Their sole motivation is to gather more customer data. Believe it or not, there's another reason that doesn't require a tinfoil hit.
One of my best friends is a corporate manager for one of the largest chains in the country that has plans to implement a similar strategy. The reason is like anything else--to cut costs and maximize profits. If you have a cart that can scan as you go and keep a total, all you need is a credit or debit card tied to your store savings card and you can go right from the shelf into a bag. When you're done, you walk out the door.
This does have the negative side effect of making all of those checkers and baggers obsolete (and therefore unemployed), but from a shoppers perspective it's great. You can just walk in, get what you need and leave. No lines, no waiting, no stoned bagger putting the liquid laundry detergent on top of your carton of eggs.
One drawback you might notice is that it depends on shopper honesty to scan everything that goes into their cart. In test stores, apparently, it works quite well as most shoppers are either too honest or too paranoid to try to cheat the system. There is a degree of loss, but it's more than compensated for by the savings on payroll that used to go to pay the extra checkers and baggers. Additionally, they have relatively short term plans to implement RFID (3-5 years out) which will make the system much effective. The stores aren't stupid though, they plan on rolling these out only in stores in nice neighborhoods. There, the rate of theft is projected to be low enough as to not impact the bottom line.
If you already use a shopper's card or pay with a credit card, the supermarkets already have all the data on your shopping habits they need. If you're too paranoid to use either of those when shopping, then this new system won't impact you at all. There will undoubtedly still be a line for you to stand in to pay cash.
I feel for your diffifculties, but the opposite of medication isn't force of will. Cognitive behavioralism is hardly a "stiff upper lip" approach. I don't deny you your suffering and difficulty. The idea is that with proper behavioral changes, you can ultimatley train your brain into chemically altering in a natural way that mimics the positive effects of the medication.
Even if you do this in the begining in conjunction with medication, the end goal should be to ultimately not be dependent on the meds. The meds can be highly addictive, have horrible side effects, and ultimately not treat the source of the problem, only the symptoms.
A person who exhibits both manic and depressive behavior (let's get out of the APA endorsed habit of labeling behavior and simply describe it) can learn with proper therapy to control the mood swings without the need for harmful chemicals. The trick is to get the heck away from Psychiatrists who have only one year of specializiation in all things neurological--specifically how to diagnose (read: label) and prescribe medicine--and get yourself to a cognitive behavioral Psychologist who has 5 years doctoral training in behavioral problems.
IANAD. Obviously any changes to medication or therapy should be taken up with a trained mental health professional.
Americans are so eager to medicate themselves, I'm sure this will take off here if they can ever put it in pill form and approve it for human consumption. Eager parents await. How long until the APA classifies procrastination as a medical condition? Oh wait, they already have.
The American Psychiatric Association invents diagnoses to perpetuate an industry geared to helping people with these newly discovered and (conveniently) medicinally treatable "diseases." They invent problems. This is discussed in depth in Making Us Crazy By Herb Kutchins, but alternate forms of therapy have been discussed for decades (see Jean Piaget, for example). Undeniably, some severe conditions like Schizophrenia are treatable within the Psychiatric paradigm. Most more pedestrain difficulties--bipolar, depression, ADHD, homosexuality (oh wait, the DSM finally stopped classifying that as mental illness in the 3rd edition!) are best treated with cognitive behavioral therapy. Change the behavior and you change the brain chemistry. Psychotropics are terribly harmful and do nothing to address the underlying behavior that's causing the difficulties.
It's not inflamatory or wild speculation to say that if this discovery with monkeys makes its way to a human treatment, that it will thrust upon every bored 10 year old who's lacking challenge.
This message has been brought to you by a person who was diagnosed with ADHD at 15, took ritalin in high school at 16, and who finally, through behavioral changes in his 20s, was retested at 27 and can no longer be diagnosed with ADHD.
Nanotech memory is very exciting, but there's a lot more than the technology itself that determines whether it's the next big thing. So far all I see is a weblog with some basic diagrams of how it works and some serious brochureware at Zettacore.
