Finally, there is a huge amount of supporting evidence for creationism...However, since your world view excludes God you cannot interpret it correctly.
No, the simple fact of the matter is that religion is based on faith, not science. An individual's beleif (or lack of beleif) in god should not play any role in scientific research or observation. In reality, there is no legitimate (i.e. testable, repeatable and falsafiable) evidence supporting the existence of god or creationism and the very fact it is impossible to prove (or disprove) god's existence shows that creationism is not science and can't be treated as such.
If you don't agree I encourage you try to come up with an verifiable and repeatable experiment which could prove (or disprove) either the existence of god or the biblical account of creation.
That is the reason for presenting both sides of the debate in school and elsewhere.
There is no debate! There is no scientific evidence for creationism and no legitimate scientists treats creationism as science. One needs only to look at the parent post to notice that the only sources of "evidence" for creation cited are Answers in Genesis and True Origins which are political preasure groups founded with the express purpose of trying to get creationism into public schools and funded by religious groups and are not legitimate or scientific institutions. If there is so much debate and evidence for creationism how come it appears only in political and religious publications and never in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
And amazingly people like you think that just because someone is from Saudi Arabia means they are agents of the Saudi government.
No, but the fact that several of the highjackers were using airline tickets purchased by the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US might indicate government involvment
What makes you think the Democrats don't want to be able to track Republicans.
I would oppose this program just as much if it were proposed by a Democrat but there no evidence that past Democratic administrations have used law enforcment and intellegence angencies to track/monitor their political opponents and/or disidents while republicans have (think McCarthyism, watergate, cointelpro, the FBI collecting thousands of pages of data on groups like the ACLU and Greenpeace under the bush administration, Tom Delay using the FAA and Department of Homeland Security to track democratic members of the Texas State legislature, etc.)
the current GTA3 rigamarole has not been started and is not currently a molehill being made into a mountain by republicans or conservatives.
Unless you count Hillary's main advocates and co-sponsers/supporters on the issue who are both conservative republicans (Sens. Santourum (R-PA) and Brownback (R-KS))or the far right National Institute on Media and the Family which started the whole thing by issuing a "National Parental Warning" (read: self-promoting and hyperbolicly hysterical press release) on the mod.
I don't think the fate of DRM is as black-and-white as you seem to think it is. That's more likely to be true for the really draconian DRM systems, but "gentler" ones are, in my opinion, a lot more like a simple curb.
Yes, you can drive your car off, or over, a curb. But if there's a nice ramp cut in the curb where people intend for your car to go, it's easier to go that way, and most people will.
Despite my hatred of DRM I have to say a "curb"-type system is what we should be moving towards. Obviously, copyright holders have the right to defend their ip and many won't release their products online in a completly unprotected form (due to a combination of their paranoia and the fact that copyright infringment does exist and does cost them some money [albeit only a tiny fraction of what the riaa/mpaa/bsa/world douchebags guild/etc claim].) As a result of this fact we, as consumers, should encourage them to use a drm system that protects their rights (prevents wholesale copying and/or posting on p2p, etc) without infringing on ours (allows fair use, creation of backup copies, copying to portable devices, etc.)
The problem so far has been that copyright holders have been trying to use drm as a way to grant themselves additional rights my preventing consumers from engaging in perfectly legal activities such as skipping the ads at the begining of dvds and schemes such as these are what need to be rejected in order to prevent the content providers from taking away our fair use rights and/or set the precidents that movies, music, software, etc can only be used in ways the ip companies approve of. On the other hand, systems which protect the legitimate rights of the copyright holders without unduely burdaning or restricting the rights of the consumer should be encouraged as there acceptence will result in more content being avalible online legally and without dracionian drm restrctions.
You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election
In reality (as opposed to the warped mind of whatever right-wing radio host/blogger/tv personality you got that idea from) the Fla court said that the votes should be counted according to state election law which said that if "a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office...the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office (Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166, Paragraph 1 of the Florida State Code) and " A vote for a candidate or ballot measure shall be counted if there is a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice." (Paragraph 5a of same.) Now that that is out of the way feel free to explain what law the Fla Supreme Court was trying to change and how they were changing it and ?
