Extending the 4th amendment to phone lines is a reach.
No, it's not.
Number one, phone lines are in the public domain.
So are highways. Does that mean you can be stopped and searched anytime you get on a highway, for whatever reason?
Unless phone lines and cell phone transmissions are somehow "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
You just answered your own question.
However, the idea of giving constitutional protections to everyone who makes it inside our borders, even those planning to do us harm, seems like a more serious threat than any amount of illegal wiretapping.
You are more likely to kill yourself than die from an Al Queda attack. Get a sense of proportion.
One side wants to protect America from terrorists; the other wants to protect terrorists from America. That's the basis on which I chose my side.
Oh, well why didn't you just save everyone a lot of time and tell us that you are a complete moron? If the neocons really gave two wits about stopping terrorism, they would have kept after Bin Laddin in the Tora Bora mountains instead of pulling troops off to invade Iraq, which had jack squat to do with any attacks on the U.S. Instead, they've made sure that generations of Iraqis will hate our guts, and that we will have to worry about terrorism for decades. Rather than having a rested, nimble military ready to respond to real terrorist threats, they've bogged us down in a civil war. They've made more terrorists than they've killed. Bill Clinton cared more about finding Bin Laddin before 911 than Bush cares about finding Bin Laddin after he killed 3,000 Americans.
Kohath, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Until you have something factual to say, don't say anything at all.
There seem to be two main criticisms of Bush: that he is a total moron, and that he is guilty of successfully conspiring to turn the government into some sort of facism. These two are almost certainly mutually exclusive to me
Why? You do know there are hundreds of thousands of people under the executive branch, right? Shit, there's more than 30,000 people working for the NSA alone. You could substitute a turnip for Bush and still have other administration officials keep on grabbing power, starting with Dick Cheney.
I hope the Democrats realize this is not only blocking President Bush, it will also block future President Hillary or Barack too.
And you think this would be a concern for them because...? It is possible to oppose something because it is obscenely wrong, not just because the other party is doing it.
A Global War on Terror". Just like most Republicans don't believe in "Man-Made-Global Warming"
Um, no. If you want a real analogy, the GWOT is like the War on Drugs: a self-perpetuating mess that does nothing but make the problem it is supposed to solve worse while wasting lives and billions of dollars. More so when the U.S. government is very selective in which terrorists it actually goes after.
See, nothing was wrong with the wiretaps, they met the letter of the law. (No, I won't explain why
Because you can't, because they are illegal.
But they can't say that because it shows they were legal in the first place.
Hardly. We get new laws on already-illegal acts all the time. What this does do, is explicity ban the practice altogether. Yes, they should just impeach Bush's ass for that and a dozen other things, but they don't have the votes, and the biased conservative media would start PMSing on the Dems even though Bush has been the one shredding the Constitution.
That, and the fact that the two biggest IP industry whores today were themselves founded on breaking copyrights and patents: the record industry and the movie industry. The former would take advantage of the fact that old laws seldom covered new technologies, and took advantage of that fact and ripped off musicians and songwriters. The latter set up shop in Hollywood not just because of the nice weather, but also to get away from Thomas Edison's film patents. The RIAA and MPAA aren't against file sharing because it's against copyright law, they're against it because they don't control it.
Guiliani made some good speeches, made people feel better, and did a respectable job coordinating the response in the aftermath of the attacks. And while he'll have a nice little entry in the history of NYC, he certainally has not had a national, much less international impact.
The actions of Osama Bin Laddin, on the other hand, will have a worldwide impact for decades at least, maybe even centuries. Just look at the lasting effect Gavrilo Princip has had on the world, and he killed just one person. Claiming that Guiliani has had a beigger impact than Osama is beyond nieve, to put it nicely.
I have no idea why people think Bin Laden wanted a war. He didn't. He wanted a blow so hard that we would be afraid of war. He wanted capitulation and the American people to rise up and tell the government to get us out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east, and in particular, to quit helping Israel. He has stated as much, many times, so this isn't exactly guesswork.
Of course he wants us out, what you are missing is how he planned to go from Point A to Point B. So yes, he wanted us to launch a war in the Middle East, because we would be drawn into a quagmire and weakened militarily, politically, and at home. And that is exactly what has happened.
