I was wondering: Since the internet has become so important in not just peoples lives, but in business, economics, politics, etc., is it just a priviledge or is it now a right to have it? I'd appreciate if somebody would answer! thanks
IANAL, but since no lawyers have replied yet I'll give you my take. First off, keep in mind that a relatively small percentage of the world is wired. Although the Internet is very important to us in our day to day lives this is certainly not the case worldwide. I believe that the current "wired world" is a sort of prototype for the rest of the planet. We are the first societies to have these sorts of problems but as technology spreads to the rest of the world they will also face strange new issues created by our newfound ability to communicate instantly to nearly any point on the globe. Not to mention the "action at a distance" concept which would have been viewed as a sort of magic only 100 years ago. But as to your question: Is Internet access a right or a privilege? Well, first off, you need a computer or access device to even be able to use the networks. Although these devices are getting cheaper all the time they are still out of reach for huge economic swatches even in the United States. To me this is sort of like driving a car. Even if you DO have the "privilege" of driving your car that won't do you much good without actually having a car, not to mention insurance, gas and all the other accessories that are necessary for driving. Could Internet access be a right? Well, it certainly isn't in the Bill of Rights for obvious reasons. Although Jefferson declared that humans are given certain "inalienable rights" simply by virtue of being born in practice it seems that legal rights are conferred by the state. It also seems that they need to be plainly stated in the Constitution or a constitutional amendment, and even then they are constantly bent, edited and interpreted such that it is hard to tell exactly what rights we really do have. It all goes out the window if you are suspected of being a troublemaker or enemy of the state - if you're incarcerated you have very few rights indeed. There are different rights if you are a U.S. citizen as opposed to a visitor or illegal immigrant. I don't see how anyone could call net access a right in any legal sense. Maybe in 20 years. Even if it's considered a privilege there are many reasons why an individual may not be able to connect if they wanted to.
This is a very spooky bit of news. But let me throw out this idea: If the open P2P networks get clogged up by corporate bullshit how long before DJs and music fans start to set up smaller private P2P networks which require validation to use. I guess the main problem is the small size of the communities likely to form this way but a couple of users with large mp3 archives could at least distribute to their friends without having to worry about getting spoofed by tha megacorps.
alex
Is this possible with current P2P systems? I don't think it is since all peers currently connect freely to all othe peers. We need a way of restricting those connections to "known good" peers.
If you don't hear him on the radio in your area (we sure as hell hear Moby in Atlanta) then maybe you turn on MTV or VH1 occasionally? He is definitely getting very broad exposure despite the fact that nobody seems to like his album. Probably you heard the song and didn't realize it was Moby. What about Southside with Gwen from No Doubt? They musta played that every.5 hour a month ago. Moby is not alternative anymore (if he ever was). I always thought he was mainstream even for a dance(?) artist.
alex
...and I forgot to mention the COVER STORY in Wired a couple months back...
In which case you probably need a 130MB download with a horrid GUI that spews AOL icons on your desktop and various crap in your tray as well as automatically sends your email address to Spammers and "volunteers" you for a P2P ad sharing network.
...or you could use AT, the equivalent MS command. That would probably be quicker...
The only reason I own an Audigy was that it replaced my Live! Creative kept promising ASIO drivers for the Live! but none ever materialized =(
There are ASIO drivers for the SB Live. Check out the kX Project. They claim to get as low as 5.33 ms latency with a Live, although I must admit I find that somewhat hard to believe. I have never used these drivers, perhaps someone who has tried them can validate the claim?
I'm no PC/Mac audio expert but I do know that professional acts are recording on Macintoshes. For instance, Jon Anderson [apple.com] is recording a surround sound album on it. How can the Mac's sound capabilities suck if that is going on?