Not to state the obvious, but it will take low manufacturing costs, industry willingness, consumer demand, and a whole lot of marketing before this or any other revolutionary changes become de facto standards.
Better, smaller, faster, is no match for cheaper, more accessible, and well-marketed.
assuming the contract is as clearly stated as it is mentioned in the article.
You may have misread the article. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The dispute is over whether spring traing is a part of the baseball season. Any baseball fan (espeically one as rabid as I) will tell you that it clearly is not. This is why the current period is referred to as PRE-season. It's also why Double A ball players are facing off against Jason Schmidt and Garth Brooks is batting for the Royals. The pre-season is the period of training and exhibition games before the season begins.
It seems pretty clear that Real is being litigious. The heavyhandedness is familiar. It's quite similar to the way they've been upselling me Real One with spyware the last two years. It's not going to endear them to MLB just like the popups aren't going to make me want to buy their product (let alone use the free version).
and the number of competitors for wireless devices in the US is down by one.
Is it inherently a bad thing to have one less competitor? Isn't competition supposed to only be the path towards customer satisfaction? In the world of wireless, where the end is good coverage, an excellent infrastructure, and flexible plans, as long as competition fosters these things it's good to have one more carrier in the fray. However, AT&T has arguably the worst network and worst coverage of any provider. Having them swallowed into a much larger network with much broader coverage is not inherently a bad thing.
This is not to debate the merits of Cingular's network or to compare their coverage or plans with Verizon, T-mobile, or Sprint's--this is simply to say that beleagured AT&T customers serve to gain from the acquisition.
OK, I'll bite because both you and the grandparent post have made this ridiculous leap in logic. Regardless of the politics involved, this is a faulty syllogism. Karma be damned.
Your logic looks like this:
A) "We went to war...solely for the WMD's"
B) "There are no WMD's"
Therefore
C) "The war was wrong"
In your reasoning, while A may be true, and B may be true, there is no logic that allows you to come to C as your conclusion.
Correct logic would look like this:
A) WMDs are the only justification for a war.
B) There are no WMDs
Therefore
C) The war is not justified.
This logic is clearly ridiculous as there are many reasons beyond WMDs for legitimately going to war--a country attacks us, a ruling power or ethnic group is committing genocide, a ruling party is terrorizing its people and committing horrendous atrocities, or a country's aggressiveness is destabilizing a region--to name a few. I think the problem here is that I've kept your premises but changed your conclusion.
I think I know what argument you were trying to make. Let me see if I can straighten out your syllogism so that the conclusion remains unchanged.
A) Bush took the country to war.
B) Everything Bush does is wrong.
Therefore
C) The war is wrong.
There. Doesn't it feel better to be frank with your agenda?
Unfortunately, the 'selection' process of the record companies doesn't really help that problem, since they select more on sex appeal and neutralness than on musical abilities or originality.
The record industry looks for a marketable product a lot of that is based on image (not just sex appeal), but predictability makes for a safe investment. However, we should be careful not to malign bands just because they've signed to a major label. Most bands are convinced that this will help them be heard and are suckered into believing they can make some money. By and large most RIAA bands are victims as much as the consumer or the sued file sharer.
Steve Albini, producer of The Pixies, Nirvana, and a former member of the band Big Black has some wonderful insights into the way the record industry works. Albini gives a very good example of a typical signing (most signed acts do not become famous or wealthy) in which after the first album of a four record deal the record sells 250,000 copies and the music industry made 3 million. Unfortuantely the band is still $14,000 in the hole on royalties and has earned about 1/3 what they would have made working at a convenience store. Albini gives a full breakdown of all income and expenses from this typical scenario (one record and supporting tour in). The bottom line:
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25 ...
Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.
Don't assume that the artists are making out from high priced CDs and RIAA lawsuit settlements. I'm sure most artists aren't interested in seeing these lawsuits continue, but artists have been so suckered into thinking that a mjor label is the only way to be heard that walking out and signing to an independent label doesn't even seem like an option. But assuming tht the artists are reaping great rewards is just silly. Most RIAA artists are not P. Diddy, just under a mistaken impression that majors are the only way to succeed and as a result find themselves exploited.
