I think the article you are referring to was "New Ford Exorbitant comes with spare Explorer".
But I could be wrong...that is the article I immediately thought of. I can't link to it because I don't have an Onion subscription and it's an old article.
MS requires you to have a floppy if you want to be able to load Third-party drivers for RAID/SCSI support during install of Win2k and XP. Found this out the hard way last night.
Win2k reports a weird error that doesn't give you a clue that the only problem it is having is it can't find the floppy drive.
XP actually tells you it can't find the floppy drive. That is how I figured out it needed one. Luckily I had one and put it in but I haven't used it for anything in YEARS...I hate the fact that certain operations require the use of a floppy when other media would/could do the job just as easily/effectively.
While MS may want to kill the floppy for the reasons you said...they need to inform their programmers responsible for coding the install portion of their recent OSes as they haven't gotten that memo yet...or maybe you are just being paranoid.:)
Terrorists aren't part of the Geneva convention...countries are. Even if the terrorists are "citizens" of a country that is part of the Geneva convention the U.S. isn't at war with a country...it's at war with groups of morons that think Allah tells them to force everyone else to do things his way or you can kill them and get bonus points with "me".
So until Allah signs on to the Geneva convention...tough nuggs.
Besides...this is a battle of good vs. evil...but that's another discussion.
I work for a company that writes it's product in a language called Databus...it used to be hardware specific but now it is a complied yet interpreted language that runs on a LOT of platforms...that is it's strength and pretty much the reason why we don't use "more modern" languages.
I have been watching the Mono project ever since I have heard of it and I am truly amazed at all they have accomplished. I know they have a long way to go...but YOU GUYS RAWK!
I can only hope that one day Mono will allow for our apps to be as portable as they are now so we can switch to another language that has more robust OO abilities not to mention other things I hate about db/c.
So, please, keep up the good work on Mono...many folks out here are rooting for you.
Ok...so I didn't RTA and putting in my own settings for a movies doesn't seem possible. Of course, to put in my own settings would pretty much require me to watch the whole thing in order to do so. It is still allowing me to self-censor...just using someone else's settings. If I don't like the settings for whatever reason I can watch it with the filter off or on a different player.
The point I am making is I can do whatever I want to do with the copy of the content I own. If I rent it I can do whatever I want to within the rental period.
I don't care if the director/producer doesn't want me to watch it backwards...if I want to I will. Do I want to? Never have yet and probably never will...but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so if I so choose.
There are videos we own for our kids which contain scenes I don't want them to see over and over. As an owner of a copy of the content I have the right to edit out those scenes by hand (by ripping and editing on a computer) and then let my kids watch what I deem is acceptable. It falls under fair use, is a deriviative work that I don't/won't distribute, and is within my rights whether the content producer likes it or not.
I agree, a lot of stories would become meaningless or, at the very least, confusing without all the parts. I for one enjoy watching the director's cut of films and, as a result, have not watched the LotR trillogy in the theaters but have only watched the DVD special editions.
I don't have a problem admiting I don't watch certain movies because of their content. If I want to attempt to watch one via an RCA dvd player that filters out stuff for me then it is my right to do so.
Content producers have the right to insist their works are distributed in original form...but once I receive that distribution I can do whatever I want to with it in the context of personal use.
Obviously RCA thinks there is a large enough market for this or we wouldn't be talking about it here. If you think it's stupid then vote with your dollars...I will do the same.
Thank you RCA for creating a product that gives consumers another choice.
My response would be, "Who cares what the content provider wants in this case!?"
I can't believe that artists think have the right to keep their "art" intact after a copy of that art has been purchased by a consumer. I know their argument is they don't want to be associated with that work because it wasn't approved by them...but since we aren't talking about distributing the work they have no say whatsoever.
If I buy (or even just rent) a dvd and want to watch it backwards I can do so...period.
RCA is simply making it easier for me to SELF-CENSOR what I watch. I couldn't care less (because I don't care at all) that the director of the movie I am SELF-CENSORING doesn't want me to do that.
I'm not (and neither is RCA) distributing their movie in a modified way. My right as a consumer trumps their right as a content producer in this case.
There are some groups in the US that think violence is very offensive but have no problem with anything sexual. Then there are groups exactly opposite of this. Why shouldn't they be allowed to SELF-CENSOR these movies to filter out the parts they find objectionable?
IMO, the real problem Hollywood will have with these units is it will start to limit the successful brainwashing campaign Hollywood seems to be on...promoting thier world view as the majority's view when they are not the majority. If they were in the majority these units would never have reached market in the first place. Do you think RCA didn't do ANY market research before creating this player? *removes tinfoil hat*
I own a unit called TVGuardian. It scans the closed caption stream for offensive words (based on my settings) and, when it detects one, removes and/or replaces the word on the screen and mutes the sound until that caption is off the screen. That way I can still enjoy later-in-the-evening programming without worrying about the kids picking up on words I don't want them to hear yet...much less start to use. Since I have a TiVo and tend to watch shows at times when my kids are awake this is very helpful to me. This unit by RCA is just another step forward in this arena. Good for them...yes...I will most likely be buying one.