The built-in sound hardware on a Mac is okay but nowhere near the specs needed by pro audio. Anyone doing serious recording on a Mac probably has Pro Tools, which is a hybrid hardware and software package by Digidesign. Yes, it was originally released on Mac but has since been ported to PC. I regularly use both versions, the interfaces are identical and both are very stable and fast when set up correctly. Coming up fast behind Pro Tools is Nuendo by Steinberg, the only other digital audio package available for Mac which can mix surround sound (natively, unlike Pro Tools which requires add-ons for this capability). So yes, a Mac's onboard sound doesn't compete with audio hardware that was purchsed seperately (no surprise there) but don't listen to anyone who says that either a Mac or a PC is better for sound applications. They're both fine for running the software, and since most high end audio cards these days can be put into either type of machine there is no functional difference in sound quality between platforms equipped with identical sound hardware. PCs are now just as capable as Macs ever were.
People use Kazaa because it's architecture is efficient to quickly find and download content while distributing the storage and searching. Adding all the License management and tracking required to get the content providers their due, will totally change what Kazaa is today. And I believe the needed overhead will be overly cumbersome to turn users away
Kazaa (or any other p2p service) need only take advantage of the licensing companies that are already in place to distribute money to the artists. This is simply another revenue stream, not fundamentally different from the way an artists get's paid when their song is played on the radio. See my other comment on this same subject for more details on what a compulsory license actually is, since so few people seem to understand the concept.
...Not Verizon. Imagine this system:
Consumer wants music. He selects any P2P file sharing service he wants (since they ALL have access to the same body of music - that is, ALL of it that is available from its peers) and then pays, say $5/month as a subscription fee. The file sharing service takes their five bucks and keeps a list of how many times any particular file is downloaded. They send a report to the music licensing companies, ASCAP and BMI along with the artists' share of the subscription fees. The licensing companies then dole out the money to the artists in exactly the same way that they do now for radio/tv broadcasts. If you don't subscribe, you don't pay for music. If you do subscribe then you have your choice of user bases and software user interfaces. I personally would prefer to use a service with NO banner ads, lots of "hip" subscribers (one that had lots of DJs signed up would be preferable, wouldn't it?) and an uncluttered, utilitarian software client. If someone else preferred cutesy interfaces, or targeted marketing, then let them have that too. Why is Verizon involved with this at all except to lend more credence to the idea. I think that all this talk about "taxing" ISPs to pay for music piracy is a little premature (modem tax, anyone?). I expect to have to pay for music, but I sure as hell don't want to sign up with 10 different music sharing services just because the major labels aligned with different p2p companies and I like a few artists on each label. The only thing preventing my dream from becoming a reality is that there is no legislation that says the industry MUST provide license to the file swapping service providers. So they don't license, and the music is only available in stores, you lose. There IS already legislation that says the industry must license to broadcasters, so how is this different?? It's only a matter of time before congress takes this out of the RIAAs hands and gives the power back to the people.
We DO have this already, but no, it's not the RIAA. They are industry lobbyists who are looking out for the labels, not the artists. ASCAP and BMI dole out the loot to the artists. See my other comment for a longer explanation.
Frankly, I don't understand why I can't just buy the music directly from the artists, at $1/song.
Because I don't want to have to do a $1 credit card transaction each time I download a song. I may DL 300 of them in a night, all from different artists and labels. So much better to pay a blanket fee and be done with it.
If you don't listen to music why would you sign up for a pay music service? I don't think we're talking about a tax (or a surcharge) here, but a subscription fee for a p2p service like Napster used to be. What do you think the surcharge is going to be on anyway? Your 1040? And wait a second - you claim to be an artist and then state that there is "nothing of value" anywhere in the industry? Do yourself a favor and keep your mind open just a crack. You think you deserve money but no one else does?
"Computer manufacturers, blank CD makers, ISPs and software firms such as Kazaa will pool funds and pay artists directly."