I don't think the original post in this thread is off-topic at all. Here's why:
teachers in category 2 are delighted by this kind of challenge.
I'm afraid the current push for standardized testing and the over-administration of teachers is quickly clearing our schools of this kind of teacher.
My mom has just retired early (59) out of frustration because she can no longer teach in a way that's meaningful. She taught for 35 years as a public kindergarten teacher. She worked at school from 8 am until 5 pm, at-home lesson planning at least an hour and a half every night, and at least 3 or 4 hours every Sunday (my entire childhood). She had her kids doing creative mathematics and writing their own (albeit short) stories and illustrating their books by the end of the year.
Then the mandatory standardized testing started a few years back and the district locked down all of the ways she can teach. She has to teach only from textbooks and workbooks and give these five year olds frequent standardized tests. The kids must earn a letter grade at the end of the year. There are classroom observers that come in frequently that will downgrade the school if she isn't teaching according to this new curriculum. No more story reading. No more creative mathematics and learning about patterns with unifix cubes. No more buddy projects with the 4th graders who would come in for additional creative learning time. It's all gone. My mom's students always loved school at the end of the year and couldn't wait for first grade. Now they all hate school and much of my mom's job is keeping them on task when they're bored out of their skulls.
My mom was the most dedicated teacher I have ever known. She easily worked 55 hours a week for the duration of her career and has a masters in early childhood education and a certificate in bilingual education. Teachers like my mom are no longer welcome in the public school classrooms of America.
It's pretty clear that we're in the midst of the corporatization of our public school systems. Textbook conglomerates like Houton Mifflin and McGraw-Hill are making an absolute fortune off of the recent changes. Not surprisingly, they were also the companies who sponsored the educational studies that were used by legislators to push for these changes. Is it any wonder that a company like Apple would get pushed out of such an environment?
2004, the contract's final season, the minimum will be $108,716, up 14.4 percent from the $95,000 minimum in 1999, the final year of the old contract
I'm not arguing that the minimum salary isn't a lot of money to an average Joe like me, but your indignance at the yearly increase is a little misplaced.
Over a five year stretch, that's about a 2.6% raise each year--below the average rate of inflation.
Hello Taco,
MY NAME IS William Gates and I have been having some problems with the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT and a nasty company called AOL TIME WARNER who think they are going to get a LARGE SUM OF MONEY from me.
BECASUE OF GOVERNMENT SCRUTINY I NEED YOUR HELP IN TRANSFERING THE SUM OF 750,000,000 TO A SWISS BANK ACCOUNT.
FOR YOUR HELP, I WILL STOP FUNDING SCO'S ATTACK ON LINUX.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER
WILLIAM GATES
Experimental Noise Has Been Here Already
on
Soundless Music?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This is nothing new to listeners of avante garde noise rock.
John Zorn experimented with high pitched frequencies outside of listeners' auditory range on Krystallnacht. Track 2 has high pitched frequencies that coexist with the sound of breaking glass that cause feelings of anger, pain and nausea. The liner notes discourage repeated listening (I kid you not).
The Flaming Lips Did this on Zaireeka, their 4-CD (played simultaneously) experiment--wherein they used frequencies lower than the normal auditory range to create feelings of disorientation (funny since the Flaming Lips most pop-oriented songs can do this too).
I'm sure more examples can be found within the annals of experimental noise rock.
It's clearly the right of those that feel their material is being stolen to try to protect that material as best they can. This method is preferable, IMHO to individual persecution or the arbitrry charging of ISPs.
On the otherhand, those that feel it is within their moral rights to "share" music, movies, and software can clearly be expected to try to circumvent and overcome any obstacles groups like Overpeer put in their way with tools lik Sig2Dat.
Foregoing the obvious arguments about legality and ethics that are sure to follow, there is a certain amount of progress in advanced and secure filesharing that is engendered by this game of cat and mouse.
It's also a big clue why the army has started on adopting a lot more wheeled armor over tracked, much easier to use in cities and on roads. Yes, easier to transport as well, but still...
