> ... to us Americans it just looks like their treasuries couldn't make up their damn minds, which is not a big confidence builder.
This is somewhat frightening. Americans (well, for the sake of argument, I assume you cant speak for _all_ of them, so lets say you) conclude that treasuries with multi-coloured currency 'cant decide on a colour'? The article is about suggesting or investigating the possibility that different colours for each denomination may actually be a good thing for those who use it. Personally, the better and more efficiently a population gets at 'using' a currency, the higher my confidence in that currency tends to go.
> And I know I'm about the hundredth person to mention it, but how hard is it to look at the corner of the goddamn bill?
And I know I'm the hundredth person to point this out, but what about blind people?
How the hell does the value of the american dollar proove that its easier to read? You don't really think that countries adopt the american dollar because of how its printed, do you? Thank you for my laugh of the afternoon.:)
Of course, I may have just been troll-fed, but at least it beats what I'm workin on right now.
Re:Lots of twisty turny bills all the same
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
You can do this (or should be able to) already - the paper money is printed on and reciepts are printed on feel *very* different. I can certainly tell whats what without looking..
I might agree with higher-output, but given the lack of clouds, why more reliable (obviously more consistant, as the nuclear power station generates energy all day, but I assume your solar array would take this into account)? I thought orbits were fairly reliable. And cheaper? Its cheaper to run a nuclear power station than to set up some solar panels and hook them into a grid, sit back and wait?
I'd be curious to see what trade agreements the US has with these foreign countries.
Given how foreign investor clauses in trade agreements allow foreign companies to seek reperations and damages in other foreign markets when they feel theyre ability to turna profit is being hurt by governmental regulations (at least this is in NAFTA and WTO agreements).. some other guy says Micro lobbies the government to raise tarrifs on foreign produced RAM. Could it be that if these foreign companies were gearing up to launch suit against the US government for violating some trade pact stipulations, that the US government decided it'd be better to go after Micron before they come under legal scrutiny from Microns competitors? It looks like Micron sought to buy out one of those foreign competitors, this could have just been the spark for a larger situation?
Didn't know that. Thats certainly very interesting, and bad.
BTW, would you know why Micron wouldn't pull a Nike and just start purchasing ram from those foreign competitors, positioning itself as a memory brand rather than manufacturer? Or maybe their brand doesn't have enough value to allow them to compete in this fasion, as they'd just be middlemen? Or maybe there's very little value in brand in the memory market? That sounds plausible, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
> Don't hide behind the copout "It would cost more, therefore the stockholders of the publishing companies would not be happy if they did this" If you need to go this route, then WHO is really doing the "censoring" that you speak of? Wal-Mart, or the management of the publishing companies on behalf of the shareholders?
AhhHA! See? Maybe its/Walmarts/ stockholders, that refuse to swallow the cost of an unknown number of 'offended costomer' complains and bad PR. Or maybe its the publishers! It certainly is.. oh wait, I forgot we wouldn't be having this problem if Walmart wasn't so huge.
Nevermind that the Magazine industry has been very touch and go for the past few years, so they are hardly in the 'laughing all the way to the bank' position that Walmart is.
When it comes down to a tie in who bears responsibility, I will *always* nail the more well-off participant for not being thankful for their good situation and taking one for the team.
The Government says you can't do something - guys with guns come and take you away if you do it. Or, heck, heres an idea, I dont do it, and then I vote or write or work towards getting it changed. Or, if that doesn't work, I wonder why it comes advertised as a democracy, and either move or work towards changing it.
Walmart says you can't do something - you shop somewhere else, or sell your product somewhere else. Good idea, were it not for the WHOLE frickin point of this discussion is that there is an ever diminishing amount of options.. its even feasible there wont be *any* in the near future (to which I would imagine most idiots would say, "Good for walmart, they succeeded!"). And if I go ahead and do what they say I can't - guess who comes, carrying what, and takes me where. Gasp - the same folks!
This is about accountability, size, and candidacy. You are obviously more scared of your government than your companies. My view is you can always shed some blood and overthrow your government - but you cant do that with monopolies, because.. hey, what do you know, the government is in large part *there* to protect companies and you're certainly not going to try and overthrow your government in order to go after one of the many private entities that need to be taken down a notch or two.
