No, the iTunes service isn't just for iPods. You don't even need a portable player to use iTunes or to listen to it's music. You can use your Mac or Windows PC to listen to the music. But if you want to you can make cds of your iTunes songs. These cds can then be played in any cd player.
A natural monopoly occurs in an industry where the change in social benefit from entry is negative -- that is, industry-wide profits would become negative with more than 1 entrant into the industry and the industry would self-select itself back to 1 firm.
There are other natural monopolies such as the ones the cablecos, Telcos, and powercos enjoy. Broadcasters, radio and tv, are others. I realize they aren't monopolies naturally, they are because governemnt makes it so, however naturally there's only so many who can use the Right of Way in a given location. And usually that right of way is only approved of for one provider for each service offered.
Unsigned band who sees their first major-label contract as their shot at the big time and all their dreams come true: "Where do we sign? We brought our peeeens!"
This is only true if the band doesn't know much. The only thing, other than sucking the blood of entertainers, major labels are "good" for is marketing. However the internet makes it easier for new musicans to breakout. Digital recording is easy and doesn't take much hardware, relatively to analogue at least, and a band can use the computers in the public library or net cafe to create their own pages and profiles on MySpace or upload music to Magnatunes or any other of a number of cheap or Creative Commons websites. While more effort may be needed for a band to get their music out, than having a major label do it, it's easier than it ever has been for musicans to break out. And instead of the label keeping most of the money, the band gets to keep most of it this way.
No. Companies, whether corporations, proprietorships, or partnerships, have the responsibility to do what the owners want as long as it doesn't break the law. In the case of partnerships and proprietorships it's usually the owner(s) who run the business. Corporations on the other hand have the responsibility to fulfill the requirements of the charter the corporation has been given as well. And since the first corporate charters were granted, to amoung others the Dutch East India Company and the British East India companies one of thise requirements for that the corporation had to serve the common or public good.
I've bought more music (and spent more money) on eMusic in the last 6 months than I did in the previous 5 years before I was on eMusic.
I've bought more music on vinyl records than all of the digital music I've ever bought, and that's how is will continute to be for me for as long as I can help it.
No song is worth 99 cents.
This is the one "good thing" about digital music. I hated paying up to $20 or so for just a few songs on an album I liked. Vinyl does have the equilent, 45s, but not all songs were released on 45s and they cost more than $2.
The government doesn't demonize it... rather, the government responds to the wishes of the people who have seen first hand what happens to most people who use drugs.
They certainly do demonize drugs, like marijuana. Former president Nixon even went so far as to say he'd never legalize it no matter what his presidential commission came up with. See, he had a commission to investigate whether marijuana should be legalized, and they concluded it should be. Then there's all those ads the government supports, "Just say No to Drug", "this is your brain on drugs", and so on. As for what drugs do to people who use them, I have seen what they can do to people and the most harmful drug I have ever seen the effects of is the legal drug alcohol. And yes, I have known, and hung out with as well as occasionally used some myself, people who use drugs. Of all the drug abusers I've known or seen the absolute worst were alcoholics.
Sure, in their teens and early 20s, it seems like they are doing ok, but, by the time they hit 30, its pretty obvious that they are falling behind the pack.
I knew recreatioanl drug users who were in their 40s and 50s and most of them were productive members of society who worked the same job for years, owned their home, raised thier children, and promptly paid their bills. They took thier responsibilities seriously. The only thing that may be different was that they occassionally wanted to smoke a joint at home with friends.
What, you don't believe a citizen should be able to speak their mind to the president?
You can. Send him a letter or drop him an email. Showing up at a function wearing clothes touting the opposite candidate is really a form of an assault.
Did you read my first post? Many people who had "bought and paid for tickets" to places Bush appeared at were turned away and not because their tshirt was for another candidate. One person person I recall hearing about was one who had a tshirt on in support of the troops in Iraq and it was covered by another shirt. As for "touting" another candidate, that's not assualt that's democracy.
You are trying to disrupt someone else's gathering.
ONCE AGAIN, some of those turned back were Bush supporters. What can't you understand?