Not to insinuate that you're paranoid, but shouldn't our military's weapons fit the terrain that most wars are being fought these days? Urban terror/guerilla warfare is very common these days (see Chechnya, Israel, etc.). I would be more inclined to believe that this is the motivating factor for the military developing more wheeled armor vehicles.
You can keep waiting for the military to take over American cities, but my suspicion is that martial law is still a ways off.
Without empirical evidence, this is just fringe cultists making a radical, unsubstantiated claim. I'm frankly surpirised how much attention mainstream news sources have given this. It's a sad state of affairs when anyone can make wild claims and without showing any evidence, they can grab headlines.
By the way, did I mention I performed successful cold fusion experiments?
I don't mean to be an asshole, but what you've quoted is that there is nothing inherently wrong in any medium. Which means, in answer to your question, that advertising on a flyer, or advertising with pamphlets is not inherently wrong. Coming into my house and stapling them on my wall clearly is.
Mailing one to my house clearly shouldn't be, unless I've asked you not to or signed up for the national registry which prohibits direct marketing to my home. As of now, this reigistry exists, but is purely voluntary for advertisers. What I advocate (beyond making it required for paper based direct marketers), is to make it mandatory for all email marketers as well.
IANAL but I suspect that what I'm proposing--a way to easily opt-out of all ALL email based direct marketing does not violate the first ammendment.What you're proposing (as best as I can gather from your inflamatory post) most certainly does. Free speech applies to businesses too.
OK, I'll bite. If you read my post you'd have seen that I'm advocating your right to opt out of receiving ANY email marketing. This should be your right.
Does CDW have the right to send my busniness catalogs?
Making blanket restriction on who we can and can't speak to as individuals and businesses--and what we can and can't say--is a very bad idea.
Don't you think it's a much better idea to be able to say: "I don't want you to speak to me" or "I don't want any of you to speak to me" (and to have this enforcable by law) rather than have a law that simply says "none of you have any right to talk any of them?" There seems to me to be a big difference. My belief is that the rights of the individual and the rights of business are pretty closely intertwined. When we set up rules to govern fair practice in business, we should tread lightly so as not to constrict our rights as individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, there's another reason that doesn't require a tinfoil hit.
One of my best friends is a corporate manager for one of the largest chains in the country that has plans to implement a similar strategy. The reason is like anything else--to cut costs and maximize profits. If you have a cart that can scan as you go and keep a total, all you need is a credit or debit card tied to your store savings card and you can go right from the shelf into a bag. When you're done, you walk out the door.
This does have the negative side effect of making all of those checkers and baggers obsolete (and therefore unemployed), but from a shoppers perspective it's great. You can just walk in, get what you need and leave. No lines, no waiting, no stoned bagger putting the liquid laundry detergent on top of your carton of eggs.
One drawback you might notice is that it depends on shopper honesty to scan everything that goes into their cart. In test stores, apparently, it works quite well as most shoppers are either too honest or too paranoid to try to cheat the system. There is a degree of loss, but it's more than compensated for by the savings on payroll that used to go to pay the extra checkers and baggers. Additionally, they have relatively short term plans to implement RFID (3-5 years out) which will make the system much effective. The stores aren't stupid though, they plan on rolling these out only in stores in nice neighborhoods. There, the rate of theft is projected to be low enough as to not impact the bottom line.
If you already use a shopper's card or pay with a credit card, the supermarkets already have all the data on your shopping habits they need. If you're too paranoid to use either of those when shopping, then this new system won't impact you at all. There will undoubtedly still be a line for you to stand in to pay cash.
Even if you do this in the begining in conjunction with medication, the end goal should be to ultimately not be dependent on the meds. The meds can be highly addictive, have horrible side effects, and ultimately not treat the source of the problem, only the symptoms.
A person who exhibits both manic and depressive behavior (let's get out of the APA endorsed habit of labeling behavior and simply describe it) can learn with proper therapy to control the mood swings without the need for harmful chemicals. The trick is to get the heck away from Psychiatrists who have only one year of specializiation in all things neurological--specifically how to diagnose (read: label) and prescribe medicine--and get yourself to a cognitive behavioral Psychologist who has 5 years doctoral training in behavioral problems.