No, they wont. ASCAP and BMI are music licensing companies already set up for exactly this purpose - distribution of royalties to the artists who are getting played. It would be a breeze for them to take a report from Kazaa/Morpheus/whoever and divide the loot up among all of the registered artists. And before someone shoots their mouth off about this being a system which is closed to small-name artists realize that joining these licensing services as an artist is either free or very very cheap. These same companies also distribute "DART" monies, which are basically the premium that you pay on top of the base cost of blank media and mp3 players.
I'll also add that the RIAA is already required by law to issue a compulsory (that term makes sense now, huh?) license to radio stations and media producers so that the broadcasters don't have to negotiate individual deals with every artist in the world to get their music on the air. The cost of the compulsory license is limited to a "statute rate", but it can be negotiated cheaper if the licenser has some clout in the industry. Why would it be any different with p2p network distribution? A compulsory license for internet distribution is a wonderful idea and a seemingly obvious one since it's already been done that way for years in a slightly different context. And don't worry yourself with thoughts of Kazaa becoming the "new RIAA" because anyone can get a compulsory license, including competing p2p file sharing systems.
I think it's more than possible for artists to make money from touring. The key is to keep promotional costs low and consider laying off the guy who picks out all the brown m&ms.
This is simply not true... See my other comment for a detailed explanation. But it is true that licensing is an important revenue source for major label artists. But it is not the only way to make money in the music biz....
You used "talented musicians" and "spinning turntables" in the same sentence... Those two phrases do NOT belong together!
Spoken like someone who has NEVER seen a good DJ. That's a truly ignorant view - DJing is an art and DJs are often as respected as the artists they are spinning. And believe me spinning records well is not an easy thing - try it once before you shoot your mouth off again.
a concert can be a very significant money making process if its planned well.
It's just not true to say that a band can make good money on concert dates. The record companies allot a certain amount of an album's budget to what they call "Tour Support" which basically means, "We know it's going to lose money, but we want you out there anyway to promote album and merchandise sales." If you think paying $120 to see Madonna was ridiculous you should think about what a ticket would cost if it actually reflected your share of the entire concert production costs. It would be prohibitively expensive for almost any fan to see a concert that had some fun visuals - screens, pyro etc. And I do think that that stuff is important to your average concert-goer. I don't want to see a guy on stage with a mic and a guitar - that's barely different from listening to the CD, except with 5,000 other jerks screaming and flashing their tits all around you. On second thought the tits are okay but the screaming is just annoying.:) Anyway, when I go to a concert I want to see A SHOW, but I'm not willing to pay an even share of what it costs to put on this show, so personally I'm glad for tour support.
Now I hope nobody gets the idea that I feel sorry for the labels or the RIAA, those money-grubbing bastards really don't care about the music nearly as much as the money, many artists getting play on MTV are case in point. I completely agree that the recording industry is in a huge crisis right now and they MUST change their thinking. The old way of making money on music is going away fast and they have little or nothing to offer the average modern music listener. The new way to make money in music is to give away the mp3 version, sell vinyl to DJs and CDs to consumers and merchandise to everyone. And what about things like webcasting? When multimedia tech has come a little further, we have decent broadband connections and surround sound then a home concert experience might actually be pretty good. And more importantly the production expenses could be divided into far more viewers and the promoter only needs to book a single venue/sound system/lights etc. They better figure it out quick or the artists will simply cut the labels out of the picture entirely. They never really had anything to offer except widespread distribution and promotion - who needs em when I've got the Internet?
alex
Re:Why do PC cases continue to be "difficult"?
on
Bubble-Plexi Case Mod
·
· Score: 1
There are a number of toolless PC cases. If you know enough to buy a case (presumably you're going to put a motherboard in it) then it's up to you to buy a quality case instead of a $20 "today's special" no-name case. I personally like Enlight cases - they have 300W power supplies standard, pull out drive bays, a rack system for CD-ROMs and most of it can be disassembled without so much as a Phillips head (obviously you will need a single screwdriver to do heavier work - say, a mobo install). It's actually MUCH easier to work with than a G4. Sure you can pull that ring and open the case but actually installing anything can be a trick since they're usually packed in there pretty tight.