Neither Microsoft nor Wal-Mart create new jobs, they just shuffle existing ones around. And it doesn't matter if Wal-Mart saves poor shoppers $50 billion a year if they end up costing far more than that in the long run. How many jobs have been lost at local shops when a Supercenter moves into town? How many jobs have been offshored so suppliers can meet Wal-Marts demands? Try Googling for "Wal-Mart" and "Vlasic".
He's a salesman. He can't force you to buy his products.
Of course he can, and this is what landed him hot water with the DOJ. PC's are a low margin industry, and Microsoft was threatening to cut discounts to OEM's if they installed Netscape. Telling Micheal Dell that his costs are going to increase 10% over HP's (for example) is a way to strongarm them into playing ball.
If you're going to compare Mr. Gates to the robber barons in terms of generosity, at least take into consideration the fact that Gates is considerably poorer than Rockefeller was at Rockefeller's peak.
If you're going to really make a comparison, you need to judge the contribution as a percentage of the donors wealth. I don't know about Rockefeller, but Carnegie gave away most of his money. Bill giving a million dollars to a charity is about as impressive, on a percentave of wealth, as me dropping a ten in a Salvation Army cup at a grocery store.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Not to mention being a perfect example of pretending to be a victum.
The ACLU is busy trying to drive Christianity from all walks of public life, in a bizarre perversion of the intent of the 1st amendment.
Utter nonsense, as usual. The ACLU is only concerned when the government is involved.
The Boy Scouts (a monotheistic organization) is being persecuted widely (here in the Phoenix area, one town refused to allow its charity funds to go there).
If by "persecuted" you mean "denied any taxpayer money or the free use of public land", then yes. Which they deserve as long as they descriminate against homosexuals and non-Christians. They certainally are free to associate with whomever they choose, but they are also free to do it without the free use of public resources.
The Catholic Church has been frequently desecrated by Homosexual activists, while its practices and beliefs are widely attacked,including in Hollywood fictional series (I enjoy watching the "Law and Order" series but some of their attacks on the Church have been highly offensive).
Blah blah blah blah. When homosexuals start passing Constitutional amendments banning Christian marriage, or start beating Christians to death and leaving them tied to fences, I'll be impressed. Until then, your playing the victum card is as much nonsense as if I complained about how much I, a 27 year old male of German-Irish desent, personally suffered from the Holocaust.
Fundamentalists are laughed at by all "sophisticates" and generally treated as hicks.
Because they are. True fundamentalists believe the Earth is 4,000 or so years old, was created in 7 days, and so on. Not even the Popes do that anymore. Taking 2,000+ year old myths literally while ignoring 2,000 years of scientific and social advances is rather redicoulous.
While I don't agree with all of their views, they are mocked and misportrayed in a way that would be a very big no-no if done to Muslims or fundamentalist Jews.
Of course fundamentalist Jews and Muslims get mocked. They are just vastly outnumbered in this country by fundamentalist Christians, and have little political power, unlike fundamentalist Christians. That's not the case, in oh say, Isreal or Iran. Try visiting those places and you'll see hardline clerics and members of the Likud party being mocked all the time.
If one adopts even the slightest sensitivity towards mainstream Christian views
You wouldn't know mainstream if you were bitten on the ass by Godzilla and he was wearing a nametag saying, "Hello, my name is Mainstream."
Most people would not think that is an unfair statement, despite the fact that out of the millions of Republicans in this country, only a few hundred were in the House at the time. If 5% of the people are making 99% of the noise, that 5% WILL become the face for that group.
It's no better than some Blacks being angry with all Whites over a bunch of KKK idiots or some Whites being angry with all Japanese Amercians over Pearl Harbor.
Who made up the KKK? White people, and only white people. Who bombed Perl Harbor? The Japanese, and only the Japanese. So it would have been entirely reasonable for a black person to complain about whites if he was living in rural Alabama in the 1960's, or a person living in the Hawaiian islands to complain about the Japanese after Perl Harbor. Of course, no reasonable person would have blamed ALL whites for the treatment of blacks, or blamed ALL people of Japanese desent for Perl Harbor, anymore than anyone really thinks that ALL Chrstians are rabid fundamentalists who hate evolution and love creationism and ID. But like I said above: it doesn't matter if it's only 5% of the poeple making a ruckus if they are making 95% of the noise: they will be the face for your group.
