1. Buy the disc, rip it (as ogg vorbis, not fscking mp3). I've yet to encounter a copy protected disc which can't be copied...
2. Turn the disc back to the store, claiming it's useless. (it is, sort of)
3. Send a check to the artists, and say that you like them, but hate their record label, and explain what you did.
4. Send a letter to the record label, say that you hate them, and tell them what you did about it.
I've got a better idea, because it's MUCH mroe convenient. If you really want to perform the first step as stated, do it. Otherwise, do these:
1. Exercise your fair use rights and download songs from your favorite P2P network.
2. If you like the music, go to the show. Artist's get fucked over by the labels and don't make any money from the CD, in fact they need the revenue from the live performances to PAY the labels.
3. Send a letter to the record label, and show them how you paid for the music you listen to by going to the show, but you did not pay for their coke habit.
There IS a better way to support artists than buying CDs. There is, however, the additional issues introduced of TicketMaster also being a Lord of Evil. Let's solve one problem at a time, ok?
But really, you shouldn't censor people just for holding unpopular opinions, especially when they're not even expressing those opinions at the moment. Even a white supremacist might have something to teach you, as long as you know which topics to avoid. I might listen to a racist if he's talking about how to polish a gun or clean a deer, even though I know not to listen when the topic of race comes up.
So, the question is, would you listen to the racist if he said "If you use these bullets, they'll go into the nigger without breaking up his internal parts and still kill him dead as a doornail"? Keep in mind that if he's showing you how to polish a gun, he might be sharing hunting tips.
The point behind the question is that my experience with racists shows that race always comes up in conversation, from simpe things like "I went to the gas station and sand nigger behind the counter carded me" to more complex things like "I ate a burger at this place but all the tables I saw looked like a nigger picnic. I won't go there until they clean the place up." Remove the race references and the statements themselves are making valid points that any one of us would say, the only difference being the racial references.
You see, when you "believe" in something strongly enough, it permeates everything you do, think, and say. Like when you fall in love, all you can do is mention your new SO. Or when you first discover free software, you tell everybody about it.
I've found that it's best to ignore racism. The more attention it's given the more it receives. People usually stop talking when they realize nobody's listening.
That wont work at many stores. Their policy is that if it plays in their equipment, the CD is fine. The problem must be with your equipment. Too bad.
Chances are the store will have a car audio player, or a high-end audio player, somewhere (places like Best Buy... for music and book shops, you're out of luck).
As a matter of fact, most stores (even the small shops) have a CD player to play it in. HOWEVER, if you show up with the player that won't play your CD, MOST (probly not all) stores will let you plug it in (or plug it in for you) and attempt to play it.
Customer Service is all about giving the customer what they want/need. If you behave reasonably (even unreasonably, but there are limits) then the store will give you what you want. Especially if the player at issue is portable, they won't have any problem listening and saying "You're absolutely right. THe player plays other CD's, but not this one. Whether the CD is defective or not, it doesn't work for you."
There are additional issues that may/may not come up.
For example: Say the store owner says "This CD won't play in that player by design. THerefore, it is behaving within expected parameters, play it in a different player." They may even go on to provide a list of "tested" players (read "approved").
The logical counter is to show them the Compact Disk insignia and say "It's nonstandard, because this player plays the standard (shows a standard CD) but not this one. THerefore the labeling is incorrect and the CD was probably bought under false pretenses."
And the final counter to this, thus the store wins, is to say "We are not responsible for the labeling, packaging, and so forth. We only sell them. If you wish to pursue this, here is the number of our distributor (or whatever number they decide to provide). You should take it up with them. If they will give us a refund, we'll gladly extend it to you."
So, the stores themselves have something to fall back on, if they *really* want to. I think it's highly unlikely that they would go this route right now, but given enough time they will. All it takes is a memo from the distributor informing the stores of these problems, and with more and more people taking the CD's back when they don't work, it's inevitable that this conversation will soon occur.
Therefore, the only logical way to deal with it is to continue with the effort, and then do no further business with the store. Inform them that this is the case ("I won't be coming back, then, if you can't help me. I know it's not your fault, but this is my only recourse."), and find a different store. When you have exhausted all of your stores, then maybe you should consider making your own music?:)
The most logical way to fight them is to boycott the record labels themselves. Go ahead and shop at your favorite music store, but don't buy any CD that is produced by an RIAA-protected label. You'll be buying indy stuff, though. Not that this is a bad thing.:)
The RIAA will use the boycott to their advantage, saying "Look at our sales! Those pirates!". And we respond with "We're not pirating, we're boycotting and exercising our fair use rights. We continue to purchase CD's (shows receipts), but as you can see, your labels did not produce these CDs."
