There is a product you can buy for cheap called CrossOver Office and it allows you to run a great number of Windows programs including the latest versions Quicken, MS Office, and other popular products. Not all of them behave 100% exactly the same since the software is really running on a re-implementation of the Windows APIs and not all of them are perfect yet, but as time rolls on and more people buy CXOffice their team implements more and more of the code necessary to run Windows software in Linux.
Naturally, native software is better, but for those deal-breakers, maybe CXOffice can come to the rescue. Additionally, CodeWeavers donate their work back to the Wine project so if you're really hard up for cash, you can just download Wine for free and do the same thing. I do recommend trying CXOffice though - it has a graphical installer and configuration interface that makes it oodles easier to use than command-line Wine.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. The summary doesn't state anything of consequence except to say that you can buy one at thrice the price in order to subsidize two others to needy children - very noble.
However, upon following the link (which I must have done to know anything about his pledge) I noticed that he not only has a very high limit, but there's also a time limit. What kind of lofty and noble goal is it if it's unlikely to be reached by the given (again I say short) deadline?
If he needs that many signers to use econmies of scale to bring the price down to $100 per machine, then he really didn't build a $100 machine now did he? Also, if the time limit expires and he does not get 100,000 signers (93,000 needed as of this writing) does he simply give up on the project? It makes no sense to me.
You're right, I did miss that somewhat in my original read. However, if his point is to create a $100 laptop, then the goal should be to create a $100 laptop regardless of how many people will buy them. That is, it must cost $100 to create a prototype - not a mass-produced system with a minimum sales requirement.
If he could create a $100 laptop without requiring 100,000 people to pledge to buy one then that would be a more worthy goal in my opinion. Additionally, if he wants to reach this goal, why set a time limit? Why not simply allow the goal to be reached by either:
1) The cost of components drop over time until the laptop costs $100 to produce a single one, or 2) 100,000 people pledge to buy one (but that may take much longer than October).
For 100,000 people to sign with no fanfare whatsoever, 10 months is short. I would never have known about him save for the parent poster.
That's like some muckety muck at Google writing down on a piece of paper a pledge to donate $5Mil to a children's hospital if 5 million google users send an email to him to test out Gmail. If he never tells anyone or posts that pledge in a high-traffic public area then it's a worthless gesture.
If this guy were genuine about his offer to buy a $100 for $300 he would have probably done two things:
1. Bought one unconditionally 2. Pledged to buy a second if 1,000 people also bought one (much more reasonable than 100,000)
To me, it's just a bogus pledge that he posted with no intention of really buying a laptop at thrice the price - hence the exhorbitantly high number of required pledgers and the short timeline.
Move along, nothing to see here. If you want to buy one buy one, but this guy doesn't.
I agree we'll probably never reach that star in either of our lifetimes - probably not our grandchildren's lifetimes either. However, that's not what I was talking about. The distance from here to there is astronomically (and relatively) close as compared to stars on the other side of our own galaxy not to mention those outside of our galaxy entirely. Once you leave the Milky Way you have a loooooooong way to go before you even reach the next galaxy (I don't know exact distances, but I do recall that the universe is quite sparely populated with clusters of galaxies and the rest is nothingness or dark matter that we can't see anyway).
So is 41 light years far? Yes, very. Is this the closest star we've seen that resembles our own galaxy and therefore a greater potential for life? I think so -- can't recall hearing about our twin solar system before. Will we make it there anytime soon? No, not likely.
As opposed to something that is over 7,000 - 10,000 light years away, 41 isn't very far. I mean it's no Alpha Centauri, but it's close in astronomical terms.
How exactly does Google prevent its services from being transmitted over hardware (say, Cisco)? Even if they could, they'd shoot themselves in the foot because the percentage of non-Cisco routers through the Internet backbones is very small indeed.
I am a Vonage customer and I like the phone service (not the customer service), but that does not mean I think buying into the IPO is a good idea. Reading the prospectus (and from what others have said already) Vonage is not making money and never has. It's losing millions of dollars each year with projections of losing more money.
I simply don't have > $1,600 to throw down the drain in an attempt to keep my digital phone. If they go out of business I will simply move to the next digital phone provider with the lowest price / value per features I want. I'm no fan of telcos, but Vonage has a uphill battle and their prospectus does not look good to boot.
Those who said it's a scam simply didn't do the proper research and certainly aren't customers who were seriously interested.