I got into a similar argument a couple of years ago with a friend who is a moderate Christian, only the subject was Christians and homosexuality rather than Christians and ID. And much like you, my friend was bitching about how homosexuals complained about "Christians" rather than "homophobes who happen to be Christians". I said, part of the reason why is that the former is much easier to say than the latter. It's why we say NASA instead of National Aeronatics and Space Administration. It's why we say "oh" when rattling off phone numbers instead of "zero": zero has two sylables and "oh" is just one. It's to save time.
The other perfectly reasonable reason to complain about Christians wanting to ban gay marriage is because the only poeple pushing for it were either Christians or politicians pandering to Christians. You take Christians out the equation in 2004, and the gay marriage bans would have gone absolutly nowhere. They wouldn't have even been on the table in the first place.
Amd much like my friend, I see you spend all your time complaining about how people should say something like "supporters of ID who happen to be fundamentalists Christians" rather than just "Christians", rather than disavowing the actions of those fundamentalists.
Which brings me (finally) to my point: the only way to prevent people from associating the actions of a vocal but small fraciton of a group with the group as a whole is to speak up. If the Pope would get together with American bishops and the leaders of Catholic schools, and make an annoucement decrying Intelligent Design and declaring support for evloution in science class, that would be big news and go far to dispell the generalization that Christians are responsbile for this crap. But nothing like this has happened yet.
How do we get people to realize that the televangelists are not representative of mainstream Christianity?
When mainstream Christians start speaking up, obviously. It doens't matter if 95% of the noise comes from only 5% of the people: that 5% is still the face that people will see.
ISPs who do this sort of thing will, undoubtedly, be replaced by ISPs which don't. Consumers simply won't tolerate it, nor will web services.
You're forgetting the FCC rulings releasing telecoms from the requirement to share their bandwidth with others. Consumers can't vote with their wallet if there's no other candidate to cast their vote to.
Only in the Bill O'Reilly "war on Christmas sense." Or in other words, a false witch hunt manufactured so whiners like O'Reilly can complain that the 180 million christians in this country are somehow being oppressed by the 5 athiets living here.
You don't have to circumvent the DRM to back it up. A file is a file. You can copy it over and over and over again. The DRM only matters when you try to play it; and for that you only need the email/password you purchased the tracks with.
That's true for files, but not copy-protected cd's, such as the fiasco with Sony's rootkit.
I can only imagine the horror of actually trying to backup a pile of cds.
It's no problem if you ripped your albums using lossless compression in the first place. Tape-trading fans of bands like the Greatful Dead trade music this way, so there is no loss in quality. When a 250 gig drive is a hundred bucks, why not use lossless?
Generally that is how you describe it, but some bands make aneffort to make each album and experience and each song worth listening to. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is the classic example of this, and there are still some bands that try to do that, like Nine Inch Nails with "The Fragile".
That would fucking suck. I hope he had renters or homeowners insurance.
Things like fires are why you want to have offsite backups for your most important data. I have a friend who got rid of all his paper records; he scanned reciepts and statements onto his computer, which he backed up to DVD. Except when he was moving, he hydroplaned his car off the side of the highway and punctered the gas tank. He's lucky he was able to get out of his car, because it started on fire rather spectacularly.
However, right when all those electronic records would have been very handy to send to his insurance agent, they were stored on his laptop, which was in the backseat of his car. He did have backups to DVD-R, but those too were with the laptop, which are all now a lump of melted plastic and metal by the side of an interstate.
Or so he thought anyway. As it turns out he had 2 identical disk wallets, one for data and one for music, and he got the two mixed up. So a couple of weeks later he found the other wallet with his backup disks, but in the meantime it was a couple of hairy weeks. What added insult to injury is that a cop gave him a reckless driving ticket when he just lost his car and over $5000 worth of stuff in his car.:)
You just need to tell iTunes NOT to manage your playlists for you. This way you can add as much music from as many computers as you want to. This does works for all iPods but the Shuffle.