Keep painting that market transparent, functioning, fair.. but dont bother me when the curtain falls and all hell breaks loose AND nobodies bothered themselves with the challenge getting the *real* muscle (the government) on their side.
Its about who has the advantage is all. I like fairness. I'm whining because things arnt fair. I'm also whining because lots of people *think* things are fair, and I'd like them to know otherwise. > Everybody knows what you're saying, nobody is reacting because it's obvious and irrelevant.
Thats your judgement. I dont believe people people are aware of the implications. If they are, sure, then its irrelevant. But its not. People do not know what you consider 'obvious'.
> If a boycott is good when we do it (don't buy MS, they're scum) why is a boycott bad when Walmart does it? It's a fundamentally democratic action, it's spending your money on products you wish to support.
Ooooh, now I know you're missing the difference. Walmart gets things changed. I'm free to boycott, as is Walmart. The point is, Walmart *doesnt* boycott, they use their size and power to pressure other entities into taking actions they would not have were it not for Walmarts monopolistic position. If I could call up MS and 'boycott' them by having them change their logo, or startup screen to say "SirSlud Rules!" (just to compare to a magazine cover in that the contents dont change), I'd feel alot less inclined to complain.
Of course, its all within the rules, and its all fair. I know. I'm simply attempting to raise awareness, because I feel many people dont even know this occurs. It may be within the rules, but you never progress unless you are aware of what those rules are, the things that influence them, and which ones could benifit from some revision, tuning, or adjustment.
Yes, I also bastardized the Constitution, but the ends justify the means - just because some guy has a title 'government' and another guy 'private store employee' doesn't mean that I'd prefer one over the other when it comes to how they affect my life. The constitution was drawn up when companies were not nearly as powerful as government. Now that they are more economically and culturally powerful than government (I leave out militarily for the sticklers who think this point is moot), the constitution, followed to the letter, does not neccessarily reflect the best way of seeding checks and balances into the American society, from my vantage point. Heck, I still havnt seen a universal argeement on what 'militia' refers to in these times in that right to bear arms amendment, so its not even like it _can_ be followed to the letter sometimes, either.
Definately one of the more constructive replies I've gotten, however.
> And how do you intend to enforce a "right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor"?
Thats pretty easy. Make sure nobody can get super big. I think that the concept of economy of scale has costs that are both social and cultural. Yes, many people will laugh at me for worrying about social and cultural consequences of fostering pure economic goals. I dont care anymore, because it seems to me that the advertised ultimate goal of free-market capialism is to help people attain wealth in order to foster cultural and social health, safety, etc in addition to spurring technological development. (Although, with technology, whats the point of keeping people alive and physically safe if the social and cultural things one requires in order to enjoy life are sacrificed to attain it? I'm not anti-technology, but I think people lose sight of what the purpose of it is.. )
It just seems silly to me to encourage attaining massive amounts of wealth and economic leverage if it has negative consequences on the advertised goal of the system in the first place. And just because you or I dont want to see those covers doesn't mean that it doesnt make a lick of difference to me that my neighbour, who would like them, cant. My potentially laughable form of altruism is simply a way of paying my interests and values forward.. I dont want this to go furthur to the point where I feel my ability to enjoy and access to my culture is being opressed.
Even if other retailers never get to sell the copy that the producer *wanted* to make? That every other retailer gets the 'Walmart' approved copy, and that those who create these things must sacrifice their intentions at the behest of one private entity?
Has the USA really gone mad like this? Can nobody see where this takes you? I'll give you one guess.. Walmart et. al become Government number II, and you kick yourself realizing that in disempowering your state, you empowered a few private citizens, who are bound, sooner or later, to do something which actually affects you, personally. It's a shame that it seems people need to have stuff infringe on their life before they recognize that that/. looney was worried not about the specifics of now, but the logical conclution of supporting those who do what you dont want your government to do, and get richer while doing it! It's sad and funny at the same time!
> Walmart isn't the one "not buying" the offensive covers, it's the shoppers, the family-values crowd.
Kind of hard to prove that if they dont actually carry them, now, isn't it? For that matter, that *nobody* ends up carrying them?