The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.
Actually, they counted the votes using 6 different standards/methods (including the one ordered by the FLA Supreme Court) and everyone of them showed Gore winning.
What do these two quotes have in common?
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" - Condoleeza Rice, 9/8/02
"what will it take for the world to do something decisive about these regimes and their (soon to be) nuclear arsenals? a nuclear signature over los angeles or madrid?" - circletimessquare, 6/2/05
Hint: They both attempt to justify unilateral and premptive war and promote the speaker's political agenda by playing to the reader's fear through the hyperbolization of a remote (or nonexistent) threat.
Nobody is interested in "tracking you" to see where you go and what you do. Some stupidly huge percentage of Americans live law-abiding lives of quiet, boring desperation; recording every one into some database would be phenomenally silly.
The premise that most people live boring lives and therefore nobody wouldy want to track them is absurd. Putting aside, for the moment, the possible law enforcment applications of such a tracking system there most certinally are groups that would love access to this kind of information. The first one to come to my mind is marketing firms that value every piece of information they can collect about you because it allows them to build a better and more complete demographic profile of you and by doing so send you more and better targeted advertising. If you doubt companies like DoubleClick would like nothing more than to be able to track everyone at all times ask yourself why stores frequntly require you to sign up for a "club" card to get advertised prices or why warrenty registration cards almost always requst information that is completly unrelated to the product being registered (i.e. household income, hobbies, marital status, etc.)
Moving on to the scarier applications now...haven't enough cases of police courption and abuse of power been exposed for people to see that the old "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" argument is not a useful one. We live in a world where law enforcment agencies and government officals are caught lying on a near daily basis, people are held for years (or sent to foreign countries and tourtured) before it is releaved that they have done nothing wrong and were detained by mistake or for some illegitimate/unconstitutional/illegal/all of the above reason and people who have been in prison (including death row) for years or decades are shown to have be completly innocent. So, it is completly beyond me why you would think that no one wants to track you and/or archive information about your life. But I guess some people just value their privacy more than others
"IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -Fourth and Nineth Amendments to he US Constitution
By voting for Nader you can send the Democrats the message that their strategy is a losing one. By doing so in a swing state, your message will be louder.
Yes, however, that message will be "I want 4 more years of Bush" I voted for Nader in 2000 and I don't like Kerry very much either but the simple fact is that Kerry (bad as he is) is far, far better than Bush and while Nader would almost certinly be better than either one the there is no question that Kerry can win and Nader can't. Make no mistake! Voting for Nader is voting for Bush! Since you suppoort Nader I would assume you agree with him in most of the issues and it is easy to see that Kerry's position is far closer to Nader's than Bush's is on almost every issue. So please look at all the candidates positions and reconsider the election is clsoe enough that a few people voting for third party candidates to "send a message" could very well hand Bush a second term. Do you really want another 4 years of Bush policy on the enivronment, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc. Not to mention the fact that the next president will likely appoint 2-4 supreme court justices, do you really want John Ashcroft (a man who tried to revoke the rite of habius corpus, arrested people for using medical marijuna even through it is legal in their states, and spent over 8,000 tax payer dollars to cover up the bare breast of a bronze statue) having a say in our laws for the next 40 years or more. Please Reconsider and Vote Kerry! America Can't Take Another Four Years of Bush
The problem with this is that Lucas is not required to license the film to any cinema that whats to show it and is allowed to set terms on exhibition. This is how they were allowed to set the many requirments which surrounded exhibition of the prequels (some examples being: THX-certified screens only, and multiplexes being required to show SW on their largest screens)
The vast majority of the statements you put in bold are mere statements of fact, if they appear one-sided it is because of the horrible job the Bush administration has done and the right-wing bias in much of the American media (now, that was a one-sided statement, but I'm not claiming to be impartial).
Because the Demos damn sure will as soon as they have the minority.
I don't know which is more impressive, your lack of historical knowledge or your lack of knowledge of the English language. The Democrats have the minority now so I'm guessing you meant when they have the majority and the facts are that no Democratic senator ever proposed, sponsered, introduced or even publicly mentioned an idea even remotely related to this one even though 19 of the last 25 senates had Democratic majorities.
