Since the whole city will be connected, they can just use the wireless network to motitor just which sidewalks the unsightly homeless are sleeping on and then kick them out. Duh.
Many people don't use public libraries anymore. Maybe the government should quit funding them. Afterall, the government has guns and forces me to pay, wheter I use it or not...
Seriously. They obviously have NO fucking clue what the founders stood for and what makes (made?) this country great. Politicians who even try to get this kind of anti first amendment nonsense into the system should be tarred, feathered, and kicked the hell out for being traitors who violated their oaths to defend the constitution.
I'm pretty disappointed with this move by RIM. I was hoping that by going all the way through the courts we might get some serious patent reform out of the whole mess. While this brought a lot of attention to the issue, I fear that it will just go back to being business as usual at the patent office.
I think it's rediculous that it is this way, but that XP 2500+ just can't cut the mustard with new games anymore. I have a 3000+ and a Geforce 6600 GT and I think the video card is still waiting for the main CPU to play catch up. Thats the problem with PC tech evolving so fast, developers don't have to care about writing tight speedy code when they can just let evolving processors cover their sloppy tracks.
I wholeheartedly agree with your main point, but on Black and White 2, if you have a slow CPU the game is going to chug, regardless of how great your video card is. What's your processor?
Ok, so everyone is hyping up the power of the cell processor. No doubt the cpu is going to push some impressive numbers when code is correctly optimized for cell. But how long is it going to take developers to really discover and understand how to effectivly use the power of the processor?
Lets take a look at console history. In every case you can see that for any particular console, the console's first generation games pale in comparison to games created towards the end of the consoles life cycle, at least on technical merit. Game worlds are more complex, graphics are better, AI is better, etc. This is because as time goes on, the developers become more familair with the specific capabilities of with the hardware and learnt o exploit the strengths and avoid the weaknesses. To me at seems that jsut as soon as developers really come to grasp with the specifics of the hardware they're wroking with, the hardware companies decide to release new consoles and the cycle starts over. Developers have to once again start the process of learning the ins and outs of the new hardware. In this case of the recent generation, I'd be hard pressed to say that the XBox and Gamecube games are even close to achieving their maximum potential. We'll never see it though, because, with the exception of 1 or 2 games, their life cycles have effectivly come to end.
Fast forward to the new generation of consoles that are coming to market. Well except for Nintendo I guess. (Nintendo seems to be trying to avoid this problem by basing the Revolution on a souped up Gamecube architecture. We've all read how they've said they're trying to make it easier on developers). This new generation, more so than any other transition, with the advent of multi-cpu parallel processing is really shaking up the development community. Developers who are used using the same old way of thinking, but just adjusting for specifics of different hardware, now need to completly reevaluate just how to program their software in a way that effectively takes advantage of all the parts of the processor. Many of us are still waiting for quality apps that take advantage of our dual core PC's, which is arguably a much easier platform to code for than the cell.
So here are my questions:
1) How long is it going to take developers to really exploit the power of the processor? We've seen that this can take several years, and with cell so radically different, it may take longer than usual.
2) When is the next-next console cycle going to show it's head (PS4, NextBox, etc)? 4-5 years? I have heard people say Sony intends the PS3 to have a long life (8 years?) but I think that is suicide. Gamers love new consoles and have become quite used to and supportive of the current console life cycle situation. If microsoft or whoever in 5 years comes out with another box thats better, Sony won't idly sit by, they will release a new console of their own or risk losing out.
3)So based on 1 and 2, I have to ask, by the time the next-next generation of consoles come out, will all this extra power of the cell processor even have been exploited? Based on the current situation of XBox and Gamecube, my prediction is no the maximum potential will not have been reached.
This brings me to my final point. If a) the cell is going to be initially difficult to program and it takes developers a long time to exploit the potential of the processor, and b) the lifecycle of the console will probably end before this potential can be reached anyway then c)what's the point? It seems that this technology is just going to drive up the cost of the system with out really giving gamers any of the benefits the processor has the potential to give. Hell, I doubt even XBox 360 developers will have been able to push its so called "weaker" hardware to the max before another generation of consoles is upon us. Do gamers really need all this hardware being thrown at them?