I don't really care about reasons or excuses; only that magazines willingly admit to changing their covers (content-alterting self-censorship is more common in the news biz, true) is due to one retailer, in what some people insisnt on holding up as an example of a functioning free market. Please! If people wont buy it, they wont buy it. Walmart seems to think that you are incapable of even *viewing* a potentially controversial cover and making a decision whether or not to buy it - they make that choice for you! Since you dont know what the pre-Walmart-Approved covers are, you're in no position to evaluate whether they are censoring material you deem censor-worthy. Alas, as usual, since they are successful and wealthy, people are all too happy to assume (envy?) that they must be the poster child of how to run a retail conglomerate and that all is good in the world.
Oh, and way to keep the lid on your sons' hormones! Heaven forbid they should learn that tool of the devil, masturbation, nevermind potentially read about musicians! *guffaw*
and dont you think its arrogant of you to assume I was talking about soft-porn mags and raunchy CDs? lol, how old are you? I'm talking about regular fashion and popular culture magazines, and pop culture bands. Mainstream stuff. Walmart is notorious for causing at least one magazine a month to change its cover to appease Walmarts 'family image' by reducing the amount of *gasp* skin or any messages which do not align with its hygenically squeaky clean image. I cannot stress enough that this is the version *all retailers* will recieve for any given month and magazine.
And if *every store* doesnt make sense to you, thats *every store* in your country, including Target, etc, etc. All stores. Only one version of a magazine will be printed (simple economics), and currently, Walmart has the size and might to influence what gets published in your lovely free country.
"free market" is when one retailer influences what *every retailer* in the market is going to get, as inventory? YOU PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND - ALL STORES GET THE WALMART APPROVED COPY, INCLUDING COMPETITORS. Its too expensive to print the 'Walmart' copy, and the 'Everybody else' copy, so all retailers get the 'Walmart' copy.
Its about as anti-free market as you can get. The customers dont decide, the sales person does. I feel so sorry for you people.
1. Walmart gets magainze covers changed before they are printed. That means, *every store* carries the 'walmart approved' copy. Thats not choice. Thats Walmart unfairly influencing what musicians (Nirvana is one such band that changed the cover of their CD before releasing it, *soley* due to Walmart issuing a complaint with their label.) and magazines wish to print. You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals. But you dont sound like somebody whos interested in these types of issues. No worries, people like me will care about the world you live in such that you dont wake up and find free speech an outdated concept in a not-so-distant future.
2. These are not soft-porn magazines. This is Time. Rolling Stone. Seventeen. All mainstream magazines. Many magainzes specifically call up Walmart and seek approval for their covers pre-printed, because if Walmart refuses to carry the published run of the magazine, you cannot justify to stockholders, as a magazine publisher, giving up 15% of your sales right off the bat.
You dont sound like you have a clue as to the scope of leverage and power that Walmart brandishes in the marketplace. Sit down and really think about what it means, to have virtually every magazine in your country seek approval from Walmart before running the presses. Walmart is censoring your culture.
Walmart is notorious for demanding that magazine covers and CD covers be changed if they are going to carry it. Seeing as Walmart represents 15% of all US music sales, and an even higher percent of the magazine retail market (I think, might be wrong on that), publishers constantly have to succumb to Walmarts desire to retain its 'family image'. In that sense, Walmart censors.. they couldn't give a rats ass about choice. They are down to make money, and by opting to force magazines to self-censor, I don't really think choice has much to do with this story.
I think money. The margins. No MS Tax. Yadda yadda. Ironically, due to their size that causes the negative behaviour referenced above (nevermind they represent the new generation of ultra-shitty employers), they might just be more than a little 'blip' on MS's radar. It's like Godzilla and Mothra; they're both evil, but if one takes down the other a few deserved notches, I won't complain!
Yeah. If you are going to do anything music-related, invest in *studio monitors*.. the Yorkville YM-1s are what I have. A very unbiased sound, set me back about 250$ american, and easily the most important part of my setup after the signal is mixed down and goes out my audio card (Echo MIA).
Slashdot Mirror
If Americans have any luck, it might just be the ink they plan to print the new bills on.
(Imagine! "Smoking money - its not just for the rich anymore!")
> ... to us Americans it just looks like their treasuries couldn't make up their damn minds, which is not a big confidence builder.
This is somewhat frightening. Americans (well, for the sake of argument, I assume you cant speak for _all_ of them, so lets say you) conclude that treasuries with multi-coloured currency 'cant decide on a colour'? The article is about suggesting or investigating the possibility that different colours for each denomination may actually be a good thing for those who use it. Personally, the better and more efficiently a population gets at 'using' a currency, the higher my confidence in that currency tends to go.