Actually, Vampyre is a older spelling that is still used on ocassion. Both spellings have the same meaning but vampyre is usualy used to refer to members of the vampiric subculture rather than fictional vampires.
On a side note I just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and vampyre is listed as a valid spelling.
That's not fair, of course. For example, try searching for spyware removal software like "Spybot Search and Destroy." Almost all the links you'll find are for imposters that are themselves spyware. Evil.
The first result is Lavasoft (makers of AdAware) and the third is Spybot-S+D. What's the problem?
If the MPAA wants to throw people out of the theaters and take their tapes that's fine. My problem is with wasting the limited time and resoruces of law enforcement and judicial personal that could be better spent solving far more serious crimes. In other words, why should my tax money be spent to defend the movie studios profits. Copyright infringment should be a civil offense and the police shouldn't have to waste their time and other resoruces arresting people for taping movies when they could be investigating murders, rapes, etc.
This just in...
Your 16 year old boy (along with every other 16 year old boy in the world) is interested in sex regardless of what movies they've seen it is totaly natural and will happen! And if your concerned that he is going to get his girlfriend pregant make sure he has access to and knows how to use condoms. The fact of the matter is that teaching teenagers that sex is evil and they shouldn't have, think about, etc sex results in higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and STDs when compared to sensible attitudes/approaches (including accepting that sex is a natural things and that teenagers do and will have sex) such as teaching about safe sex and birth control.
Except the creators of the movie, who find their work has been bowdlerised without their permission.
This player only works on a specific list of movies which have been pre censored by Clearpay (the company RCA licensed the censorship technology from) and every single movie on the list is rated G,PG,PG-13 or R (no NC-17 or unrated pictures). So as far as I'm concerned the "artists" already gave up their moral rights when they censored their films for the MPAA ratings board.
To me this seems like a very good idea because it allows people to control what they (and their children) see without forcing their moral values on anyone else.
John Ashcrack, like Ed Messe before him, is doing this to make election year points with the christian right. In the end he will bust a few people who don't have the money to fight back. Most likely he will either attack a few adult video stores in small, majority evangelical christian towns where he thinks he can get a conviction and/or go after web sites with the kind of really disgusting porn that no one will be willing to defend (i.e. bestiality, staged rape/snuff, etc.)
In the end a few people will get seriously fucked over (no pun intended) by his (and Bush's) self-rightious, religious bullshit but society as a whole will not change and come November 3 this will all blow over and porn/the porn industry will be the same as it was before this particular incarnation of the morality gestopeo launched the nipple jihad of 2004.
I've just closed up shop on a DVD Rental business a friend and I tried on the side the past year and a half. There are thousands of these machines in Europe and there are several companies that tried it here in the states. I don't think any of them are doing well.
If the DVD rental machines you're talking about are like the one near where I live (college park, md) the problem is the 1-day rental period and the pirce point ($0.99 for 1 day compared to $3-$5 for 7 days at area video stores)
The liked the rental model, and didn't care about anything else you mentioned. They just thought it would save a trip to the rental store.
People are used to the idea of renting movies and the vast majority of the time a person will only watch a movie once or twice. However, peoplle are used to buying music and often listen to the same song many times.
For example, I gladly pay a monthly subscription fee to Greencine (like Netflix but with a better selection of cult, foreign and indie films) and nine times out of ten I'll watch a movie once and then return it but I have no interest in paying a subscription fee to rent music cause when I buy a song I like to be able to listen it to when I want, where I want (on my computer at home, on my computer at work, on my iPod, on a CD in my car, etc) and as many times as I want.
There is also a significant difference in price. If someone recomends a movie to me I am far more likley to rent it and see if I like it then to pay $15-30 for a DVD. On the other hand if someone recomends a song from a group I've never heard of I will have no problem paying $0.99 to buy it from iTMS.
Because of these reasons I think a subscription model would work for movies (and I for one will sign up as soon as someone offers a online VOD system with good (near DVD) quality, a good selection and reasonable pricess) but I don't see a subscription based music service working.
100 cups of coffee=1 tax refund
on
Death by Coffee?