You just aren't thinking your position through, and, that begs the question: "Are you on drugs?"
Quite the contrary, it appears your comprehension is poor. That or you're a troll, constantly saying I said things I didn't say and twisting what I did say. Bye.
You won't want to switch your ISP because you get it at a discount from the same people you get your cable from
No I don't, I get my net access from a different company than I get my cable from. And when WiMax is widely available and relatively cheap I may switch my isp. Also I don't get my phone service from either one either.
The more you find out about Ron Paul the more you will regain hope in restoring the Republic and participating in our democracy.
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 for president and if I get the chance to vote for him in 2008 I will. Though I'm currently registered "No Party" Preference" I'll even change it to "Republican" just before the primary so I can vote for him. Of course I'll change it back afterwards.
The "one from Wisconsin" whose name you don't recall was Russ Feingold, who is a senator, not a congressman.
Thanks I didn't recall who it was who voted agains the PATROIT Act, however you are wrong about him not being a congressman. Congress is made of both the Senate and the House of representatives and both senators and representatives are members of congress.
Paul was not even the only Republican. 63 Democratic congressmen joined the 3 Republicans (the others were Ney-OH and Otter-ID) in voting against the Patriot Act.
The inability to buy whatever you want to injest is a restriction on your freedom and your liberty.
Not if the rest of society has to bear the cost of what you injest. In the case of trans-fats, its pretty clear that they cause an increased risk of heart attacks, in which case, you either die and thus leave a bunch of people to be supported by the state, or, you live and a bunch of other people have their premiums used to pay your giant medical bill.
Like that's really hard to deal with. NOT!!! Though I don't have it now, when I did have health insurance my premium was higher than what others paid because I smoke. The same thing can be done with those who eat trans fats. As for those on welfare, if these welfare programs were eliminated then taxpayers wouldn't be pay taxes for other's healthcare. With lower taxs people could invest as well as spend more thus improving the economy and therefore create more jobs. Or these welfare programs could be restructured, currently they are setup to keep people on welfare on it. Someone on welfare but who wants to get off welfare and make their own living is trapped. If someone tries to improve, for instance get some training, a job, or a better job, risks losing what help they currently get. I ran into a simlar problem myself, years ago I was working fulltime however my employer didn't offer health insurance. So I looked into getting my own however the cheapest I could find was 1/3 my income and I couldn't afford it. Someone suggested I check with the county, where I lived then, about getting assistance for healthcare, so I did. Unfortunately I earned too much to get any, less than $100 above the cutoff. If I were to quit I'd be able to get healthcare, but then I would of been in even worse shape. For one thing I was taking classes in college parttime but if I quit I wouldn't of been able to afford to go to college.
Rediculous! If you are selling enough product that you would need a liscence, the price of the liscence is cheap. If you don't sell much, you are an amatuer and the law was not intended to stop the casual seller.
Why does another auctioning on eBay need to be able to shootout like an auctioneer irl? That's part of North Dakota's licensing requirements. Not everyone can even do so, however they don't need to speak at all on eBay.
I see nothing wrong with this or any contradiction. Everybody has the right to express themselves but not at somebody else's party. If I had a party at my house and some guests had on t-shirts that said I was a an !@#%^, I can ask them to leave. They still have every right to wear whatever they want- just not in my house.
There's a big difference between speaking out at someone home, or business, and speaking out at a public political forum. There's no reason to stop said speech then unless you want to prevent said speech. What, you don't believe a citizen should be able to speak their mind to the president? Now if you don't exercise your rights then it doesn't affect you, but then again your can't complain when politicans do something you don't like.
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
I will grant you this is true. However, most of the USA public thinks that this is a good thing. So while you and I might think otherwise, this is not really an issue since 80+% of the public agree with this position (in almost all parties).
Only because the government lies to people and demonizes drugs they don't aprove of. As for your "80%", I seriously doubt this, can you provide a link to any studies that support this?
yes we have restrictions on freedom and I would argue that this is for the good. For example my freedom to kill whoever I want because I don't like them has been restricted.