> And I know I'm about the hundredth person to mention it, but how hard is it to look at the corner of the goddamn bill?
And I know I'm the hundredth person to point this out, but what about blind people?
-2 for a totally broken and impotant point.
:)
How the hell does the value of the american dollar proove that its easier to read? You don't really think that countries adopt the american dollar because of how its printed, do you? Thank you for my laugh of the afternoon.
Of course, I may have just been troll-fed, but at least it beats what I'm workin on right now.
You can do this (or should be able to) already - the paper money is printed on and reciepts are printed on feel *very* different. I can certainly tell whats what without looking ..
>What a racket!
...
Makes for a far more effective mating call than the ever-silent paper-stuffed wallet tho
Judging from the feedback on this article, if only you could do that regarding their pricing schemes .. ;)
> (cheaper, more reliable and higher-output)
I might agree with higher-output, but given the lack of clouds, why more reliable (obviously more consistant, as the nuclear power station generates energy all day, but I assume your solar array would take this into account)? I thought orbits were fairly reliable. And cheaper? Its cheaper to run a nuclear power station than to set up some solar panels and hook them into a grid, sit back and wait?
I'd be curious to see what trade agreements the US has with these foreign countries.
.. some other guy says Micro lobbies the government to raise tarrifs on foreign produced RAM. Could it be that if these foreign companies were gearing up to launch suit against the US government for violating some trade pact stipulations, that the US government decided it'd be better to go after Micron before they come under legal scrutiny from Microns competitors? It looks like Micron sought to buy out one of those foreign competitors, this could have just been the spark for a larger situation?
Given how foreign investor clauses in trade agreements allow foreign companies to seek reperations and damages in other foreign markets when they feel theyre ability to turna profit is being hurt by governmental regulations (at least this is in NAFTA and WTO agreements)
Didn't know that. Thats certainly very interesting, and bad.
BTW, would you know why Micron wouldn't pull a Nike and just start purchasing ram from those foreign competitors, positioning itself as a memory brand rather than manufacturer? Or maybe their brand doesn't have enough value to allow them to compete in this fasion, as they'd just be middlemen? Or maybe there's very little value in brand in the memory market? That sounds plausible, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
> Don't hide behind the copout "It would cost more, therefore the stockholders of the publishing companies would not be happy if they did this" If you need to go this route, then WHO is really doing the "censoring" that you speak of? Wal-Mart, or the management of the publishing companies on behalf of the shareholders?
/Walmarts/ stockholders, that refuse to swallow the cost of an unknown number of 'offended costomer' complains and bad PR. Or maybe its the publishers! It certainly is .. oh wait, I forgot we wouldn't be having this problem if Walmart wasn't so huge.
AhhHA! See? Maybe its
Nevermind that the Magazine industry has been very touch and go for the past few years, so they are hardly in the 'laughing all the way to the bank' position that Walmart is.
When it comes down to a tie in who bears responsibility, I will *always* nail the more well-off participant for not being thankful for their good situation and taking one for the team.
The Government says you can't do something - guys with guns come and take you away if you do it. Or, heck, heres an idea, I dont do it, and then I vote or write or work towards getting it changed. Or, if that doesn't work, I wonder why it comes advertised as a democracy, and either move or work towards changing it.
.. its even feasible there wont be *any* in the near future (to which I would imagine most idiots would say, "Good for walmart, they succeeded!"). And if I go ahead and do what they say I can't - guess who comes, carrying what, and takes me where. Gasp - the same folks!
.. hey, what do you know, the government is in large part *there* to protect companies and you're certainly not going to try and overthrow your government in order to go after one of the many private entities that need to be taken down a notch or two.
.. but dont bother me when the curtain falls and all hell breaks loose AND nobodies bothered themselves with the challenge getting the *real* muscle (the government) on their side.
Walmart says you can't do something - you shop somewhere else, or sell your product somewhere else. Good idea, were it not for the WHOLE frickin point of this discussion is that there is an ever diminishing amount of options
This is about accountability, size, and candidacy. You are obviously more scared of your government than your companies. My view is you can always shed some blood and overthrow your government - but you cant do that with monopolies, because
Keep painting that market transparent, functioning, fair
Its about who has the advantage is all. I like fairness. I'm whining because things arnt fair. I'm also whining because lots of people *think* things are fair, and I'd like them to know otherwise.