Funny you should mention that...I have thought of the fact that a War Time president can stay in office somehow (I forget what the rule/law is) and thought of how funny it would be to watch the reaction of the "left" if W trid to invoke that because of the war on terror (which has no foreseeable end in sight).
Of the current candidates (that I am aware of) I think that Bush will be the toughest on facing down the threats to our country and our way of life. The only thing those that oppose/hate the US seem to understand/respect is strength and force. Appeasement just seems to make them want more...and you can't negotiate with those that simply want you dead because you aren't like them....the only thing you can do is keep them at bay or destroy them. Sad but true.
Make no mistake...this war is a war of religion and Bush seems to have a handle on it...like him or not.
P.S. I like W in case it wasn't already obvious!:)
Government is in "self-perpetuation" mode as we type. The only way to change it, short of a "traditional" revolution is to vote out the ones that have their own interests ahead of those they are serving.
Apathy is so powerful..."All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men (people) to do nothing." American society is placated...which is nice and enjoyable at times. I enjoy having time to mess around with "meaningless" stuff (like the latest Linux Distro) instead of having to contantly worry about my ability to live. It comes with a price (which was already quoted in a parental post:) ).
Seems like it is long past time to start doing something about it. Here's hoping we can convince those we hold sway with to actively pursue their beliefs and preserve their way of life...whatever that way may be.
"These are the same founding fathers who warned against 'too much democracy,'"
Yes...because we (in the USA) live in a republic, not a democracy. Mob-rule can be a very bad thing. It's the very thing that keeps people who believe like I do from running over people who believe differently while, at the same time, protect me from the same.
"who envisioned the President as being a figurehead, designed to fill in as King,"
Not sure where that is coming from, but the Executive branch has equal power to the legistlative branch (not to mention the judicial branch). The position can hardly be considered a figurehead postion when trusted with that much power (IMO).
"and who, by and large, supported slavery, yes?"
I would have to suppose (because I myself have not researched it myself) they did since I have heard that reported before. To me that doesn't matter...are we to throw out everything someone says because some of their belief is misguided? Chew up the meat and spit out the bones. The only person in history I can safely say I agree with thier words and deeds 100% would have to be Jesus Christ.
"I'm not saying that they wern't great men, or that they didn't do an amazing thing."
I hear you and, because of that, think we are on the same page basically.
"I *am* saying, however, that to blindly quote them, most likely out of context, and to hold those quotes up as religious symbols, not to be questioned, but to be blindly obeyed, is, well, rather sheep-like and frightening."
I agree...being sheep-like in any situation should be frightening. I was simply saying that the quote came to mind when I read the parental posts. Once you give up rights to those that want control over your life (Founding Fathers didn't want a centralized government...it was supposed to be that property rights trumped state's rights and state's rights trumped federal rights) you will have to fight extra hard to get them back. For corrupt individuals wanting power at all costs it is simply an opportunity to get more power at the expense of the "sheep's" rights themselves.
Having said that...I want security too. I would be more than willing to give up some rights in order to achieve that security IF AND ONLY IF we could get them back when the threat has subsided. Not sure how we could even go about that really...so step forward cautiously in this area should be the rule.
I see the erosion of individual rights as nearly inevitable and that scares me. When people give up rights for security without a little forethought that is sheep-like too IMO.
I am sure you were trying to be funny (and I laughed) but since when are two people considered to be part of the group known as the United States' "Founding Fathers" considered "random people dead for hundreds of years"?
When reading the grandparent that same quote came to my mind as well...and it is just as true now as it was back then. Once you give up these liberties for a perception of security you will soon lose both with no way to get them back (except for the 2nd amendment).
Not attacking...I just think the quoter of the "random" dead dude makes a vaild point.
I am sure you were trying to be funny with a bit of actual truth in there.
I am someone that was addicted to DOS way back when Windows 3.1 came out. I hated the fact that every time I wanted to actually do something productive I had to drop to a DOS prompt to do it. I could have done it in Windows (when it didn't crash) but I knew how to do it in DOS already and it wasn't a problem to drop to DOS and do it quickly, then return to Windows.
Enter Linux to my world...I love the idea of getting away from MS completely...tons of good stuff out there for Linux (at least for what I do) and it seems like the gap between my abilities and my wife's abilities is narrowing due to the hard work of Linux programmers everywhere. Once I can get my wife trained to do what she needs to do on a Linux box we will switch.