At this time I should provide a link to a page that lists RIAA-protected labels. Does anyone have such a link? Or a list? I'll gladly post a webpage with the list...
suspension and other things matter greatly and have improved in the time you say automobile adanvancement stood still
I didn't say stood still, I said "moved slowly". Back when I did suspension and brake work I had opportunity to work on a few (well, more than a few) cars and trucks from the early '50's. Basic brake design was the same as it is on brand new 2002-03 cars. The only difference is ABS, which came about with computers. Now, I'll be the first to admit that in the time period(s) we're discussing a LOT of tuning of all of the systems occurred, causing a net improvement. However, to see what I'm talking about you have to look at the drastic differences in production model years starting in the early '70's for some and coming to today.
To be sure, a lot of shit showed up early and got dismissed for whatever reasons. The oldest fuel injection IIRC was in the late '60's, may have been early '70s (oldest I've worked with was 1974, but I know there were older ones). Fuel injection didn't take in the marketplace seriously until the mid-80s. People were addicted to carbs. Computers were still added to the systems, though, and began controlling the mixture in carbeurated systems.
Furthermore, safety regulations have forced certain advances, such as this so-called cab-forward design. But consider how long it took for collapsible steering columns? They're just U-joints. Heh. My 1971 chevy truck has a straight column and is the only real serious safety issue (at least as far as performance in a collision) for me, but the entire truck is a safety issue if I hit someone else with it.
I'm getting distracted. The point is, car development has been increasing over the last 20+ years, but there was a noticeable period when it didn't. Look at the engines used. Engines used for 30 years because they couldn't come up with something better? Maybe they were busy? Maybe the market didn't want anything better because it wanted something known to work? Whatever the reason, the common cars had roughly the exact same shit at the time. These days the complete engine design might change every 3-6 years.
Sorry I dont' have more specific examples, it's early morning and I haven't slept yet, so all the details are fuzzy. I'm just on cruise control (developed in the '50's iirc, but still not widely available, therefore not particularly advanced).
I for one could feel a lot more secure every day knowing that other people are just as insecure in certain situations.
If your own sense of security depends on other people's sense of security, I'd say you got bigger problems.
Offer the lady help if you want, if she turns it down drive away. She's watching her ass, and you don't want to undermine her effort to protect herself, even if you have altruistic motives.
Compare 1940 aircraft, 1970 aircraft, and 2000 aircraft.
Comparing 1970 aircraft and 2000 aircraft isn't all that hard, since they're still flying the exact same planes that were built in 1970!
As another comparison, look at how much automobiles advanced in the first 3 decades of the 1900's. From a cable handbrake and top speeds around 35mph to top speeds over 80mph with hydraulic brakes. Automotive technology didn't start to improve again until fuel injection started showing up, but that even didn't get good until computers got small enough for cars.
Given the first two of the above and working in the desert, he would obviously be driving a Dodge 2500 4X4, or larger.
Ok, I give the first two of the above.
However, when I lived in the desert, there seemed to be an awful lot of Chevy half-tons and very few (if any) Dodges of any sort. Of course, this is because I lived in less-rich (?) parts of the desert, so people drove the stuff that kept on working rather than the stuff that kept on breaking....
However, if Jesus is content to drive a Dodge, I'll just keep an eye out for him. If he needs a ride, I'll make sure to offer it to him just so I can BASH HIS FUCKIN' HEAD IN.
And thus I have proven that my brief rampage on christianity isn't over yet. Hm.
Re:why does anyone take this seriously?
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
I can't pass this up.
Hey *Americans* who is your F* president???
F* president?
typedef F dictator
typedef U freedom
F* president
U safe;
safe = Over(F* president) : throw(out);
Sorry, I don't catch exceptions very often, so some of the syntax may be off. I also don't usually typedef, 'cause I can type types faster than I can remember what I typedefed it to.
Hey, don't leave out the ocean's surface. There's room enough to build thousands of state-sized floating cities for us meat-popsicles.
Near as I can tell, it's a resource problem there. If we can get under the oceans safely we might have a shot at mining underneath the oceans, or something like that. The advantage to going to space is there's a reasonable chance we'll get raw materials there to continue our expansion. Going to the ocean's surface doesn't give us that, unfortunately. NOt that it won't help, but it will further sap existing resources.
After that point, yeah, there's space, but rockets probably can't cheaply blast people off Earth faster than they're being born
For this I refer you to Heinlein, but I forget which book he discusses this in (it might well be multiple books). It's not so important to save everybody on the earth right now, it's important to get some good minds and bodies off the planet in an autonomous fashion. The earth can kill itself, but the race will live on. This is something people tend to overlook when discussing these problems. It's just not important how many people leave compared to how many are being born, it's only important to get enough people out there that the race survives.
