It's not as if this is the first time a successfully focused corporation tried to grow by expanding its brand into areas it doesn't specialise in and diluted its brand in the process. It's a text-book recipe for long-term mediocrity. Diet Coke, anybody?
Were Star Trek and Star Wars really the pinnacle of sci fi creativity? These premises are decades old. What happened to sci fi allowing barriers to imagination and creativity to be broken down? Where did the creativity go?
"You also make a nice, bright, shiny target for a taser if you really seem to be resiting the call to leave an area, and wearing a giant conductive suit around tasers seems like one the less bright choices you could make."
You have made a nice reference which brings up the potential for police to abuse new tools. We've seen it happen with Tasers... your comment even seems to accept their use as a motivational device.
How long until every squad car has some sort of pain-field generator on it to move hookers off a street corner or to get kids to stop skateboarding outside office buildings? What limits will there be (or are there now) on when and under what circumstances pain can be inflicted on people to control them?
Beside that, your comment smacks of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear..." Police in many cities have demonstrated that they are fully capable of taking peaceful gatherings and turning them into violent, chaotic messes with little or no provocation, so a permit for a demonstration (a laughable idea to begin with) means nothing regarding protection from police violence.
Has there ever been a story on slashdot in which someone somewhere admits that the RIAA had a legitimate reason to sue at least one person for copyright infringement? Is every single person accused by the RIAA really innocent?
"No - if you _want_ a product but choose not to buy it because you disagree with something you are boycotting it." I like the flavour of prunes but don't like what they do to my poop... I like potato chips but dislike the amount of fat they contain... I want to play halo but don't want to buy an XBox... etcetera, etcetera...
I have bought non of these...
these were not mere consumer choices, but acts of boycott!
"Yes. And with that CDROM drive I can do what the hell I like with it. For example - I can install it in my own music playing device, or I could disassemble it or modify it - whatever.
With a DRM system that is usually not an option - the licence will restrict what I can do with the decoder, and the EUCD makes it illegal for me to reverse engineer it."
When it comes to software, copyright also applies, which does not exist when talking about hardware (for the most part), and so restrictions on modification of DRM software exist. Similarly, if you buy a CD, there are licencing restrictions on how you can use, modify and distribute the composition and the recording of the music contained therein. Read the back of your CDs.
"I suggest you look up the meaning of the word. boycott To abstain,either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organisation as an expression of protest or as a means of coercion."
So you're suggesting that every product which I don't want and I don't buy, I am boycotting? I've been boycotting prunes all my life and didnt realise it!
"This is very different from a CD - I can go to the shops and buy a fully legit CDROM drive, which I can do with what I want - I can install it in any system I want and I can disassemble it and modify it"
When you buy that CDROM drive, you have paid a licencing fee. Without paying that licencing fee, you can't listen to your CD.
"Boycotting a product only works if there is an alternative you can buy instead. When *all* music is DRM'd you have to choose between accepting the DRM or doing without *any* music."
But that is not the case now. Choices made today affect what happens tomorrow; it is a two-way street. If the vast majority do accept DRM and there is no market purpose for the product to be rethought, then you and I are simply losers. Someone somewhere always wants to buy old products rather than new products, there are always people who prefer old business models, or who long for the "good old days". They are often laughed at by the majority. The world is changing, and consumer markets are changing; either take meaningful action to affect our course, or accept change.
By the way, choosing not to buy a product is not really "boycotting"; that word makes consumer choices sound like radical acts. I don't buy grapefruit, but it doesn't mean I am boycotting grapefuit, I just don't want grapefruit. I don't buy DRM product because I don't want it. Unfortunately the marketing of corporate entertainment is so pervasive and effective that the idea of not buying (or caring about) corporate entertainment is consider radical by many.
"Also, the ability to use DRM'd content *now* is a big deal. If I have paid for some content, why must I also be required to pay a licence fee to the owner of the DRM technology?"
