Why use Ham radio when you can have SPAM radio! It's the radio that comes in a can to protect from the worst weather conditions.
Not only will Spam Radio keep you updated on the latest conditions in Nigeria, you will also learn how you can take advantage of offers that will let you achieve, erm, "personal growth", (wink wink, nudge nudge)
But you are right, a salary goes a lot farther when you don't have to buy health insurance.
But you still pay for it out of taxes. I was in Ontario last week, and the tax burden appears significantly higher than the US, I don't think you'll actually find not paying for insurance to be a bargain, because you'll pay in other ways.
Although the real estate prices around Toronto were tempting, I figure I could sell my over-priced (Boston area) house, and given the exchange rate, with the proceeds, buy a probably nicer house/condo near Toronto and live mortgage-free or close to it.
In your example, there's no reason to suggest aliens either - as you say yourself
Right, I only mention aliens because they are popularly associated with UFOs
As many have said, there's a difference between mocking the observer to be a "crackpot", and mocking those people who make up wild theories to explain what the observer saw.
Sure, there are plenty of crackpots, I'll be the first to admit that. Beware of any area where one person seems to be the "expert", I.E. Budd Hopkins and Alien Abductions.
But beyond that there are some really mysterious things that need serious investigation, but scientists generally don't want to be associated with the crackpots, so they tend avoid these areas. And that's what makes it frustrating. Two middle-aged women and a young boy who aren't trained scientists aren't likely to be able to provide the kind of proof themselves that some of these skeptics say they demand. But on the other hand because they don't have that proof does that mean what they say happened didn't?
Given the way royalties are paid, I'll bet $100 or less of that $2000 actually goes to the artists. Who determines which artists get settlement money anyway? Is it divided among every possible artist? According to sales? What are the chances that the "Artists She Loves" ever see a dime of this?
For example, suppose I leave a bike outside my house, and find next morning it has disappeared. Various possibilities might include that it has been stolen by a human, or that it has been stolen by a passing alien.
The problem with this example is that there is no reason at all to assume that it has been taken by a passing alien. It's just a wild theory.
To use an actual UFO case to demonstrate how these "Skeptics" function, Cash-Landrum, Texas, 1980. Two woman and a boy are driving home at night, they see a glowing UFO land in front of them on the road. They get out of the car for a closer look, get scared, get back in the car (car is very hot. UFO is chased away by a number of double-rotor (Chinook) helicoptors. Independant witnesses claim to have seen helicoptors and/or UFO fly over.
After the incident the three start having medical symptoms resembling some kind of radiation poisoning, although no-one can seem to agree on exactly what type of radiation. All three suffered these symptoms for the rest of their lives, especially the woman who was closest to the alleged UFO. The two woman are deeply religious and claim not to believe in extraterrestrials. During the encounter, they stated that they thought it was Judgement Day. Afterwards they thought it was some kind of government craft.
Now, the undisputable facts in this case is that these people suffered terribly from some event. If they are lying, why should they when if they told the truth about it, at least they could hope to sue those responsible for compensation? Also, since nobody can even agree on the type of radiation they were exposed to, there haven't been any good alternate explanations.
So what is the Skeptics response? (When I say Skeptic with a capital S, I mean the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" crowd, the Randis and Phil Klasses of the world)
Well first off, Skeptics like to avoid this case, probably because it doesn't help their cause. Of the ones who did bite, here are some of their explanations:
They saw a street sign
Well the road was conveniently blacktopped shortly after the supposed event so as to hide the lack of evidence
There weren't enough independant witnesses who report seeing/hearing the helicoptors, those Chinhooks are noisy. ( I didn't know you were supposed to report helicoptor sightings, besides this area is near military installations, so helicoptors may not be so unusual, also the area was remote)
Character assassinations on the witnesses (a favorite weapon when you've got nothing else). That still doesn't explain the symptoms away
So what happened? Secret Military project? Alien Craft? Something else completely? It never happened? I have no idea, but I would like to know.
So why aren't the Skeptics interested? Why do they ignore cases like this and continue to spout off about "lack of evidence"? Maybe they are not really skeptics at all, They're just against the possibility of anything paranormal for whatever their reason.
Now, there may be some evidence after all that which is still remaining, and requires further investigation - but I don't believe that a large amount of vague "evidence" points towards anything simply because there's a lot of it.