AAC supports bookmarking, which is invaluable when listening to audiobooks or Podcasts. If you stop listening to a song with one of those two tags, iTunes or your iPod will remember where you stopped listening and the next time you play that song it will resume at that location.
Hillary, Lieberman, Tipper Gore... all names that should ring bells in conjunction with the desire to censor.
Santorum, Delay, Ashcroft, Fallwell, Dobson, Bennett, Corborn... That's more than twice as many Republicans, and that's just what I could come up with off the top of my head. The "religion & morals" crowd is currently the dominant wing of the dominant party...just look at how they sank Mier's nomination.
Doug Brinkley's original text has him 50 miles from cambodia that day.
And of course, Kerry is an idiot for missing the huge "Now Entering Cambodia" signs plastered all over the hundreds of miles of river they were on. Its also his fault for not inventing the GPS so he'd know from one minute to the next which country he was in on those winding rivers.
What makes me obviously a republican?
Well, lets see:
Avoids answering the question? Check.
Holds the Democrat up to the highest of standards while ignoring the GOP's shenanigans? Check.
It is entirely possible his recollection was wrong about the time, place, people and president, and that this false image is seared in his mind, but I doubt that.
Why. He did missions in Cambodia and almost certainally did missions around Christmas. Why is it so hard for you to believe that he could honestly get the two mixed up 15 years later? Like I said, highest of standards...
Here is a good review of the Navy Doc that contradicts Kerry and agrees with the SBVT. The Docs are here
Okay, now why is a doctor appearing in the SBVFT ads saying that he treated Kerry's wounds, when a different doctor's signature is on the records? Why do some of the SBVFT says Kerry was lying when he said his boat was under fire, when the records of the SBVFT guys said that they were under fire as well, and their boats were right next to Kerry's? Either they are lying now or they were lying then. Why do some of them insist they haven't been involved in politics when they've taken some $15,000 in GOP money?
Slashdot Mirror
Extending the 4th amendment to phone lines is a reach.
No, it's not.
Number one, phone lines are in the public domain.
So are highways. Does that mean you can be stopped and searched anytime you get on a highway, for whatever reason?
Unless phone lines and cell phone transmissions are somehow "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
You just answered your own question.
However, the idea of giving constitutional protections to everyone who makes it inside our borders, even those planning to do us harm, seems like a more serious threat than any amount of illegal wiretapping.
You are more likely to kill yourself than die from an Al Queda attack. Get a sense of proportion.
One side wants to protect America from terrorists; the other wants to protect terrorists from America. That's the basis on which I chose my side.
Oh, well why didn't you just save everyone a lot of time and tell us that you are a complete moron? If the neocons really gave two wits about stopping terrorism, they would have kept after Bin Laddin in the Tora Bora mountains instead of pulling troops off to invade Iraq, which had jack squat to do with any attacks on the U.S. Instead, they've made sure that generations of Iraqis will hate our guts, and that we will have to worry about terrorism for decades. Rather than having a rested, nimble military ready to respond to real terrorist threats, they've bogged us down in a civil war. They've made more terrorists than they've killed. Bill Clinton cared more about finding Bin Laddin before 911 than Bush cares about finding Bin Laddin after he killed 3,000 Americans.
Kohath, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Until you have something factual to say, don't say anything at all.
There seem to be two main criticisms of Bush: that he is a total moron, and that he is guilty of successfully conspiring to turn the government into some sort of facism. These two are almost certainly mutually exclusive to me
Why? You do know there are hundreds of thousands of people under the executive branch, right? Shit, there's more than 30,000 people working for the NSA alone. You could substitute a turnip for Bush and still have other administration officials keep on grabbing power, starting with Dick Cheney.
I hope the Democrats realize this is not only blocking President Bush, it will also block future President Hillary or Barack too.
And you think this would be a concern for them because...? It is possible to oppose something because it is obscenely wrong, not just because the other party is doing it.
A Global War on Terror". Just like most Republicans don't believe in "Man-Made-Global Warming"
Um, no. If you want a real analogy, the GWOT is like the War on Drugs: a self-perpetuating mess that does nothing but make the problem it is supposed to solve worse while wasting lives and billions of dollars. More so when the U.S. government is very selective in which terrorists it actually goes after.
