Ummm.. no. Fusion uses hydrogen, we have a nearly unlimited supply in the form of water. It would take us hundreds of thousands of years to lower the ocean b an appreciable precentage.
Very true. The matrix has huge plot holes throughout.. if the goddam AI's have 'some type of fusion' they would have utterly no NEED for the human's as 'batteries.' Fusion, even in the simple form we are devolping today, gives them all the power they could ever need. Since they are obviously a technically advanced race giant solar mirrors in orbit beaming power to the surface would work alss. The power used to keep the humans alive, and maintain the matrix, would exceed what the humans would generate (Young Lady, in this house we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!) It also never quite made sense to me why they even created "the matrix", simply putting russian sleep sets on the people (3 electrodes passing an electric current through your brain - puts you to sleep until it is shut off) would have worked.
The only thing I could think of, and maybe they will address it in these next 2 movies, is that the AI's still have some sort of vestigal programming to the sort of 'never harm humans' or like Asimov's 3 laws of robots and are literally unable to just swear off the human race. Or, they could feel some sort of obligation to their creators, and feel a need to 'take care of them.' Worse crimes in history have been justified by a need to 'protect the race.'
I still love the movie to death though... =)
Re:"Single" user license.
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Is it 5 people can use it simultaneously or just one person can use the software on 5 different machines?
Re:Why China?
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, I was considering the fact that most don't have access to computers yet.
Re:Why China?
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The big question is, of course, why China? Why not make it freely available to any school kid under 18? That would be a huge marketing move
Or why not make it available for free to all US Schools? I imagine because having the entire K-12 system in china run on star office is considered more of a 'coup' than just having it available for free to various US groups (which it really is, in the form of Open Office). It is just great propaganda to use.
Customer: So.. umm who uses this?
SUN: Well nobody really. Except 12 million chinese schoolkids, who will eventually grow up and live in what is become the world's largest economy.
Customer: Righto. Sign me up.
You instantly gain a few million users and spite microsoft in one fell swoop. I imagine MS is now plotting to get back at Star Office someway - most likely by changing MSoffice formats to make them harder to read.
Re:"Next-gen" office from Microsoft, also XML-base
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: 1, Troll
The actual text from the article:
For the next version of Office, the company is considering an optional subscription version tied to Web services based on Extensible Markup Language (XML). Those services, which could include some of the online calendaring and collaboration features envisioned for.Net My Services, would also be available separately for Office copies sold at retail or on new PCs, sources said.
No way in hell that MS would make the office formats XML, instead they are planning on selling a seperate add-on pack that includes Calender + collaboration features based on XML. They are also planning on selling these 'web services' as a subscription plan. The file-save format will not be XML which is what would really be a shock.
On a side note, this is kindof cool. I am half tempted to buy this from Sun - I like Open Office and use it regularly but it would be nice to have some support from sun to back it up. Not that I would probably use it but you never know. I am also wondering if they are going to offer an educational type discount.
I work for a university library and they are considering migrating over to Star Office but... I'm not holding my breath. The users just don't want to 'learn something new' and the tech people don't want to have to train them. Nonetheless with state-wide budget cuts it might become a reality since the current MS contract they have is getting more and more expensive and MS is become more and more annoying. The other day a MS representative was down in the computer offices trying to sell something or another and when he noticed that all the server-side of the library (web site, cataloging, etc) was run on Sun systems or unix boxen he became hostile. 2 weeks later the library got audited by MS. Luckily enough, they had all their shit together and nothing happens but it is this type of behavior that is driving people towards Star Office - as well as the fact that it is an excellent program.
Javascript support is the most glaring issue in opera as far as I am concerned. CSS support continues to improve with every realase (all browsers don't implement/badly implement some parts of CSS).
As for your 'slower than mozzila'.. what are you smoking? I can render 40 pages of slashdot in opera at once in the same time mozilla can render ONE. No browser is faster than opera, though IE is very close at times.
I can't say much about a native FreeBSD version but as for the rendering web sites improperly.. that isn't Opera's fault. Running silicon.com through the W3C's HTML validator brings up around 89 errors. This is not the fault of opera it is the fault of sloppy web design which has become prevalent around the web.