I was sick. My favorite show, possibly of all time, was stolen from me, by these lousy bastards. Nothing can heal the suffering it has caused me.
Another case of life imitating art:
Bart: Hey, I know it was great, but what right do you have to complain? ComicBookGuy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me. Bart: What? They're giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them. ComicBookGuy: [pauses] Worst episode ever.
-- "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"
I've seen that 30V figure mentioned twice now. Where did that come from?
Just to address the 30V thing, I actually have no idea what the tolerance of a CMOS transistor is. I was getting that number from an earlier post (which I am waay too lazy to search for) and to me that was as good a number as any. The point still stands that ESD voltages are out of the ballpark when compared to the tolerances.
What I was told, which makes sense, is that the conducting tracks in the chips are tiny and even small static shocks can damage these tracks. They aren't damaged enough to stop current flowing but the damage gets slowly worse, eventually breaking.
Well I understand the meaning of the word "latent" but when you hit a component with a voltage that is probably waaaay over 30 times its tolerance it's probably going to destroy that component entirely rather than just maiming it. There is really no such thing as a "small" static shock to a transistor.
You never know what kind of weird bugs might crop up when you're using a CPU that is not 100% x86 compatible such as the Athlon
So my Athlon is NOT 100% x86 compatible? I would like to hear about these imcompatibilities. Maybe you're referring to SSE extensions vs. 3D Now? Just because it runs differently "under the hood" doesn't mean it's incompatible. Is a PII incompatible with Pentium software?
alex
I think that ESD definitely IS over hyped. This is an obvious scheme by the static wrist strap industry to take your hard earned cash away from you.
But seriously I have worked on many many systems over the years and I have never had a problem which could be credibly linked to hardware failure brought on by ESD. I think that lots of less-experienced techs and help desk people blame any problem that they can't figure out on ESD. Got a BSOD that you can't explain? Here's a convenient line that no one can really disprove and makes you look smart. "It must have been mishandled by some other ignorant tech years ago and is just now showing symptoms." Right. How could even tell the difference between an ESD problem and a problem caused by irregular AC line voltages or manufacturing defects?
those systems will die 2 years earlier down the line because of latent failures created when you worked on them
What the hell is a "latent failure"? As was stated above, ESD is measured in kV while CMOS tolerances are more like 30V. Either a transistor is blown or it isn't. I agree that ESD can damage transistors, and I also know that a computer may very well power up after suffering damage from this. However I think the notion that a system would power up and work normally for two years before going south is ludicrous. You seem to think that the static can somehow "weaken" the hardware without fully blowing it out.
My personal solution to the ESD problem is a compromise between the incredibly annoying wrist strap and "going commando" and risking relatively expensive hardware. I leave the power supply plugged into a grounded outlet while working on the machine. I know somebody's gonna flame me for this, but think about it. When the machine is plugged in the entire chassis is a path to ground which can bleed off excess voltage in the case of a static discharge. If you simply touch the chassis before you start working you will discharge any static electricity which is being carried by your body and you're good to go. Unless you are working on your computer while standing on a shag carpet in your socks while rubbing a balloon on your head then this is probably all you need to be safe. You could then unplug the AC line if you wanted, although I don't see any harm in leaving it plugged in during your entire operation. Outside of the power supply the voltages can be no more than 12V and low current so electric shock is really not an issue.
On a side note I think a much more common issue is the failure of the power supply itself, rather than motherboards and chips. In most machines I build the PS will burn out after a couple of years unless I spend a few extra dollars on a step-up model case like an Enlight.