However, if the race survives but the earth still dies, we haven't prevented the suffering. But first let's deal with the survival problem, then we'll deal with the suffering problem. Can't end suffering, but with any luck we might well be able to prevent foreseeable suffering.
Re:why does anyone take this seriously?
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the mean time, look who lost the Cold War.
That's right, all of the people of the world. FOr, while we don't have Russian communism anymore, there's still China. There's still nuclear-war style tension in the world, and now it's swept under the rug. At least during the cold war it was a fear the government couldn't avoid (so they exploited it). American Imperialism is at it's worst ever, and getting worse every day, and the American Police State is getting closer. As a result of American Imperialism, we now have a "war on terrorism" to replace the *lost* "war on drugs" (not that I'm saying we did the wrong thing and the terrorists are right, I just think that the war on terrorism is the same political ballgame that the war on drugs was, and may well be used in a catalystic fashion to bring on the police state) It won't be too long before Russa will be fighting us again in a cold war, and they'll be the ones fighting for freedom (or so the press will read, anyway).
Of course, my predictions have as much validity as the article's.:)
many Christians are content to sit down and watch their traditions be derided.
After Christianity has stomped on nearly every single tradition it's ever come across, and assimilated the rest, I find ithard to believe we're supposed to feel sorry about it. Payback's a bitch, and karma is real.
Note: The Salem Witch Trials happened in AMERICA, and I can speak from personal experience when I say that Christianity is NOT in a position EVEN NOW to be demanding respect in return for their actions. It would be like complaining that the Apaches came out of the hills and started taking land from the rest of the country and relocating the existing occupants.
Basic problem is that Christianity is a scapegoat religion. If you are a Christian, you can do whatever you want to whomever you want, so long as you beg forgiveness from the almighty. If you don't beg forgiveness, you won't see punishment until the afterlife.
For the rest of us, our punishment is HERE and NOW, so we must be responsible for our own actions, and we don't have a scapegoat.
Look in NYC, you can have Ramadan and Hanukkah celebrations in school, but not Christmas
This is a problem, for sure. However, it wasn't until recently that it was possible to go to school without saying the Lord's prayer in any case. Furthermore, all kids are required (I went through this in school, and it *is* a requirement) to say the Pledge of Defeatism, er, Allegiance, and to give your soul to the state, and since this is "one nation under god", that's religion in school. So take care of yourself, live up to the standards you're having trouble with, and THEN FIGHT BACK. I.e. make sure Christianity isn't in schools anymore, and then complain about the other religions being there.
Re:We already can convert raw material into turkey
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
A real "advance" would be the growth of free range and organic farming -- doing away with industrial farming techniques that involve shutting animals into crates, cramming them with chemical- and antibiotic-laden feed, and generally turning them into objects instead of living beings.
Don't advertise your humanity by treating animals nicely just to slaughter them anyway. The end result is the same, and I'll take it cut any way I like and just slightly warmed, thank you.
But I find your statement to smack of hypocrisy such that you state that it's possible to treat something in a humane fashion even though you intend to kill it. Isn't killing, by it's nature, inhumane?
Labour losses through technological unemployment are hurting all nations of the world
IMHO, the problem isn't labor losses through technological employment, it's the inability of society to catch up with technology. Or rather, technology has been improving so fast lately that the job market hasn't caught up with it yet.
First a new technology comes out, or an old technology becomes affordable to everyone (the internet). Next we see a bunch of hiring in that sector. Next we see a crash, and the previously fast growing sector is in a labor crunch, dumping staff left and right.
Also, overpopulation MUST be a contributing factor to the job shortages at this time. Our food methods are efficient enough to keep us all alive (for now, and I'm ignoring the countries that are still having serious hunger problems because many of them have become political balls in our own country and I'd prefer not to approach this subject at this time). Therefore, we do not need hunters. What do hunters do now? Well, they get diagnosed AD&D, er, ADHD, given drugs and spend the rest of their lives as losers living with their parents. But I digress.
When a robot does the work, someone gets paid to make the robot, somehow. Sure, a group of robots might push out cars faster than a group of people, but who builds the robots? Obviously another assembly line packed with robots. So "building" now becomes what "engineering" used to be, and the thug labor that would've done the job before has to do something else. But what?
Therein lies the problem. We don't have enough jobs to go around, but we definitely have too many people. I certainly don't wish suffering upon anybody, but perhaps some mass-killing machine would help.:)
Anyway, many of our labor problems would be solved if we entered a true state of space exploration. When overpopulation pressures hit Europe, they had the fortune of re-discovering America to relieve the pressure. Japan went to war in the '30's because of their overpopulation, and technology has helped to alleviate their problem. But there's literally no place left for us to go, unless we start building underwater or on Antarctica (problematic when the surface altitude changes seasonally, but possible).