The reson they, probably, ignored your request was the fact that you where lucky it ran at all since Opera supports, and strictly adheres to, the W3C's standards. Sloppy HTMl,XHTML,XML, etc is very prevalent today and only recently have company's begin to insist on error-free code - something the rest of the programming world tries to do but most Web coders ignored for years. If you are going to bring up the "browser-blah renders it fine" argument yes, it will and Opera won't because opera doesn't have the same type of error control built in on purpose. Strict standards and no more unsupported tags (Netscape was famous for this) are a must to have a truly interoperable web.
BTW, i am curious to see what you mean by 'loads of sites.' I use Opera excuslively and haven't had any problems for months. Even silicon.com was usable. make sure Opera is set to identify itself as 'opera' and note MSIE or Netscape - sometimes people use activex controls or other unsupported crap which might be what is causing silicon.com to not work.
You can already see the results of the competition between mozilla and opera with Mozilla introducing Tabbed windows, following Opera's lead. The real 'competive' barrier Opera faces is the fact that it isn't free. 20$ (education) isn't a lot, and I paid it, but so many people are used to free browsers that i don't know if Opera can gain more than a foothold because it costs money. And since it's a small company and not finaced by a huge corporation it can't really afford to make it's browser free, although with the advertising market what it is I can't believe they are making much.
Among the linux browsers I would have to say I prefer Opera better, mostly because of it's speed - better even than IE. Although the super-small d/l size and it's availability across a wide range of platforms is nice also.
In theory, if you are going to use 802.11b on a large scale wouldn't you eventually reach a point where you would 'saturate' the frequency range alotted to this technology? Also, couldn't this cause problems with other electronic devices - if used on a large scale again?
And, last but not least, the damm networks are (usually) insecure as hell - not by nature but by incompetent setup. I remember an article about a bunch of 'hackers' who drove around downtown london's financial distric with a laptop and a wireless card and where ablet o log onto all sorts of networks b/c of lack of security.
You are mostly right - The first pakistani nuclear weapon was a 'gun' type. The key difference between the two is that the implosion bomb is more 'efficent.' It is also extremely hard to design and build.
One of the key problems is getting all the chemical explosives to detonate at precisely the right time. I'm talking within nanoseconds of each other, otherwise you get partial yield. Furthermore, you need to 'shape' the explosives into 'lenses' to focus the detonation wave. Once you do that you MUST insure that the entire thing will collapse as a perfect sphere. Any deviation and you won't get a full yield explosion. One of the critical secrets that Klas Fuchs passed on to the russians was the lense design of the explosives - invented by a Army Seargeant (sp?) whose name escapes me and probably the hardest part of the whole bomb design. Finally, you need a small 'starter' source of nuetrons at the center of the bomb to give off enough nuetrons to cause an explosion at precisely the right time. The whole bomb is constructed like an onion, with the Explosive lenses on the outside, Natural uranium tamper in the next layer, pu239 core, and an 'initator' at the very center.
The 'gun' type of Nuke weapon (little boy) consists of a Cordite explosive at one end followed by a U235 'bullet'. At the end of the cylinder are u235 target rings embeded in a steel tamper. A velocity of 3,000 Feet per second is needed (at least for little boy). When the bullet hits the rings.. bam.
All the above is taken from Richard Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb (pulitzer prize winner). Very interesting - I would recomend reading it if you want to learn more.
If you would read up you would realize they don't work.. at least not very well. Cosmic ray impacts can crash them and they often run into problems. But the biggest problem of them all is the fact that the shuttle has to PASS through the van allen belts - doing that would scramble those laptops (or any other unshielded chip). Solar flares would do the same.
Not just lead, the chips themselves have to be very tolerant of failure. THe 'newest' chip being used on the latest satelites is the 486, because it finally passed the years and years of testing and hardening needed for it to become credible to use. You just don't want to trust 1 billion worth of machine to something that isn't thourghly tested... besides which, the shuttle works fine with 8086, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Not to mention they would have to harden it against EM radiation plus get around the whole lag between the shuttle and the satelite and then quality control the thing to death.
Or, worse yet, some astronaught gets bored and decides to play Tux racer and crashes the whole damm system.
I believe the real reason NASA is looking for 8086 chips and not changing is simple - they work. Why change?