You're right, It doesn't prove anything, but when you have lots of independant reports of a certain type of phenomena, a true "open minded" skeptic should say, well maybe there's something going on here that merits some investigation, knowing you probably will encounter hoaxes and crackpots along the way. Maybe at the bottom, there will be nothing to it, or maybe once you get past the 95% frauds and misidentifications, you find that the other 5% is a real phenomenon.
My problem is with a lot of the the so-called Skeptics (Randi being the most famous of this type) who have the view "All paranormal claims are bunk, so they are not worth investigating, we don't have to prove it, we just know they are. You have to prove it to us. And it is impossible to prove it to them because, unless you bring an actual ghost or flying disc to Randi, they won't believe your evidence if they can fake similar evidence themselves. They don't accept anything less than absolute proof.
I just find that particular approach incredibly closed-minded and intellectually dishonest. But it seems to have quite a following here on./
People also have a habit of spotting patterns in events when they don't exist, by ignoring cases that don't fit (I remember a programme interviewing a few people who'd experienced sleep paralysis, and claiming that everyone had the same visions of being visited by a figure, so therefore something paranormal is going on - this was a complete lie
Yes, there is some really horrible research and reporting on both sides of this argument. I've learned that it's a good idea to further research any reports like this that you see on TV. Sometimes you find that it's actually been adequately explained, and the producers of the TV show "forgot" to mention that. Sometimes you find that the thing in question still remains unexplained.
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries that could immediately be followed up on, he said,
I will happily pay SCO $699 for a copy of the list of THOSE 300 customers! Seems like a good investment;-)
No, he'd just be aware that under the `rules` of Science, it's up to the people making these kooky claims to come up with some evidence.
Any evidence is never good enough for the skeptics (because it's fakeable), they want proof that's beyond the ability of the claimant to produce
Plus, skeptics have a proven track record for reproducing kooks claims using trickeryM
Your helping my point. Just because you can make a ghost using mirrors, dry ice, and a projector doesn't prove that ALL ghosts are this way even if there are some obvious frauds. All it PROVES is that you can do a neat parlor trick.
Does the fact that someone claims that we never went to the moon, and instead faked the whole thing PROVE we never went there? Is NASA forced to prove under the rules of science that we did? After all, all they have is a couple of moon rocks to show for it, and some footage (fakeable), testimony of the astronauts (could be lies or even manipulated).
By the "skeptics" logic, we'd have to conclude that the moon landings never happened because that's quite an extraordinary claim, and given the expense and the political climate (Cold War) at the time, it's likely there was good reason to fake it. And it's dubious that all of the evidence in favor of a real moon landing comes from NASA!
For the record, I personally believe we did go to the moon, but I'm trying to illustrate the problems with the reasoning of skeptics like Randi.
Are there cases where anything vaguely paranormal has been studied and backed up with evidence?
Yes there are. For instance the "giant squid" was long thought to be a myth, but they have been found in the past couple of years. There are studies that suggest prayer and meditation have positive effects. The Will O' the Wisp may have been swamp gas. etc.
But the skeptics tend dismiss any evidence for paranormal activity. Blurry UFO photo? Must be a hoax because the photographer blurred the picture to cover-up the hoax. Clear UFO photo? obviously must be a hoax because it's too good. Or "We faked a UFO picture that looks just like yours, so yours must be fake as well. It doesn't matter that there are tons of pictures, videos, physical evidence (burned ground), radiation burns on victims, radar trackings, etc. The skeptics are right in saying that none of these is conclusive evidence, but collectively it should be considered noteworthy circumstantial evidence, and not automatically dismissed out of hand. What sort of evidence, short of a captured UFO, could conclusively prove some UFOs are a previously unknown phenomena? In the skeptics eyes, nothing, since just about anything could be faked, and therefore (according to them), the whole phenomena is not even worth investigating.
Skeptics insist on using the scientific method to learn anything, yet any discovery that MIGHT explain off a bunch of paranormal activity is embraced wholeheartedly and without extensive investigation. "This haunted house was caused by a low notes on a pipe organ, so obviously they all must be, we don't need to investigate because we KNOW its bunk".
It's like travelling to one different solar system, finding no planets in it capable of supporting life, and saying "See, there's no intelligent life out there."