You must because it is a part of the business model. If you buy a DRM-free CD, a licence fee is paid to the inventors of CDs. As with any cost of business, this is passed along to the consumer. If you buy a car, a number of licence fees are paid to inventors of technology within that vehicle. This isn't "unfair" or "injustice", it's business. If you don't like it, don't buy. If the number of sales drops, then the business model will change. If the number goes up, the status quo remains.
"why should I be required to buy Windows - an operating system that is completely useless to me - and a new computer to run it on, just so I can play some Microsoft DRM protected content? Seems rather anticompetetive to me - what we effectively have is a cartel of corporations who are doing their level best to lock anyone else out of the market."
The point is you don't have to play their content. You can choose not to care about that product. Your caring so much about it is what makes it valuable. If tomorrow, similar restrictions were placed on Oranges, I'm willing to guess many people would simply stop eating oranges. Why are movies and music so damned important? More specifically, why are corporate music and movies so damn important?
Every time a copyright or DRM article comes up on slashdot, there are endless comments asking "why do I have to...?" Nobody has to; it's entertainment; it is 100% want, not need. Look for alternatives to pass your idle time. Corporate-approved entertainment is not a basic human right, nor is it required for human survival.
For this topic I'm lacking in detail and references, but I seem to recall from when Bush first started talking about putting people on Mars via the moon, there was some talk about his vision of a new direction for Nasa not being so much in the interest of pure science as was inferred, but rather there were parallels with ideas floating around at the time about the militarisation of space, and Bush managed to put icing and a candle on it and call it a party.
Of course, the so-called space race of the 50s-60s had a lot to do with developing missles to deliver nuclear warheads, so it's not as if Bush would be the first to use a facade of scientific benevolence to make military advances.
I still question the current practicality of putting people on the moon or Mars. Despite the US sending men to the moon in the 60s, it was the robots and space stations which the Soviets pursued through that time which were the true future of space exploration and put them ahead. Space is still a nasty, big place, and we are insignificant and fragile; have we really got to the point where we can truly justify the added complexity and expense of human missions beyond low orbit, instead of expanded automated missions?
Why is Hollywood still considered a high-mark standard when it comes to money when everyone knows that everything is financially bigger than Hollywood? Electronic gaming, the NFL and porn come to mind as common examples.
Speaking of tired models of comparison, if $84 million were in $1 bills, how many football fields would that cover?
CNet is absolutely right about this being the worst Christmas for gadgets - hell, this year will even beat the Christmas I spent alone in a snowy foxhole somewhere in the Ardennes, my buddies dead around me, with nothing but a few clips of ammo for my rifle, a can of corned beef hash and a broken can opener.
For a long time I have maintained that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is just like the United States of America (USA), but with the intensity cranked to 11.
Although I wasn't able to read the article ("We should be back shortly."), the intro paragraph provided a reminder of the KSA practice of requiring all foreigners to obtain an exit and re-entry visa to leave and return to the country. However, not even the Saudis have such a requirement for their own citizens, so in this regard, could the USA take the lead from the Saudis?
"Review sites... and are effectively on the the dole by accepting both advertisements and "review" hardware from advertisers."
Besides review sites and, in similar circumstances, magazines accepting advertisements and review product, the articles you will find in many magazines discussing hot new products and how great they are etc. (be it a computer, women's fashion, travel, or any other magazine) can be essentially unmarked paid advertising and a part of the deal which gets a full page ad paid for.
Over the past weeks, maybe months, I've heard many debates between candidates in the upcoming federal elections. Invariably, at some point the Republican candidate throws in "and s/he voted against/opposed the Patriot Act!", to which the Democrat doesn't argue against the Patriot Act or any part of the Patriot Act, but rather denies ever opposing it and voices their support of the Patriot Act.
How did the Republicans manage to spin support of the Patriot Act into something politically mandatory? What happened to the Democrats supposedly growing balls? US politics are still 6 of one, half dozen the other.
If I buy recordings (which is rare) I buy CDs because of the audio quality. The data on a CD is vastly superior to any download service. Yes, I immediately rip to my computer, but I rip at a relatively high quality.