Also, don't forget that in space the chips need to be hardened against EM raditation of all kinds. It is apparently very difficult to do on modern chips, slightly easier on old ones. In the long run (next shuttle) they might use Transmeta but... if it ain't broke don't fix it. A proven technology that works is just fine.
Is it just me or isn't it kindof sad that the damm shuttle can run on a couple (3 actually I think) 8086 put to run fscking win2000 i need about 100x the processing power...
It just depends on where you are. Cox doesn't set a limit on how many people can be on a node so in some places you can get upwards of 50-60 people on a single node. This only happens in a few places in the city (where my friend was) but it is a common problem when you get more than 7-8 people.
I don't really understand why people bother. I have Road Runner (in nebraska) and I can get 255 kbytes/second.. which happens to be faster than a T-1. I guess I just might be lucky in the fact that RR isn't capping me + not many people on my node. I know some people in a neighboring town who use Cox cable and they can barely get 56k sometimes.
You are right though - it just isn't worth losing service over especially if you can't get DSL.
I vaguely remeber but the point is it was nothing more than talk, nor would it ever be anything more than talk.. maybe a few vague threats about foreign aid or something but the general point that clinton probably made was just to do this to be nice and show a good image to the American people so they wouldn't stop buying products, doing business, etc.
What is clear is that the U.S. would never have done anything *real* to stop him from getting punishment. They would only attempt to talk the punishment down.
For one they do business here in the U.S. which makes them liable to comply with all pertinet U.S. Laws and Regulations. This is nothing new - U.S. company's are also held by the laws of foreign governments when they do business there. The classic example I can think of is a few years ago (1998?) compuserve was forced by the German government to filter out some types of websites (nazi, some porn, etc) that it deemed harmful. Now, obviously, that would be in direct conflict with the U.S. 1st ammendment but it was on German soil which means the German government can do whatever they want to a U.S. company and make them obey whatever laws. You can substitute whatever company/country into that situation but the basic premise is the same.
It is also much like the fact that you must, as a U.S. citizen traveling/living/studying/working abroad, obey the laws of the country that you staying in. Remember 5 or so years back when those 2 american teenagers where flogged in Singapore (truly a happy place to live...) for grafiti and people raised such an uproar? Well the U.S. government didn't do anything - it was quite legal and proper for Singapore to enforce it laws upon them.
Well, from cmdr taco's own comment we can figure slashdot get 1 million unique visitors a day. Ok then. Say, 50 % are actually at work and at the correct time, 500,000 unique visitors. Assume they only visit slashdot ONCE during their daily job for 15 minutes. You get 500,000 x 15 = 7,500,000 minutes of lost productivity per day.
Hmm, figure average wage of U.S. worker to be 35,000$/year (roughly) that is, 20$/hour. OK then, so 7,500,000 minutes = 125,000 hours x 20$/hour = 2.5 million dollars/per day.
Extrapolating for a work year (roughly 270 work days in a year) = 675 million dollars in a year due to slashdot and lost productivity.
Hmmm. I'm probably wrong, for one thing not everybody spends 15 minutes a day on slashdot, not everyone looks every day, not everybody does it works, not everybody makes 20$/hour so that number is prolly too high.
But even if you figure it is DOUBLE or TRIPLE what the real number is.. wow.. even if it is QUADRUPLE that means that the real number would be 168,750,000 million. Not quite Star Wars but close..
It would be inane of them to destroy mozilla considering it costs them very little for the benefit they get out of it. Considering that *Alot of the development is carried out for free and they have little overhead - some yes, from developers who work on project/netscape + cost of bandwith and etc, but all-in-all it is probably very cheap to run.
The benefits are simple: don't have to pay to license IE for every single AOL/Compusever/whathaveyou install. Plus the possibility of actually developing a competive product is probably high and the desire to not become a Slave of MSIE is also, I'm sure, a good motive.
Of course corporate america offen does totaly asi9 things that boggle the mind but this would be an all time f*ck up.
Hot damm. You are right. That is a perfect reason why people don't want to buy 17$ cd's and perfer to burn them - they lose nothing. If they would start doing cool stuff like that again.. neat. I wonder if the piracy rates for things like Box Sets are any different than for regular CD's?
I don't know why i am replying to a troll but.. oh well.