·
· Score: 1
The fam doesn't need to know everytime I get a drunk and disorderly.
How about saving everyone some time and only contacting them on nights when I'm not drunk and disorderly?("Hello, is your son all right? It's almost 2 am and he hasn't been arrested yet)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but Godzilla can still do quite a bit of damage
No, the simple fact of the matter is that religion is based on faith, not science. An individual's beleif (or lack of beleif) in god should not play any role in scientific research or observation. In reality, there is no legitimate (i.e. testable, repeatable and falsafiable) evidence supporting the existence of god or creationism and the very fact it is impossible to prove (or disprove) god's existence shows that creationism is not science and can't be treated as such.
If you don't agree I encourage you try to come up with an verifiable and repeatable experiment which could prove (or disprove) either the existence of god or the biblical account of creation.
There is no debate! There is no scientific evidence for creationism and no legitimate scientists treats creationism as science. One needs only to look at the parent post to notice that the only sources of "evidence" for creation cited are Answers in Genesis and True Origins which are political preasure groups founded with the express purpose of trying to get creationism into public schools and funded by religious groups and are not legitimate or scientific institutions. If there is so much debate and evidence for creationism how come it appears only in political and religious publications and never in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
No, but the fact that several of the highjackers were using airline tickets purchased by the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US might indicate government involvment
I would oppose this program just as much if it were proposed by a Democrat but there no evidence that past Democratic administrations have used law enforcment and intellegence angencies to track/monitor their political opponents and/or disidents while republicans have (think McCarthyism, watergate, cointelpro, the FBI collecting thousands of pages of data on groups like the ACLU and Greenpeace under the bush administration, Tom Delay using the FAA and Department of Homeland Security to track democratic members of the Texas State legislature, etc.)
Unless you count Hillary's main advocates and co-sponsers/supporters on the issue who are both conservative republicans (Sens. Santourum (R-PA) and Brownback (R-KS))or the far right National Institute on Media and the Family which started the whole thing by issuing a "National Parental Warning" (read: self-promoting and hyperbolicly hysterical press release) on the mod.
Despite my hatred of DRM I have to say a "curb"-type system is what we should be moving towards. Obviously, copyright holders have the right to defend their ip and many won't release their products online in a completly unprotected form (due to a combination of their paranoia and the fact that copyright infringment does exist and does cost them some money [albeit only a tiny fraction of what the riaa/mpaa/bsa/world douchebags guild/etc claim].) As a result of this fact we, as consumers, should encourage them to use a drm system that protects their rights (prevents wholesale copying and/or posting on p2p, etc) without infringing on ours (allows fair use, creation of backup copies, copying to portable devices, etc.)
The problem so far has been that copyright holders have been trying to use drm as a way to grant themselves additional rights my preventing consumers from engaging in perfectly legal activities such as skipping the ads at the begining of dvds and schemes such as these are what need to be rejected in order to prevent the content providers from taking away our fair use rights and/or set the precidents that movies, music, software, etc can only be used in ways the ip companies approve of. On the other hand, systems which protect the legitimate rights of the copyright holders without unduely burdaning or restricting the rights of the consumer should be encouraged as there acceptence will result in more content being avalible online legally and without dracionian drm restrctions.
In reality (as opposed to the warped mind of whatever right-wing radio host/blogger/tv personality you got that idea from) the Fla court said that the votes should be counted according to state election law which said that if "a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office...the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office (Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166, Paragraph 1 of the Florida State Code) and " A vote for a candidate or ballot measure shall be counted if there is a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice." (Paragraph 5a of same.) Now that that is out of the way feel free to explain what law the Fla Supreme Court was trying to change and how they were changing it and ?
Actually, they counted the votes using 6 different standards/methods (including the one ordered by the FLA Supreme Court) and everyone of them showed Gore winning.
What do these two quotes have in common?
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" - Condoleeza Rice, 9/8/02
"what will it take for the world to do something decisive about these regimes and their (soon to be) nuclear arsenals? a nuclear signature over los angeles or madrid?" - circletimessquare, 6/2/05
Hint: They both attempt to justify unilateral and premptive war and promote the speaker's political agenda by playing to the reader's fear through the hyperbolization of a remote (or nonexistent) threat.