IANAD. Obviously any changes to medication or therapy should be taken up with a trained mental health professional.
The American Psychiatric Association invents diagnoses to perpetuate an industry geared to helping people with these newly discovered and (conveniently) medicinally treatable "diseases." They invent problems. This is discussed in depth in Making Us Crazy By Herb Kutchins, but alternate forms of therapy have been discussed for decades (see Jean Piaget, for example). Undeniably, some severe conditions like Schizophrenia are treatable within the Psychiatric paradigm. Most more pedestrain difficulties--bipolar, depression, ADHD, homosexuality (oh wait, the DSM finally stopped classifying that as mental illness in the 3rd edition!) are best treated with cognitive behavioral therapy. Change the behavior and you change the brain chemistry. Psychotropics are terribly harmful and do nothing to address the underlying behavior that's causing the difficulties.
It's not inflamatory or wild speculation to say that if this discovery with monkeys makes its way to a human treatment, that it will thrust upon every bored 10 year old who's lacking challenge.
This message has been brought to you by a person who was diagnosed with ADHD at 15, took ritalin in high school at 16, and who finally, through behavioral changes in his 20s, was retested at 27 and can no longer be diagnosed with ADHD.
Just because we eventually came to know how to detect it, doesn't mean it was any less stealthy in its time.
A: To sneak up on Norway!
It's like a case mod made to look like a can of Hamm's.
Not to state the obvious, but it will take low manufacturing costs, industry willingness, consumer demand, and a whole lot of marketing before this or any other revolutionary changes become de facto standards.
Better, smaller, faster, is no match for cheaper, more accessible, and well-marketed.
Calling it a simple program is probably a tad hyperbolic.
Besides, it sounds dangerous, like it might land you in federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
You may have misread the article. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The dispute is over whether spring traing is a part of the baseball season. Any baseball fan (espeically one as rabid as I) will tell you that it clearly is not. This is why the current period is referred to as PRE-season. It's also why Double A ball players are facing off against Jason Schmidt and Garth Brooks is batting for the Royals. The pre-season is the period of training and exhibition games before the season begins.
It seems pretty clear that Real is being litigious. The heavyhandedness is familiar. It's quite similar to the way they've been upselling me Real One with spyware the last two years. It's not going to endear them to MLB just like the popups aren't going to make me want to buy their product (let alone use the free version).
Is it inherently a bad thing to have one less competitor? Isn't competition supposed to only be the path towards customer satisfaction? In the world of wireless, where the end is good coverage, an excellent infrastructure, and flexible plans, as long as competition fosters these things it's good to have one more carrier in the fray. However, AT&T has arguably the worst network and worst coverage of any provider. Having them swallowed into a much larger network with much broader coverage is not inherently a bad thing.
This is not to debate the merits of Cingular's network or to compare their coverage or plans with Verizon, T-mobile, or Sprint's--this is simply to say that beleagured AT&T customers serve to gain from the acquisition.
Your logic looks like this:
A) "We went to war...solely for the WMD's"
B) "There are no WMD's"
Therefore
C) "The war was wrong"
In your reasoning, while A may be true, and B may be true, there is no logic that allows you to come to C as your conclusion.
Correct logic would look like this:
A) WMDs are the only justification for a war.
B) There are no WMDs
Therefore
C) The war is not justified.
This logic is clearly ridiculous as there are many reasons beyond WMDs for legitimately going to war--a country attacks us, a ruling power or ethnic group is committing genocide, a ruling party is terrorizing its people and committing horrendous atrocities, or a country's aggressiveness is destabilizing a region--to name a few. I think the problem here is that I've kept your premises but changed your conclusion.
I think I know what argument you were trying to make. Let me see if I can straighten out your syllogism so that the conclusion remains unchanged.
A) Bush took the country to war.
B) Everything Bush does is wrong.
Therefore
C) The war is wrong.
There. Doesn't it feel better to be frank with your agenda?