There's a difference between Vonage 911 service and E911. With Vonage it's voluntary and while you must register your home address, they have no way of knowing where you're really calling from (since you can take the phone adapter with you when you travel). Hence, you must tell the Vonage 911 service where you are when you're calling.
With Enhanced 911 (E911) the call center knows exactly where the call originates from and can send police/fire/medic even if you can't speak. That's a big difference that many people are simply not willing to cope with yet. I do simply because we have two cell phones with E911 and we keep them charged with good signal practically everywhere in our house.
I screwed up typing...I have to buy 100 shares (at $20 per share estimated) which is too much money for me - not $100.
And I did not RTFA, I'm speaking from the email Vonage sent me as a customer who's been with them since January last year.
Aside from the debt...
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Prospectus and Risk Factors have some interesting tidbits:
1. Their CEO (and top officers) have 6 digit salaries with bonuses that are larger than the actual salary
2. In order to succeed (in their words) Vonage will need consumers to move away from traditional phone lines in favor of Vonage. [Without E911, this is be VERY difficult indeed - and the telcos are not likely to willingly give up their business by giving Vonage access to their E911 systems...even if the FCC says they have to.]
3. In order to succeed (in their words) Vonage needs their competitors to *not* come up with products as good as or better than Vonage's own product. [While this seems intuitive, just think how long it will be - if digital phone takes off (#2 above) - before the cable companies offer equivalent or better offerings with guaranteed QoS for their digital phone service]
I also am not going to take this offer for two reasons:
1. I have to buy at least $100 shares which is more than I can afford at the moment, and 2. I think the price will go down after the first day or two.
It's not enough to band together in opposition of something, you need to have a convincing and consistant argument as to why X is bad or harmful. The media cartels already have their response to why anyone wouldn't want DRM - "They want to unlawfully copy and steal content". Those opposed to DRM need some good solid facts about what DRM does to harm creativity and stiffle innovation.
Lots of reasons get thrown about by various opponents of DRM, but there is not one consistent argument that Congress or proponents hear from the "other side". I could say it doesn't stop piracy (where's the proof? weak argument anyway). I could say it's only benefiting the media moguls (may be true, but they'll come back with spin about how that benefits you). I could say that it'll forever bury our culture in obscure technology as the years roll on and we'll lose a sense of who we were (that's not a good reason - you're just a damned hippy who wants everything to be free!).
You can see where I'm going with this. DRM opponents need a consistent line with hard-hitting facts about the detrimental effects of DRM that can't easily be brushed off as simply one's opinion.
When that happens, then the anti-DRM folks will have something to rally around.
What needs to occur to cause major U.S. record labels to break away from the RIAA in the same fashion?
I can only see this as a Good Thing(TM), but it seems like the CRIA is a mere shadow of the RIAA in terms of power and influence over legislation and the industry itself.
I could see using duct tape for keeping large wounds closed for brief periods of time (i.e. until you can get it stitched up properly), but if you're covering a wound with duct tape, how is it supposed to heal properly? I believe Band-Aids are intended to cover a small wound for a brief period of time to hold some antibiotic cream on the wound, but it's not intended to be worn until the wound is completely healed (you end up damaging the skin under the bandage because it does not breathe very well).
It's always been my understanding that first priority is to clean and close the wound, then once it's able to hold itself closed (usually after a day or so) the bandages are removed to allow the wounded area to form a scab and protect itself naturally (unless of course, the area is prone to infection and keeping it covered is necessary).
Also, sticking normal duct tape to your skin is not likely going to be a problem. Sticking this super-glue duct tape (if it were created) is probably not something you'd want to do.
In New York State (New York City is different) it is legal to pass on the right if you can do it safely. I've looked over the traffic laws on several occassions to try and verify that passing on the right is illegal, but in NY it simply isn't unless by doing so you're creating an unsafe condition. The same is true in Minnesota.
So when driving, it's a good rule of thumb not to pass on the right, but it's probably not a bad idea to read the traffic laws of the state in which you live just so you know what is really legal and what isn't -- not just what you've heard people say.
iTunes is also bundled with Quicktime now. As a matter of fact, it's the only way to get the latest Quicktime from Apple. I know there are a few sites out there that allow you to download just QT 7.0 without iTunes, but that's only because someone was nice enough to separate the software I want (QT to play.mov files) from the software I don't necessarily want (iTunes). It may not be illegal, but it sure is annoying and reminiscient of those Microsoft tactics that landed them in the hot seat with Netscape.