Even if they DID have, say, 100k mp3 files on the server how could that possible warrant a fine of $10 PER SONG? If the award was for monetary damages that occurred as a result of piracy then am I understanding that the court believed that each song on the server represented $10 worth of music that would have been legitimately purchased but instead was simply played back from the box? How could this be possible? Isn't that along the lines of charging over $100 for a CD worth of songs? Or does this have something to do with penalizing the company to scare anyone else who might be watching? How is this fine justified by the court?
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering: Since the internet has become so important in not just peoples lives, but in business, economics, politics, etc., is it just a priviledge or is it now a right to have it? I'd appreciate if somebody would answer! thanks
IANAL, but since no lawyers have replied yet I'll give you my take. First off, keep in mind that a relatively small percentage of the world is wired. Although the Internet is very important to us in our day to day lives this is certainly not the case worldwide. I believe that the current "wired world" is a sort of prototype for the rest of the planet. We are the first societies to have these sorts of problems but as technology spreads to the rest of the world they will also face strange new issues created by our newfound ability to communicate instantly to nearly any point on the globe. Not to mention the "action at a distance" concept which would have been viewed as a sort of magic only 100 years ago. But as to your question: Is Internet access a right or a privilege? Well, first off, you need a computer or access device to even be able to use the networks. Although these devices are getting cheaper all the time they are still out of reach for huge economic swatches even in the United States. To me this is sort of like driving a car. Even if you DO have the "privilege" of driving your car that won't do you much good without actually having a car, not to mention insurance, gas and all the other accessories that are necessary for driving. Could Internet access be a right? Well, it certainly isn't in the Bill of Rights for obvious reasons. Although Jefferson declared that humans are given certain "inalienable rights" simply by virtue of being born in practice it seems that legal rights are conferred by the state. It also seems that they need to be plainly stated in the Constitution or a constitutional amendment, and even then they are constantly bent, edited and interpreted such that it is hard to tell exactly what rights we really do have. It all goes out the window if you are suspected of being a troublemaker or enemy of the state - if you're incarcerated you have very few rights indeed. There are different rights if you are a U.S. citizen as opposed to a visitor or illegal immigrant. I don't see how anyone could call net access a right in any legal sense. Maybe in 20 years. Even if it's considered a privilege there are many reasons why an individual may not be able to connect if they wanted to.
alex
This is a very spooky bit of news. But let me throw out this idea: If the open P2P networks get clogged up by corporate bullshit how long before DJs and music fans start to set up smaller private P2P networks which require validation to use. I guess the main problem is the small size of the communities likely to form this way but a couple of users with large mp3 archives could at least distribute to their friends without having to worry about getting spoofed by tha megacorps.
alex
Is this possible with current P2P systems? I don't think it is since all peers currently connect freely to all othe peers. We need a way of restricting those connections to "known good" peers.
If you don't hear him on the radio in your area (we sure as hell hear Moby in Atlanta) then maybe you turn on MTV or VH1 occasionally? He is definitely getting very broad exposure despite the fact that nobody seems to like his album. Probably you heard the song and didn't realize it was Moby. What about Southside with Gwen from No Doubt? They musta played that every .5 hour a month ago. Moby is not alternative anymore (if he ever was). I always thought he was mainstream even for a dance(?) artist.
alex
...and I forgot to mention the COVER STORY in Wired a couple months back...
In which case you probably need a 130MB download with a horrid GUI that spews AOL icons on your desktop and various crap in your tray as well as automatically sends your email address to Spammers and "volunteers" you for a P2P ad sharing network.
...or you could use AT, the equivalent MS command. That would probably be quicker...
alex
The only reason I own an Audigy was that it replaced my Live! Creative kept promising ASIO drivers for the Live! but none ever materialized =(
There are ASIO drivers for the SB Live. Check out the kX Project. They claim to get as low as 5.33 ms latency with a Live, although I must admit I find that somewhat hard to believe. I have never used these drivers, perhaps someone who has tried them can validate the claim?
alex
I'm no PC/Mac audio expert but I do know that professional acts are recording on Macintoshes. For instance, Jon Anderson [apple.com] is recording a surround sound album on it. How can the Mac's sound capabilities suck if that is going on?