I don't care about the Bias. That is why I come here as a matter of fact. What I care about is a somewhat professional job by the editors.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm.. no. Fusion uses hydrogen, we have a nearly unlimited supply in the form of water. It would take us hundreds of thousands of years to lower the ocean b an appreciable precentage.
Very true. The matrix has huge plot holes throughout.. if the goddam AI's have 'some type of fusion' they would have utterly no NEED for the human's as 'batteries.' Fusion, even in the simple form we are devolping today, gives them all the power they could ever need. Since they are obviously a technically advanced race giant solar mirrors in orbit beaming power to the surface would work alss. The power used to keep the humans alive, and maintain the matrix, would exceed what the humans would generate (Young Lady, in this house we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!) It also never quite made sense to me why they even created "the matrix", simply putting russian sleep sets on the people (3 electrodes passing an electric current through your brain - puts you to sleep until it is shut off) would have worked.
The only thing I could think of, and maybe they will address it in these next 2 movies, is that the AI's still have some sort of vestigal programming to the sort of 'never harm humans' or like Asimov's 3 laws of robots and are literally unable to just swear off the human race. Or, they could feel some sort of obligation to their creators, and feel a need to 'take care of them.' Worse crimes in history have been justified by a need to 'protect the race.'
I still love the movie to death though... =)
Is it 5 people can use it simultaneously or just one person can use the software on 5 different machines?
Yes, I was considering the fact that most don't have access to computers yet.
The big question is, of course, why China? Why not make it freely available to any school kid under 18? That would be a huge marketing move
Or why not make it available for free to all US Schools? I imagine because having the entire K-12 system in china run on star office is considered more of a 'coup' than just having it available for free to various US groups (which it really is, in the form of Open Office). It is just great propaganda to use.
Customer: So.. umm who uses this?
SUN: Well nobody really. Except 12 million chinese schoolkids, who will eventually grow up and live in what is become the world's largest economy.
Customer: Righto. Sign me up.
You instantly gain a few million users and spite microsoft in one fell swoop. I imagine MS is now plotting to get back at Star Office someway - most likely by changing MSoffice formats to make them harder to read.
The actual text from the article:
.Net My Services, would also be available separately for Office copies sold at retail or on new PCs, sources said.
For the next version of Office, the company is considering an optional subscription version tied to Web services based on Extensible Markup Language (XML). Those services, which could include some of the online calendaring and collaboration features envisioned for
No way in hell that MS would make the office formats XML, instead they are planning on selling a seperate add-on pack that includes Calender + collaboration features based on XML. They are also planning on selling these 'web services' as a subscription plan. The file-save format will not be XML which is what would really be a shock.
On a side note, this is kindof cool. I am half tempted to buy this from Sun - I like Open Office and use it regularly but it would be nice to have some support from sun to back it up. Not that I would probably use it but you never know. I am also wondering if they are going to offer an educational type discount.
I work for a university library and they are considering migrating over to Star Office but... I'm not holding my breath. The users just don't want to 'learn something new' and the tech people don't want to have to train them. Nonetheless with state-wide budget cuts it might become a reality since the current MS contract they have is getting more and more expensive and MS is become more and more annoying. The other day a MS representative was down in the computer offices trying to sell something or another and when he noticed that all the server-side of the library (web site, cataloging, etc) was run on Sun systems or unix boxen he became hostile. 2 weeks later the library got audited by MS. Luckily enough, they had all their shit together and nothing happens but it is this type of behavior that is driving people towards Star Office - as well as the fact that it is an excellent program.
Javascript support is the most glaring issue in opera as far as I am concerned. CSS support continues to improve with every realase (all browsers don't implement/badly implement some parts of CSS).
As for your 'slower than mozzila'.. what are you smoking? I can render 40 pages of slashdot in opera at once in the same time mozilla can render ONE. No browser is faster than opera, though IE is very close at times.
I can't say much about a native FreeBSD version but as for the rendering web sites improperly.. that isn't Opera's fault. Running silicon.com through the W3C's HTML validator brings up around 89 errors. This is not the fault of opera it is the fault of sloppy web design which has become prevalent around the web.
The reson they, probably, ignored your request was the fact that you where lucky it ran at all since Opera supports, and strictly adheres to, the W3C's standards. Sloppy HTMl,XHTML,XML, etc is very prevalent today and only recently have company's begin to insist on error-free code - something the rest of the programming world tries to do but most Web coders ignored for years. If you are going to bring up the "browser-blah renders it fine" argument yes, it will and Opera won't because opera doesn't have the same type of error control built in on purpose. Strict standards and no more unsupported tags (Netscape was famous for this) are a must to have a truly interoperable web.