Reasons not to buy? One, too many CDs I have bought (particularly from manufacturer Cinram in Canada) are not recognised by my computer. CD retailers increasingly do not want to take responsibility for selling such defective product (whether the defect is intentional or otherwise) and their policy is to leave the customer hanging. Two, I am doing my best to wean myself from the corporate entertainment addiction.
"The upside is that if you are very rich in the US, you get the best healthcare in the world. You get the best equipment, best doctors, the best supplies, and you don't have to wait in line."
Still more tired old clichés. Unfortunately this is not so much the case as some would like you to believe. Some Americans get the best health care, equipment, waiting times etc. Also, this argument suggests a huge gap in base quality of equipment, staff, doctors, etc between the US and Canada and Europe. That is not true.
Sometimes Canadians are sent to the US for treatment, not just because of waiting time or whatnot, but because of the economies of scale: it simply doesn't make sense for areas with a low population density to maintain certain equipment and staff. It can be more cost effective for the province to pay for a procedure to be performed elsewhere. It is not unheard of for US citizens to be sent to Canada for treatment.
"But even if you are very rich in Canada, you are still stuck getting the same healthcare as some bum nextdoors (unless you fly to US)"
Unfortunately, even in the US, the "bum nextdoors" is 95%+ of the population. Arguing in favour of one system for the sake of the "very rich" is shallow and silly.
"They all love it, but it's only a good place to live; not to make money. Things are scarce, money is scarcer."
Although I understand the need to save money for a rainy say and retirement, there is more to life than purchasing power. Saying "they all love it, but it's only a good place to live..." seems to be missing the point.
"Although the Pocket World in Figures somehow calculated that Canada has the highest quality of life (the US second),"
Perhaps they somehow included things such as quality of education, infrastructure and (yes) healthcare.
I will not get into the experiences of your relatives in in Regina as I do not know the specific facts, but I do know that many of these "can't get healthcare in Canada" stories are years old or are blown out of proportion. In the past five years there has been more federal money made available to the provinces for healthcare, and some overall reform too. Each province runs its own health care system, so there are differences in each province.
Besides that, if there are shortcomings to the healthcare system (as there are in every country), at least they are spread across the board, not suffered exclusively by uninsured or poorly insured people. I have experienced health care in California and three Canadian provinces. I will take the Canadian model any day.
'The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.'
"My Mac Mini did it regularly, as did my supervisor's Mac, with the "Sorry, an error has occurred" box popping up in 5 or 6 languages on an almost daily basis) - maybe we both just had lemon hardware"
There must have been something unique in your scenario to cause such crashes, because that many kernel panics from OSX should be very unusual.
For a couple years I maintained a dozen or so OSX machines which were used by people who seemed intent on destroying all they touched, and still OSX would not crash so heavily. I recall one machine suffering high-frequency panics, but bad memory was the culprit and the problem was solved within hours of notification.
(This is where I ponder on the phenomenon of some people accepting extreme computer problems, perhaps because they seem to expect computers to be a problem, and so problems are considered "normal" and go unreported. If machines you were using were behaving so badly, wouldn't somebody in the office/lab want to get them repaired?)
Were the problems ever resolved? Kernel panics are merely a symptom of a problem. If the cause were never revealed, then it is difficult/impossible to blame OSX (or anything else) for the problem.
"The disc is incompatible with a 1x burn speed, you must select a speed of 2x or higher. That's simplicity for you, I guess."
So was the problem with the Mac or with the disc? Would the disc cause the same problem with XP? Wouldn't it be simpler to choose the default "automatic" setting for the burn?
"I'm free of carpal tunnel syndrome despite being a constant keyboard user"
Believe me, I know the value in having proper furniture, posture and habits to avoid back, leg, neck and shoulder problems, but carpal tunnel syndrome's link to computer work is not strong.