I'm sorry you're so hurt, but I'm going to have to stand by what I've said. For decades the citizens of this country have slowly given up their supposed god given rights, liberties, and soverignty at the whim of those few in power. I don't think we're simply in some temporary bad postion due to government. I really think we are and have been FUCKED. Maybe you don't agree with the "immature" choice of words, but I really can't think of anything else so simple, yet so direct and to the point articulating how I feel about the position our government has put us in. The obscense governement actions that have perverted what the REAL core values of this country are deserve the most obscene word to describe them. In my opinion these actions, the politicans that support the actions, and the current system of governance that has developed which encourages and supports these politicians, (i.e. The Government), deserve nothing more there sheer contempt, and I HATE what they have done to my country. I refuse to shy away from such strong words when they so accuratly describe equally strong feelings I have about the subject of our government.
I have no need for your lecture on Libertarian beliefs. I could care less for your insinuation that I'm not a "real" Libertarian. They are simply a political party. My alligence is to not to them, nor any other party. My alligence is to the concepts of freedom and liberty set forth by the founding fathers and enshrined in what I consider the greatest political texts man has ever written. If that is what Libertarians are about, then so be it, we're on the same page. But I could care less about being considered a member of your club.
Back to my original post, lets be clear, "the Government" != "Goverment." The Goverment, in this case, refers to our United States Federal Government. As I said, in its current form, I hate. HATE IT. I wish it could be gutted. But I never said I hate Government. I'm not an anarchist for Christ's sake. As for connection, evidence, and analysis to support my conclusion, I would be happy to provide all sorts of materials and references demonstrating instances of how the goverment has unconstitutionally usurped power from the states and people. I will if you want me to but a) you, coming off as an "enlightened" libertarian probably know a lot about that anyway, and b) I didn't want to write a term paper about it, I wanted to write a quick 3 sentence post on slashdot expressing my complete and utter disgust.
About ISPs. Thank you for your description of what an ISP does. I just had no idea what they did. Really. Thanks for clearing that all up. You've been so helpful. Really....
I think the ISP is evil because they are LYING about this so-called "free lunch" and are perpetuating these lies in order get a free lunch of their own. There is nothing evil about profit or obtaining money, but companies using deceit in order to obtain it are NOT going to receive kind remarks from me.
On a side note: Telekom was formed in 1996 when state-owned monopoly Deutsche Bundespost was privatized. Accoriding to wikipedia, as of 2005, the German government still holds a 15.7% stake in company stock. There are definate goverment interests at stake and lots of money is going to be involved. Bandwidth tax is coming. You've been warned.
I imagine ISPs will petition our corrupt political system to levy some sort of "bandwidth tax" on internet connections that would then go towards "supporting internet infrastructure." Obviously this money would then go straight to back to the large ISPs as they represent themselves as struggling entities trying to keep the internet afloat.
1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.
2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story.
3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.
"Radio over the internet is great untill the conection goes "a bit funny" and it stops streaming or drops to a lower sample rate."
This rarely happens to most of the streams I listen to, but I suppose YMMV. When I'm at home or the office, I'm constantly listening to streaming audio via somaFM, flaresound, or some random choice off of shoutcast. The streams that I've become a frequently listener essentially never have this problem when I'm using a broadband connection. Maybe once every few days the stream will be interrupted and require that I reconnect. Big deal. Easier than messing with a radio antenna trying to find the perfect position which eliminates the static coming through.
Also how do you listen to it on the move - I can't listen to it in the car or on my portable device.
Get a new portable device;) I listen to 24k streams from somaFM via PocketTunes on my treo 600. I have a headset to headphone adapter which allows me to listen anywhere. I can also plug in one of those cassette adapters, allowing me to play the stream through my car speakers. Granted, the quality of the stream isn't superb, but it's certainly comparable to AM radio. But more importantly, the quality of the content makes the signal cut worth it. What's the point of a crystal clear FM signal when crappy content is riding on the signal? And, come on, streaming internet audio through my cell phone to my car while driving 70 miles an hour and still having a solid stream is super geeky cool. Additionally, a 1GB SD card should have more than enough space to hold several albums worth of high quality mp3's. While no iPod, I think that's certainly sufficient. Plus, when you have Mp3s, Cell Phone, Web, E-Mail, Organizers, all in one device, it really cuts down on the amount of junk I need in my pockets.