BTW, i am curious to see what you mean by 'loads of sites.' I use Opera excuslively and haven't had any problems for months. Even silicon.com was usable. make sure Opera is set to identify itself as 'opera' and note MSIE or Netscape - sometimes people use activex controls or other unsupported crap which might be what is causing silicon.com to not work.
You can already see the results of the competition between mozilla and opera with Mozilla introducing Tabbed windows, following Opera's lead. The real 'competive' barrier Opera faces is the fact that it isn't free. 20$ (education) isn't a lot, and I paid it, but so many people are used to free browsers that i don't know if Opera can gain more than a foothold because it costs money. And since it's a small company and not finaced by a huge corporation it can't really afford to make it's browser free, although with the advertising market what it is I can't believe they are making much.
Among the linux browsers I would have to say I prefer Opera better, mostly because of it's speed - better even than IE. Although the super-small d/l size and it's availability across a wide range of platforms is nice also.
Holy crap, the world is offically ending. A sports post got modded up..
In theory, if you are going to use 802.11b on a large scale wouldn't you eventually reach a point where you would 'saturate' the frequency range alotted to this technology? Also, couldn't this cause problems with other electronic devices - if used on a large scale again?
And, last but not least, the damm networks are (usually) insecure as hell - not by nature but by incompetent setup. I remember an article about a bunch of 'hackers' who drove around downtown london's financial distric with a laptop and a wireless card and where ablet o log onto all sorts of networks b/c of lack of security.
You are mostly right - The first pakistani nuclear weapon was a 'gun' type. The key difference between the two is that the implosion bomb is more 'efficent.' It is also extremely hard to design and build.
One of the key problems is getting all the chemical explosives to detonate at precisely the right time. I'm talking within nanoseconds of each other, otherwise you get partial yield. Furthermore, you need to 'shape' the explosives into 'lenses' to focus the detonation wave. Once you do that you MUST insure that the entire thing will collapse as a perfect sphere. Any deviation and you won't get a full yield explosion. One of the critical secrets that Klas Fuchs passed on to the russians was the lense design of the explosives - invented by a Army Seargeant (sp?) whose name escapes me and probably the hardest part of the whole bomb design. Finally, you need a small 'starter' source of nuetrons at the center of the bomb to give off enough nuetrons to cause an explosion at precisely the right time. The whole bomb is constructed like an onion, with the Explosive lenses on the outside, Natural uranium tamper in the next layer, pu239 core, and an 'initator' at the very center.
The 'gun' type of Nuke weapon (little boy) consists of a Cordite explosive at one end followed by a U235 'bullet'. At the end of the cylinder are u235 target rings embeded in a steel tamper. A velocity of 3,000 Feet per second is needed (at least for little boy). When the bullet hits the rings.. bam.
All the above is taken from Richard Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb (pulitzer prize winner). Very interesting - I would recomend reading it if you want to learn more.
If you would read up you would realize they don't work.. at least not very well. Cosmic ray impacts can crash them and they often run into problems. But the biggest problem of them all is the fact that the shuttle has to PASS through the van allen belts - doing that would scramble those laptops (or any other unshielded chip). Solar flares would do the same.
Not just lead, the chips themselves have to be very tolerant of failure. THe 'newest' chip being used on the latest satelites is the 486, because it finally passed the years and years of testing and hardening needed for it to become credible to use. You just don't want to trust 1 billion worth of machine to something that isn't thourghly tested... besides which, the shuttle works fine with 8086, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Not to mention they would have to harden it against EM radiation plus get around the whole lag between the shuttle and the satelite and then quality control the thing to death.
Or, worse yet, some astronaught gets bored and decides to play Tux racer and crashes the whole damm system.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I believe the real reason NASA is looking for 8086 chips and not changing is simple - they work. Why change?
Also, don't forget that in space the chips need to be hardened against EM raditation of all kinds. It is apparently very difficult to do on modern chips, slightly easier on old ones. In the long run (next shuttle) they might use Transmeta but... if it ain't broke don't fix it. A proven technology that works is just fine.