An old but valid example is Apple suing Microsoft over Windows 3.1 (I believe) for infringing on Apple's "window" design (not sure if it was patented). Now, before you say that's Apple's right, realize that Apple simply stole the idea from Xerox -- the real creator of the windowed graphical interface.
Apple also has a very nasty habit of suing people left and right who try to use the Apple image and likeness in parody and sattire which is protected under Fair Use rights.
I'm not saying Apple is by any means as "evil" as MS is on a day-to-day basis. But I am saying that I believe Apple would happily surplant MS and rule with an iron fist just as much as MS tries to.
Not to mention that Apple's hardware is on the line of price gouging -- the hardware really is more expensive than it should be, and many times you cannot purchase some generic component and have it reliably work with Apple hardware. That said, I do think their hardware is of a fairly high quality, just not as high as they price it to be.
Just FYI, I own a PowerBook with OS X as well as several PCs running various flavors of Linux and one installation of Windows XP Pro. I made the mistake of purchasing an iRiver (one of the newest ones) as a gift for my wife. It was a mistake because while it plays OGG, WMA, and MP3 it can ONLY be loaded by Windows Media Player 10. Previous versions of the iRiver had Mac software for loading music, but not this one and WMP does not know what OGG is. An iPod, while compatible with a Mac certainly, would be much more expensive and from what I've read, much more fragile (also much larger unless I spring for the nano and mega $$$). Naturally, none of them (from what I've seen) play well across platforms and media types and are also durable. I'd just love to see an open source hardware player -- just to see what it is capable of.
Because it's bad for business! Companies aren't going to get along unless it's mutually beneficial for them. If portable music player manufacturer A produces a player that works with PMP manufacturer B's DRM and B reciprocates, then it'll just be left to innovation (of a non-DRM sort) to drive the competition and garner more sales than the other guy. But we all know that innovation is hard and expensive, so it's best to just lock the other guy(s) out and try to become the standard to which others much conform. Or in this case, just screw everyone else and boost your sales numbers because you won't even play the other guys' format(s).
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that I despise as much as Microsoft for its sketchy business practices. That's why if big business can't get along, then I'll take my business to the little guys (Free/Open Source) who DO get along. (That's not to say OSS gets along all the time, but they do more frequently than closed source.) Also, I say F/OSS but that doesn't mean I'm adverse to paying for software that will run well on Linux - free is preferable, but quality is worth $$$.
How does one tell a "legitimate" BitTorrent tracker from an "illegitimate" tracker? Does someone go through the tracker and calculate the ratio of copyrighted material to free/copylefted material?
Since a BT tracker is simply a search engine, are you suggesting that the engine should inspect all of its indexed torrents and filter out the ones that are copyrighted? What about material that's copyrighted but has been posted to the tracker by the copyright owner?
If I were so inclined I could use Google to find illegal materials and services - as mentioned by other posters, but the **AA is not suing Google (yet) probably because they're too big and expensive to sue. (After all, Google is refusing to turn over search records to the government even when handed a subpoena.)
I would argue that a BitTorrent tracker is not an inherently illegal device and that there's no easy way to measure the amount of "illegal" traffic on it. All one can do (if one is the copyright holder) is to request the tracker remove links to infringing material when it's discovered, and that these trackers have been complying with those requests.
Shutting these trackers down will do two things: 1. Annoy a lot of people and generate more animousity towards the **AA 2. Shift the traffic to a number of lesser-known trackers who then become the next TorrentBox and such
Let's face it, the RIAA and MPAA are just playing Whack-a-Mole here and are starting to get frustrated each time the mole pops back up.
The trick here is that with torrent networks (and others) the download/upload ratio is in lieu of paying for the download. In essence, "you can download 2X amount of data as long as you upload X amount of data to 'pay' for your share of downloading." If I"m already paying for the download, I feel no additional obligation to upload even the file I downloaded much less twice that. That's equivalent to paying twice for my download - once in money and once in bandwidth.
Not to mention, at least in the begining, my ISP may terminate my account and accuse me of filesharing or doing other things against my Terms Of Service -- no thanks, WB!