The record industry looks for a marketable product a lot of that is based on image (not just sex appeal), but predictability makes for a safe investment. However, we should be careful not to malign bands just because they've signed to a major label. Most bands are convinced that this will help them be heard and are suckered into believing they can make some money. By and large most RIAA bands are victims as much as the consumer or the sued file sharer.
Steve Albini, producer of The Pixies, Nirvana, and a former member of the band Big Black has some wonderful insights into the way the record industry works. Albini gives a very good example of a typical signing (most signed acts do not become famous or wealthy) in which after the first album of a four record deal the record sells 250,000 copies and the music industry made 3 million. Unfortuantely the band is still $14,000 in the hole on royalties and has earned about 1/3 what they would have made working at a convenience store. Albini gives a full breakdown of all income and expenses from this typical scenario (one record and supporting tour in). The bottom line:
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
...
Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
Don't assume that the artists are making out from high priced CDs and RIAA lawsuit settlements. I'm sure most artists aren't interested in seeing these lawsuits continue, but artists have been so suckered into thinking that a mjor label is the only way to be heard that walking out and signing to an independent label doesn't even seem like an option. But assuming tht the artists are reaping great rewards is just silly. Most RIAA artists are not P. Diddy, just under a mistaken impression that majors are the only way to succeed and as a result find themselves exploited.
Ceci n'est pas une sig
Good proposal...but in England it's the afternoon already.
I think the problem was more his accent.
Oh great, we'll just let special interest groups manipulate language to further their own twisted ends, won't we?
I'm sick of all of this anti-semantism! Enough already!
I don't think the original post in this thread is off-topic at all. Here's why:
teachers in category 2 are delighted by this kind of challenge.
I'm afraid the current push for standardized testing and the over-administration of teachers is quickly clearing our schools of this kind of teacher.
My mom has just retired early (59) out of frustration because she can no longer teach in a way that's meaningful. She taught for 35 years as a public kindergarten teacher. She worked at school from 8 am until 5 pm, at-home lesson planning at least an hour and a half every night, and at least 3 or 4 hours every Sunday (my entire childhood). She had her kids doing creative mathematics and writing their own (albeit short) stories and illustrating their books by the end of the year.
Then the mandatory standardized testing started a few years back and the district locked down all of the ways she can teach. She has to teach only from textbooks and workbooks and give these five year olds frequent standardized tests. The kids must earn a letter grade at the end of the year. There are classroom observers that come in frequently that will downgrade the school if she isn't teaching according to this new curriculum. No more story reading. No more creative mathematics and learning about patterns with unifix cubes. No more buddy projects with the 4th graders who would come in for additional creative learning time. It's all gone. My mom's students always loved school at the end of the year and couldn't wait for first grade. Now they all hate school and much of my mom's job is keeping them on task when they're bored out of their skulls.
My mom was the most dedicated teacher I have ever known. She easily worked 55 hours a week for the duration of her career and has a masters in early childhood education and a certificate in bilingual education. Teachers like my mom are no longer welcome in the public school classrooms of America.
It's pretty clear that we're in the midst of the corporatization of our public school systems. Textbook conglomerates like Houton Mifflin and McGraw-Hill are making an absolute fortune off of the recent changes. Not surprisingly, they were also the companies who sponsored the educational studies that were used by legislators to push for these changes. Is it any wonder that a company like Apple would get pushed out of such an environment?
2004, the contract's final season, the minimum will be $108,716, up 14.4 percent from the $95,000 minimum in 1999, the final year of the old contract
I'm not arguing that the minimum salary isn't a lot of money to an average Joe like me, but your indignance at the yearly increase is a little misplaced.
Over a five year stretch, that's about a 2.6% raise each year--below the average rate of inflation.
Or just get the Psychiatrist to dole out an ADD diagnosis and take twice as much time as everyone else.
Other perks include prescription drugs and special consideration for college and grad school.
Hello Taco, MY NAME IS William Gates and I have been having some problems with the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT and a nasty company called AOL TIME WARNER who think they are going to get a LARGE SUM OF MONEY from me.