See, nothing was wrong with the wiretaps, they met the letter of the law. (No, I won't explain why
Because you can't, because they are illegal.
But they can't say that because it shows they were legal in the first place.
Hardly. We get new laws on already-illegal acts all the time. What this does do, is explicity ban the practice altogether. Yes, they should just impeach Bush's ass for that and a dozen other things, but they don't have the votes, and the biased conservative media would start PMSing on the Dems even though Bush has been the one shredding the Constitution.
That, and the fact that the two biggest IP industry whores today were themselves founded on breaking copyrights and patents: the record industry and the movie industry. The former would take advantage of the fact that old laws seldom covered new technologies, and took advantage of that fact and ripped off musicians and songwriters. The latter set up shop in Hollywood not just because of the nice weather, but also to get away from Thomas Edison's film patents. The RIAA and MPAA aren't against file sharing because it's against copyright law, they're against it because they don't control it.
Guiliani made some good speeches, made people feel better, and did a respectable job coordinating the response in the aftermath of the attacks. And while he'll have a nice little entry in the history of NYC, he certainally has not had a national, much less international impact.
The actions of Osama Bin Laddin, on the other hand, will have a worldwide impact for decades at least, maybe even centuries. Just look at the lasting effect Gavrilo Princip has had on the world, and he killed just one person. Claiming that Guiliani has had a beigger impact than Osama is beyond nieve, to put it nicely.
I have no idea why people think Bin Laden wanted a war. He didn't. He wanted a blow so hard that we would be afraid of war. He wanted capitulation and the American people to rise up and tell the government to get us out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east, and in particular, to quit helping Israel. He has stated as much, many times, so this isn't exactly guesswork.
Of course he wants us out, what you are missing is how he planned to go from Point A to Point B. So yes, he wanted us to launch a war in the Middle East, because we would be drawn into a quagmire and weakened militarily, politically, and at home. And that is exactly what has happened.
Neither Microsoft nor Wal-Mart create new jobs, they just shuffle existing ones around. And it doesn't matter if Wal-Mart saves poor shoppers $50 billion a year if they end up costing far more than that in the long run. How many jobs have been lost at local shops when a Supercenter moves into town? How many jobs have been offshored so suppliers can meet Wal-Marts demands? Try Googling for "Wal-Mart" and "Vlasic".
He's a salesman. He can't force you to buy his products.
Of course he can, and this is what landed him hot water with the DOJ. PC's are a low margin industry, and Microsoft was threatening to cut discounts to OEM's if they installed Netscape. Telling Micheal Dell that his costs are going to increase 10% over HP's (for example) is a way to strongarm them into playing ball.
If you're going to compare Mr. Gates to the robber barons in terms of generosity, at least take into consideration the fact that Gates is considerably poorer than Rockefeller was at Rockefeller's peak.
If you're going to really make a comparison, you need to judge the contribution as a percentage of the donors wealth. I don't know about Rockefeller, but Carnegie gave away most of his money. Bill giving a million dollars to a charity is about as impressive, on a percentave of wealth, as me dropping a ten in a Salvation Army cup at a grocery store.
Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there.
Um, you do know they're talking about George Herbert Walker Bush, and not George W. Bush, right?
Nice try, but utter BS.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Not to mention being a perfect example of pretending to be a victum.
The ACLU is busy trying to drive Christianity from all walks of public life, in a bizarre perversion of the intent of the 1st amendment.
Utter nonsense, as usual. The ACLU is only concerned when the government is involved.
The Boy Scouts (a monotheistic organization) is being persecuted widely (here in the Phoenix area, one town refused to allow its charity funds to go there).
If by "persecuted" you mean "denied any taxpayer money or the free use of public land", then yes. Which they deserve as long as they descriminate against homosexuals and non-Christians. They certainally are free to associate with whomever they choose, but they are also free to do it without the free use of public resources.
The Catholic Church has been frequently desecrated by Homosexual activists, while its practices and beliefs are widely attacked,including in Hollywood fictional series (I enjoy watching the "Law and Order" series but some of their attacks on the Church have been highly offensive).