While we might not quite be at the stage acceptable to those who accept nothing less than 128k mp3 streams, the bandwidth available to our wireless devices is increasing. It's only going to be a matter of time before we can get the high quality streams whenever and wherever we want. (Barring legal action from the RIAA, et al.)
no i'm not going to connect my computer up to the stereo becase evry time someone IM's me or I get an email or windows breaks you get horible alert noises that would drive everyone insane!
Yeah, those noises are insane. That's why I disable them.
My question is, what WOULD it take to convince you about internet radio? What is it about "regular" radio that has you at some point of being "convinced?" What is it going to take to get the mainstream to embrace internet radio and abandomn the FM/AM dial?
I sort of see what you're saying but I think this is kind of a flawed analysis when talking about music CD's. There is just way too many things you have to consider. First there is the market for Neil Diamond's music. Just because his album release was during the holiday timeframe, doesn't suddenly mean that the market for his product will somehow increase. I'm thinking that a large chunk of the market for Neil Diamond products went ahead and bought the CD on first week of release. After that point, there isn't as many people left to sell the damn thing to. Perhaps the holiday timing is what caused the initial top 10 listing in the first place. Maybe if it was released in summer it would have only ever peaked at what it is currently ranked at. What about all the other CD's that have been released in the same time frame, and that will be released in the next few weeks. These all will have some kind of impact won't they? I just don't see how people can only blame the DRM fiasco (Yes, I'm sure it did have SOME effect) when a lot of it is really just the effect of competition in a highly competitive market.
No you've missed MY point. I'm saying that those sales probably didn't drop out of sight because of bad publicity surrounding Sony's DRM. I'm thinking they dropped out of sight because of the natural effects of demand. Sure the whole DRM thing didn't help Sony at all, but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not Joe Consumer really actually reacted to the fiasco in a way that changed CD buying habits. I'm still thinking that Joe Consumer still just doesn't care about it. People are going to buy the new Neil Diamond CD if they want to hear new Neil Diamond songs regardless of the Sony DRM. Most people won't even realize what label is releasing the album anyway.
My contention is that those sales dropped out of sight because that's the natural progression of new releases. Albums generally do their biggest sales on new release. From there where else can it really go but down, especialy if you debuted in the top ten? You've got to make room for next week's releases right? The only way you're really going to be able to maintain or even increase weekly sales is if you actually WRITE A GOOD ALBUM. Occasinally we see this every year as a good album debuts low on the charts, and with good press, and more importantly, good word of mouth, it rises to the top. But it must end somewhere, and like all albums, sales will eventually fall. You can't blame this all on the bad press on Sony's DRM. You can blame it on bad music being produced and released on Sony's label.
On a side note, I'd really love to see a list of these "major Sony artists" that had releases around this time, and data concerning their cd sales and their iTunes downloads. I'm willing to bet that there were similar sales patterns.
"Neil Diamond's new CD opened in the top ten, then sank down into the mid 50's the following week when the news about Sony DRM hit. Same goes for new CD's by their other major stars. The artists this affects are already mighty pissed."
Now I'm not saying that the news about Sony DRM didn't affect the slides of these albums down the billboard charts, but certainly other factors that need to be considered. Really, was Neil Diamond's latest really destined for anything more than 1 week in the top 10? Probably not. I would imagine most all the Neil Diamond fans bought the album in the first week. The slide down the charts is probably the result of the rest of us not giving a fuck about Neil Diamond, or about any other of those artists. I know I don't.
What I don't understand, is why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohal in the US, but one is NOT required to ban other items, such as marijuana and other drugs, software that breaks encryption, and most anything else that is banned by federal law?
Slashdot Mirror
Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Maybe you should read the parent post retard.
Since the whole city will be connected, they can just use the wireless network to motitor just which sidewalks the unsightly homeless are sleeping on and then kick them out. Duh.
Many people don't use public libraries anymore. Maybe the government should quit funding them. Afterall, the government has guns and forces me to pay, wheter I use it or not...
Seriously. They obviously have NO fucking clue what the founders stood for and what makes (made?) this country great. Politicians who even try to get this kind of anti first amendment nonsense into the system should be tarred, feathered, and kicked the hell out for being traitors who violated their oaths to defend the constitution.