There's a big difference between making it illegal for someone to kill or harm another, which violate their rights, and making it illegal to to do whateer a person wants in the privacy of their own home while they aren't harming anyone else.
Not being able to wear t-shirts to some party (that is not your own)
Campaigns for public offices ARE NOT private parties. Even you should know that.
you don't make any real good points about the "oppressiveness" of the USA.
Can you show me once where I used "Oppressive", "opressiveness", or any synonyms? I doubt it as I didn't use them.
Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.
For the best quality that's what spin control should be, that and 78 rpm. I don't listen to music much anymore however I'd like to get a turntable, if I do then I'll listen to music more, and buying vinyl records. As amazing as it sounds, vinyl records are still being released. A five minute walk takes me to one store that sells new vinyl, and another store is 15 minutes walk. Next would be to find a reel-to-reel tape deck, I'll then do what I did years ago. As soon as I played a new record I'd record it on my reel-to-reel then put the record away for safekeeping and listen to the tape.
How does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:
a) starting a business
It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell on eBay this could prevent them from doing so, as least doing it legally.
b) selling a product
Same as above.
d) expressing myself however I want
I guess you didn't try to attend any of Bush's campaign stops in 2006 wearing a tshirt that wasn't approved. Even Bush supporters were turned out when they appeared with tickets to events where Bush was. And it's not just Bush, both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to get law enforcement where they had their conventions to setup "free speach zones" away from the conventions.
e) buying anything I want
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want
If you live in New York, or a number of other cities, yes. NYC has banned trans fats.
The answer is really no.
As listed above, the answer is YES! Just because it's not as bad in the US as it is in most other countries it doesn't mean there isn't any restrictions on liberty in the US as well.
Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.
Of course, Democrats supported the PATROIT Act as much as the Republicans did. Not only that but as President Clinton tried to get many of the same powers. Only two congressmen voted against the Act, one from Wisconson though I don't recall his name, and Rep Ron Paul (R) of Texas. And the thing is is none of them read the whole thing!
For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?
I think you may be overlooking the fact that most people don't have the financial resources to fight the RIAA in a legal battle. The RIAA can spend millions of dollars without an eyeblink but most of those they go after can't afford an attorney. What should be done to correct this is for judges to award defendents their legal costs, then have people like the EFF to get it into the mass media. Attorneys may then be more willing to work with those the RIAA accuses.
The problem with the NRA is that they say they need guns to fight off tyranny but essentially define tyranny as not having guns.
There is no problem with the NRA. As for tyranny and firearms, almost if not every population that was tyrannized was disarmed first. This is true even for the 1980s and 1990s. For instance Iran, after the Iranian revolution the Ayatllahs left people alone at first. The Revolutionary Guard then sponsered a program wherein for every firearm a person brought in they were given enough food for a family of 4 for a month, or something like that. Once the populace was disarmed the Revolutionary Guard started cracking down on the populace. How about Rwanda? Once again the populace was disarmed before the genocide started there. Take Sudan today though there has been an ongoing civil war, Darfur is where the population isn't armed, yet is where most of the bloodshed is and entire villages burned down. In the south however where rebel groups are armed still they don't have villages being destroyed.
I'm really not sure that a printed paper book is the proper way to learn CSS methodologies. There are so many resources on the web now, and "learning by doing" helps the content stick much better (in my opinion).
While learning by doing may be the best way to learn, many still need a physical book they can use. I find it much easier to have a book I can look at, read, while I am working on something than not having anything. As for usng resources on the web, it's easier for me to have a printed page than to try to switch between a text editor, a browser window that what I'm working on is displayed on, and one or more windows of pages on what I'm trying to learn. Using one monitor it may take a little tyme to switch between and find the correct window. With a printed page though I can look at the page as well as a document I am working on at the same tyme. And it's cheaper than having more than one monitor.
It might seem like a minor thing, but if the guy can't be bothered with little details like spelling, grammar, and correct capitalisation, then what were his chances of ever getting the SEC filings done correctly?