The built-in sound hardware on a Mac is okay but nowhere near the specs needed by pro audio. Anyone doing serious recording on a Mac probably has Pro Tools, which is a hybrid hardware and software package by Digidesign. Yes, it was originally released on Mac but has since been ported to PC. I regularly use both versions, the interfaces are identical and both are very stable and fast when set up correctly. Coming up fast behind Pro Tools is Nuendo by Steinberg, the only other digital audio package available for Mac which can mix surround sound (natively, unlike Pro Tools which requires add-ons for this capability). So yes, a Mac's onboard sound doesn't compete with audio hardware that was purchsed seperately (no surprise there) but don't listen to anyone who says that either a Mac or a PC is better for sound applications. They're both fine for running the software, and since most high end audio cards these days can be put into either type of machine there is no functional difference in sound quality between platforms equipped with identical sound hardware. PCs are now just as capable as Macs ever were.
alex
alex
Consumer wants music. He selects any P2P file sharing service he wants (since they ALL have access to the same body of music - that is, ALL of it that is available from its peers) and then pays, say $5/month as a subscription fee. The file sharing service takes their five bucks and keeps a list of how many times any particular file is downloaded. They send a report to the music licensing companies, ASCAP and BMI along with the artists' share of the subscription fees. The licensing companies then dole out the money to the artists in exactly the same way that they do now for radio/tv broadcasts. If you don't subscribe, you don't pay for music. If you do subscribe then you have your choice of user bases and software user interfaces. I personally would prefer to use a service with NO banner ads, lots of "hip" subscribers (one that had lots of DJs signed up would be preferable, wouldn't it?) and an uncluttered, utilitarian software client. If someone else preferred cutesy interfaces, or targeted marketing, then let them have that too. Why is Verizon involved with this at all except to lend more credence to the idea. I think that all this talk about "taxing" ISPs to pay for music piracy is a little premature (modem tax, anyone?). I expect to have to pay for music, but I sure as hell don't want to sign up with 10 different music sharing services just because the major labels aligned with different p2p companies and I like a few artists on each label. The only thing preventing my dream from becoming a reality is that there is no legislation that says the industry MUST provide license to the file swapping service providers. So they don't license, and the music is only available in stores, you lose. There IS already legislation that says the industry must license to broadcasters, so how is this different?? It's only a matter of time before congress takes this out of the RIAAs hands and gives the power back to the people.
alex
alex
alex
alex
I'll also add that the RIAA is already required by law to issue a compulsory (that term makes sense now, huh?) license to radio stations and media producers so that the broadcasters don't have to negotiate individual deals with every artist in the world to get their music on the air. The cost of the compulsory license is limited to a "statute rate", but it can be negotiated cheaper if the licenser has some clout in the industry. Why would it be any different with p2p network distribution? A compulsory license for internet distribution is a wonderful idea and a seemingly obvious one since it's already been done that way for years in a slightly different context. And don't worry yourself with thoughts of Kazaa becoming the "new RIAA" because anyone can get a compulsory license, including competing p2p file sharing systems.
alex
alex
alex
Now I hope nobody gets the idea that I feel sorry for the labels or the RIAA, those money-grubbing bastards really don't care about the music nearly as much as the money, many artists getting play on MTV are case in point. I completely agree that the recording industry is in a huge crisis right now and they MUST change their thinking. The old way of making money on music is going away fast and they have little or nothing to offer the average modern music listener. The new way to make money in music is to give away the mp3 version, sell vinyl to DJs and CDs to consumers and merchandise to everyone. And what about things like webcasting? When multimedia tech has come a little further, we have decent broadband connections and surround sound then a home concert experience might actually be pretty good. And more importantly the production expenses could be divided into far more viewers and the promoter only needs to book a single venue/sound system/lights etc.