"However, recent studies and peer review articles have found no relationship between carpal tunnel syndrome and office-type work. Recently the Harvard Medical School published a report in which it addressed carpal tunnel syndrome. The Harvard report cited to the 2003 Journal of American Medical Association study[5] and the 2001 study in Neurology (the Mayo Clinic Study [6]) in reporting that computer use did not increase a person's risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome."
"On the other hand, in 1997, studies done by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), indicated that job tasks involving highly repetitive manual acts or necessitating wrist bending or other stressful wrist postures were connected with incidents of CTS or related problems. However, it appears that the 30+ studies reviewed were concerned with the occupations of assembly line workers, meat packers, food processors, and the like, not general office work."
"I have to say I think you'd have a tough time arguing that."
Who is more culturally advanced: a community in which one or two people in each family play instruments and entertainment revolves around them performing on weekends with family and friends at home parties, or a community where everyone listens to music on CDs, watches television and goes to nightclubs to dance to music from CDs on weekends?
I'm not declaring one or the other the winner. I'm just saying it's not so tough to argue. Just because the marketing of modern corporate entertainment is omnipresent doesn't mean we are more culturally advanced than any other period in our history, or that Los Angeles or London is more culturally advanced than a village in Botswana.
In times and places without mass-market entertainment, people entertain themselves, and culture developed from that - and, in those cases, people use(d) their minds to entertain themselves (whether genius or otherwise), instead of turning their minds off to be entertained - which option bears more benefit for society?
"So, going back to my first comment, stop playing their game, stop giving them relevance, stop giving them justification for their aims. If the DRM cartels are irrelevant, then they are powerless. It will hurt them far more than it will hurt you.
The problem lies with people who want the entertainment industry and government to be coerced into making dramatic changes to their way of thinking, but without making any changes to their own way of thinking, their own expectations and their own behaviour."
So how do you suggest we stop this trampling of our fundamental rights? Shall we complain longer, or shall we complain louder?
"I honestly don't think anybody is going to do what you have suggested. Nice idea in theory, but it won't happen anytime soon."
You are right, and I am fully aware of that. The decades of pervasive marketing and hype around entertainment product have become invisible to most people and so the suggestion that someone not possess a new release product on any terms is considered absolutely ridiculous, inconceivable, by most people. Every product this industry sells is 100% want-based, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is often considered need-based; food, water, air, Star Wars DVDs. It is an addiction, with denial and withdrawal pain and everything else that goes with it.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. It is simply too painful to acknowledge even to ourselves that we've been so credulous." -Carl Sagan
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy good music or movies as much as anyone else, but if someone wants change, they can't continue with business as usual. Complaining is not enough.
So, going back to my first comment, stop playing their game, stop giving them relevance, stop giving them justification for their aims. If the DRM cartels are irrelevant, then they are powerless. It will hurt them far more than it will hurt you.
The problem lies with people who want the entertainment industry and government to be coerced into making dramatic changes to their way of thinking, but without making any changes to their own way of thinking, their own expectations and their own behaviour.
It's not that great of a personal sacrifice to resist the "new release" marketing machine, stop buying/downloading/bootlegging new CDs and DVDs, and just be content with what you've got now. What will give you greater personal satisfaction: seeing the DRM cartels turned upside down, or having the newest release from your favourite band? If you want change, make change happen.
""Entertainment" == culture. People don't "need" those things, no (but then again, apart from food and shelter, what do people really "need"), but they are a critical part of a mature and functional society."
Yes, of course, but where does it say that this entertainment/culture must come from the corporations, from Madonna or U2? The culture generated by you with a banjo and a friend with a piano on a friday night in the living room is just as relevant and does as much or more to advance you as an individual and society as a whole as any CD you could buy in a store.
I could argue that mass-market culture actually holds people back and inhibits personal growth and development, as it removes the need/desire for individuals to take the initiative and develop their own culture instead of having it handed to them. The growth and development of people (or lack thereof) is reflected in society and culture.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as if this is the first time a successfully focused corporation tried to grow by expanding its brand into areas it doesn't specialise in and diluted its brand in the process. It's a text-book recipe for long-term mediocrity. Diet Coke, anybody?