While I believe being able to write correctly is important it's not really needed for him to make SEC filings. Experts such as acccountants will be the ones who actually fillout the paperwork. If Businesses and people were expected to do their one paperwork my sister, who as a CPA runs her own accounting business, would be out of work. Lawyer and others would probably go over the paperwork to make sure it was accurate.
how exactly how you going to make everyone on Earth rich enough to become educated enough to reduce population growth?
Improve education and educational opportunities. Mexico has a program now that pays a monthly stipend for some who keep their children in school. After Mexico started it Brazil picked up on it and does the same. Another way to increase third world per capita income is for the first world, specifically the EU, Japan, and the US to stop paying thier agribusinesses hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies as well as get rid of trade barries and tariffs. Because these nations give their agribusinesses all this money they are able to export their produce to third world nations where they can sale food for less than it costs farmers in those countries to farm. This is one reason "millions of illegal imigrants" are in and more are trying to get into the US. Because of farm subsidies and NAFTA US agribusiness can sale food in Mexico cheap. This drives Mexican farmers off their farms, and there's not many places they can go to make a better life.
You can't forbid people to have kids, but there's a much simpler way to ensure they never have any (no, not neuter them).
Sure you can, the US governemnt did this in a way to Native American Indians. In a system that only ended in the 1970s doctors working for the IHS, Indian Health Service, sterlized female Indians. Sometimes it was done without the knowledge or consent of them and other tymes they were led to believe they had to have it done. Forced sterilization is ethnic cleansing of Indians.
You see, population grows, and all of that growth is coming from poor countries, and poor ghettos in richer countries. Truth is, in a modern society, the more educated you are, the better off you are, the more better off you want your kids to be, have access to birth control measures, and eventually have less kids, sometimes even have no kids.
That's right, the better people's educational and economic situation and the greater the opportunities women have, the lower the birthrate is for the population. That's why the two nations that had the highest birth rates, China and India, have seen their birthrates drop. Meanwhile in developed nations, parts of the EU, Japan, and the USA the birthrate has dropped below the replacement rate needed to keep the same population. If it wasn't for immigrants their populations would colapse. A few years ago the mayor of one town in Italy instituded a tax on singles because their population was falling and he wanted singles to get married and have children. Which is the absolute worse thing he could of done, instead of having singles get married this would drive them away which would make it worse. The worst place for population growth now is Africa which doesn't have nearly enough opportunity for the population as most other places.
just so long as we can get the greens to stop beating up on nuclear fission..
Nuclear fission isn't an answer, it's a problem. Even if you want to reprocess the waste. The French have done to most research on reprocessing and they don't have it figured out yet. Instead what they have is hotter waste as well as highly toxic chemicals leftover. The "IEEE Spectrum" had an article of this a few months ago.
Not at the equator. Which is where this would be. Storms are driven by temperature differentials and Coriolis acceleration, which are both pretty much zero at the equator in the middle of the ocean.
I feel I need to point out something to you though, many of the hurricanes that hit the US originate in the southern hemisphere off the coast of Africa. To hit the US they have to cross the equator.
Why would you want to build an elevator into space?
The idea is because a space elevator would make it cheaper to transport people and stuff to space than using rockets. Now, why would anyone want a computer at home? Or in their office?
Just because it can be done, doesn't mean you have to do it... There are alot more important and much more useful projects money could be put into IMHO!
The problem I see with this is who decides what's more important and what more useful? Just because something isn't important to you or you don't see the usefulness it it doesn't mean it isn't important to those who do see the usefulness of it.
That statement does not in any way indicate how dense the material is, only how strong it is compared to another material.
Oh, but it does: "pound for pound". That means one pound of this is ten times as strong as a pound of steel. While steels do vary in strength, there is no steel nearly so strong as you would need for the density to be 0.097 g/cm^3.
Unless you want to take weight as density, which it isn't, it does not indicate how dense the material is.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the iTunes service isn't just for iPods. You don't even need a portable player to use iTunes or to listen to it's music. You can use your Mac or Windows PC to listen to the music. But if you want to you can make cds of your iTunes songs. These cds can then be played in any cd player.