It's important to note though that the original poster was having a problem with the genre classification of his tagger. MusicBrainz has explicitly stated that they despise the notion of genre and do not go out of their way to support it. I use MusicBrainz to tag all my mp3s and ogg files but I've noticed oftentimes the genre just contains a bunch of junk and sometimes isn't populated at all. Just a caveat.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a product you can buy for cheap called CrossOver Office and it allows you to run a great number of Windows programs including the latest versions Quicken, MS Office, and other popular products. Not all of them behave 100% exactly the same since the software is really running on a re-implementation of the Windows APIs and not all of them are perfect yet, but as time rolls on and more people buy CXOffice their team implements more and more of the code necessary to run Windows software in Linux.
Naturally, native software is better, but for those deal-breakers, maybe CXOffice can come to the rescue. Additionally, CodeWeavers donate their work back to the Wine project so if you're really hard up for cash, you can just download Wine for free and do the same thing. I do recommend trying CXOffice though - it has a graphical installer and configuration interface that makes it oodles easier to use than command-line Wine.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. The summary doesn't state anything of consequence except to say that you can buy one at thrice the price in order to subsidize two others to needy children - very noble.
However, upon following the link (which I must have done to know anything about his pledge) I noticed that he not only has a very high limit, but there's also a time limit. What kind of lofty and noble goal is it if it's unlikely to be reached by the given (again I say short) deadline?
If he needs that many signers to use econmies of scale to bring the price down to $100 per machine, then he really didn't build a $100 machine now did he? Also, if the time limit expires and he does not get 100,000 signers (93,000 needed as of this writing) does he simply give up on the project? It makes no sense to me.
You're right, I did miss that somewhat in my original read. However, if his point is to create a $100 laptop, then the goal should be to create a $100 laptop regardless of how many people will buy them. That is, it must cost $100 to create a prototype - not a mass-produced system with a minimum sales requirement.
If he could create a $100 laptop without requiring 100,000 people to pledge to buy one then that would be a more worthy goal in my opinion. Additionally, if he wants to reach this goal, why set a time limit? Why not simply allow the goal to be reached by either:
1) The cost of components drop over time until the laptop costs $100 to produce a single one, or
2) 100,000 people pledge to buy one (but that may take much longer than October).
That's my point.
For 100,000 people to sign with no fanfare whatsoever, 10 months is short. I would never have known about him save for the parent poster.
That's like some muckety muck at Google writing down on a piece of paper a pledge to donate $5Mil to a children's hospital if 5 million google users send an email to him to test out Gmail. If he never tells anyone or posts that pledge in a high-traffic public area then it's a worthless gesture.
If this guy were genuine about his offer to buy a $100 for $300 he would have probably done two things:
1. Bought one unconditionally
2. Pledged to buy a second if 1,000 people also bought one (much more reasonable than 100,000)
To me, it's just a bogus pledge that he posted with no intention of really buying a laptop at thrice the price - hence the exhorbitantly high number of required pledgers and the short timeline.
Move along, nothing to see here. If you want to buy one buy one, but this guy doesn't.
So is 41 light years far? Yes, very. Is this the closest star we've seen that resembles our own galaxy and therefore a greater potential for life? I think so -- can't recall hearing about our twin solar system before. Will we make it there anytime soon? No, not likely.
As opposed to something that is over 7,000 - 10,000 light years away, 41 isn't very far. I mean it's no Alpha Centauri, but it's close in astronomical terms.
How exactly does Google prevent its services from being transmitted over hardware (say, Cisco)? Even if they could, they'd shoot themselves in the foot because the percentage of non-Cisco routers through the Internet backbones is very small indeed.
I am a Vonage customer and I like the phone service (not the customer service), but that does not mean I think buying into the IPO is a good idea. Reading the prospectus (and from what others have said already) Vonage is not making money and never has. It's losing millions of dollars each year with projections of losing more money.
I simply don't have > $1,600 to throw down the drain in an attempt to keep my digital phone. If they go out of business I will simply move to the next digital phone provider with the lowest price / value per features I want. I'm no fan of telcos, but Vonage has a uphill battle and their prospectus does not look good to boot.
Those who said it's a scam simply didn't do the proper research and certainly aren't customers who were seriously interested.
There's a difference between Vonage 911 service and E911. With Vonage it's voluntary and while you must register your home address, they have no way of knowing where you're really calling from (since you can take the phone adapter with you when you travel). Hence, you must tell the Vonage 911 service where you are when you're calling. With Enhanced 911 (E911) the call center knows exactly where the call originates from and can send police/fire/medic even if you can't speak. That's a big difference that many people are simply not willing to cope with yet. I do simply because we have two cell phones with E911 and we keep them charged with good signal practically everywhere in our house.