Blah blah blah blah. When homosexuals start passing Constitutional amendments banning Christian marriage, or start beating Christians to death and leaving them tied to fences, I'll be impressed. Until then, your playing the victum card is as much nonsense as if I complained about how much I, a 27 year old male of German-Irish desent, personally suffered from the Holocaust.
Fundamentalists are laughed at by all "sophisticates" and generally treated as hicks.
Because they are. True fundamentalists believe the Earth is 4,000 or so years old, was created in 7 days, and so on. Not even the Popes do that anymore. Taking 2,000+ year old myths literally while ignoring 2,000 years of scientific and social advances is rather redicoulous.
While I don't agree with all of their views, they are mocked and misportrayed in a way that would be a very big no-no if done to Muslims or fundamentalist Jews.
Of course fundamentalist Jews and Muslims get mocked. They are just vastly outnumbered in this country by fundamentalist Christians, and have little political power, unlike fundamentalist Christians. That's not the case, in oh say, Isreal or Iran. Try visiting those places and you'll see hardline clerics and members of the Likud party being mocked all the time.
If one adopts even the slightest sensitivity towards mainstream Christian views
You wouldn't know mainstream if you were bitten on the ass by Godzilla and he was wearing a nametag saying, "Hello, my name is Mainstream."
It's too bad he had to be so unprofessional.
Oh, so you're unprofessional if you dare to voice personal opinions and justified anger? Nonsense.
Most people would not think that is an unfair statement, despite the fact that out of the millions of Republicans in this country, only a few hundred were in the House at the time. If 5% of the people are making 99% of the noise, that 5% WILL become the face for that group.
It's no better than some Blacks being angry with all Whites over a bunch of KKK idiots or some Whites being angry with all Japanese Amercians over Pearl Harbor.
Who made up the KKK? White people, and only white people. Who bombed Perl Harbor? The Japanese, and only the Japanese. So it would have been entirely reasonable for a black person to complain about whites if he was living in rural Alabama in the 1960's, or a person living in the Hawaiian islands to complain about the Japanese after Perl Harbor. Of course, no reasonable person would have blamed ALL whites for the treatment of blacks, or blamed ALL people of Japanese desent for Perl Harbor, anymore than anyone really thinks that ALL Chrstians are rabid fundamentalists who hate evolution and love creationism and ID. But like I said above: it doesn't matter if it's only 5% of the poeple making a ruckus if they are making 95% of the noise: they will be the face for your group.
I got into a similar argument a couple of years ago with a friend who is a moderate Christian, only the subject was Christians and homosexuality rather than Christians and ID. And much like you, my friend was bitching about how homosexuals complained about "Christians" rather than "homophobes who happen to be Christians". I said, part of the reason why is that the former is much easier to say than the latter. It's why we say NASA instead of National Aeronatics and Space Administration. It's why we say "oh" when rattling off phone numbers instead of "zero": zero has two sylables and "oh" is just one. It's to save time.
The other perfectly reasonable reason to complain about Christians wanting to ban gay marriage is because the only poeple pushing for it were either Christians or politicians pandering to Christians. You take Christians out the equation in 2004, and the gay marriage bans would have gone absolutly nowhere. They wouldn't have even been on the table in the first place.
Amd much like my friend, I see you spend all your time complaining about how people should say something like "supporters of ID who happen to be fundamentalists Christians" rather than just "Christians", rather than disavowing the actions of those fundamentalists.
Which brings me (finally) to my point: the only way to prevent people from associating the actions of a vocal but small fraciton of a group with the group as a whole is to speak up. If the Pope would get together with American bishops and the leaders of Catholic schools, and make an annoucement decrying Intelligent Design and declaring support for evloution in science class, that would be big news and go far to dispell the generalization that Christians are responsbile for this crap. But nothing like this has happened yet.
How do we get people to realize that the televangelists are not representative of mainstream Christianity?
When mainstream Christians start speaking up, obviously. It doens't matter if 95% of the noise comes from only 5% of the people: that 5% is still the face that people will see.
ISPs who do this sort of thing will, undoubtedly, be replaced by ISPs which don't. Consumers simply won't tolerate it, nor will web services.