FalconA natural monopoly occurs in an industry where the change in social benefit from entry is negative -- that is, industry-wide profits would become negative with more than 1 entrant into the industry and the industry would self-select itself back to 1 firm.
There are other natural monopolies such as the ones the cablecos, Telcos, and powercos enjoy. Broadcasters, radio and tv, are others. I realize they aren't monopolies naturally, they are because governemnt makes it so, however naturally there's only so many who can use the Right of Way in a given location. And usually that right of way is only approved of for one provider for each service offered.
FalconUnsigned band who sees their first major-label contract as their shot at the big time and all their dreams come true: "Where do we sign? We brought our peeeens!"
This is only true if the band doesn't know much. The only thing, other than sucking the blood of entertainers, major labels are "good" for is marketing. However the internet makes it easier for new musicans to breakout. Digital recording is easy and doesn't take much hardware, relatively to analogue at least, and a band can use the computers in the public library or net cafe to create their own pages and profiles on MySpace or upload music to Magnatunes or any other of a number of cheap or Creative Commons websites. While more effort may be needed for a band to get their music out, than having a major label do it, it's easier than it ever has been for musicans to break out. And instead of the label keeping most of the money, the band gets to keep most of it this way.
Falconmaximise profits?
No. Companies, whether corporations, proprietorships, or partnerships, have the responsibility to do what the owners want as long as it doesn't break the law. In the case of partnerships and proprietorships it's usually the owner(s) who run the business. Corporations on the other hand have the responsibility to fulfill the requirements of the charter the corporation has been given as well. And since the first corporate charters were granted, to amoung others the Dutch East India Company and the British East India companies one of thise requirements for that the corporation had to serve the common or public good.
FalconI've bought more music (and spent more money) on eMusic in the last 6 months than I did in the previous 5 years before I was on eMusic.
I've bought more music on vinyl records than all of the digital music I've ever bought, and that's how is will continute to be for me for as long as I can help it.
No song is worth 99 cents.
This is the one "good thing" about digital music. I hated paying up to $20 or so for just a few songs on an album I liked. Vinyl does have the equilent, 45s, but not all songs were released on 45s and they cost more than $2.
Falcon"why would any company opt to cut themselves out of that market."
Because the iPod is over 78% of the DAP market thats why.
That's a good reason to stay in the market not opt out of it.
FalconThe government doesn't demonize it... rather, the government responds to the wishes of the people who have seen first hand what happens to most people who use drugs.
They certainly do demonize drugs, like marijuana. Former president Nixon even went so far as to say he'd never legalize it no matter what his presidential commission came up with. See, he had a commission to investigate whether marijuana should be legalized, and they concluded it should be. Then there's all those ads the government supports, "Just say No to Drug", "this is your brain on drugs", and so on. As for what drugs do to people who use them, I have seen what they can do to people and the most harmful drug I have ever seen the effects of is the legal drug alcohol. And yes, I have known, and hung out with as well as occasionally used some myself, people who use drugs. Of all the drug abusers I've known or seen the absolute worst were alcoholics.
Sure, in their teens and early 20s, it seems like they are doing ok, but, by the time they hit 30, its pretty obvious that they are falling behind the pack.
I knew recreatioanl drug users who were in their 40s and 50s and most of them were productive members of society who worked the same job for years, owned their home, raised thier children, and promptly paid their bills. They took thier responsibilities seriously. The only thing that may be different was that they occassionally wanted to smoke a joint at home with friends.
What, you don't believe a citizen should be able to speak their mind to the president?
You can. Send him a letter or drop him an email. Showing up at a function wearing clothes touting the opposite candidate is really a form of an assault.
Did you read my first post? Many people who had "bought and paid for tickets" to places Bush appeared at were turned away and not because their tshirt was for another candidate. One person person I recall hearing about was one who had a tshirt on in support of the troops in Iraq and it was covered by another shirt. As for "touting" another candidate, that's not assualt that's democracy.
You are trying to disrupt someone else's gathering.
ONCE AGAIN, some of those turned back were Bush supporters. What can't you understand?
You just aren't thinking your position through, and, that begs the question: "Are you on drugs?"