HOWEVER...there are plenty of things on Linux that I am unsure about and even uncomfortable doing. Why? Because I don't understand exactly what I am doing...I just want X to work with Y and read some post on some forum that says try Z to make it work. If that doesn't work does that hose my pc? What if it doesn't boot? Do I post under that thread and wait for the 16 "gurus" to get there "you st00pid newb!" responses out of their system before helping me (this doesn't happen every time...but the PERCEPTION that it will happen is there regardless...perception is reality)? This is the first promising release of a desktop for Linux that I have seen for someone, like me, that uses Windows on a regular basis but wants to switch to Linux...something I am familiar with! Take away the cryptic crap (again...perception is reality to those of us without experience...that is why marketing reigns supreme where knowledge is limited...which is what Linux is really up against) and wrap a nice GUI around it until people like me start to feel comfortable with how things work under the hood. Then we can start to venture out, tinker and tweak directly, and stay with Linux from then on.
Keep up the good work you guys...I will be downloading it as soon as I get home.
>>Of course I agree with you. So, can you post you address and a time and date when it's convenient to have your nuts kicked?
This is the funniest and most priceless analogy I have heard. I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.
Seriously though...I think you are on the right track here. The content distributor (whether the MPAA, RIAA, **AA, or artist) is deprived of the revenue due them for your ability to use the content whenever you see fit.
If you streamrip the song then good for you...it's yours as far as I can tell. The station that streamed it over the internet has already paid the royalty (assuming they actually do pay it) on the song for you to hear it. Same as if you recorded if from the radio or recorded your favorite tv show on a vcr/tivo/mythtv box/whatever. You can use it over and over again as many times as you want for your own personal use. And the fact that the copy of a digital file is exactly the same as the source doesn't matter.
The real issue is the fact that you just can't share it will people you don't know. Putting a file on any filesharing system that allows people you don't know to get the file from you is depriving the content provider of revenue in some fashion IMO. I don't think you can (in the US anyway) make copies of your copies (or originals) and give them to friends legally...but we all know it happens and it has been tolerated because it wasn't as widespread as p2p has become.
There are plenty of justifications for using p2p for movies and music and whatever (most of which have been used, with a straight face, on/.)...but that doesn't change the fact that is it illegal to trade copyrighted files on the systems. Ultimately it does deprive the content provider of revenue, no matter how minsicule an amount it may be.
If you want this changed then do what it takes to get the laws changed. Write letters and send e-mails. Just don't tell me that you really aren't stealing or breaking the law because it's simply not true. Any using the p2p system to trade the copyrighted files doesn't fall under the "doing something" category so don't say you are the same as Rosa Parks here...that isn't true either.
Once the content providers admit p2p systems actually boost their bottom line you can bet the laws will be changed because they will champion the change themselves.
As someone pointed out in the article about the cable companies being forced to offer lineups a la carte, once the content providers can figure out how to effectively leverage the power of the internet to reach consumers directly this will all be moot anyway. I, for one, can't wait until they do.
Last I checked the U.S. government only had constitutional authority to enter into treaties with other contries...and since the WTO isn't a country in and of itself it would render these treaties (or agreements or whatever they are called this week) invalid. So we (U.S. Citizens) could essentially pull out of these at anytime by citing this.
I have actually been following them for a few years (with the exception of the last year or so) because they have a microprocessor that will run java (and other languages) natively.
They are a penny-stock company and have been for a long time. I watched them (without buying) for a while because I thought their processor would be good if java-enabled devices ever became a HUGE market. This has yet to develop and it seems at though this company, while having a good thing IMO, is starting to die waiting for the market to get large enough.
This, and other lawsuits like it by them, seems to be a survival tactic. Now...is that a bad thing? We all know SCO is trying to do this for a bad reason...it seems that if PTSC can support their claims then this would be a good thing.
I can't imagine Intel not watching every other chip maker in the world and trying to learn their greatest secrets. In this case the "secret" is written in the patent office. IF they are infringing they should pony-up.
WHO CARES what a company wants? It is the company's responsibility to find out what the customer wants and give it to them. When companies do just that they strike gold and win loyal customers.
Consumers are not SUPPOSED to be restricted in their use of anything they buy (please read that statement in context...I am not talking about guns here...just computer hardware/software).
If I buy/rent a DVD and I want to watch it backwards...why can't I? I couln't care less if the director wants me to watch it from beginning to end...I own that copy and I will do with it what I please within the limits of the law. Now I know that isn't exactly the same thing but the principle is the same.
When I was a kid we had a console tv that was on it's last legs. It took forever to turn on...but I was able to get it to turn on without much problem because of my hearing. I would hit the power button and hear the tv but it wouldn't be "on." Then I would hit the power button again and listen to the sound until it was almost gone and then hit the power button again and viola! it was on like it should be.
I used to think everyone could hear that stuff too...and although I have never been diagnosed with AD* I am easily distracted.:)
My mother in law has an HP computer (Fairly new) and every once in a while, usually when surfing the net with the annoying sounds of IE enabled, the on-board sound would make the speakers emit an annoying high-pitched frequency that I could hear from other rooms without much problem. She would be sitting right in front of the monitor, reading a page, and not hear it. I even asked, "Can't you hear that??!?" because it was so loud to me I almost couldn't stand it. Had to make another sound happen on the computer to make it stop.