Were Star Trek and Star Wars really the pinnacle of sci fi creativity? These premises are decades old. What happened to sci fi allowing barriers to imagination and creativity to be broken down? Where did the creativity go?
"You also make a nice, bright, shiny target for a taser if you really seem to be resiting the call to leave an area, and wearing a giant conductive suit around tasers seems like one the less bright choices you could make."
You have made a nice reference which brings up the potential for police to abuse new tools. We've seen it happen with Tasers... your comment even seems to accept their use as a motivational device.
How long until every squad car has some sort of pain-field generator on it to move hookers off a street corner or to get kids to stop skateboarding outside office buildings? What limits will there be (or are there now) on when and under what circumstances pain can be inflicted on people to control them?
Beside that, your comment smacks of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear..." Police in many cities have demonstrated that they are fully capable of taking peaceful gatherings and turning them into violent, chaotic messes with little or no provocation, so a permit for a demonstration (a laughable idea to begin with) means nothing regarding protection from police violence.
Has there ever been a story on slashdot in which someone somewhere admits that the RIAA had a legitimate reason to sue at least one person for copyright infringement? Is every single person accused by the RIAA really innocent?
"No - if you _want_ a product but choose not to buy it because you disagree with something you are boycotting it."
I like the flavour of prunes but don't like what they do to my poop...
I like potato chips but dislike the amount of fat they contain...
I want to play halo but don't want to buy an XBox...
etcetera, etcetera...
I have bought non of these...
these were not mere consumer choices, but acts of boycott!
"Yes. And with that CDROM drive I can do what the hell I like with it. For example - I can install it in my own music playing device, or I could disassemble it or modify it - whatever.
With a DRM system that is usually not an option - the licence will restrict what I can do with the decoder, and the EUCD makes it illegal for me to reverse engineer it."
When it comes to software, copyright also applies, which does not exist when talking about hardware (for the most part), and so restrictions on modification of DRM software exist. Similarly, if you buy a CD, there are licencing restrictions on how you can use, modify and distribute the composition and the recording of the music contained therein. Read the back of your CDs.
"I suggest you look up the meaning of the word. boycott To abstain,either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organisation as an expression of protest or as a means of coercion."
So you're suggesting that every product which I don't want and I don't buy, I am boycotting? I've been boycotting prunes all my life and didnt realise it!
"This is very different from a CD - I can go to the shops and buy a fully legit CDROM drive, which I can do with what I want - I can install it in any system I want and I can disassemble it and modify it"
When you buy that CDROM drive, you have paid a licencing fee. Without paying that licencing fee, you can't listen to your CD.
"Boycotting a product only works if there is an alternative you can buy instead. When *all* music is DRM'd you have to choose between accepting the DRM or doing without *any* music."
But that is not the case now. Choices made today affect what happens tomorrow; it is a two-way street. If the vast majority do accept DRM and there is no market purpose for the product to be rethought, then you and I are simply losers. Someone somewhere always wants to buy old products rather than new products, there are always people who prefer old business models, or who long for the "good old days". They are often laughed at by the majority. The world is changing, and consumer markets are changing; either take meaningful action to affect our course, or accept change.
By the way, choosing not to buy a product is not really "boycotting"; that word makes consumer choices sound like radical acts. I don't buy grapefruit, but it doesn't mean I am boycotting grapefuit, I just don't want grapefruit. I don't buy DRM product because I don't want it. Unfortunately the marketing of corporate entertainment is so pervasive and effective that the idea of not buying (or caring about) corporate entertainment is consider radical by many.
"Also, the ability to use DRM'd content *now* is a big deal. If I have paid for some content, why must I also be required to pay a licence fee to the owner of the DRM technology?"
You must because it is a part of the business model. If you buy a DRM-free CD, a licence fee is paid to the inventors of CDs. As with any cost of business, this is passed along to the consumer. If you buy a car, a number of licence fees are paid to inventors of technology within that vehicle. This isn't "unfair" or "injustice", it's business. If you don't like it, don't buy. If the number of sales drops, then the business model will change. If the number goes up, the status quo remains.