Two old guys in England CLAIM they did the crop circles.. Aha! Now we know that all of the thousands of crop circles the world were hoaxed by these two guys! (mind you the elaborate circles that appear in southern England are probably hoaxed, but relying on the questionable claims of two guys is hardly the scientific method)
Swamp gas and ball lightning are two favorite explainations of UFOs. Ball lightning in particular is not well understood. Scientists has unsuccessfully tried to produce it for years. I guess some skeptics feal more comfortable with one unknown (Ball Lightning) than another (intelligently controlled unknown objects).
Many people who call themselves skeptics are not true skeptics. A true skeptic would be truly objective when investigating paranormal claims. They would keep an open mind that it could be something truly paranormal at work, but at the same time know that the chances are against it, not immediately rule out a paranormal explaination, just because "I know better". The latter is simply intellectual dishonesty. It's the same type of behavior that was the root of the Inquisition, persecuting those whose ideas don't conform to the accepted norm. In this case it's a scientific norm rather than a religious one, but it can be equally disasterous.
Sure there is a lot of bunk out there. Maybe there is one planet in a million that can support life, either way, you're not going to find out unless you keep looking.
The problem is there will always be some percentage of children who suffer some developmental problems or lack of restraint and are easily influenced. They become obsessed with Judas Priest Lyrics/MTV's Jackass/Violent Video Games/Dungeons and Dragons/Movies or whatever. They apparently can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. They act on their fantasy, do something incredibly stupid. Sometimes they only hurt themselves, sometimes innocent victims get killed.
When it happens people everyone looks for an easy culprit... guns... movies... music... parents... etc.
Is there really anything we should do to prevent these kinds of things? Is there anything we can do? There aren't easy answers to these questions.
A lot of games/movies/music, etc are too violent, too explicit. A lot of it has questionable social value, but how do we draw the line.
A successful lawsuit here might cause game publishers to tone down the violence, and that might not be a bad thing... at first, but how long until people sue claiming Pacman made them eat everything in sight, causing them to become obese?
I guess I'm just saying that we shouldn't just look for the easy answer that coincides with your own political viewpoint, we need to really investigate these kids, the Columbine killers, all the kids who imitate Jackass, and maybe we'll learn some things that might help is intervene before the next one happens.
The risk is not pushed onto the band because they can declare bankruptcy, and the label is stuck with the bill.
For a failure, but if the band is successful, they pay back all of your marketing and development costs before you gain royalties. You can have the number 1 song and album in the country and still be broke. Effectively, the artist has been charged the cost of taking the risk, but they still get the smallest slice of the pie.
If a VC invests in your startup, he gets stock in exchange. If your company is successful, he doesn't deduct his investment from your paycheck. He either sells his share, or holds his stock and receives his share of dividends (if any)
If it's such a great opportunity, why are they complaining after the fact. It's they're own fault if they sign a bad deal
Because when you're 19, you want to be like those people you see on MTV, who show you how great their life is, how big their "Crib" is, etc. They never talk about how they're getting screwed (on camera anyway). Getting a recording contract is their ticket to that lifestyle (or so they've been lead to believe).
They had product activation and some other spyware. I guess you could call it a form of DRM. It greatly annoyed the customers.
While the average user is ignorant of what a BIOS is, they will understand the result. Like I said, they'll most likely take it out on the OEM that uses the BIOS with the features enabled i.e. "Don't buy Sony PCs, they limit how you can install your software, and if you have them, the RIAA can track you. (or however nasty way the DRM manifests itself)" Sony's sales will drop while another company who doesn't use the DRM feature may see sales increase.
DRM, and product activations are just another form of copy protection. I don't think there's ever been a successful copy protection scheme, they either get compromised, or there's a successful customer rebellion against it.
I've never seen a coffee maker with a temperature control. The water needs to be a certain temperature to brew properly. Also, in the morning, coffee in commercial establishments usually doesn't sit in the pot long enough to cool down.
Also health departments often mandate that foods be at least a certain temperature (160 farenheit, I think) for safety reasons, when they come in for inspection, and take the temperature, if it's too low, you CAN get shut down. I don't know if this applies to coffee, though.
I don't know all the specifics in the McDonald case, but from what I do know of the food industry, if there's any liability, it should be against some combination of the coffee machine maker, health department, and/or cup/lid maker rather than McDonalds. But I'm not surprised because I know the deepest pockets are the ones usually targetted for liability rather than the true culprits.
Don't be so sure.. When Intuit introduced DRM technologies into Turbotax this year, there was a huge backlash, forcing them to rethink their policy and promise not to do it again next year.