So the magical solution to all of our problems is technology, but only insofar as technology helps us to enter either a new period of expansionism or a massively destructive war.
simply improved 60s tech. We don't have hundreds of space stations, personal shuttles and such because we don't have infinite money, but we DO have computers that fit in the palms our our hands,
In that case, I predict that in 2050 we will have computers that fit in my pee hole that are at least twice as powerful as today's desktops.
Re:Or the pessimistic view could be correct...
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
Luckily we're still just at the "failure" state, collapse occurs when students start shooting their teachers.
First off, when you think of Christians as a group, you're thinking of
I'm a free man, so please don't tell me what to think. I know what I'm thinking.
I've been mistreated (and in many cases downright persecuted) since the age of 12 for not being a Christian (that being the age I left the church, and it was a so-called liberal church). This has come from all corners, and I can honestly say that the only Christians who have NOT mistreated me have been so few that I can count them with my pants down, my shoes on, and my hands in my pockets. (yeah, just one) He was just as sickened with organized religion as I was.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not down about it, and I'm certainly not trying to whine about "Gee, my life has sucked so bad because of Christians" because it HAS NOT. I fought back whenever it was necessary, and generally did what was needed. I'm a FREE MAN, and most of these Christians who have behaved towards me in a non-free fashion are NOT free because they're enthralled by their scapegoat religion.
Now, I realize I'm generalizing. I'm generalizing based on experience, and it usually proves accurate, HOWEVER I know that actual mileage will vary, and this doesn't necessarily reflect the actual behavior of all Christians.
Actually, you've made me think here. Maybe Christmas fading away would be beneficiary. It would strip the fluff off and leave only it's reason for existing- that we chose a day to celebrate the birth of our King. I admit it'd be a step back to ban it (or any other holiday), because that harkens back to the bad old days of cultural exclusivism.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because my #1 problem with Christmas (because the pure hypocrisy involved in having a one special day where we're good to people and then act shitty to each other year round) is the fact that so many people don't agree what it's about. This is besides the typical "It's not about receiving, it's about giving" argument. This is stuff like the signs that say "Happy Birthday Jesus!" followed by someone (wearing a cross dangling form their ear) saying "You should celebrate Christmas even if you think Christ was a prick because everybody's doing it" followed by "Just because everybody's doing it doesn't mean you should shoot heroin".
If Christmas is supposed to be based on family traditions, then let families celebrate it in their traditional families, let those of use who prefer to sacrifice goats and pigs and stuff (like all people who don't celebrate christmas do) do so in our own traditional way, and most importantly, can we all just SHUT THE FUCK UP about it?
so if I create a.jpg of 421 cd burners and burn that to a cd-r, does that mean I'm in exponential violation of something or other?
Depends entirely on how fast your burner is. Otherwise you're just doing a straight rip. Now, if you use *my* burner, you'd be burning the equivalent of 1684 burners.
ave everyone's pay taxed for entertainment based on annual income. This way, they will be compensated fairly for entertaining us as surely everyone knows that we entertain ourselves with CD music proportionate to our income level
To say nothing of those of us that *gasp* actually play instruments (which distinguishes us significantly from what the RIAA "protects"). I'm wondering how long it'll be before those of us that like to play music with our own hands and skip the CD/MP3/DVD/Cassete/Vinyl step entirely are gonna be "pirates" whenever we play someone else's song for enjoyment? A long time ago, I trashed all my Metallica CD's (it corresponds to when metallica officially backstabbed their die hard fans) and now if I want to hear a Metallica song, I play it on my guitar. They don't get the satisfaction at all anymore.:) (Actually, for the record, I play metallica songs not for my own pleasure but to exercise my hands. Master of Puppets makes a great warmup)
Simple, continue to boycott them out of existence. Give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves. Don't pirate the music, just exercise your fair use rights and download shit you like from your favorite P2P network. It's *not* piracy, it's "fair use".
However, I won't buy, copy, or trade music from bands who record under RIAA labels, period. Because it's the same as copying Windows. I'm still supporting the monopoly, and I'm still part of the crime. By not supporting these bands anymore, I'm not part of the crime anymore.
True, but the virtue of those movies wasn't the story, which is pretty generic [1], but the strong characterizations, excellent pacing, and generally well-written dialog.
All true. I don't subscribe to the even/odd rule that everyone else seems to think matters. Other than the first trek, I have yet to see a trek movie that I didn't like. Depending on my mood I prefer one or more over the others, but it changes with my mood. That's because the movies are so different from one another.