Quite the contrary, it appears your comprehension is poor. That or you're a troll, constantly saying I said things I didn't say and twisting what I did say. Bye.
FalconYou won't want to switch your ISP because you get it at a discount from the same people you get your cable from
No I don't, I get my net access from a different company than I get my cable from. And when WiMax is widely available and relatively cheap I may switch my isp. Also I don't get my phone service from either one either.
FalconThe more you find out about Ron Paul the more you will regain hope in restoring the Republic and participating in our democracy.
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 for president and if I get the chance to vote for him in 2008 I will. Though I'm currently registered "No Party" Preference" I'll even change it to "Republican" just before the primary so I can vote for him. Of course I'll change it back afterwards.
FalconThe "one from Wisconsin" whose name you don't recall was Russ Feingold, who is a senator, not a congressman.
Thanks I didn't recall who it was who voted agains the PATROIT Act, however you are wrong about him not being a congressman. Congress is made of both the Senate and the House of representatives and both senators and representatives are members of congress.
Paul was not even the only Republican. 63 Democratic congressmen joined the 3 Republicans (the others were Ney-OH and Otter-ID) in voting against the Patriot Act.
Bad memory. Thanks for correcting me.
FalconThe inability to buy whatever you want to injest is a restriction on your freedom and your liberty.
Not if the rest of society has to bear the cost of what you injest. In the case of trans-fats, its pretty clear that they cause an increased risk of heart attacks, in which case, you either die and thus leave a bunch of people to be supported by the state, or, you live and a bunch of other people have their premiums used to pay your giant medical bill.
Like that's really hard to deal with. NOT!!! Though I don't have it now, when I did have health insurance my premium was higher than what others paid because I smoke. The same thing can be done with those who eat trans fats. As for those on welfare, if these welfare programs were eliminated then taxpayers wouldn't be pay taxes for other's healthcare. With lower taxs people could invest as well as spend more thus improving the economy and therefore create more jobs. Or these welfare programs could be restructured, currently they are setup to keep people on welfare on it. Someone on welfare but who wants to get off welfare and make their own living is trapped. If someone tries to improve, for instance get some training, a job, or a better job, risks losing what help they currently get. I ran into a simlar problem myself, years ago I was working fulltime however my employer didn't offer health insurance. So I looked into getting my own however the cheapest I could find was 1/3 my income and I couldn't afford it. Someone suggested I check with the county, where I lived then, about getting assistance for healthcare, so I did. Unfortunately I earned too much to get any, less than $100 above the cutoff. If I were to quit I'd be able to get healthcare, but then I would of been in even worse shape. For one thing I was taking classes in college parttime but if I quit I wouldn't of been able to afford to go to college.
FalconRediculous! If you are selling enough product that you would need a liscence, the price of the liscence is cheap. If you don't sell much, you are an amatuer and the law was not intended to stop the casual seller.
Why does another auctioning on eBay need to be able to shootout like an auctioneer irl? That's part of North Dakota's licensing requirements. Not everyone can even do so, however they don't need to speak at all on eBay.
I see nothing wrong with this or any contradiction. Everybody has the right to express themselves but not at somebody else's party. If I had a party at my house and some guests had on t-shirts that said I was a an !@#%^, I can ask them to leave. They still have every right to wear whatever they want- just not in my house.
There's a big difference between speaking out at someone home, or business, and speaking out at a public political forum. There's no reason to stop said speech then unless you want to prevent said speech. What, you don't believe a citizen should be able to speak their mind to the president? Now if you don't exercise your rights then it doesn't affect you, but then again your can't complain when politicans do something you don't like.
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
I will grant you this is true. However, most of the USA public thinks that this is a good thing. So while you and I might think otherwise, this is not really an issue since 80+% of the public agree with this position (in almost all parties).
Only because the government lies to people and demonizes drugs they don't aprove of. As for your "80%", I seriously doubt this, can you provide a link to any studies that support this?
yes we have restrictions on freedom and I would argue that this is for the good. For example my freedom to kill whoever I want because I don't like them has been restricted.