There was also a huge backlash against the Intel CPU ID, which is why that became optional.
Phoenix is not the only PC bios maker, there are alternatives. Also Phoenix seems to mostly show up in the big name PCs, rather than the DIY type, so any consumer backlash would like take Aim at any PC OEM that enables this feature, and give sales to another company that doesn't. Companies who enable this feature will likely quickly have a change of heart.
- the feeling of 'never stepping in the same stream twice' -- go see artist X every year for 5 years, and each performance of any given song will 1) be different than the CD version, 2) be different than the previous year, 3) be different than the previous night!
Right, at one concert, the vocals will be mixed so low that you can't hear them, and the next time it will be so loud that everything sounds like mud.
- hearing unscripted improvisation between artists -- many musicians claim that the set they're most proud of playing was NOT the one recorded in the studio for the CD
I always seem to here the same "unscripted improvisations" every night;-)
- to experience the artist -- 16 bit stereo samples @ 44.1kHz captures audio quite well -- but it doesn't capture dance, facial expressions, stage antics, synchronized light/lasers/visual effects, costumes, etc.
The other thing 16-bit samples can't capture real well are the crowd of sweaty people around you, jumping, screaming and singing along badly, ruining the music, nor can it digitize the smell of second-hand pot.;-)
Quotes from the article:
"The consumer has spoken to us that music -- in the research that we've done -- has been fairly high-priced and, therefore, they've been feeling fairly guilt-free about procuring music for free," Randy Lennox, CEO of Universal Music Canada, said Wednesday."All of our research says even the guys that were taking it for free are saying, 'You know what? For 99 cents a song, I'm in. At least the record companies aren't gouging me here,'" Mr. Lennox said.
Wow! The Canadian music industry seems to speak an entirely different language than the RIAA.
Have you been to an "outside the mall" store lately?
At Newbury Comics in the Boston area, three years ago, I was paying about $12 for most CDs, then it went to $15 when the record companies rasied prices back then.
When I went this week, most prices were around $18! And they wonder why sales are falling drastically?!? I shudder to think what the mall stores charge these days!
What Love fails to consider is how often a label advances a band $1 and presses cds for $500K, and doesn't get any of that money back because the band flopped.
Yes, but when a CD is hugely successful, who reaps most of the profits, the band, or everyone else? (Hint, it's not the band). Who ends up paying for producing the CDs, marketing, promotion, expensive videos that MTV never plays and everything else? It gets recouped from the band before they see their royalties.
The risk costs is pushed onto the band, but the record co reaps most of the reward.
I'm not shedding any tears for artists. They signed the contracts of their own free will.
You could argue that, but unfortunately in most cases the recording contract is the ultimate prize, and it's an opportunity that doesn't come along everyday, so most of them will eagerly sign the contract. If they say no, they may never get another chance.
It probably has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of the Canadian population is concentrated in the south, so it's easier to connect everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use Ham radio when you can have SPAM radio! It's the radio that comes in a can to protect from the worst weather conditions.
Not only will Spam Radio keep you updated on the latest conditions in Nigeria, you will also learn how you can take advantage of offers that will let you achieve, erm, "personal growth", (wink wink, nudge nudge)
But you still pay for it out of taxes. I was in Ontario last week, and the tax burden appears significantly higher than the US, I don't think you'll actually find not paying for insurance to be a bargain, because you'll pay in other ways.
Although the real estate prices around Toronto were tempting, I figure I could sell my over-priced (Boston area) house, and given the exchange rate, with the proceeds, buy a probably nicer house/condo near Toronto and live mortgage-free or close to it.
Right, I only mention aliens because they are popularly associated with UFOs
As many have said, there's a difference between mocking the observer to be a "crackpot", and mocking those people who make up wild theories to explain what the observer saw.Sure, there are plenty of crackpots, I'll be the first to admit that. Beware of any area where one person seems to be the "expert", I.E. Budd Hopkins and Alien Abductions.
But beyond that there are some really mysterious things that need serious investigation, but scientists generally don't want to be associated with the crackpots, so they tend avoid these areas. And that's what makes it frustrating. Two middle-aged women and a young boy who aren't trained scientists aren't likely to be able to provide the kind of proof themselves that some of these skeptics say they demand. But on the other hand because they don't have that proof does that mean what they say happened didn't?