Yeah scre those basta.. wait my Treo is ringing.
I'm pretty disappointed with this move by RIM. I was hoping that by going all the way through the courts we might get some serious patent reform out of the whole mess. While this brought a lot of attention to the issue, I fear that it will just go back to being business as usual at the patent office.
slashdot is posting dupes while this big news was just announced? *Sigh*
BlackBerry maker, NTP ink $612 million settlement
Yeah, Off Topic, so sue me. My story submissions are never accepted anyway.
$612 million dollars for not making a product. I need to get in on some of that nonsense.
I think it's rediculous that it is this way, but that XP 2500+ just can't cut the mustard with new games anymore. I have a 3000+ and a Geforce 6600 GT and I think the video card is still waiting for the main CPU to play catch up. Thats the problem with PC tech evolving so fast, developers don't have to care about writing tight speedy code when they can just let evolving processors cover their sloppy tracks.
BlackBerry maker, NTP ink $612 million settlement:t p/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/technology/rimm_n
Off Topic, so sue me. My submissions are never accepted anyway. $612 million dollars for not making a product. I need to get in on some of that.
I wholeheartedly agree with your main point, but on Black and White 2, if you have a slow CPU the game is going to chug, regardless of how great your video card is. What's your processor?
Ok, so everyone is hyping up the power of the cell processor. No doubt the cpu is going to push some impressive numbers when code is correctly optimized for cell. But how long is it going to take developers to really discover and understand how to effectivly use the power of the processor?
Lets take a look at console history. In every case you can see that for any particular console, the console's first generation games pale in comparison to games created towards the end of the consoles life cycle, at least on technical merit. Game worlds are more complex, graphics are better, AI is better, etc. This is because as time goes on, the developers become more familair with the specific capabilities of with the hardware and learnt o exploit the strengths and avoid the weaknesses. To me at seems that jsut as soon as developers really come to grasp with the specifics of the hardware they're wroking with, the hardware companies decide to release new consoles and the cycle starts over. Developers have to once again start the process of learning the ins and outs of the new hardware. In this case of the recent generation, I'd be hard pressed to say that the XBox and Gamecube games are even close to achieving their maximum potential. We'll never see it though, because, with the exception of 1 or 2 games, their life cycles have effectivly come to end.
Fast forward to the new generation of consoles that are coming to market. Well except for Nintendo I guess. (Nintendo seems to be trying to avoid this problem by basing the Revolution on a souped up Gamecube architecture. We've all read how they've said they're trying to make it easier on developers). This new generation, more so than any other transition, with the advent of multi-cpu parallel processing is really shaking up the development community. Developers who are used using the same old way of thinking, but just adjusting for specifics of different hardware, now need to completly reevaluate just how to program their software in a way that effectively takes advantage of all the parts of the processor. Many of us are still waiting for quality apps that take advantage of our dual core PC's, which is arguably a much easier platform to code for than the cell.
So here are my questions:
1) How long is it going to take developers to really exploit the power of the processor? We've seen that this can take several years, and with cell so radically different, it may take longer than usual.
2) When is the next-next console cycle going to show it's head (PS4, NextBox, etc)? 4-5 years? I have heard people say Sony intends the PS3 to have a long life (8 years?) but I think that is suicide. Gamers love new consoles and have become quite used to and supportive of the current console life cycle situation. If microsoft or whoever in 5 years comes out with another box thats better, Sony won't idly sit by, they will release a new console of their own or risk losing out.
3)So based on 1 and 2, I have to ask, by the time the next-next generation of consoles come out, will all this extra power of the cell processor even have been exploited? Based on the current situation of XBox and Gamecube, my prediction is no the maximum potential will not have been reached.
This brings me to my final point. If a) the cell is going to be initially difficult to program and it takes developers a long time to exploit the potential of the processor, and b) the lifecycle of the console will probably end before this potential can be reached anyway then c)what's the point? It seems that this technology is just going to drive up the cost of the system with out really giving gamers any of the benefits the processor has the potential to give. Hell, I doubt even XBox 360 developers will have been able to push its so called "weaker" hardware to the max before another generation of consoles is upon us. Do gamers really need all this hardware being thrown at them?
Errr, wait.. no one from NH voted against this? Death please.
Two words: Mesh Routing.