I will take your suggestion with the wrath of khan, though, because any reason to watch it is a good reason.:)
The beauty of the original star trek series was that it didn't follow generic plot lines. They did a few, but not many. Most of it was fairly original. Well, this is arguable, I'm certain. Original for TV, I mean. This is the great failing of TNG, because in the 20 years between the making of the two there was huge advancement in tv storytelling (it actually got good in a few brief series that were all cancelled prematurely, remember "Misfits of Science"?). TNG tried real hard, though, so I've got to give them credit for that. And Q is a memorable character in any universe.
But the movies, man. Each one was a different production with different factors influencing it. Different writers for the most part. The cast was usually the same, except the adversaries changed. Of course. Star Trek II is one of the most all-time ambitious movies ever made, though, IMHO. They killed off the (arguably) most-loved character ever appearing in any sci-fi story, and they did so by adding evermore complexity to his personality. It's interesting that I watched "Amok Time" tonight, where Spock kills Kirk, and then later on he gives his own life to save Kirk's (and the rest of the ship, the needs of the many). The story itself is your basic head-to-head superhero vs supervillain struggle where the superhero barely makes it out of the fight, but it's riddled with the genesis subplot and other subplots. They really did a job on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Turn the disc back to the store, claiming it's useless. (it is, sort of)
3. Send a check to the artists, and say that you like them, but hate their record label, and explain what you did.
4. Send a letter to the record label, say that you hate them, and tell them what you did about it.
I've got a better idea, because it's MUCH mroe convenient. If you really want to perform the first step as stated, do it. Otherwise, do these:
1. Exercise your fair use rights and download songs from your favorite P2P network.
2. If you like the music, go to the show. Artist's get fucked over by the labels and don't make any money from the CD, in fact they need the revenue from the live performances to PAY the labels.
3. Send a letter to the record label, and show them how you paid for the music you listen to by going to the show, but you did not pay for their coke habit.
There IS a better way to support artists than buying CDs. There is, however, the additional issues introduced of TicketMaster also being a Lord of Evil. Let's solve one problem at a time, ok?
So, the question is, would you listen to the racist if he said "If you use these bullets, they'll go into the nigger without breaking up his internal parts and still kill him dead as a doornail"? Keep in mind that if he's showing you how to polish a gun, he might be sharing hunting tips.
The point behind the question is that my experience with racists shows that race always comes up in conversation, from simpe things like "I went to the gas station and sand nigger behind the counter carded me" to more complex things like "I ate a burger at this place but all the tables I saw looked like a nigger picnic. I won't go there until they clean the place up." Remove the race references and the statements themselves are making valid points that any one of us would say, the only difference being the racial references.
You see, when you "believe" in something strongly enough, it permeates everything you do, think, and say. Like when you fall in love, all you can do is mention your new SO. Or when you first discover free software, you tell everybody about it.
I've found that it's best to ignore racism. The more attention it's given the more it receives. People usually stop talking when they realize nobody's listening.
Chances are the store will have a car audio player, or a high-end audio player, somewhere (places like Best Buy... for music and book shops, you're out of luck).
As a matter of fact, most stores (even the small shops) have a CD player to play it in. HOWEVER, if you show up with the player that won't play your CD, MOST (probly not all) stores will let you plug it in (or plug it in for you) and attempt to play it.
Customer Service is all about giving the customer what they want/need. If you behave reasonably (even unreasonably, but there are limits) then the store will give you what you want. Especially if the player at issue is portable, they won't have any problem listening and saying "You're absolutely right. THe player plays other CD's, but not this one. Whether the CD is defective or not, it doesn't work for you."
There are additional issues that may/may not come up.
For example: Say the store owner says "This CD won't play in that player by design. THerefore, it is behaving within expected parameters, play it in a different player." They may even go on to provide a list of "tested" players (read "approved").
The logical counter is to show them the Compact Disk insignia and say "It's nonstandard, because this player plays the standard (shows a standard CD) but not this one. THerefore the labeling is incorrect and the CD was probably bought under false pretenses."
And the final counter to this, thus the store wins, is to say "We are not responsible for the labeling, packaging, and so forth. We only sell them. If you wish to pursue this, here is the number of our distributor (or whatever number they decide to provide). You should take it up with them. If they will give us a refund, we'll gladly extend it to you."
So, the stores themselves have something to fall back on, if they *really* want to. I think it's highly unlikely that they would go this route right now, but given enough time they will. All it takes is a memo from the distributor informing the stores of these problems, and with more and more people taking the CD's back when they don't work, it's inevitable that this conversation will soon occur.
Therefore, the only logical way to deal with it is to continue with the effort, and then do no further business with the store. Inform them that this is the case ("I won't be coming back, then, if you can't help me. I know it's not your fault, but this is my only recourse."), and find a different store. When you have exhausted all of your stores, then maybe you should consider making your own music? :)
The most logical way to fight them is to boycott the record labels themselves. Go ahead and shop at your favorite music store, but don't buy any CD that is produced by an RIAA-protected label. You'll be buying indy stuff, though. Not that this is a bad thing. :)
The RIAA will use the boycott to their advantage, saying "Look at our sales! Those pirates!". And we respond with "We're not pirating, we're boycotting and exercising our fair use rights. We continue to purchase CD's (shows receipts), but as you can see, your labels did not produce these CDs."
