until Disney sinks their claws into the Marvel brands. I do not see how this can be considered to be good for comics in general and Marvel in particular. In fact, it will probably hasten the decline of American comics in favor of edgier manga and graphic novels coming out of Japan (a trend which was already clearly evident even before this latest deal).
They're looking for talented engineers and scientists with LOTS of imagination to take important projects from concept to reality!
and willing to work nearly unlimited hours for less than $35K per year. Yeah right, thanks but no thanks. They say that they want more scientists and engineers, complaining all the while that there aren't enough "qualified American applicants" (while at the same time attending conferences put on by law firms on "how not to hire an American for your H1-B job"), and yet they don't want to actually pay what that would cost.
Another major problem these days is that few companies, if they can possibly help it, want to hire people who have potential but require some training or apprenticeship before they can really be productive. They expect whomever they hire to simply hit the ground running and be up to speed in a couple of weeks. That might work for non-technical and non-scientific office jobs, but in reality almost no scientists and engineers come out of school ready to make serious contributions to the company's bottom line right now. Scientists, engineers and R&D are all longer term investments that require proper care and feeding over a long period of time to really bear fruit. Companies these days don't want to invest in something that could take years to pay off; they are concerned about the next quarter not the next decade (by which time the manager in charge will have long since moved on with his bonus check and another notch in his belt).
"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right".
It means both over at Fox News...
what the fuck else are they supposed to do? Make shit up?
How about they write about things they know or else save their damn ink and write nothing at all. It is not my problem that they cannot be bothered to learn the sort of expert knowledge required to write intelligently about IT. Besides, who wants to read their bullshit trade-rag packed to the gills with advertising and PR "press hits" (i.e. article length stealth ads) masquerading as articles? Not me, thanks.
I wonder if it's because it implies there is no perfect financial solution,
I think that this is necessarily true. People are not perfect and therefore any system created by people for the governance of people is bound to be imperfect. However, I also know that some solutions are more perfect than others and ever bigger government is not my idea of the right direction.
or if it's because it's an argument against defense spending and medicare.
Some spending on defense is unfortunately necessary because, as I stated previously, people are imperfect and the world is full of violent people who will kill you and take your property by force. So some resources must be spent to prevent the barbarians from coming over the proverbial hills seeking loot and pillage. As I have said, I view defense as a very necessary evil because without it nothing else matters because we will all be either dead or enslaved (as recorded history so amply demonstrates). I view health care in general and medicare in particular as a much less defensible (pardon the pun) expenditures of taxes. I would like to see more efficient spending in defense too (I think we spend too much for what we get) and even though that is highly unlikely, hence my original statement concerning government waste, I am not prepared to go the full on anarcho-capitalist route and dispense with centralized government entirely. The only reasonable and feasible course then is minimization and I fail to see how expanding the government massively, as our current President Obama is doing more rapidly than any other president since FDR, will lead us all to a good end.
Trying to eliminate individualism and personal liberty is the mark of authoritarianism, not socialism.
Socialism on any large scale (i.e. a nation) must necessarily involve elimination or at least curtailment of personal liberty by definition because many people would choose not to cooperate if given the choice. If it involves coercion, and socialism always involves coercion at least in some form and to some degree, then it is the opposite of liberty. For a more thorough rebuttal of socialism != liberty might I suggest The Road to Serfdom (dedicated to socialists everywhere) by Frederick Von Hayek? If you still want to defend socialism then fine, but at least be honest and admit the socialism is against freedom (the usual response from socialists is that freedom is not inherently more valuable than other things, a point which I disagree with, but at least an honest, if misguided, position).
Government wastes your money, news at 11. Seriously, what do you expect? Competent government? Next you will be telling me that people want the government to run their health care for them.
One of my projects for a comp sci class in college was a scheduling system, of sorts
I also had to write a scheduling system as part of the intro to software engineering course for my comp sci degree. Of course, being that we were all rank amateurs at the time most of our programs were embarrassingly bad. However, it did serve as a good lesson for us that writing good software is actually difficult and problems that seem simple can actually be quite complex; the devil is in the details as they say. For those of you who didn't have the pleasure of implementing the class or exam scheduling program in your comp sci curriculum, let me just say that scheduling a large number of courses and exams such that as many possible combinations can be selected without conflicts is NOT a simple problem. In fact, the scheduling problem is a variation of the Graph Coloring problem which is known to be NP-Complete. For those who are interested, a discussion of the relationship can be found here.
Credit unions make great financial sense but only the largest ones have the kind of IT and security resources most of us associate with a bank.
And yet smug credit union users always mock those of us who use larger banks for our personal banking because they charge a few bucks more for services. It seems that you really do get what you pay for. How much is security worth? It is worth a few bucks more to me that's for sure.
Even with the original hard drive gone, I still wouldn't use these laptops if I were the governor. Where did they come from and who arranged the shipping? It could be that foreign intelligence agencies (the Chinese in particular) specially crafted these "gifts" and then attempted to ensure that they would fall into the hands of important people within our government. No, these laptops are best turned over to the FBI or the CIA and left unused by their recipients.
And be sure to remember to uncheck that "share your information with third parties" box.
That is why one should never give real information to third parties if it can possibly be avoided; or in other words, never tell the truth to a marketer when a lie will do.
They haven't done anything, except outlawing robocalls from US telemarketers to US residents. One country down, 202 to go.
If it becomes a large enough problem, the US politely reminds the other country that robocalls to US residents are not permitted. If said country continues to flout our rules then well; lets just say that they get the message eventually whether the phone rings or not.
The politicians always exempt themselves from their own pesky rules because, after all, what is good for the average citizen cannot be applied to the political elites. This is one of the major reasons why I find politicians and politics in general and LIBERAL politics and politicians in particular so distasteful. IMHO, everyone would be much happier and better off if they followed a few simple rules: respect your neighbor's property, live within your own means and mind your own damn business. The United States is one of the last mostly free countries on earth and yet the democratic socialists are screwing it up for the next ten generations. If some people want socialism and other such bullshit then they should move to Europe and sign themselves up for crushing taxes, universal health care and small apartment dwellings, but quit trying to force the rest of us live like Europeans...we don't want it damnit.
Let me try to help: .0001% of your hardcore customers find a way around your DRM and you lose a few cents at most.
It only takes one smart horse to open the gate for the rest of herd. This is a primary reason why DRM ultimately fails as an effective deterrent and particularly so in non-US countries where copied music, software, and games are available for $1 a pop from street vendors in the local marketplace (and at flea markets and other transient outdoor venues here in the US for those too lazy or lacking in sophistication to download the materials themselves).