Is it just me or isn't it kindof sad that the damm shuttle can run on a couple (3 actually I think) 8086 put to run fscking win2000 i need about 100x the processing power...
It just depends on where you are. Cox doesn't set a limit on how many people can be on a node so in some places you can get upwards of 50-60 people on a single node. This only happens in a few places in the city (where my friend was) but it is a common problem when you get more than 7-8 people.
That's odd. I can get 60kbytes/sec U/L also.
I don't really understand why people bother. I have Road Runner (in nebraska) and I can get 255 kbytes/second.. which happens to be faster than a T-1. I guess I just might be lucky in the fact that RR isn't capping me + not many people on my node. I know some people in a neighboring town who use Cox cable and they can barely get 56k sometimes.
You are right though - it just isn't worth losing service over especially if you can't get DSL.
As long as you are the first one to do it & it is fairly original.. yeah it will be art.
I'm in the wrong business.
I vaguely remeber but the point is it was nothing more than talk, nor would it ever be anything more than talk.. maybe a few vague threats about foreign aid or something but the general point that clinton probably made was just to do this to be nice and show a good image to the American people so they wouldn't stop buying products, doing business, etc.
What is clear is that the U.S. would never have done anything *real* to stop him from getting punishment. They would only attempt to talk the punishment down.
For one they do business here in the U.S. which makes them liable to comply with all pertinet U.S. Laws and Regulations. This is nothing new - U.S. company's are also held by the laws of foreign governments when they do business there. The classic example I can think of is a few years ago (1998?) compuserve was forced by the German government to filter out some types of websites (nazi, some porn, etc) that it deemed harmful. Now, obviously, that would be in direct conflict with the U.S. 1st ammendment but it was on German soil which means the German government can do whatever they want to a U.S. company and make them obey whatever laws. You can substitute whatever company/country into that situation but the basic premise is the same.
It is also much like the fact that you must, as a U.S. citizen traveling/living/studying/working abroad, obey the laws of the country that you staying in. Remember 5 or so years back when those 2 american teenagers where flogged in Singapore (truly a happy place to live...) for grafiti and people raised such an uproar? Well the U.S. government didn't do anything - it was quite legal and proper for Singapore to enforce it laws upon them.
Well, from cmdr taco's own comment we can figure slashdot get 1 million unique visitors a day. Ok then. Say, 50 % are actually at work and at the correct time, 500,000 unique visitors. Assume they only visit slashdot ONCE during their daily job for 15 minutes. You get 500,000 x 15 = 7,500,000 minutes of lost productivity per day.
Hmm, figure average wage of U.S. worker to be 35,000$/year (roughly) that is, 20$/hour. OK then, so 7,500,000 minutes = 125,000 hours x 20$/hour = 2.5 million dollars/per day.
Extrapolating for a work year (roughly 270 work days in a year) = 675 million dollars in a year due to slashdot and lost productivity.
Hmmm. I'm probably wrong, for one thing not everybody spends 15 minutes a day on slashdot, not everyone looks every day, not everybody does it works, not everybody makes 20$/hour so that number is prolly too high.
But even if you figure it is DOUBLE or TRIPLE what the real number is.. wow.. even if it is QUADRUPLE that means that the real number would be 168,750,000 million. Not quite Star Wars but close..
It would be inane of them to destroy mozilla considering it costs them very little for the benefit they get out of it. Considering that *Alot of the development is carried out for free and they have little overhead - some yes, from developers who work on project/netscape + cost of bandwith and etc, but all-in-all it is probably very cheap to run.
The benefits are simple: don't have to pay to license IE for every single AOL/Compusever/whathaveyou install. Plus the possibility of actually developing a competive product is probably high and the desire to not become a Slave of MSIE is also, I'm sure, a good motive.
Of course corporate america offen does totaly asi9 things that boggle the mind but this would be an all time f*ck up.
Hot damm. You are right. That is a perfect reason why people don't want to buy 17$ cd's and perfer to burn them - they lose nothing. If they would start doing cool stuff like that again.. neat. I wonder if the piracy rates for things like Box Sets are any different than for regular CD's?
I don't know why i am replying to a troll but.. oh well. I don't care about the Bias. That is why I come here as a matter of fact. What I care about is a somewhat professional job by the editors.