I once had a roommate in college that claimed to have "dog ears" because he couldn't ignore background noises (and he didn't have a hearing aid either). I had an old XT 8088 and I had to decompress.jpg to.gif just so I could look at the pictures (you know...of landscapes and such!) It had one of those full-height harddrives (either 20 or 40 megs) that ANYONE could hear from anywhere, but the decompression was so slow that it would only hit the drive once every 40 - 50 seconds for a brief moment. I would do this at night so it would be done in the morning...and it would never fail...right before I would be completely asleep he would ask me to turn the computer off because the HD was keeping him awake!
There is a lot of whining going on...why doesn't everyone use that energy to figure out what they can do for themselves so they aren't subject to this anymore? Getting an education and getting a job is NOT the only way to make money in the U.S.
I'll tell you why...because it's easier to be a victim than to accept the responsibility of taking care of yourself. IT'S NOT ANYONE ELSE'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN! Those same forces that are taking "your" jobs to India are available for you to take advantage of. Got design skills? Got a good idea (we all have some)? Get a team of India programmers to bring that idea to life and sell it! Get together with your buddies that had their jobs "stolen" and have them help you design and manage it while on unemployment. Sure...you will have to adjust your standard of living...but that standard is not guaranteed to you by anyone else...you create your own.
Now I know some of you will say that it takes lots of money and lots of time and its very risky. Well...if you are creative enough you will find that isn't necessarily the case. And what's more risky? Having a job you can lose at ANY time to an offshore programmer or taking your future into your own hands and having a go at it? Are you going to outsource your own job overseas? I doubt it.
I know I am going to get flamed or whatever but I don't care. I am sick of hearing all the whining. Yes...I still have my programming job (not sure for how much longer...but I do work for a small shop so maybe I won't be a "victim") and yes...I am taking my own advice. What am I doing? Looking into investment real-estate to create cash flow since the rates are so low. Everyone and their dog's cousin's uncle wants to loan me money to buy a house. And don't tell me you have to have money to do it either. I am finding out very quickly that isn't the case. You can ask the seller to help with your down payment. If you have a renter in place before the closing of the loan (signed lease for a year) then the bank/investor/mortgage company will loan you the cash. If you can charge more in rent then your expenses then you have a monthly cash-flow that won't stop if you manage it correctly. Repeat as necessary.
Get out of the consumer mentality. Get out of the mindset that the ONLY way to support yourself is to have a job. Having a job is by far the easiest way to support yourself and your family...but with that comes the (almost) complete loss of control over it as we are seeing now. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY! That is done by lowering costs and increasing revenue. The most expensive part of running a business is labor.
Haven't you heard? The way to get rich is with OPT and OPM. That would be Other People's Time and Other People's Money.
No...that's not sarcasm either...it's called leverage...it's what makes capitalism go 'round.
You can leverage through physical means (i.e. you working harder) or through fiscal means (i.e. your money working harder).
I for one would much rather leverage through fical means so I could have more time to do whatever I please...spend time with my wife and kids...work on my hobbies...read/. or whatever.
Walmart is using their buying power as leverage to get others to do what they want to do. These people don't have to do what WM wants but if they don't they lose a chunk of business. It's their call.
I don't understand how the ACLU can interpret the 2nd amendment that way (i.e. this is a right of the government) when the amendments 1 and 3-10 (the BILL OF RIGHTS) are individual-citizen rights.
The founding fathers were against central government. The idea of the U.S. constitution (from what I have learned in school and other places) was that if it didn't specifically say the federal government could do it then they couldn't...likewise...if it didn't specifically prohibit a citizen from doing something they could do it.
I may be mixing my understanding of the different parts of our founding documents...but the underlying truth is what I have stated (to my best understanding).
If you think about it that "sorting through and finding a few gems" will allow those artists to continue their craft. The rest will (hopefully) die off because they suck.
You find a few good songs and buy the albums. Artists get 50% of that which helps them make more albums. The cream will rise to the top.
Vote with your dollars and avoid the RIAA in this manner and everyone (except the RIAA) wins.
B
The founding fathers, from what I understand, intended the government positions in congress to be filled by average, everyday citizens NOT lawyers. They also intended it to be a burden of sorts, like a public duty to serve, not become the career of someone that has never done a legitimate day's work in their lives.
Unfortunately we have allowed the government to be taken over by lawyer and related types. Now if Joe Average citizen wanted to serve they couldn't because of money (because we all know that Joe Average isn't loaded).
Here's hoping the internet will return the power to the people.
Slashdot Mirror
...everyone has to learn to type without looking at their hands!
Here it is: BBSpot
I think the article you are referring to was "New Ford Exorbitant comes with spare Explorer".