> Everybody knows what you're saying, nobody is reacting because it's obvious and irrelevant.
Thats your judgement. I dont believe people people are aware of the implications. If they are, sure, then its irrelevant. But its not. People do not know what you consider 'obvious'.
> If a boycott is good when we do it (don't buy MS, they're scum) why is a boycott bad when Walmart does it? It's a fundamentally democratic action, it's spending your money on products you wish to support.
Ooooh, now I know you're missing the difference. Walmart gets things changed. I'm free to boycott, as is Walmart. The point is, Walmart *doesnt* boycott, they use their size and power to pressure other entities into taking actions they would not have were it not for Walmarts monopolistic position. If I could call up MS and 'boycott' them by having them change their logo, or startup screen to say "SirSlud Rules!" (just to compare to a magazine cover in that the contents dont change), I'd feel alot less inclined to complain.
>But really, is asking magazines for something that is decent for families to see really asking that much?
:)
You could find out, if you ever had the opportunity to speak in the market. Oh, but wait! You dont get a chance to decide - Walmart does it for you!
*clap clap* I couldn't have flamed him better myself.
.. we need that bad.
And I'm all over the proportial vote
if I knew a girl in the toronto area who could formulate just a few of your viewpoints, I'd be in love. dam my sociopolitical frusterations.
Of course, its all within the rules, and its all fair. I know. I'm simply attempting to raise awareness, because I feel many people dont even know this occurs. It may be within the rules, but you never progress unless you are aware of what those rules are, the things that influence them, and which ones could benifit from some revision, tuning, or adjustment.
Yes, I also bastardized the Constitution, but the ends justify the means - just because some guy has a title 'government' and another guy 'private store employee' doesn't mean that I'd prefer one over the other when it comes to how they affect my life. The constitution was drawn up when companies were not nearly as powerful as government. Now that they are more economically and culturally powerful than government (I leave out militarily for the sticklers who think this point is moot), the constitution, followed to the letter, does not neccessarily reflect the best way of seeding checks and balances into the American society, from my vantage point. Heck, I still havnt seen a universal argeement on what 'militia' refers to in these times in that right to bear arms amendment, so its not even like it _can_ be followed to the letter sometimes, either.
Definately one of the more constructive replies I've gotten, however.
> And how do you intend to enforce a "right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor"?
.. )
.. I dont want this to go furthur to the point where I feel my ability to enjoy and access to my culture is being opressed.
Thats pretty easy. Make sure nobody can get super big. I think that the concept of economy of scale has costs that are both social and cultural. Yes, many people will laugh at me for worrying about social and cultural consequences of fostering pure economic goals. I dont care anymore, because it seems to me that the advertised ultimate goal of free-market capialism is to help people attain wealth in order to foster cultural and social health, safety, etc in addition to spurring technological development. (Although, with technology, whats the point of keeping people alive and physically safe if the social and cultural things one requires in order to enjoy life are sacrificed to attain it? I'm not anti-technology, but I think people lose sight of what the purpose of it is
It just seems silly to me to encourage attaining massive amounts of wealth and economic leverage if it has negative consequences on the advertised goal of the system in the first place. And just because you or I dont want to see those covers doesn't mean that it doesnt make a lick of difference to me that my neighbour, who would like them, cant. My potentially laughable form of altruism is simply a way of paying my interests and values forward
To quoth all the free-marketers, let the market rather than the marketer decide?
Even if other retailers never get to sell the copy that the producer *wanted* to make? That every other retailer gets the 'Walmart' approved copy, and that those who create these things must sacrifice their intentions at the behest of one private entity?
.. Walmart et. al become Government number II, and you kick yourself realizing that in disempowering your state, you empowered a few private citizens, who are bound, sooner or later, to do something which actually affects you, personally. It's a shame that it seems people need to have stuff infringe on their life before they recognize that that /. looney was worried not about the specifics of now, but the logical conclution of supporting those who do what you dont want your government to do, and get richer while doing it! It's sad and funny at the same time!