Given the way royalties are paid, I'll bet $100 or less of that $2000 actually goes to the artists. Who determines which artists get settlement money anyway? Is it divided among every possible artist? According to sales? What are the chances that the "Artists She Loves" ever see a dime of this?
The problem with this example is that there is no reason at all to assume that it has been taken by a passing alien. It's just a wild theory.
To use an actual UFO case to demonstrate how these "Skeptics" function, Cash-Landrum, Texas, 1980. Two woman and a boy are driving home at night, they see a glowing UFO land in front of them on the road. They get out of the car for a closer look, get scared, get back in the car (car is very hot. UFO is chased away by a number of double-rotor (Chinook) helicoptors. Independant witnesses claim to have seen helicoptors and/or UFO fly over.
After the incident the three start having medical symptoms resembling some kind of radiation poisoning, although no-one can seem to agree on exactly what type of radiation. All three suffered these symptoms for the rest of their lives, especially the woman who was closest to the alleged UFO. The two woman are deeply religious and claim not to believe in extraterrestrials. During the encounter, they stated that they thought it was Judgement Day. Afterwards they thought it was some kind of government craft.
Now, the undisputable facts in this case is that these people suffered terribly from some event. If they are lying, why should they when if they told the truth about it, at least they could hope to sue those responsible for compensation? Also, since nobody can even agree on the type of radiation they were exposed to, there haven't been any good alternate explanations.
So what is the Skeptics response? (When I say Skeptic with a capital S, I mean the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" crowd, the Randis and Phil Klasses of the world)
Well first off, Skeptics like to avoid this case, probably because it doesn't help their cause. Of the ones who did bite, here are some of their explanations:
So what happened? Secret Military project? Alien Craft? Something else completely? It never happened? I have no idea, but I would like to know.
So why aren't the Skeptics interested? Why do they ignore cases like this and continue to spout off about "lack of evidence"? Maybe they are not really skeptics at all, They're just against the possibility of anything paranormal for whatever their reason.
25. All documents concerning purchases of the substance known as "crack", by plantiff's employees.
I downloaded an album called "Selections from the Linux kernel source code, set to music, with contributions from IBM"
I'm starting to feel guilty about doing this, and want to fess up, How much do I owe?
You're right, It doesn't prove anything, but when you have lots of independant reports of a certain type of phenomena, a true "open minded" skeptic should say, well maybe there's something going on here that merits some investigation, knowing you probably will encounter hoaxes and crackpots along the way. Maybe at the bottom, there will be nothing to it, or maybe once you get past the 95% frauds and misidentifications, you find that the other 5% is a real phenomenon.
My problem is with a lot of the the so-called Skeptics (Randi being the most famous of this type) who have the view "All paranormal claims are bunk, so they are not worth investigating, we don't have to prove it, we just know they are. You have to prove it to us. And it is impossible to prove it to them because, unless you bring an actual ghost or flying disc to Randi, they won't believe your evidence if they can fake similar evidence themselves. They don't accept anything less than absolute proof.
I just find that particular approach incredibly closed-minded and intellectually dishonest. But it seems to have quite a following here on ./
People also have a habit of spotting patterns in events when they don't exist, by ignoring cases that don't fit (I remember a programme interviewing a few people who'd experienced sleep paralysis, and claiming that everyone had the same visions of being visited by a figure, so therefore something paranormal is going on - this was a complete lieYes, there is some really horrible research and reporting on both sides of this argument. I've learned that it's a good idea to further research any reports like this that you see on TV. Sometimes you find that it's actually been adequately explained, and the producers of the TV show "forgot" to mention that. Sometimes you find that the thing in question still remains unexplained.
I will happily pay SCO $699 for a copy of the list of THOSE 300 customers! Seems like a good investment ;-)
Any evidence is never good enough for the skeptics (because it's fakeable), they want proof that's beyond the ability of the claimant to produce
Plus, skeptics have a proven track record for reproducing kooks claims using trickeryMYour helping my point. Just because you can make a ghost using mirrors, dry ice, and a projector doesn't prove that ALL ghosts are this way even if there are some obvious frauds. All it PROVES is that you can do a neat parlor trick.
Does the fact that someone claims that we never went to the moon, and instead faked the whole thing PROVE we never went there? Is NASA forced to prove under the rules of science that we did? After all, all they have is a couple of moon rocks to show for it, and some footage (fakeable), testimony of the astronauts (could be lies or even manipulated).