But I could be wrong...that is the article I immediately thought of. I can't link to it because I don't have an Onion subscription and it's an old article.
MS requires you to have a floppy if you want to be able to load Third-party drivers for RAID/SCSI support during install of Win2k and XP. Found this out the hard way last night.
:)
Win2k reports a weird error that doesn't give you a clue that the only problem it is having is it can't find the floppy drive.
XP actually tells you it can't find the floppy drive. That is how I figured out it needed one. Luckily I had one and put it in but I haven't used it for anything in YEARS...I hate the fact that certain operations require the use of a floppy when other media would/could do the job just as easily/effectively.
While MS may want to kill the floppy for the reasons you said...they need to inform their programmers responsible for coding the install portion of their recent OSes as they haven't gotten that memo yet...or maybe you are just being paranoid.
B
Terrorists aren't part of the Geneva convention...countries are. Even if the terrorists are "citizens" of a country that is part of the Geneva convention the U.S. isn't at war with a country...it's at war with groups of morons that think Allah tells them to force everyone else to do things his way or you can kill them and get bonus points with "me". So until Allah signs on to the Geneva convention...tough nuggs. Besides...this is a battle of good vs. evil...but that's another discussion.
I work for a company that writes it's product in a language called Databus...it used to be hardware specific but now it is a complied yet interpreted language that runs on a LOT of platforms...that is it's strength and pretty much the reason why we don't use "more modern" languages.
I have been watching the Mono project ever since I have heard of it and I am truly amazed at all they have accomplished. I know they have a long way to go...but YOU GUYS RAWK!
I can only hope that one day Mono will allow for our apps to be as portable as they are now so we can switch to another language that has more robust OO abilities not to mention other things I hate about db/c.
So, please, keep up the good work on Mono...many folks out here are rooting for you.
B
Ok...so I didn't RTA and putting in my own settings for a movies doesn't seem possible. Of course, to put in my own settings would pretty much require me to watch the whole thing in order to do so. It is still allowing me to self-censor...just using someone else's settings. If I don't like the settings for whatever reason I can watch it with the filter off or on a different player.
The point I am making is I can do whatever I want to do with the copy of the content I own. If I rent it I can do whatever I want to within the rental period.
I don't care if the director/producer doesn't want me to watch it backwards...if I want to I will. Do I want to? Never have yet and probably never will...but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so if I so choose.
There are videos we own for our kids which contain scenes I don't want them to see over and over. As an owner of a copy of the content I have the right to edit out those scenes by hand (by ripping and editing on a computer) and then let my kids watch what I deem is acceptable. It falls under fair use, is a deriviative work that I don't/won't distribute, and is within my rights whether the content producer likes it or not.
I agree, a lot of stories would become meaningless or, at the very least, confusing without all the parts. I for one enjoy watching the director's cut of films and, as a result, have not watched the LotR trillogy in the theaters but have only watched the DVD special editions.
I don't have a problem admiting I don't watch certain movies because of their content. If I want to attempt to watch one via an RCA dvd player that filters out stuff for me then it is my right to do so.
Content producers have the right to insist their works are distributed in original form...but once I receive that distribution I can do whatever I want to with it in the context of personal use.
Obviously RCA thinks there is a large enough market for this or we wouldn't be talking about it here. If you think it's stupid then vote with your dollars...I will do the same.
Thank you RCA for creating a product that gives consumers another choice.
My response would be, "Who cares what the content provider wants in this case!?"
I can't believe that artists think have the right to keep their "art" intact after a copy of that art has been purchased by a consumer. I know their argument is they don't want to be associated with that work because it wasn't approved by them...but since we aren't talking about distributing the work they have no say whatsoever.
If I buy (or even just rent) a dvd and want to watch it backwards I can do so...period.
RCA is simply making it easier for me to SELF-CENSOR what I watch. I couldn't care less (because I don't care at all) that the director of the movie I am SELF-CENSORING doesn't want me to do that.
I'm not (and neither is RCA) distributing their movie in a modified way. My right as a consumer trumps their right as a content producer in this case.
There are some groups in the US that think violence is very offensive but have no problem with anything sexual. Then there are groups exactly opposite of this. Why shouldn't they be allowed to SELF-CENSOR these movies to filter out the parts they find objectionable?
IMO, the real problem Hollywood will have with these units is it will start to limit the successful brainwashing campaign Hollywood seems to be on...promoting thier world view as the majority's view when they are not the majority. If they were in the majority these units would never have reached market in the first place. Do you think RCA didn't do ANY market research before creating this player? *removes tinfoil hat*
I own a unit called TVGuardian. It scans the closed caption stream for offensive words (based on my settings) and, when it detects one, removes and/or replaces the word on the screen and mutes the sound until that caption is off the screen. That way I can still enjoy later-in-the-evening programming without worrying about the kids picking up on words I don't want them to hear yet...much less start to use. Since I have a TiVo and tend to watch shows at times when my kids are awake this is very helpful to me. This unit by RCA is just another step forward in this arena. Good for them...yes...I will most likely be buying one.