At this time I should provide a link to a page that lists RIAA-protected labels. Does anyone have such a link? Or a list? I'll gladly post a webpage with the list...
I didn't say stood still, I said "moved slowly". Back when I did suspension and brake work I had opportunity to work on a few (well, more than a few) cars and trucks from the early '50's. Basic brake design was the same as it is on brand new 2002-03 cars. The only difference is ABS, which came about with computers. Now, I'll be the first to admit that in the time period(s) we're discussing a LOT of tuning of all of the systems occurred, causing a net improvement. However, to see what I'm talking about you have to look at the drastic differences in production model years starting in the early '70's for some and coming to today.
To be sure, a lot of shit showed up early and got dismissed for whatever reasons. The oldest fuel injection IIRC was in the late '60's, may have been early '70s (oldest I've worked with was 1974, but I know there were older ones). Fuel injection didn't take in the marketplace seriously until the mid-80s. People were addicted to carbs. Computers were still added to the systems, though, and began controlling the mixture in carbeurated systems.
Furthermore, safety regulations have forced certain advances, such as this so-called cab-forward design. But consider how long it took for collapsible steering columns? They're just U-joints. Heh. My 1971 chevy truck has a straight column and is the only real serious safety issue (at least as far as performance in a collision) for me, but the entire truck is a safety issue if I hit someone else with it.
I'm getting distracted. The point is, car development has been increasing over the last 20+ years, but there was a noticeable period when it didn't. Look at the engines used. Engines used for 30 years because they couldn't come up with something better? Maybe they were busy? Maybe the market didn't want anything better because it wanted something known to work? Whatever the reason, the common cars had roughly the exact same shit at the time. These days the complete engine design might change every 3-6 years.
Sorry I dont' have more specific examples, it's early morning and I haven't slept yet, so all the details are fuzzy. I'm just on cruise control (developed in the '50's iirc, but still not widely available, therefore not particularly advanced).
1. Pay some arguably mediocre to dream up some shit.
2. Troll slashdot with it
3. Post banners
4. ???
5. Profit!
If your own sense of security depends on other people's sense of security, I'd say you got bigger problems.
Offer the lady help if you want, if she turns it down drive away. She's watching her ass, and you don't want to undermine her effort to protect herself, even if you have altruistic motives.
Comparing 1970 aircraft and 2000 aircraft isn't all that hard, since they're still flying the exact same planes that were built in 1970!
As another comparison, look at how much automobiles advanced in the first 3 decades of the 1900's. From a cable handbrake and top speeds around 35mph to top speeds over 80mph with hydraulic brakes. Automotive technology didn't start to improve again until fuel injection started showing up, but that even didn't get good until computers got small enough for cars.
"Don't tell me you don't have money in the 23rd century."
Ok, I give the first two of the above.
However, when I lived in the desert, there seemed to be an awful lot of Chevy half-tons and very few (if any) Dodges of any sort. Of course, this is because I lived in less-rich (?) parts of the desert, so people drove the stuff that kept on working rather than the stuff that kept on breaking....
However, if Jesus is content to drive a Dodge, I'll just keep an eye out for him. If he needs a ride, I'll make sure to offer it to him just so I can BASH HIS FUCKIN' HEAD IN.
And thus I have proven that my brief rampage on christianity isn't over yet. Hm.
Hey *Americans* who is your F* president???
F* president?
typedef F dictator
typedef U freedom
F* president
U safe;
safe = Over(F* president) : throw(out);
Sorry, I don't catch exceptions very often, so some of the syntax may be off. I also don't usually typedef, 'cause I can type types faster than I can remember what I typedefed it to.
I think you should cut back on the Matrix and go get laid.
Near as I can tell, it's a resource problem there. If we can get under the oceans safely we might have a shot at mining underneath the oceans, or something like that. The advantage to going to space is there's a reasonable chance we'll get raw materials there to continue our expansion. Going to the ocean's surface doesn't give us that, unfortunately. NOt that it won't help, but it will further sap existing resources.
After that point, yeah, there's space, but rockets probably can't cheaply blast people off Earth faster than they're being born
For this I refer you to Heinlein, but I forget which book he discusses this in (it might well be multiple books). It's not so important to save everybody on the earth right now, it's important to get some good minds and bodies off the planet in an autonomous fashion. The earth can kill itself, but the race will live on. This is something people tend to overlook when discussing these problems. It's just not important how many people leave compared to how many are being born, it's only important to get enough people out there that the race survives.