I screwed up typing...I have to buy 100 shares (at $20 per share estimated) which is too much money for me - not $100.
And I did not RTFA, I'm speaking from the email Vonage sent me as a customer who's been with them since January last year.
The Prospectus and Risk Factors have some interesting tidbits:
1. Their CEO (and top officers) have 6 digit salaries with bonuses that are larger than the actual salary
2. In order to succeed (in their words) Vonage will need consumers to move away from traditional phone lines in favor of Vonage. [Without E911, this is be VERY difficult indeed - and the telcos are not likely to willingly give up their business by giving Vonage access to their E911 systems...even if the FCC says they have to.]
3. In order to succeed (in their words) Vonage needs their competitors to *not* come up with products as good as or better than Vonage's own product. [While this seems intuitive, just think how long it will be - if digital phone takes off (#2 above) - before the cable companies offer equivalent or better offerings with guaranteed QoS for their digital phone service]
I also am not going to take this offer for two reasons:
1. I have to buy at least $100 shares which is more than I can afford at the moment, and
2. I think the price will go down after the first day or two.
Was that supposed to be legally compelled or is the email provider anxious to give up their information?
It's not enough to band together in opposition of something, you need to have a convincing and consistant argument as to why X is bad or harmful. The media cartels already have their response to why anyone wouldn't want DRM - "They want to unlawfully copy and steal content". Those opposed to DRM need some good solid facts about what DRM does to harm creativity and stiffle innovation.
Lots of reasons get thrown about by various opponents of DRM, but there is not one consistent argument that Congress or proponents hear from the "other side". I could say it doesn't stop piracy (where's the proof? weak argument anyway). I could say it's only benefiting the media moguls (may be true, but they'll come back with spin about how that benefits you). I could say that it'll forever bury our culture in obscure technology as the years roll on and we'll lose a sense of who we were (that's not a good reason - you're just a damned hippy who wants everything to be free!).
You can see where I'm going with this. DRM opponents need a consistent line with hard-hitting facts about the detrimental effects of DRM that can't easily be brushed off as simply one's opinion.
When that happens, then the anti-DRM folks will have something to rally around.
What needs to occur to cause major U.S. record labels to break away from the RIAA in the same fashion?
I can only see this as a Good Thing(TM), but it seems like the CRIA is a mere shadow of the RIAA in terms of power and influence over legislation and the industry itself.
I could see using duct tape for keeping large wounds closed for brief periods of time (i.e. until you can get it stitched up properly), but if you're covering a wound with duct tape, how is it supposed to heal properly? I believe Band-Aids are intended to cover a small wound for a brief period of time to hold some antibiotic cream on the wound, but it's not intended to be worn until the wound is completely healed (you end up damaging the skin under the bandage because it does not breathe very well).
It's always been my understanding that first priority is to clean and close the wound, then once it's able to hold itself closed (usually after a day or so) the bandages are removed to allow the wounded area to form a scab and protect itself naturally (unless of course, the area is prone to infection and keeping it covered is necessary).
Also, sticking normal duct tape to your skin is not likely going to be a problem. Sticking this super-glue duct tape (if it were created) is probably not something you'd want to do.
Think twice about that suggestion the next time you accidentally (or on purpose) stick some duct tape to any part of your exposed flesh.
Alls you'd need is a spinning mirror and a tracking system and you could vaporize a human target from space!!
Popcorn anyone?
In New York State (New York City is different) it is legal to pass on the right if you can do it safely. I've looked over the traffic laws on several occassions to try and verify that passing on the right is illegal, but in NY it simply isn't unless by doing so you're creating an unsafe condition. The same is true in Minnesota.
So when driving, it's a good rule of thumb not to pass on the right, but it's probably not a bad idea to read the traffic laws of the state in which you live just so you know what is really legal and what isn't -- not just what you've heard people say.
http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
iTunes is also bundled with Quicktime now. As a matter of fact, it's the only way to get the latest Quicktime from Apple. I know there are a few sites out there that allow you to download just QT 7.0 without iTunes, but that's only because someone was nice enough to separate the software I want (QT to play .mov files) from the software I don't necessarily want (iTunes). It may not be illegal, but it sure is annoying and reminiscient of those Microsoft tactics that landed them in the hot seat with Netscape.