"why should I be required to buy Windows - an operating system that is completely useless to me - and a new computer to run it on, just so I can play some Microsoft DRM protected content? Seems rather anticompetetive to me - what we effectively have is a cartel of corporations who are doing their level best to lock anyone else out of the market."
The point is you don't have to play their content. You can choose not to care about that product. Your caring so much about it is what makes it valuable. If tomorrow, similar restrictions were placed on Oranges, I'm willing to guess many people would simply stop eating oranges. Why are movies and music so damned important? More specifically, why are corporate music and movies so damn important?
Every time a copyright or DRM article comes up on slashdot, there are endless comments asking "why do I have to...?" Nobody has to; it's entertainment; it is 100% want, not need. Look for alternatives to pass your idle time. Corporate-approved entertainment is not a basic human right, nor is it required for human survival.
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
For this topic I'm lacking in detail and references, but I seem to recall from when Bush first started talking about putting people on Mars via the moon, there was some talk about his vision of a new direction for Nasa not being so much in the interest of pure science as was inferred, but rather there were parallels with ideas floating around at the time about the militarisation of space, and Bush managed to put icing and a candle on it and call it a party.
Of course, the so-called space race of the 50s-60s had a lot to do with developing missles to deliver nuclear warheads, so it's not as if Bush would be the first to use a facade of scientific benevolence to make military advances.
I still question the current practicality of putting people on the moon or Mars. Despite the US sending men to the moon in the 60s, it was the robots and space stations which the Soviets pursued through that time which were the true future of space exploration and put them ahead. Space is still a nasty, big place, and we are insignificant and fragile; have we really got to the point where we can truly justify the added complexity and expense of human missions beyond low orbit, instead of expanded automated missions?
"more even than the TV/movies/music groups"
Why is Hollywood still considered a high-mark standard when it comes to money when everyone knows that everything is financially bigger than Hollywood? Electronic gaming, the NFL and porn come to mind as common examples.
Speaking of tired models of comparison, if $84 million were in $1 bills, how many football fields would that cover?
CNet is absolutely right about this being the worst Christmas for gadgets - hell, this year will even beat the Christmas I spent alone in a snowy foxhole somewhere in the Ardennes, my buddies dead around me, with nothing but a few clips of ammo for my rifle, a can of corned beef hash and a broken can opener.
For a long time I have maintained that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is just like the United States of America (USA), but with the intensity cranked to 11.
Although I wasn't able to read the article ("We should be back shortly."), the intro paragraph provided a reminder of the KSA practice of requiring all foreigners to obtain an exit and re-entry visa to leave and return to the country. However, not even the Saudis have such a requirement for their own citizens, so in this regard, could the USA take the lead from the Saudis?
"Review sites... and are effectively on the the dole by accepting both advertisements and "review" hardware from advertisers."
Besides review sites and, in similar circumstances, magazines accepting advertisements and review product, the articles you will find in many magazines discussing hot new products and how great they are etc. (be it a computer, women's fashion, travel, or any other magazine) can be essentially unmarked paid advertising and a part of the deal which gets a full page ad paid for.
Over the past weeks, maybe months, I've heard many debates between candidates in the upcoming federal elections. Invariably, at some point the Republican candidate throws in "and s/he voted against/opposed the Patriot Act!", to which the Democrat doesn't argue against the Patriot Act or any part of the Patriot Act, but rather denies ever opposing it and voices their support of the Patriot Act.
How did the Republicans manage to spin support of the Patriot Act into something politically mandatory? What happened to the Democrats supposedly growing balls? US politics are still 6 of one, half dozen the other.
If I buy recordings (which is rare) I buy CDs because of the audio quality. The data on a CD is vastly superior to any download service. Yes, I immediately rip to my computer, but I rip at a relatively high quality.