However, if the race survives but the earth still dies, we haven't prevented the suffering. But first let's deal with the survival problem, then we'll deal with the suffering problem. Can't end suffering, but with any luck we might well be able to prevent foreseeable suffering.
That's right, all of the people of the world. FOr, while we don't have Russian communism anymore, there's still China. There's still nuclear-war style tension in the world, and now it's swept under the rug. At least during the cold war it was a fear the government couldn't avoid (so they exploited it). American Imperialism is at it's worst ever, and getting worse every day, and the American Police State is getting closer. As a result of American Imperialism, we now have a "war on terrorism" to replace the *lost* "war on drugs" (not that I'm saying we did the wrong thing and the terrorists are right, I just think that the war on terrorism is the same political ballgame that the war on drugs was, and may well be used in a catalystic fashion to bring on the police state) It won't be too long before Russa will be fighting us again in a cold war, and they'll be the ones fighting for freedom (or so the press will read, anyway).
Of course, my predictions have as much validity as the article's. :)
After Christianity has stomped on nearly every single tradition it's ever come across, and assimilated the rest, I find ithard to believe we're supposed to feel sorry about it. Payback's a bitch, and karma is real.
Note: The Salem Witch Trials happened in AMERICA, and I can speak from personal experience when I say that Christianity is NOT in a position EVEN NOW to be demanding respect in return for their actions. It would be like complaining that the Apaches came out of the hills and started taking land from the rest of the country and relocating the existing occupants.
Basic problem is that Christianity is a scapegoat religion. If you are a Christian, you can do whatever you want to whomever you want, so long as you beg forgiveness from the almighty. If you don't beg forgiveness, you won't see punishment until the afterlife.
For the rest of us, our punishment is HERE and NOW, so we must be responsible for our own actions, and we don't have a scapegoat.
Look in NYC, you can have Ramadan and Hanukkah celebrations in school, but not Christmas
This is a problem, for sure. However, it wasn't until recently that it was possible to go to school without saying the Lord's prayer in any case. Furthermore, all kids are required (I went through this in school, and it *is* a requirement) to say the Pledge of Defeatism, er, Allegiance, and to give your soul to the state, and since this is "one nation under god", that's religion in school. So take care of yourself, live up to the standards you're having trouble with, and THEN FIGHT BACK. I.e. make sure Christianity isn't in schools anymore, and then complain about the other religions being there.
Don't advertise your humanity by treating animals nicely just to slaughter them anyway. The end result is the same, and I'll take it cut any way I like and just slightly warmed, thank you.
But I find your statement to smack of hypocrisy such that you state that it's possible to treat something in a humane fashion even though you intend to kill it. Isn't killing, by it's nature, inhumane?
What would Jesus drive? Well, wasn't he broke? So he'd take the city bus, right?
IMHO, the problem isn't labor losses through technological employment, it's the inability of society to catch up with technology. Or rather, technology has been improving so fast lately that the job market hasn't caught up with it yet.
First a new technology comes out, or an old technology becomes affordable to everyone (the internet). Next we see a bunch of hiring in that sector. Next we see a crash, and the previously fast growing sector is in a labor crunch, dumping staff left and right.
Also, overpopulation MUST be a contributing factor to the job shortages at this time. Our food methods are efficient enough to keep us all alive (for now, and I'm ignoring the countries that are still having serious hunger problems because many of them have become political balls in our own country and I'd prefer not to approach this subject at this time). Therefore, we do not need hunters. What do hunters do now? Well, they get diagnosed AD&D, er, ADHD, given drugs and spend the rest of their lives as losers living with their parents. But I digress.
When a robot does the work, someone gets paid to make the robot, somehow. Sure, a group of robots might push out cars faster than a group of people, but who builds the robots? Obviously another assembly line packed with robots. So "building" now becomes what "engineering" used to be, and the thug labor that would've done the job before has to do something else. But what?
Therein lies the problem. We don't have enough jobs to go around, but we definitely have too many people. I certainly don't wish suffering upon anybody, but perhaps some mass-killing machine would help. :)
Anyway, many of our labor problems would be solved if we entered a true state of space exploration. When overpopulation pressures hit Europe, they had the fortune of re-discovering America to relieve the pressure. Japan went to war in the '30's because of their overpopulation, and technology has helped to alleviate their problem. But there's literally no place left for us to go, unless we start building underwater or on Antarctica (problematic when the surface altitude changes seasonally, but possible).
So the magical solution to all of our problems is technology, but only insofar as technology helps us to enter either a new period of expansionism or a massively destructive war.
Which one do you *want* to have?
In that case, I predict that in 2050 we will have computers that fit in my pee hole that are at least twice as powerful as today's desktops.