Funny you should mention that...I have thought of the fact that a War Time president can stay in office somehow (I forget what the rule/law is) and thought of how funny it would be to watch the reaction of the "left" if W trid to invoke that because of the war on terror (which has no foreseeable end in sight).
:)
Of the current candidates (that I am aware of) I think that Bush will be the toughest on facing down the threats to our country and our way of life. The only thing those that oppose/hate the US seem to understand/respect is strength and force. Appeasement just seems to make them want more...and you can't negotiate with those that simply want you dead because you aren't like them....the only thing you can do is keep them at bay or destroy them. Sad but true.
Make no mistake...this war is a war of religion and Bush seems to have a handle on it...like him or not.
P.S. I like W in case it wasn't already obvious!
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
:) ).
Government is in "self-perpetuation" mode as we type. The only way to change it, short of a "traditional" revolution is to vote out the ones that have their own interests ahead of those they are serving.
Apathy is so powerful..."All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men (people) to do nothing."
American society is placated...which is nice and enjoyable at times. I enjoy having time to mess around with "meaningless" stuff (like the latest Linux Distro) instead of having to contantly worry about my ability to live. It comes with a price (which was already quoted in a parental post
Seems like it is long past time to start doing something about it. Here's hoping we can convince those we hold sway with to actively pursue their beliefs and preserve their way of life...whatever that way may be.
"These are the same founding fathers who warned against 'too much democracy,'"
Yes...because we (in the USA) live in a republic, not a democracy. Mob-rule can be a very bad thing. It's the very thing that keeps people who believe like I do from running over people who believe differently while, at the same time, protect me from the same.
"who envisioned the President as being a figurehead, designed to fill in as King,"
Not sure where that is coming from, but the Executive branch has equal power to the legistlative branch (not to mention the judicial branch). The position can hardly be considered a figurehead postion when trusted with that much power (IMO).
"and who, by and large, supported slavery, yes?"
I would have to suppose (because I myself have not researched it myself) they did since I have heard that reported before. To me that doesn't matter...are we to throw out everything someone says because some of their belief is misguided? Chew up the meat and spit out the bones. The only person in history I can safely say I agree with thier words and deeds 100% would have to be Jesus Christ.
"I'm not saying that they wern't great men, or that they didn't do an amazing thing."
I hear you and, because of that, think we are on the same page basically.
"I *am* saying, however, that to blindly quote them, most likely out of context, and to hold those quotes up as religious symbols, not to be questioned, but to be blindly obeyed, is, well, rather sheep-like and frightening."
I agree...being sheep-like in any situation should be frightening. I was simply saying that the quote came to mind when I read the parental posts. Once you give up rights to those that want control over your life (Founding Fathers didn't want a centralized government...it was supposed to be that property rights trumped state's rights and state's rights trumped federal rights) you will have to fight extra hard to get them back. For corrupt individuals wanting power at all costs it is simply an opportunity to get more power at the expense of the "sheep's" rights themselves.
Having said that...I want security too. I would be more than willing to give up some rights in order to achieve that security IF AND ONLY IF we could get them back when the threat has subsided. Not sure how we could even go about that really...so step forward cautiously in this area should be the rule.
I see the erosion of individual rights as nearly inevitable and that scares me. When people give up rights for security without a little forethought that is sheep-like too IMO.
B
I am sure you were trying to be funny (and I laughed) but since when are two people considered to be part of the group known as the United States' "Founding Fathers" considered "random people dead for hundreds of years"?
When reading the grandparent that same quote came to my mind as well...and it is just as true now as it was back then. Once you give up these liberties for a perception of security you will soon lose both with no way to get them back (except for the 2nd amendment).
Not attacking...I just think the quoter of the "random" dead dude makes a vaild point.
B
I am sure you were trying to be funny with a bit of actual truth in there.
I am someone that was addicted to DOS way back when Windows 3.1 came out. I hated the fact that every time I wanted to actually do something productive I had to drop to a DOS prompt to do it. I could have done it in Windows (when it didn't crash) but I knew how to do it in DOS already and it wasn't a problem to drop to DOS and do it quickly, then return to Windows.
Enter Linux to my world...I love the idea of getting away from MS completely...tons of good stuff out there for Linux (at least for what I do) and it seems like the gap between my abilities and my wife's abilities is narrowing due to the hard work of Linux programmers everywhere. Once I can get my wife trained to do what she needs to do on a Linux box we will switch.