There's a big difference between making it illegal for someone to kill or harm another, which violate their rights, and making it illegal to to do whateer a person wants in the privacy of their own home while they aren't harming anyone else.
Not being able to wear t-shirts to some party (that is not your own)
Campaigns for public offices ARE NOT private parties. Even you should know that.
you don't make any real good points about the "oppressiveness" of the USA.
Can you show me once where I used "Oppressive", "opressiveness", or any synonyms? I doubt it as I didn't use them.
FalconOnce upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.
For the best quality that's what spin control should be, that and 78 rpm. I don't listen to music much anymore however I'd like to get a turntable, if I do then I'll listen to music more, and buying vinyl records. As amazing as it sounds, vinyl records are still being released. A five minute walk takes me to one store that sells new vinyl, and another store is 15 minutes walk. Next would be to find a reel-to-reel tape deck, I'll then do what I did years ago. As soon as I played a new record I'd record it on my reel-to-reel then put the record away for safekeeping and listen to the tape.
FalconHow does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:
a) starting a business
It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell on eBay this could prevent them from doing so, as least doing it legally.
b) selling a product
Same as above.
d) expressing myself however I want
I guess you didn't try to attend any of Bush's campaign stops in 2006 wearing a tshirt that wasn't approved. Even Bush supporters were turned out when they appeared with tickets to events where Bush was. And it's not just Bush, both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to get law enforcement where they had their conventions to setup "free speach zones" away from the conventions.
e) buying anything I want
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want
If you live in New York, or a number of other cities, yes. NYC has banned trans fats.
The answer is really no.
As listed above, the answer is YES! Just because it's not as bad in the US as it is in most other countries it doesn't mean there isn't any restrictions on liberty in the US as well.
Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.
Of course, Democrats supported the PATROIT Act as much as the Republicans did. Not only that but as President Clinton tried to get many of the same powers. Only two congressmen voted against the Act, one from Wisconson though I don't recall his name, and Rep Ron Paul (R) of Texas. And the thing is is none of them read the whole thing!
FalconFor someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?
I think you may be overlooking the fact that most people don't have the financial resources to fight the RIAA in a legal battle. The RIAA can spend millions of dollars without an eyeblink but most of those they go after can't afford an attorney. What should be done to correct this is for judges to award defendents their legal costs, then have people like the EFF to get it into the mass media. Attorneys may then be more willing to work with those the RIAA accuses.
FalconThe problem with the NRA is that they say they need guns to fight off tyranny but essentially define tyranny as not having guns.
There is no problem with the NRA. As for tyranny and firearms, almost if not every population that was tyrannized was disarmed first. This is true even for the 1980s and 1990s. For instance Iran, after the Iranian revolution the Ayatllahs left people alone at first. The Revolutionary Guard then sponsered a program wherein for every firearm a person brought in they were given enough food for a family of 4 for a month, or something like that. Once the populace was disarmed the Revolutionary Guard started cracking down on the populace. How about Rwanda? Once again the populace was disarmed before the genocide started there. Take Sudan today though there has been an ongoing civil war, Darfur is where the population isn't armed, yet is where most of the bloodshed is and entire villages burned down. In the south however where rebel groups are armed still they don't have villages being destroyed.
FalconI'm really not sure that a printed paper book is the proper way to learn CSS methodologies. There are so many resources on the web now, and "learning by doing" helps the content stick much better (in my opinion).
While learning by doing may be the best way to learn, many still need a physical book they can use. I find it much easier to have a book I can look at, read, while I am working on something than not having anything. As for usng resources on the web, it's easier for me to have a printed page than to try to switch between a text editor, a browser window that what I'm working on is displayed on, and one or more windows of pages on what I'm trying to learn. Using one monitor it may take a little tyme to switch between and find the correct window. With a printed page though I can look at the page as well as a document I am working on at the same tyme. And it's cheaper than having more than one monitor.
FalconIt might seem like a minor thing, but if the guy can't be bothered with little details like spelling, grammar, and correct capitalisation, then what were his chances of ever getting the SEC filings done correctly?