I'm sorry you're so hurt, but I'm going to have to stand by what I've said. For decades the citizens of this country have slowly given up their supposed god given rights, liberties, and soverignty at the whim of those few in power. I don't think we're simply in some temporary bad postion due to government. I really think we are and have been FUCKED. Maybe you don't agree with the "immature" choice of words, but I really can't think of anything else so simple, yet so direct and to the point articulating how I feel about the position our government has put us in. The obscense governement actions that have perverted what the REAL core values of this country are deserve the most obscene word to describe them. In my opinion these actions, the politicans that support the actions, and the current system of governance that has developed which encourages and supports these politicians, (i.e. The Government), deserve nothing more there sheer contempt, and I HATE what they have done to my country. I refuse to shy away from such strong words when they so accuratly describe equally strong feelings I have about the subject of our government.
I have no need for your lecture on Libertarian beliefs. I could care less for your insinuation that I'm not a "real" Libertarian. They are simply a political party. My alligence is to not to them, nor any other party. My alligence is to the concepts of freedom and liberty set forth by the founding fathers and enshrined in what I consider the greatest political texts man has ever written. If that is what Libertarians are about, then so be it, we're on the same page. But I could care less about being considered a member of your club.
Back to my original post, lets be clear, "the Government" != "Goverment." The Goverment, in this case, refers to our United States Federal Government. As I said, in its current form, I hate. HATE IT. I wish it could be gutted. But I never said I hate Government. I'm not an anarchist for Christ's sake. As for connection, evidence, and analysis to support my conclusion, I would be happy to provide all sorts of materials and references demonstrating instances of how the goverment has unconstitutionally usurped power from the states and people. I will if you want me to but a) you, coming off as an "enlightened" libertarian probably know a lot about that anyway, and b) I didn't want to write a term paper about it, I wanted to write a quick 3 sentence post on slashdot expressing my complete and utter disgust.
About ISPs. Thank you for your description of what an ISP does. I just had no idea what they did. Really. Thanks for clearing that all up. You've been so helpful. Really....
I think the ISP is evil because they are LYING about this so-called "free lunch" and are perpetuating these lies in order get a free lunch of their own. There is nothing evil about profit or obtaining money, but companies using deceit in order to obtain it are NOT going to receive kind remarks from me.
On a side note: Telekom was formed in 1996 when state-owned monopoly Deutsche Bundespost was privatized. Accoriding to wikipedia, as of 2005, the German government still holds a 15.7% stake in company stock. There are definate goverment interests at stake and lots of money is going to be involved. Bandwidth tax is coming. You've been warned.
I imagine ISPs will petition our corrupt political system to levy some sort of "bandwidth tax" on internet connections that would then go towards "supporting internet infrastructure." Obviously this money would then go straight to back to the large ISPs as they represent themselves as struggling entities trying to keep the internet afloat.
How about UFIA?
1) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked. 2) Google pays for bandwidth. People connecting to google are paying for bandwidth. ISP's are getting payed on both ends for a single connection between google and a user. These ISP's are greedy shitbags. End of story. 3) The government sucks. I hate it. We're all fucked.
Playing for the high score is coming back in a big way thanks to online leader boards and services like nintendo Wi-Fi and X-Box live.
"Radio over the internet is great untill the conection goes "a bit funny" and it stops streaming or drops to a lower sample rate."
;) I listen to 24k streams from somaFM via PocketTunes on my treo 600. I have a headset to headphone adapter which allows me to listen anywhere. I can also plug in one of those cassette adapters, allowing me to play the stream through my car speakers. Granted, the quality of the stream isn't superb, but it's certainly comparable to AM radio. But more importantly, the quality of the content makes the signal cut worth it. What's the point of a crystal clear FM signal when crappy content is riding on the signal? And, come on, streaming internet audio through my cell phone to my car while driving 70 miles an hour and still having a solid stream is super geeky cool. Additionally, a 1GB SD card should have more than enough space to hold several albums worth of high quality mp3's. While no iPod, I think that's certainly sufficient. Plus, when you have Mp3s, Cell Phone, Web, E-Mail, Organizers, all in one device, it really cuts down on the amount of junk I need in my pockets.