By the "skeptics" logic, we'd have to conclude that the moon landings never happened because that's quite an extraordinary claim, and given the expense and the political climate (Cold War) at the time, it's likely there was good reason to fake it. And it's dubious that all of the evidence in favor of a real moon landing comes from NASA!
For the record, I personally believe we did go to the moon, but I'm trying to illustrate the problems with the reasoning of skeptics like Randi.
Yes there are. For instance the "giant squid" was long thought to be a myth, but they have been found in the past couple of years. There are studies that suggest prayer and meditation have positive effects. The Will O' the Wisp may have been swamp gas. etc.
But the skeptics tend dismiss any evidence for paranormal activity. Blurry UFO photo? Must be a hoax because the photographer blurred the picture to cover-up the hoax. Clear UFO photo? obviously must be a hoax because it's too good. Or "We faked a UFO picture that looks just like yours, so yours must be fake as well. It doesn't matter that there are tons of pictures, videos, physical evidence (burned ground), radiation burns on victims, radar trackings, etc. The skeptics are right in saying that none of these is conclusive evidence, but collectively it should be considered noteworthy circumstantial evidence, and not automatically dismissed out of hand. What sort of evidence, short of a captured UFO, could conclusively prove some UFOs are a previously unknown phenomena? In the skeptics eyes, nothing, since just about anything could be faked, and therefore (according to them), the whole phenomena is not even worth investigating.
Isn't that always the case?
Skeptics insist on using the scientific method to learn anything, yet any discovery that MIGHT explain off a bunch of paranormal activity is embraced wholeheartedly and without extensive investigation.
"This haunted house was caused by a low notes on a pipe organ, so obviously they all must be, we don't need to investigate because we KNOW its bunk".
It's like travelling to one different solar system, finding no planets in it capable of supporting life, and saying "See, there's no intelligent life out there."
Two old guys in England CLAIM they did the crop circles.. Aha! Now we know that all of the thousands of crop circles the world were hoaxed by these two guys! (mind you the elaborate circles that appear in southern England are probably hoaxed, but relying on the questionable claims of two guys is hardly the scientific method)
Swamp gas and ball lightning are two favorite explainations of UFOs. Ball lightning in particular is not well understood. Scientists has unsuccessfully tried to produce it for years. I guess some skeptics feal more comfortable with one unknown (Ball Lightning) than another (intelligently controlled unknown objects).
Many people who call themselves skeptics are not true skeptics. A true skeptic would be truly objective when investigating paranormal claims. They would keep an open mind that it could be something truly paranormal at work, but at the same time know that the chances are against it, not immediately rule out a paranormal explaination, just because "I know better". The latter is simply intellectual dishonesty. It's the same type of behavior that was the root of the Inquisition, persecuting those whose ideas don't conform to the accepted norm. In this case it's a scientific norm rather than a religious one, but it can be equally disasterous.
Sure there is a lot of bunk out there. Maybe there is one planet in a million that can support life, either way, you're not going to find out unless you keep looking.
The problem is there will always be some percentage of children who suffer some developmental problems or lack of restraint and are easily influenced. They become obsessed with Judas Priest Lyrics/MTV's Jackass/Violent Video Games/Dungeons and Dragons/Movies or whatever. They apparently can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. They act on their fantasy, do something incredibly stupid. Sometimes they only hurt themselves, sometimes innocent victims get killed.
When it happens people everyone looks for an easy culprit... guns... movies... music... parents... etc.
Is there really anything we should do to prevent these kinds of things? Is there anything we can do? There aren't easy answers to these questions.
A lot of games/movies/music, etc are too violent, too explicit. A lot of it has questionable social value, but how do we draw the line.
A successful lawsuit here might cause game publishers to tone down the violence, and that might not be a bad thing... at first, but how long until people sue claiming Pacman made them eat everything in sight, causing them to become obese?
I guess I'm just saying that we shouldn't just look for the easy answer that coincides with your own political viewpoint, we need to really investigate these kids, the Columbine killers, all the kids who imitate Jackass, and maybe we'll learn some things that might help is intervene before the next one happens.
Because the Trial Lawyer lobby in the US is too powerful to allow the implementation of any system that might mean less money for lawyers.
Great review. I feel compelled to send you $699 US, though I'm not exacly sure why.
He seems to be the antithesis of This guy.