An old but valid example is Apple suing Microsoft over Windows 3.1 (I believe) for infringing on Apple's "window" design (not sure if it was patented). Now, before you say that's Apple's right, realize that Apple simply stole the idea from Xerox -- the real creator of the windowed graphical interface.
Apple also has a very nasty habit of suing people left and right who try to use the Apple image and likeness in parody and sattire which is protected under Fair Use rights.
I'm not saying Apple is by any means as "evil" as MS is on a day-to-day basis. But I am saying that I believe Apple would happily surplant MS and rule with an iron fist just as much as MS tries to.
Not to mention that Apple's hardware is on the line of price gouging -- the hardware really is more expensive than it should be, and many times you cannot purchase some generic component and have it reliably work with Apple hardware. That said, I do think their hardware is of a fairly high quality, just not as high as they price it to be.
Just FYI, I own a PowerBook with OS X as well as several PCs running various flavors of Linux and one installation of Windows XP Pro. I made the mistake of purchasing an iRiver (one of the newest ones) as a gift for my wife. It was a mistake because while it plays OGG, WMA, and MP3 it can ONLY be loaded by Windows Media Player 10. Previous versions of the iRiver had Mac software for loading music, but not this one and WMP does not know what OGG is. An iPod, while compatible with a Mac certainly, would be much more expensive and from what I've read, much more fragile (also much larger unless I spring for the nano and mega $$$). Naturally, none of them (from what I've seen) play well across platforms and media types and are also durable. I'd just love to see an open source hardware player -- just to see what it is capable of.
Because it's bad for business! Companies aren't going to get along unless it's mutually beneficial for them. If portable music player manufacturer A produces a player that works with PMP manufacturer B's DRM and B reciprocates, then it'll just be left to innovation (of a non-DRM sort) to drive the competition and garner more sales than the other guy. But we all know that innovation is hard and expensive, so it's best to just lock the other guy(s) out and try to become the standard to which others much conform. Or in this case, just screw everyone else and boost your sales numbers because you won't even play the other guys' format(s).
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that I despise as much as Microsoft for its sketchy business practices. That's why if big business can't get along, then I'll take my business to the little guys (Free/Open Source) who DO get along. (That's not to say OSS gets along all the time, but they do more frequently than closed source.) Also, I say F/OSS but that doesn't mean I'm adverse to paying for software that will run well on Linux - free is preferable, but quality is worth $$$.
How does one tell a "legitimate" BitTorrent tracker from an "illegitimate" tracker? Does someone go through the tracker and calculate the ratio of copyrighted material to free/copylefted material?
Since a BT tracker is simply a search engine, are you suggesting that the engine should inspect all of its indexed torrents and filter out the ones that are copyrighted? What about material that's copyrighted but has been posted to the tracker by the copyright owner?
If I were so inclined I could use Google to find illegal materials and services - as mentioned by other posters, but the **AA is not suing Google (yet) probably because they're too big and expensive to sue. (After all, Google is refusing to turn over search records to the government even when handed a subpoena.)
I would argue that a BitTorrent tracker is not an inherently illegal device and that there's no easy way to measure the amount of "illegal" traffic on it. All one can do (if one is the copyright holder) is to request the tracker remove links to infringing material when it's discovered, and that these trackers have been complying with those requests.
Shutting these trackers down will do two things:
1. Annoy a lot of people and generate more animousity towards the **AA
2. Shift the traffic to a number of lesser-known trackers who then become the next TorrentBox and such
Let's face it, the RIAA and MPAA are just playing Whack-a-Mole here and are starting to get frustrated each time the mole pops back up.
The trick here is that with torrent networks (and others) the download/upload ratio is in lieu of paying for the download. In essence, "you can download 2X amount of data as long as you upload X amount of data to 'pay' for your share of downloading." If I"m already paying for the download, I feel no additional obligation to upload even the file I downloaded much less twice that. That's equivalent to paying twice for my download - once in money and once in bandwidth.
Not to mention, at least in the begining, my ISP may terminate my account and accuse me of filesharing or doing other things against my Terms Of Service -- no thanks, WB!
It's important to note though that the original poster was having a problem with the genre classification of his tagger. MusicBrainz has explicitly stated that they despise the notion of genre and do not go out of their way to support it. I use MusicBrainz to tag all my mp3s and ogg files but I've noticed oftentimes the genre just contains a bunch of junk and sometimes isn't populated at all. Just a caveat.