The premise that most people live boring lives and therefore nobody wouldy want to track them is absurd. Putting aside, for the moment, the possible law enforcment applications of such a tracking system there most certinally are groups that would love access to this kind of information. The first one to come to my mind is marketing firms that value every piece of information they can collect about you because it allows them to build a better and more complete demographic profile of you and by doing so send you more and better targeted advertising. If you doubt companies like DoubleClick would like nothing more than to be able to track everyone at all times ask yourself why stores frequntly require you to sign up for a "club" card to get advertised prices or why warrenty registration cards almost always requst information that is completly unrelated to the product being registered (i.e. household income, hobbies, marital status, etc.)
Moving on to the scarier applications now...haven't enough cases of police courption and abuse of power been exposed for people to see that the old "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" argument is not a useful one. We live in a world where law enforcment agencies and government officals are caught lying on a near daily basis, people are held for years (or sent to foreign countries and tourtured) before it is releaved that they have done nothing wrong and were detained by mistake or for some illegitimate/unconstitutional/illegal/all of the above reason and people who have been in prison (including death row) for years or decades are shown to have be completly innocent. So, it is completly beyond me why you would think that no one wants to track you and/or archive information about your life. But I guess some people just value their privacy more than others
"IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ...
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -Fourth and Nineth Amendments to he US Constitution
Seeing as how Clear Channel owns a significant share of XM, I don't see them fighting for more regulation of satalite radio
Yes, however, that message will be "I want 4 more years of Bush" I voted for Nader in 2000 and I don't like Kerry very much either but the simple fact is that Kerry (bad as he is) is far, far better than Bush and while Nader would almost certinly be better than either one the there is no question that Kerry can win and Nader can't. Make no mistake! Voting for Nader is voting for Bush! Since you suppoort Nader I would assume you agree with him in most of the issues and it is easy to see that Kerry's position is far closer to Nader's than Bush's is on almost every issue. So please look at all the candidates positions and reconsider the election is clsoe enough that a few people voting for third party candidates to "send a message" could very well hand Bush a second term. Do you really want another 4 years of Bush policy on the enivronment, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc. Not to mention the fact that the next president will likely appoint 2-4 supreme court justices, do you really want John Ashcroft (a man who tried to revoke the rite of habius corpus, arrested people for using medical marijuna even through it is legal in their states, and spent over 8,000 tax payer dollars to cover up the bare breast of a bronze statue) having a say in our laws for the next 40 years or more.
Please Reconsider and Vote Kerry! America Can't Take Another Four Years of Bush
The problem with this is that Lucas is not required to license the film to any cinema that whats to show it and is allowed to set terms on exhibition. This is how they were allowed to set the many requirments which surrounded exhibition of the prequels (some examples being: THX-certified screens only, and multiplexes being required to show SW on their largest screens)
As for what you refered to:
- despite the increasing budget deficit. When George W Bush took office there was a $236.4 Billion surplus (Source: Congressional Budget Office.) The budget deficit of $446 billion (Source: CNN.) In addition, the national debt has incressed from $5,674,178,209,886.86 to $7,347,867,800,168.01 during the Bush administration (Source: US Treasury Dept. Office of hte Public Debt)
- [Bush Supports] Pre-emptive military action anywhere in the world to prevent potential threats toward the United States " we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country...To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." -The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, written by The National Security Council and approved by George W Bush (Sept. 2002) The statement which you claim is one sided says exactly the same thing as Bush's own office policy documents.
- [Bush Supports] addressing the budget deficit, if at all, by cutting government spending (except for defense spending) rather than raising taxes "Many of the tax cuts - including the new, low 10 percent tax bracket, the reduction in the marriage penalty, the doubling of the child tax credit, the phase-out of the death tax, and the increase in small business expensing - are set to expire. This tax relief must be made permanent so families and businesses can plan for the future with confidence." Source: The Bush Line: President Bush's Record of Cutting Taxes from George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) That sure doesn't sound like he wants to raise taxes and the only other way to balance the budget would be by cutting spending.