Reasons not to buy? One, too many CDs I have bought (particularly from manufacturer Cinram in Canada) are not recognised by my computer. CD retailers increasingly do not want to take responsibility for selling such defective product (whether the defect is intentional or otherwise) and their policy is to leave the customer hanging. Two, I am doing my best to wean myself from the corporate entertainment addiction.
"The upside is that if you are very rich in the US, you get the best healthcare in the world. You get the best equipment, best doctors, the best supplies, and you don't have to wait in line."
Still more tired old clichés. Unfortunately this is not so much the case as some would like you to believe. Some Americans get the best health care, equipment, waiting times etc. Also, this argument suggests a huge gap in base quality of equipment, staff, doctors, etc between the US and Canada and Europe. That is not true.
Sometimes Canadians are sent to the US for treatment, not just because of waiting time or whatnot, but because of the economies of scale: it simply doesn't make sense for areas with a low population density to maintain certain equipment and staff. It can be more cost effective for the province to pay for a procedure to be performed elsewhere. It is not unheard of for US citizens to be sent to Canada for treatment.
"But even if you are very rich in Canada, you are still stuck getting the same healthcare as some bum nextdoors (unless you fly to US)"
Unfortunately, even in the US, the "bum nextdoors" is 95%+ of the population. Arguing in favour of one system for the sake of the "very rich" is shallow and silly.
"They all love it, but it's only a good place to live; not to make money. Things are scarce, money is scarcer."
Although I understand the need to save money for a rainy say and retirement, there is more to life than purchasing power. Saying "they all love it, but it's only a good place to live..." seems to be missing the point.
"Although the Pocket World in Figures somehow calculated that Canada has the highest quality of life (the US second),"
Perhaps they somehow included things such as quality of education, infrastructure and (yes) healthcare.
I will not get into the experiences of your relatives in in Regina as I do not know the specific facts, but I do know that many of these "can't get healthcare in Canada" stories are years old or are blown out of proportion. In the past five years there has been more federal money made available to the provinces for healthcare, and some overall reform too. Each province runs its own health care system, so there are differences in each province.
Besides that, if there are shortcomings to the healthcare system (as there are in every country), at least they are spread across the board, not suffered exclusively by uninsured or poorly insured people. I have experienced health care in California and three Canadian provinces. I will take the Canadian model any day.
Considering all the problems the US has with its healthcare system, it still amazes me that the US spends the most per capita on health care. Where is the money going, and who is benefiting?
'The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.'
"My Mac Mini did it regularly, as did my supervisor's Mac, with the "Sorry, an error has occurred" box popping up in 5 or 6 languages on an almost daily basis) - maybe we both just had lemon hardware"
There must have been something unique in your scenario to cause such crashes, because that many kernel panics from OSX should be very unusual.
For a couple years I maintained a dozen or so OSX machines which were used by people who seemed intent on destroying all they touched, and still OSX would not crash so heavily. I recall one machine suffering high-frequency panics, but bad memory was the culprit and the problem was solved within hours of notification.
(This is where I ponder on the phenomenon of some people accepting extreme computer problems, perhaps because they seem to expect computers to be a problem, and so problems are considered "normal" and go unreported. If machines you were using were behaving so badly, wouldn't somebody in the office/lab want to get them repaired?)
Were the problems ever resolved? Kernel panics are merely a symptom of a problem. If the cause were never revealed, then it is difficult/impossible to blame OSX (or anything else) for the problem.
"The disc is incompatible with a 1x burn speed, you must select a speed of 2x or higher. That's simplicity for you, I guess."
So was the problem with the Mac or with the disc? Would the disc cause the same problem with XP? Wouldn't it be simpler to choose the default "automatic" setting for the burn?
"I'm free of carpal tunnel syndrome despite being a constant keyboard user"
Believe me, I know the value in having proper furniture, posture and habits to avoid back, leg, neck and shoulder problems, but carpal tunnel syndrome's link to computer work is not strong.