You're forgetting the FCC rulings releasing telecoms from the requirement to share their bandwidth with others. Consumers can't vote with their wallet if there's no other candidate to cast their vote to.
Christians tend to be fair game these days.
Only in the Bill O'Reilly "war on Christmas sense." Or in other words, a false witch hunt manufactured so whiners like O'Reilly can complain that the 180 million christians in this country are somehow being oppressed by the 5 athiets living here.
You don't have to circumvent the DRM to back it up. A file is a file. You can copy it over and over and over again. The DRM only matters when you try to play it; and for that you only need the email/password you purchased the tracks with.
That's true for files, but not copy-protected cd's, such as the fiasco with Sony's rootkit.
I can only imagine the horror of actually trying to backup a pile of cds.
It's no problem if you ripped your albums using lossless compression in the first place. Tape-trading fans of bands like the Greatful Dead trade music this way, so there is no loss in quality. When a 250 gig drive is a hundred bucks, why not use lossless?
Albums encourage sloth and greed.
Generally that is how you describe it, but some bands make aneffort to make each album and experience and each song worth listening to. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is the classic example of this, and there are still some bands that try to do that, like Nine Inch Nails with "The Fragile".
That would fucking suck. I hope he had renters or homeowners insurance.
:)
Things like fires are why you want to have offsite backups for your most important data. I have a friend who got rid of all his paper records; he scanned reciepts and statements onto his computer, which he backed up to DVD. Except when he was moving, he hydroplaned his car off the side of the highway and punctered the gas tank. He's lucky he was able to get out of his car, because it started on fire rather spectacularly.
However, right when all those electronic records would have been very handy to send to his insurance agent, they were stored on his laptop, which was in the backseat of his car. He did have backups to DVD-R, but those too were with the laptop, which are all now a lump of melted plastic and metal by the side of an interstate.
Or so he thought anyway. As it turns out he had 2 identical disk wallets, one for data and one for music, and he got the two mixed up. So a couple of weeks later he found the other wallet with his backup disks, but in the meantime it was a couple of hairy weeks. What added insult to injury is that a cop gave him a reckless driving ticket when he just lost his car and over $5000 worth of stuff in his car.
You just need to tell iTunes NOT to manage your playlists for you. This way you can add as much music from as many computers as you want to. This does works for all iPods but the Shuffle.
AAC supports bookmarking, which is invaluable when listening to audiobooks or Podcasts. If you stop listening to a song with one of those two tags, iTunes or your iPod will remember where you stopped listening and the next time you play that song it will resume at that location.
Hillary, Lieberman, Tipper Gore... all names that should ring bells in conjunction with the desire to censor.
Santorum, Delay, Ashcroft, Fallwell, Dobson, Bennett, Corborn... That's more than twice as many Republicans, and that's just what I could come up with off the top of my head. The "religion & morals" crowd is currently the dominant wing of the dominant party...just look at how they sank Mier's nomination.
And of course, Kerry is an idiot for missing the huge "Now Entering Cambodia" signs plastered all over the hundreds of miles of river they were on. Its also his fault for not inventing the GPS so he'd know from one minute to the next which country he was in on those winding rivers.
What makes me obviously a republican?
Well, lets see:
- Avoids answering the question? Check.
- Holds the Democrat up to the highest of standards while ignoring the GOP's shenanigans? Check.
It is entirely possible his recollection was wrong about the time, place, people and president, and that this false image is seared in his mind, but I doubt that.Why. He did missions in Cambodia and almost certainally did missions around Christmas. Why is it so hard for you to believe that he could honestly get the two mixed up 15 years later? Like I said, highest of standards...
Here is a good review of the Navy Doc that contradicts Kerry and agrees with the SBVT. The Docs are here
Any more?
Sure do. Most Underwhelming Evidence Ever.
Okay, now why is a doctor appearing in the SBVFT ads saying that he treated Kerry's wounds, when a different doctor's signature is on the records? Why do some of the SBVFT says Kerry was lying when he said his boat was under fire, when the records of the SBVFT guys said that they were under fire as well, and their boats were right next to Kerry's? Either they are lying now or they were lying then. Why do some of them insist they haven't been involved in politics when they've taken some $15,000 in GOP money?