They better figure it out quick or the artists will simply cut the labels out of the picture entirely. They never really had anything to offer except widespread distribution and promotion - who needs em when I've got the Internet?
alex
There are a number of toolless PC cases. If you know enough to buy a case (presumably you're going to put a motherboard in it) then it's up to you to buy a quality case instead of a $20 "today's special" no-name case. I personally like Enlight cases - they have 300W power supplies standard, pull out drive bays, a rack system for CD-ROMs and most of it can be disassembled without so much as a Phillips head (obviously you will need a single screwdriver to do heavier work - say, a mobo install). It's actually MUCH easier to work with than a G4. Sure you can pull that ring and open the case but actually installing anything can be a trick since they're usually packed in there pretty tight.
alex
Another case of life imitating art:
alex
Just to address the 30V thing, I actually have no idea what the tolerance of a CMOS transistor is. I was getting that number from an earlier post (which I am waay too lazy to search for) and to me that was as good a number as any. The point still stands that ESD voltages are out of the ballpark when compared to the tolerances.
alex
alex
So my Athlon is NOT 100% x86 compatible? I would like to hear about these imcompatibilities. Maybe you're referring to SSE extensions vs. 3D Now? Just because it runs differently "under the hood" doesn't mean it's incompatible. Is a PII incompatible with Pentium software?
alex
But seriously I have worked on many many systems over the years and I have never had a problem which could be credibly linked to hardware failure brought on by ESD. I think that lots of less-experienced techs and help desk people blame any problem that they can't figure out on ESD. Got a BSOD that you can't explain? Here's a convenient line that no one can really disprove and makes you look smart. "It must have been mishandled by some other ignorant tech years ago and is just now showing symptoms." Right. How could even tell the difference between an ESD problem and a problem caused by irregular AC line voltages or manufacturing defects?
What the hell is a "latent failure"? As was stated above, ESD is measured in kV while CMOS tolerances are more like 30V. Either a transistor is blown or it isn't. I agree that ESD can damage transistors, and I also know that a computer may very well power up after suffering damage from this. However I think the notion that a system would power up and work normally for two years before going south is ludicrous. You seem to think that the static can somehow "weaken" the hardware without fully blowing it out.
My personal solution to the ESD problem is a compromise between the incredibly annoying wrist strap and "going commando" and risking relatively expensive hardware. I leave the power supply plugged into a grounded outlet while working on the machine. I know somebody's gonna flame me for this, but think about it. When the machine is plugged in the entire chassis is a path to ground which can bleed off excess voltage in the case of a static discharge. If you simply touch the chassis before you start working you will discharge any static electricity which is being carried by your body and you're good to go. Unless you are working on your computer while standing on a shag carpet in your socks while rubbing a balloon on your head then this is probably all you need to be safe. You could then unplug the AC line if you wanted, although I don't see any harm in leaving it plugged in during your entire operation. Outside of the power supply the voltages can be no more than 12V and low current so electric shock is really not an issue.
On a side note I think a much more common issue is the failure of the power supply itself, rather than motherboards and chips. In most machines I build the PS will burn out after a couple of years unless I spend a few extra dollars on a step-up model case like an Enlight.
Alright, flame away.
alex
Even if they DID have, say, 100k mp3 files on the server how could that possible warrant a fine of $10 PER SONG? If the award was for monetary damages that occurred as a result of piracy then am I understanding that the court believed that each song on the server represented $10 worth of music that would have been legitimately purchased but instead was simply played back from the box? How could this be possible? Isn't that along the lines of charging over $100 for a CD worth of songs? Or does this have something to do with penalizing the company to scare anyone else who might be watching? How is this fine justified by the court?
If it's anything like DDR then the odds aren't good at all.
Do some things you know are wrong and observe the outcome. This is karma.
Wishing people were dead (regardless of their sins in your eyes) is very bad karma. alex