From Wikipedia:
"However, recent studies and peer review articles have found no relationship between carpal tunnel syndrome and office-type work. Recently the Harvard Medical School published a report in which it addressed carpal tunnel syndrome. The Harvard report cited to the 2003 Journal of American Medical Association study[5] and the 2001 study in Neurology (the Mayo Clinic Study [6]) in reporting that computer use did not increase a person's risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome."
"On the other hand, in 1997, studies done by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), indicated that job tasks involving highly repetitive manual acts or necessitating wrist bending or other stressful wrist postures were connected with incidents of CTS or related problems. However, it appears that the 30+ studies reviewed were concerned with the occupations of assembly line workers, meat packers, food processors, and the like, not general office work."
"I have to say I think you'd have a tough time arguing that."
Who is more culturally advanced: a community in which one or two people in each family play instruments and entertainment revolves around them performing on weekends with family and friends at home parties, or a community where everyone listens to music on CDs, watches television and goes to nightclubs to dance to music from CDs on weekends?
I'm not declaring one or the other the winner. I'm just saying it's not so tough to argue. Just because the marketing of modern corporate entertainment is omnipresent doesn't mean we are more culturally advanced than any other period in our history, or that Los Angeles or London is more culturally advanced than a village in Botswana.
In times and places without mass-market entertainment, people entertain themselves, and culture developed from that - and, in those cases, people use(d) their minds to entertain themselves (whether genius or otherwise), instead of turning their minds off to be entertained - which option bears more benefit for society?
"So, going back to my first comment, stop playing their game, stop giving them relevance, stop giving them justification for their aims. If the DRM cartels are irrelevant, then they are powerless. It will hurt them far more than it will hurt you.
The problem lies with people who want the entertainment industry and government to be coerced into making dramatic changes to their way of thinking, but without making any changes to their own way of thinking, their own expectations and their own behaviour."
So how do you suggest we stop this trampling of our fundamental rights? Shall we complain longer, or shall we complain louder?
"I honestly don't think anybody is going to do what you have suggested. Nice idea in theory, but it won't happen anytime soon."
You are right, and I am fully aware of that. The decades of pervasive marketing and hype around entertainment product have become invisible to most people and so the suggestion that someone not possess a new release product on any terms is considered absolutely ridiculous, inconceivable, by most people. Every product this industry sells is 100% want-based, but it has become so ingrained in society that it is often considered need-based; food, water, air, Star Wars DVDs. It is an addiction, with denial and withdrawal pain and everything else that goes with it.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. It is simply too painful to acknowledge even to ourselves that we've been so credulous." -Carl Sagan
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy good music or movies as much as anyone else, but if someone wants change, they can't continue with business as usual. Complaining is not enough.
"Fundamental human rights are being trampled on"
So, going back to my first comment, stop playing their game, stop giving them relevance, stop giving them justification for their aims. If the DRM cartels are irrelevant, then they are powerless. It will hurt them far more than it will hurt you.
The problem lies with people who want the entertainment industry and government to be coerced into making dramatic changes to their way of thinking, but without making any changes to their own way of thinking, their own expectations and their own behaviour.
It's not that great of a personal sacrifice to resist the "new release" marketing machine, stop buying/downloading/bootlegging new CDs and DVDs, and just be content with what you've got now. What will give you greater personal satisfaction: seeing the DRM cartels turned upside down, or having the newest release from your favourite band? If you want change, make change happen.
""Entertainment" == culture. People don't "need" those things, no (but then again, apart from food and shelter, what do people really "need"), but they are a critical part of a mature and functional society."
Yes, of course, but where does it say that this entertainment/culture must come from the corporations, from Madonna or U2? The culture generated by you with a banjo and a friend with a piano on a friday night in the living room is just as relevant and does as much or more to advance you as an individual and society as a whole as any CD you could buy in a store.
I could argue that mass-market culture actually holds people back and inhibits personal growth and development, as it removes the need/desire for individuals to take the initiative and develop their own culture instead of having it handed to them. The growth and development of people (or lack thereof) is reflected in society and culture.