BECASUE OF GOVERNMENT SCRUTINY I NEED YOUR HELP IN TRANSFERING THE SUM OF 750,000,000 TO A SWISS BANK ACCOUNT.
FOR YOUR HELP, I WILL STOP FUNDING SCO'S ATTACK ON LINUX.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER
WILLIAM GATES
This is nothing new to listeners of avante garde noise rock.
John Zorn experimented with high pitched frequencies outside of listeners' auditory range on Krystallnacht. Track 2 has high pitched frequencies that coexist with the sound of breaking glass that cause feelings of anger, pain and nausea. The liner notes discourage repeated listening (I kid you not).
The Flaming Lips Did this on Zaireeka, their 4-CD (played simultaneously) experiment--wherein they used frequencies lower than the normal auditory range to create feelings of disorientation (funny since the Flaming Lips most pop-oriented songs can do this too).
I'm sure more examples can be found within the annals of experimental noise rock.
It's clearly the right of those that feel their material is being stolen to try to protect that material as best they can. This method is preferable, IMHO to individual persecution or the arbitrry charging of ISPs.
On the otherhand, those that feel it is within their moral rights to "share" music, movies, and software can clearly be expected to try to circumvent and overcome any obstacles groups like Overpeer put in their way with tools lik Sig2Dat.
Foregoing the obvious arguments about legality and ethics that are sure to follow, there is a certain amount of progress in advanced and secure filesharing that is engendered by this game of cat and mouse.
-------
In Soviet Russia we share you.
I hope nobody gets hooked on to this, and forget to eat/sleep and end up unconscience like that guy in Korea
Actually, he wound up dead.
Not to worry, I think you'd notice your sim not looking well and get him a bed and some rest.
It's also a big clue why the army has started on adopting a lot more wheeled armor over tracked, much easier to use in cities and on roads. Yes, easier to transport as well, but still...
Not to insinuate that you're paranoid, but shouldn't our military's weapons fit the terrain that most wars are being fought these days? Urban terror/guerilla warfare is very common these days (see Chechnya, Israel, etc.). I would be more inclined to believe that this is the motivating factor for the military developing more wheeled armor vehicles.
You can keep waiting for the military to take over American cities, but my suspicion is that martial law is still a ways off.
Without empirical evidence, this is just fringe cultists making a radical, unsubstantiated claim. I'm frankly surpirised how much attention mainstream news sources have given this. It's a sad state of affairs when anyone can make wild claims and without showing any evidence, they can grab headlines.
By the way, did I mention I performed successful cold fusion experiments?
I don't mean to be an asshole, but what you've quoted is that there is nothing inherently wrong in any medium. Which means, in answer to your question, that advertising on a flyer, or advertising with pamphlets is not inherently wrong. Coming into my house and stapling them on my wall clearly is.
.What you're proposing (as best as I can gather from your inflamatory post) most certainly does. Free speech applies to businesses too.
Mailing one to my house clearly shouldn't be, unless I've asked you not to or signed up for the national registry which prohibits direct marketing to my home. As of now, this reigistry exists, but is purely voluntary for advertisers. What I advocate (beyond making it required for paper based direct marketers), is to make it mandatory for all email marketers as well.
IANAL but I suspect that what I'm proposing--a way to easily opt-out of all ALL email based direct marketing does not violate the first ammendment
OK, I'll bite. If you read my post you'd have seen that I'm advocating your right to opt out of receiving ANY email marketing. This should be your right.
Does CDW have the right to send my busniness catalogs?
Making blanket restriction on who we can and can't speak to as individuals and businesses--and what we can and can't say--is a very bad idea.
Don't you think it's a much better idea to be able to say: "I don't want you to speak to me" or "I don't want any of you to speak to me" (and to have this enforcable by law) rather than have a law that simply says "none of you have any right to talk any of them?" There seems to me to be a big difference. My belief is that the rights of the individual and the rights of business are pretty closely intertwined. When we set up rules to govern fair practice in business, we should tread lightly so as not to constrict our rights as individuals.
----
in Soviet Russia sig signs off you