HOWEVER...there are plenty of things on Linux that I am unsure about and even uncomfortable doing. Why? Because I don't understand exactly what I am doing...I just want X to work with Y and read some post on some forum that says try Z to make it work. If that doesn't work does that hose my pc? What if it doesn't boot? Do I post under that thread and wait for the 16 "gurus" to get there "you st00pid newb!" responses out of their system before helping me (this doesn't happen every time...but the PERCEPTION that it will happen is there regardless...perception is reality)? This is the first promising release of a desktop for Linux that I have seen for someone, like me, that uses Windows on a regular basis but wants to switch to Linux...something I am familiar with! Take away the cryptic crap (again...perception is reality to those of us without experience...that is why marketing reigns supreme where knowledge is limited...which is what Linux is really up against) and wrap a nice GUI around it until people like me start to feel comfortable with how things work under the hood. Then we can start to venture out, tinker and tweak directly, and stay with Linux from then on.
Keep up the good work you guys...I will be downloading it as soon as I get home.
B
>>Of course I agree with you. So, can you post you address and a time and date when it's convenient to have your nuts kicked?
/.)...but that doesn't change the fact that is it illegal to trade copyrighted files on the systems. Ultimately it does deprive the content provider of revenue, no matter how minsicule an amount it may be.
This is the funniest and most priceless analogy I have heard. I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.
Seriously though...I think you are on the right track here. The content distributor (whether the MPAA, RIAA, **AA, or artist) is deprived of the revenue due them for your ability to use the content whenever you see fit.
If you streamrip the song then good for you...it's yours as far as I can tell. The station that streamed it over the internet has already paid the royalty (assuming they actually do pay it) on the song for you to hear it. Same as if you recorded if from the radio or recorded your favorite tv show on a vcr/tivo/mythtv box/whatever. You can use it over and over again as many times as you want for your own personal use. And the fact that the copy of a digital file is exactly the same as the source doesn't matter.
The real issue is the fact that you just can't share it will people you don't know. Putting a file on any filesharing system that allows people you don't know to get the file from you is depriving the content provider of revenue in some fashion IMO. I don't think you can (in the US anyway) make copies of your copies (or originals) and give them to friends legally...but we all know it happens and it has been tolerated because it wasn't as widespread as p2p has become.
There are plenty of justifications for using p2p for movies and music and whatever (most of which have been used, with a straight face, on
If you want this changed then do what it takes to get the laws changed. Write letters and send e-mails. Just don't tell me that you really aren't stealing or breaking the law because it's simply not true. Any using the p2p system to trade the copyrighted files doesn't fall under the "doing something" category so don't say you are the same as Rosa Parks here...that isn't true either.
Once the content providers admit p2p systems actually boost their bottom line you can bet the laws will be changed because they will champion the change themselves.
As someone pointed out in the article about the cable companies being forced to offer lineups a la carte, once the content providers can figure out how to effectively leverage the power of the internet to reach consumers directly this will all be moot anyway. I, for one, can't wait until they do.
Last I checked the U.S. government only had constitutional authority to enter into treaties with other contries...and since the WTO isn't a country in and of itself it would render these treaties (or agreements or whatever they are called this week) invalid. So we (U.S. Citizens) could essentially pull out of these at anytime by citing this.
Right?
You are not alone.
:)
I have actually been following them for a few years (with the exception of the last year or so) because they have a microprocessor that will run java (and other languages) natively.
They are a penny-stock company and have been for a long time. I watched them (without buying) for a while because I thought their processor would be good if java-enabled devices ever became a HUGE market. This has yet to develop and it seems at though this company, while having a good thing IMO, is starting to die waiting for the market to get large enough.
This, and other lawsuits like it by them, seems to be a survival tactic. Now...is that a bad thing? We all know SCO is trying to do this for a bad reason...it seems that if PTSC can support their claims then this would be a good thing.
I can't imagine Intel not watching every other chip maker in the world and trying to learn their greatest secrets. In this case the "secret" is written in the patent office. IF they are infringing they should pony-up.
Will be interesting to see what heppens.
WHO CARES what a company wants? It is the company's responsibility to find out what the customer wants and give it to them. When companies do just that they strike gold and win loyal customers.
Consumers are not SUPPOSED to be restricted in their use of anything they buy (please read that statement in context...I am not talking about guns here...just computer hardware/software).
If I buy/rent a DVD and I want to watch it backwards...why can't I? I couln't care less if the director wants me to watch it from beginning to end...I own that copy and I will do with it what I please within the limits of the law. Now I know that isn't exactly the same thing but the principle is the same.
B
I can hear TVs and monitors too.
:)
.jpg to .gif just so I could look at the pictures (you know...of landscapes and such!) It had one of those full-height harddrives (either 20 or 40 megs) that ANYONE could hear from anywhere, but the decompression was so slow that it would only hit the drive once every 40 - 50 seconds for a brief moment. I would do this at night so it would be done in the morning...and it would never fail...right before I would be completely asleep he would ask me to turn the computer off because the HD was keeping him awake!
When I was a kid we had a console tv that was on it's last legs. It took forever to turn on...but I was able to get it to turn on without much problem because of my hearing. I would hit the power button and hear the tv but it wouldn't be "on." Then I would hit the power button again and listen to the sound until it was almost gone and then hit the power button again and viola! it was on like it should be.