While I believe being able to write correctly is important it's not really needed for him to make SEC filings. Experts such as acccountants will be the ones who actually fillout the paperwork. If Businesses and people were expected to do their one paperwork my sister, who as a CPA runs her own accounting business, would be out of work. Lawyer and others would probably go over the paperwork to make sure it was accurate.
Falconhow exactly how you going to make everyone on Earth rich enough to become educated enough to reduce population growth?
Improve education and educational opportunities. Mexico has a program now that pays a monthly stipend for some who keep their children in school. After Mexico started it Brazil picked up on it and does the same. Another way to increase third world per capita income is for the first world, specifically the EU, Japan, and the US to stop paying thier agribusinesses hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies as well as get rid of trade barries and tariffs. Because these nations give their agribusinesses all this money they are able to export their produce to third world nations where they can sale food for less than it costs farmers in those countries to farm. This is one reason "millions of illegal imigrants" are in and more are trying to get into the US. Because of farm subsidies and NAFTA US agribusiness can sale food in Mexico cheap. This drives Mexican farmers off their farms, and there's not many places they can go to make a better life.
FalconYou can't forbid people to have kids, but there's a much simpler way to ensure they never have any (no, not neuter them).
Sure you can, the US governemnt did this in a way to Native American Indians. In a system that only ended in the 1970s doctors working for the IHS, Indian Health Service, sterlized female Indians. Sometimes it was done without the knowledge or consent of them and other tymes they were led to believe they had to have it done. Forced sterilization is ethnic cleansing of Indians.
You see, population grows, and all of that growth is coming from poor countries, and poor ghettos in richer countries. Truth is, in a modern society, the more educated you are, the better off you are, the more better off you want your kids to be, have access to birth control measures, and eventually have less kids, sometimes even have no kids.
That's right, the better people's educational and economic situation and the greater the opportunities women have, the lower the birthrate is for the population. That's why the two nations that had the highest birth rates, China and India, have seen their birthrates drop. Meanwhile in developed nations, parts of the EU, Japan, and the USA the birthrate has dropped below the replacement rate needed to keep the same population. If it wasn't for immigrants their populations would colapse. A few years ago the mayor of one town in Italy instituded a tax on singles because their population was falling and he wanted singles to get married and have children. Which is the absolute worse thing he could of done, instead of having singles get married this would drive them away which would make it worse. The worst place for population growth now is Africa which doesn't have nearly enough opportunity for the population as most other places.
Falconjust so long as we can get the greens to stop beating up on nuclear fission..
Nuclear fission isn't an answer, it's a problem. Even if you want to reprocess the waste. The French have done to most research on reprocessing and they don't have it figured out yet. Instead what they have is hotter waste as well as highly toxic chemicals leftover. The "IEEE Spectrum" had an article of this a few months ago.
FalconHandwavium? Not strong enough. We need Unobtainium.
I thought Unobtainium was only useful for going to the center of the earth.
FalconNot at the equator. Which is where this would be. Storms are driven by temperature differentials and Coriolis acceleration, which are both pretty much zero at the equator in the middle of the ocean.
I feel I need to point out something to you though, many of the hurricanes that hit the US originate in the southern hemisphere off the coast of Africa. To hit the US they have to cross the equator.
FalconWhy would you want to build an elevator into space?
The idea is because a space elevator would make it cheaper to transport people and stuff to space than using rockets. Now, why would anyone want a computer at home? Or in their office?
Just because it can be done, doesn't mean you have to do it... There are alot more important and much more useful projects money could be put into IMHO!
The problem I see with this is who decides what's more important and what more useful? Just because something isn't important to you or you don't see the usefulness it it doesn't mean it isn't important to those who do see the usefulness of it.
FalconThat statement does not in any way indicate how dense the material is, only how strong it is compared to another material.
Oh, but it does: "pound for pound". That means one pound of this is ten times as strong as a pound of steel. While steels do vary in strength, there is no steel nearly so strong as you would need for the density to be 0.097 g/cm^3.
Unless you want to take weight as density, which it isn't, it does not indicate how dense the material is.
Falcon