On second thought, maybe you're right...
First off, when you think of Christians as a group, you're thinking of
I'm a free man, so please don't tell me what to think. I know what I'm thinking.
I've been mistreated (and in many cases downright persecuted) since the age of 12 for not being a Christian (that being the age I left the church, and it was a so-called liberal church). This has come from all corners, and I can honestly say that the only Christians who have NOT mistreated me have been so few that I can count them with my pants down, my shoes on, and my hands in my pockets. (yeah, just one) He was just as sickened with organized religion as I was.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not down about it, and I'm certainly not trying to whine about "Gee, my life has sucked so bad because of Christians" because it HAS NOT. I fought back whenever it was necessary, and generally did what was needed. I'm a FREE MAN, and most of these Christians who have behaved towards me in a non-free fashion are NOT free because they're enthralled by their scapegoat religion.
Now, I realize I'm generalizing. I'm generalizing based on experience, and it usually proves accurate, HOWEVER I know that actual mileage will vary, and this doesn't necessarily reflect the actual behavior of all Christians.
Actually, you've made me think here. Maybe Christmas fading away would be beneficiary. It would strip the fluff off and leave only it's reason for existing- that we chose a day to celebrate the birth of our King. I admit it'd be a step back to ban it (or any other holiday), because that harkens back to the bad old days of cultural exclusivism.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because my #1 problem with Christmas (because the pure hypocrisy involved in having a one special day where we're good to people and then act shitty to each other year round) is the fact that so many people don't agree what it's about. This is besides the typical "It's not about receiving, it's about giving" argument. This is stuff like the signs that say "Happy Birthday Jesus!" followed by someone (wearing a cross dangling form their ear) saying "You should celebrate Christmas even if you think Christ was a prick because everybody's doing it" followed by "Just because everybody's doing it doesn't mean you should shoot heroin".
If Christmas is supposed to be based on family traditions, then let families celebrate it in their traditional families, let those of use who prefer to sacrifice goats and pigs and stuff (like all people who don't celebrate christmas do) do so in our own traditional way, and most importantly, can we all just SHUT THE FUCK UP about it?
Sorry for the rant. Christmas sucks.
Future predicts YOU
Depends entirely on how fast your burner is. Otherwise you're just doing a straight rip. Now, if you use *my* burner, you'd be burning the equivalent of 1684 burners.
To say nothing of those of us that *gasp* actually play instruments (which distinguishes us significantly from what the RIAA "protects"). I'm wondering how long it'll be before those of us that like to play music with our own hands and skip the CD/MP3/DVD/Cassete/Vinyl step entirely are gonna be "pirates" whenever we play someone else's song for enjoyment? A long time ago, I trashed all my Metallica CD's (it corresponds to when metallica officially backstabbed their die hard fans) and now if I want to hear a Metallica song, I play it on my guitar. They don't get the satisfaction at all anymore. :) (Actually, for the record, I play metallica songs not for my own pleasure but to exercise my hands. Master of Puppets makes a great warmup)
However, I won't buy, copy, or trade music from bands who record under RIAA labels, period. Because it's the same as copying Windows. I'm still supporting the monopoly, and I'm still part of the crime. By not supporting these bands anymore, I'm not part of the crime anymore.
I have spoken. Pay attention.
All true. I don't subscribe to the even/odd rule that everyone else seems to think matters. Other than the first trek, I have yet to see a trek movie that I didn't like. Depending on my mood I prefer one or more over the others, but it changes with my mood. That's because the movies are so different from one another.
I will take your suggestion with the wrath of khan, though, because any reason to watch it is a good reason. :)
The beauty of the original star trek series was that it didn't follow generic plot lines. They did a few, but not many. Most of it was fairly original. Well, this is arguable, I'm certain. Original for TV, I mean. This is the great failing of TNG, because in the 20 years between the making of the two there was huge advancement in tv storytelling (it actually got good in a few brief series that were all cancelled prematurely, remember "Misfits of Science"?). TNG tried real hard, though, so I've got to give them credit for that. And Q is a memorable character in any universe.
But the movies, man. Each one was a different production with different factors influencing it. Different writers for the most part. The cast was usually the same, except the adversaries changed. Of course. Star Trek II is one of the most all-time ambitious movies ever made, though, IMHO. They killed off the (arguably) most-loved character ever appearing in any sci-fi story, and they did so by adding evermore complexity to his personality. It's interesting that I watched "Amok Time" tonight, where Spock kills Kirk, and then later on he gives his own life to save Kirk's (and the rest of the ship, the needs of the many). The story itself is your basic head-to-head superhero vs supervillain struggle where the superhero barely makes it out of the fight, but it's riddled with the genesis subplot and other subplots. They really did a job on that one.