This rarely happens to most of the streams I listen to, but I suppose YMMV. When I'm at home or the office, I'm constantly listening to streaming audio via somaFM, flaresound, or some random choice off of shoutcast. The streams that I've become a frequently listener essentially never have this problem when I'm using a broadband connection. Maybe once every few days the stream will be interrupted and require that I reconnect. Big deal. Easier than messing with a radio antenna trying to find the perfect position which eliminates the static coming through.
Also how do you listen to it on the move - I can't listen to it in the car or on my portable device.
Get a new portable device
While we might not quite be at the stage acceptable to those who accept nothing less than 128k mp3 streams, the bandwidth available to our wireless devices is increasing. It's only going to be a matter of time before we can get the high quality streams whenever and wherever we want. (Barring legal action from the RIAA, et al.)
no i'm not going to connect my computer up to the stereo becase evry time someone IM's me or I get an email or windows breaks you get horible alert noises that would drive everyone insane!
Yeah, those noises are insane. That's why I disable them.
My question is, what WOULD it take to convince you about internet radio? What is it about "regular" radio that has you at some point of being "convinced?" What is it going to take to get the mainstream to embrace internet radio and abandomn the FM/AM dial?
"Getting EA to endorse your new console is like getting a hooker to go out with you for money."
I smell a new sig..
I sort of see what you're saying but I think this is kind of a flawed analysis when talking about music CD's. There is just way too many things you have to consider. First there is the market for Neil Diamond's music. Just because his album release was during the holiday timeframe, doesn't suddenly mean that the market for his product will somehow increase. I'm thinking that a large chunk of the market for Neil Diamond products went ahead and bought the CD on first week of release. After that point, there isn't as many people left to sell the damn thing to. Perhaps the holiday timing is what caused the initial top 10 listing in the first place. Maybe if it was released in summer it would have only ever peaked at what it is currently ranked at. What about all the other CD's that have been released in the same time frame, and that will be released in the next few weeks. These all will have some kind of impact won't they? I just don't see how people can only blame the DRM fiasco (Yes, I'm sure it did have SOME effect) when a lot of it is really just the effect of competition in a highly competitive market.
No you've missed MY point. I'm saying that those sales probably didn't drop out of sight because of bad publicity surrounding Sony's DRM. I'm thinking they dropped out of sight because of the natural effects of demand. Sure the whole DRM thing didn't help Sony at all, but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not Joe Consumer really actually reacted to the fiasco in a way that changed CD buying habits. I'm still thinking that Joe Consumer still just doesn't care about it. People are going to buy the new Neil Diamond CD if they want to hear new Neil Diamond songs regardless of the Sony DRM. Most people won't even realize what label is releasing the album anyway.
My contention is that those sales dropped out of sight because that's the natural progression of new releases. Albums generally do their biggest sales on new release. From there where else can it really go but down, especialy if you debuted in the top ten? You've got to make room for next week's releases right? The only way you're really going to be able to maintain or even increase weekly sales is if you actually WRITE A GOOD ALBUM. Occasinally we see this every year as a good album debuts low on the charts, and with good press, and more importantly, good word of mouth, it rises to the top. But it must end somewhere, and like all albums, sales will eventually fall. You can't blame this all on the bad press on Sony's DRM. You can blame it on bad music being produced and released on Sony's label.
On a side note, I'd really love to see a list of these "major Sony artists" that had releases around this time, and data concerning their cd sales and their iTunes downloads. I'm willing to bet that there were similar sales patterns.
"Neil Diamond's new CD opened in the top ten, then sank down into the mid 50's the following week when the news about Sony DRM hit. Same goes for new CD's by their other major stars. The artists this affects are already mighty pissed."
Now I'm not saying that the news about Sony DRM didn't affect the slides of these albums down the billboard charts, but certainly other factors that need to be considered. Really, was Neil Diamond's latest really destined for anything more than 1 week in the top 10? Probably not. I would imagine most all the Neil Diamond fans bought the album in the first week. The slide down the charts is probably the result of the rest of us not giving a fuck about Neil Diamond, or about any other of those artists. I know I don't.
I can't believe I didn't spell 'alcohol' correctly.. gotta stop drinking :)
What I don't understand, is why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohal in the US, but one is NOT required to ban other items, such as marijuana and other drugs, software that breaks encryption, and most anything else that is banned by federal law?