Has the USA really gone mad like this? Can nobody see where this takes you? I'll give you one guess
> Walmart isn't the one "not buying" the offensive covers, it's the shoppers, the family-values crowd.
Kind of hard to prove that if they dont actually carry them, now, isn't it? For that matter, that *nobody* ends up carrying them?
I don't really care about reasons or excuses; only that magazines willingly admit to changing their covers (content-alterting self-censorship is more common in the news biz, true) is due to one retailer, in what some people insisnt on holding up as an example of a functioning free market. Please! If people wont buy it, they wont buy it. Walmart seems to think that you are incapable of even *viewing* a potentially controversial cover and making a decision whether or not to buy it - they make that choice for you! Since you dont know what the pre-Walmart-Approved covers are, you're in no position to evaluate whether they are censoring material you deem censor-worthy. Alas, as usual, since they are successful and wealthy, people are all too happy to assume (envy?) that they must be the poster child of how to run a retail conglomerate and that all is good in the world.
Oh, and way to keep the lid on your sons' hormones! Heaven forbid they should learn that tool of the devil, masturbation, nevermind potentially read about musicians! *guffaw*
and dont you think its arrogant of you to assume I was talking about soft-porn mags and raunchy CDs? lol, how old are you? I'm talking about regular fashion and popular culture magazines, and pop culture bands. Mainstream stuff. Walmart is notorious for causing at least one magazine a month to change its cover to appease Walmarts 'family image' by reducing the amount of *gasp* skin or any messages which do not align with its hygenically squeaky clean image. I cannot stress enough that this is the version *all retailers* will recieve for any given month and magazine.
And if *every store* doesnt make sense to you, thats *every store* in your country, including Target, etc, etc. All stores. Only one version of a magazine will be printed (simple economics), and currently, Walmart has the size and might to influence what gets published in your lovely free country.
ROFL.
"free market" is when one retailer influences what *every retailer* in the market is going to get, as inventory? YOU PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND - ALL STORES GET THE WALMART APPROVED COPY, INCLUDING COMPETITORS. Its too expensive to print the 'Walmart' copy, and the 'Everybody else' copy, so all retailers get the 'Walmart' copy.
Its about as anti-free market as you can get. The customers dont decide, the sales person does. I feel so sorry for you people.
Two things:
1. Walmart gets magainze covers changed before they are printed. That means, *every store* carries the 'walmart approved' copy. Thats not choice. Thats Walmart unfairly influencing what musicians (Nirvana is one such band that changed the cover of their CD before releasing it, *soley* due to Walmart issuing a complaint with their label.) and magazines wish to print. You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals. But you dont sound like somebody whos interested in these types of issues. No worries, people like me will care about the world you live in such that you dont wake up and find free speech an outdated concept in a not-so-distant future.
2. These are not soft-porn magazines. This is Time. Rolling Stone. Seventeen. All mainstream magazines. Many magainzes specifically call up Walmart and seek approval for their covers pre-printed, because if Walmart refuses to carry the published run of the magazine, you cannot justify to stockholders, as a magazine publisher, giving up 15% of your sales right off the bat.
You dont sound like you have a clue as to the scope of leverage and power that Walmart brandishes in the marketplace. Sit down and really think about what it means, to have virtually every magazine in your country seek approval from Walmart before running the presses. Walmart is censoring your culture.
Walmart is notorious for demanding that magazine covers and CD covers be changed if they are going to carry it. Seeing as Walmart represents 15% of all US music sales, and an even higher percent of the magazine retail market (I think, might be wrong on that), publishers constantly have to succumb to Walmarts desire to retain its 'family image'. In that sense, Walmart censors .. they couldn't give a rats ass about choice. They are down to make money, and by opting to force magazines to self-censor, I don't really think choice has much to do with this story.
I think money. The margins. No MS Tax. Yadda yadda. Ironically, due to their size that causes the negative behaviour referenced above (nevermind they represent the new generation of ultra-shitty employers), they might just be more than a little 'blip' on MS's radar. It's like Godzilla and Mothra; they're both evil, but if one takes down the other a few deserved notches, I won't complain!
Yeah. If you are going to do anything music-related, invest in *studio monitors* .. the Yorkville YM-1s are what I have. A very unbiased sound, set me back about 250$ american, and easily the most important part of my setup after the signal is mixed down and goes out my audio card (Echo MIA).