I used to think everyone could hear that stuff too...and although I have never been diagnosed with AD* I am easily distracted.
My mother in law has an HP computer (Fairly new) and every once in a while, usually when surfing the net with the annoying sounds of IE enabled, the on-board sound would make the speakers emit an annoying high-pitched frequency that I could hear from other rooms without much problem. She would be sitting right in front of the monitor, reading a page, and not hear it. I even asked, "Can't you hear that??!?" because it was so loud to me I almost couldn't stand it. Had to make another sound happen on the computer to make it stop.
I once had a roommate in college that claimed to have "dog ears" because he couldn't ignore background noises (and he didn't have a hearing aid either). I had an old XT 8088 and I had to decompress
Oh well...enough about me...:)
When it's clear you have lost an arguement...resort to name calling.
Repeat the liberal mantra until you realize it's stupid (note...could take a while so be prepared).
Posted AC too...no wonder.
There is a lot of whining going on...why doesn't everyone use that energy to figure out what they can do for themselves so they aren't subject to this anymore? Getting an education and getting a job is NOT the only way to make money in the U.S.
I'll tell you why...because it's easier to be a victim than to accept the responsibility of taking care of yourself. IT'S NOT ANYONE ELSE'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN! Those same forces that are taking "your" jobs to India are available for you to take advantage of. Got design skills? Got a good idea (we all have some)? Get a team of India programmers to bring that idea to life and sell it! Get together with your buddies that had their jobs "stolen" and have them help you design and manage it while on unemployment. Sure...you will have to adjust your standard of living...but that standard is not guaranteed to you by anyone else...you create your own.
Now I know some of you will say that it takes lots of money and lots of time and its very risky. Well...if you are creative enough you will find that isn't necessarily the case. And what's more risky? Having a job you can lose at ANY time to an offshore programmer or taking your future into your own hands and having a go at it? Are you going to outsource your own job overseas? I doubt it.
I know I am going to get flamed or whatever but I don't care. I am sick of hearing all the whining. Yes...I still have my programming job (not sure for how much longer...but I do work for a small shop so maybe I won't be a "victim") and yes...I am taking my own advice. What am I doing? Looking into investment real-estate to create cash flow since the rates are so low. Everyone and their dog's cousin's uncle wants to loan me money to buy a house. And don't tell me you have to have money to do it either. I am finding out very quickly that isn't the case. You can ask the seller to help with your down payment. If you have a renter in place before the closing of the loan (signed lease for a year) then the bank/investor/mortgage company will loan you the cash. If you can charge more in rent then your expenses then you have a monthly cash-flow that won't stop if you manage it correctly. Repeat as necessary.
Get out of the consumer mentality. Get out of the mindset that the ONLY way to support yourself is to have a job. Having a job is by far the easiest way to support yourself and your family...but with that comes the (almost) complete loss of control over it as we are seeing now. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY! That is done by lowering costs and increasing revenue. The most expensive part of running a business is labor.
Flame away.
B
Haven't you heard? The way to get rich is with OPT and OPM. That would be Other People's Time and Other People's Money.
/. or whatever.
No...that's not sarcasm either...it's called leverage...it's what makes capitalism go 'round.
You can leverage through physical means (i.e. you working harder) or through fiscal means (i.e. your money working harder).
I for one would much rather leverage through fical means so I could have more time to do whatever I please...spend time with my wife and kids...work on my hobbies...read
Walmart is using their buying power as leverage to get others to do what they want to do. These people don't have to do what WM wants but if they don't they lose a chunk of business. It's their call.
B
I don't understand how the ACLU can interpret the 2nd amendment that way (i.e. this is a right of the government) when the amendments 1 and 3-10 (the BILL OF RIGHTS) are individual-citizen rights. The founding fathers were against central government. The idea of the U.S. constitution (from what I have learned in school and other places) was that if it didn't specifically say the federal government could do it then they couldn't...likewise...if it didn't specifically prohibit a citizen from doing something they could do it. I may be mixing my understanding of the different parts of our founding documents...but the underlying truth is what I have stated (to my best understanding).
If you think about it that "sorting through and finding a few gems" will allow those artists to continue their craft. The rest will (hopefully) die off because they suck. You find a few good songs and buy the albums. Artists get 50% of that which helps them make more albums. The cream will rise to the top. Vote with your dollars and avoid the RIAA in this manner and everyone (except the RIAA) wins. B
The founding fathers, from what I understand, intended the government positions in congress to be filled by average, everyday citizens NOT lawyers. They also intended it to be a burden of sorts, like a public duty to serve, not become the career of someone that has never done a legitimate day's work in their lives. Unfortunately we have allowed the government to be taken over by lawyer and related types. Now if Joe Average citizen wanted to serve they couldn't because of money (because we all know that Joe Average isn't loaded). Here's hoping the internet will return the power to the people.