- [Bush Suppoorts] Opening more forests in the US to logging and opening more Federal land to oil exploration "President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production" (Source:
A Plan for Creating Opportunity for America's Workers, George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) and signed the ironically named "Healthy Forest Initative" which opened a huge amount of public land for logging.
This should keep you busy for a while. I'll post more latter if I feel like it.I don't know which is more impressive, your lack of historical knowledge or your lack of knowledge of the English language. The Democrats have the minority now so I'm guessing you meant when they have the majority and the facts are that no Democratic senator ever proposed, sponsered, introduced or even publicly mentioned an idea even remotely related to this one even though 19 of the last 25 senates had Democratic majorities.
Actually, Vampyre is a older spelling that is still used on ocassion. Both spellings have the same meaning but vampyre is usualy used to refer to members of the vampiric subculture rather than fictional vampires.
On a side note I just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and vampyre is listed as a valid spelling.
The first result is Lavasoft (makers of AdAware) and the third is Spybot-S+D. What's the problem?
California Penal Code SECTION 484-502.9 (Theft/Larceny)
US Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 501 (Infringement of Copyright)
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!
If the MPAA wants to throw people out of the theaters and take their tapes that's fine. My problem is with wasting the limited time and resoruces of law enforcement and judicial personal that could be better spent solving far more serious crimes. In other words, why should my tax money be spent to defend the movie studios profits. Copyright infringment should be a civil offense and the police shouldn't have to waste their time and other resoruces arresting people for taping movies when they could be investigating murders, rapes, etc.
This just in...
Your 16 year old boy (along with every other 16 year old boy in the world) is interested in sex regardless of what movies they've seen it is totaly natural and will happen! And if your concerned that he is going to get his girlfriend pregant make sure he has access to and knows how to use condoms. The fact of the matter is that teaching teenagers that sex is evil and they shouldn't have, think about, etc sex results in higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and STDs when compared to sensible attitudes/approaches (including accepting that sex is a natural things and that teenagers do and will have sex) such as teaching about safe sex and birth control.
John Ashcrack, like Ed Messe before him, is doing this to make election year points with the christian right. In the end he will bust a few people who don't have the money to fight back. Most likely he will either attack a few adult video stores in small, majority evangelical christian towns where he thinks he can get a conviction and/or go after web sites with the kind of really disgusting porn that no one will be willing to defend (i.e. bestiality, staged rape/snuff, etc.)
In the end a few people will get seriously fucked over (no pun intended) by his (and Bush's) self-rightious, religious bullshit but society as a whole will not change and come November 3 this will all blow over and porn/the porn industry will be the same as it was before this particular incarnation of the morality gestopeo launched the nipple jihad of 2004.
If the DVD rental machines you're talking about are like the one near where I live (college park, md) the problem is the 1-day rental period and the pirce point ($0.99 for 1 day compared to $3-$5 for 7 days at area video stores)
People are used to the idea of renting movies and the vast majority of the time a person will only watch a movie once or twice. However, peoplle are used to buying music and often listen to the same song many times.
For example, I gladly pay a monthly subscription fee to Greencine (like Netflix but with a better selection of cult, foreign and indie films) and nine times out of ten I'll watch a movie once and then return it but I have no interest in paying a subscription fee to rent music cause when I buy a song I like to be able to listen it to when I want, where I want (on my computer at home, on my computer at work, on my iPod, on a CD in my car, etc) and as many times as I want.
There is also a significant difference in price. If someone recomends a movie to me I am far more likley to rent it and see if I like it then to pay $15-30 for a DVD. On the other hand if someone recomends a song from a group I've never heard of I will have no problem paying $0.99 to buy it from iTMS.
Because of these reasons I think a subscription model would work for movies (and I for one will sign up as soon as someone offers a online VOD system with good (near DVD) quality, a good selection and reasonable pricess) but I don't see a subscription based music service working.
Everyone knows that drinking 100 cups of coffee gives you super powers since everything seems to move in slow motion arround you. (The conclusive study will be conducted on 6/15/3003)
How about saving everyone some time and only contacting them on nights when I'm not drunk and disorderly?("Hello, is your son all right? It's almost 2 am and he hasn't been arrested yet)