For a failure, but if the band is successful, they pay back all of your marketing and development costs before you gain royalties. You can have the number 1 song and album in the country and still be broke. Effectively, the artist has been charged the cost of taking the risk, but they still get the smallest slice of the pie.
If a VC invests in your startup, he gets stock in exchange. If your company is successful, he doesn't deduct his investment from your paycheck. He either sells his share, or holds his stock and receives his share of dividends (if any)
If it's such a great opportunity, why are they complaining after the fact. It's they're own fault if they sign a bad dealBecause when you're 19, you want to be like those people you see on MTV, who show you how great their life is, how big their "Crib" is, etc. They never talk about how they're getting screwed (on camera anyway). Getting a recording contract is their ticket to that lifestyle (or so they've been lead to believe).
They had product activation and some other spyware. I guess you could call it a form of DRM. It greatly annoyed the customers.
While the average user is ignorant of what a BIOS is, they will understand the result. Like I said, they'll most likely take it out on the OEM that uses the BIOS with the features enabled i.e. "Don't buy Sony PCs, they limit how you can install your software, and if you have them, the RIAA can track you. (or however nasty way the DRM manifests itself)" Sony's sales will drop while another company who doesn't use the DRM feature may see sales increase.
DRM, and product activations are just another form of copy protection. I don't think there's ever been a successful copy protection scheme, they either get compromised, or there's a successful customer rebellion against it.
I've never seen a coffee maker with a temperature control. The water needs to be a certain temperature to brew properly. Also, in the morning, coffee in commercial establishments usually doesn't sit in the pot long enough to cool down.
Also health departments often mandate that foods be at least a certain temperature (160 farenheit, I think) for safety reasons, when they come in for inspection, and take the temperature, if it's too low, you CAN get shut down. I don't know if this applies to coffee, though.
I don't know all the specifics in the McDonald case, but from what I do know of the food industry, if there's any liability, it should be against some combination of the coffee machine maker, health department, and/or cup/lid maker rather than McDonalds. But I'm not surprised because I know the deepest pockets are the ones usually targetted for liability rather than the true culprits.
Don't be so sure.. When Intuit introduced DRM technologies into Turbotax this year, there was a huge backlash, forcing them to rethink their policy and promise not to do it again next year.
There was also a huge backlash against the Intel CPU ID, which is why that became optional.
Phoenix is not the only PC bios maker, there are alternatives. Also Phoenix seems to mostly show up in the big name PCs, rather than the DIY type, so any consumer backlash would like take Aim at any PC OEM that enables this feature, and give sales to another company that doesn't. Companies who enable this feature will likely quickly have a change of heart.
Right, at one concert, the vocals will be mixed so low that you can't hear them, and the next time it will be so loud that everything sounds like mud.
- hearing unscripted improvisation between artists -- many musicians claim that the set they're most proud of playing was NOT the one recorded in the studio for the CDI always seem to here the same "unscripted improvisations" every night ;-)
- to experience the artist -- 16 bit stereo samples @ 44.1kHz captures audio quite well -- but it doesn't capture dance, facial expressions, stage antics, synchronized light/lasers/visual effects, costumes, etc.The other thing 16-bit samples can't capture real well are the crowd of sweaty people around you, jumping, screaming and singing along badly, ruining the music, nor can it digitize the smell of second-hand pot. ;-)
Wow! The Canadian music industry seems to speak an entirely different language than the RIAA.
Have you been to an "outside the mall" store lately?
At Newbury Comics in the Boston area, three years ago, I was paying about $12 for most CDs, then it went to $15 when the record companies rasied prices back then.
When I went this week, most prices were around $18! And they wonder why sales are falling drastically?!?
I shudder to think what the mall stores charge these days!
Yes, but when a CD is hugely successful, who reaps most of the profits, the band, or everyone else? (Hint, it's not the band). Who ends up paying for producing the CDs, marketing, promotion, expensive videos that MTV never plays and everything else? It gets recouped from the band before they see their royalties.
The risk costs is pushed onto the band, but the record co reaps most of the reward.
I'm not shedding any tears for artists. They signed the contracts of their own free will.
You could argue that, but unfortunately in most cases the recording contract is the ultimate prize, and it's an opportunity that doesn't come along everyday, so most of them will eagerly sign the contract. If they say no, they may never get another chance.
It probably has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of the Canadian population is concentrated in the south, so it's easier to connect everyone.