If every economic conclusion was obvious, it wouldn't be interesting and it wouldn't be a science.
It isn't a science. Science can tell me that given this, this, and that, you get this result. If I hold a torch under a glass of water, the water will boil. Economic theory can't do that - it can plot relationships - like if unemployment goes up that GNP may go down, but it is NOT a hard science. Economic theory can do things like tell you how to build a portfolio to eliminate risk (historical footnote: the two guys who came up with the theories surrounding risk in the stock market were one of the first to make an attempt at quantifying real, tangible, things. Until about the mid 70's economic theory had formulas consisting of things like "consumer happiness" in them). You can call it a science, even make it sound like science, but science has definable traits which economic theory lacks.. one of those would be the ability to reach a firm conclusion from the data. That's kindof the problem with economics - it is a living model. You cannot have a control group where you drop a hundred consumers into Economy A and another hundred into Economy B and see what happens. As such, it fails the first litmus test of being a science.
And the most basic discover of economics is that when things become scarce their price rises. And yet, the price of resources has been dropping.
Funny you should mention that. I just got back from the gas station - prices are up to $1.70 over here, from $1.19 this past fall. But, not being one to trust only my experiences, decided to consult my macroeconomics book (ISBN 0-07-046814-1, Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies). The consumer price index (CPI) in 1929 was 17, and in 1970 was at 38.8. About those falling prices...
Do you realize that over most of the last century, the US has had continuous growth in the amount of land dedicated to forests?
I can't even figure out, and I suspect nobody else will be able to, either, what the hell your response had to do with what he said.
Perhaps we should start over with the basics. Given that...
Most people are uninformed and/or stupid.
Capitalists' goal is to maximize profits.
Conclusion: People who are uninformed and/or stupid will be exploited by people who understand the system and are motivated to maximize profits. What does this mean? For the uninformed public, it means they have the "freedom to be exploited".
Did you have a look at the recent KDE 2.0 beta or a recent KDE 2.0 CVS snapshot?
You mean like the one that comes with Linux Mandrake 7 and resides in/dev/sda2 on my system?:^)
Anyone who looks at it anywhere near objectively will notice that anyone who has used Windows can deal with it -
Sure.. but try telling them how to configure their networking or get a dialup connection. It's a snazzy interface, but the app support comes up way short. Besides.. I haven't heard of any usability studies - only people who like the software and the bottom of the bag for linux users usually weighs in around "Super Power User" in the computer industry. Not that I disagree.. but we could use some objective analysis here.
even StarOffice adds itself to the KDE menus so even the most stupid user can find it.
Well, yeah, but underneath KDE is still the "what the f-ck is that?" filesystem we endearingly call ext2. Try explaining to a user some time why saving a file to/tmp is a Bad Idea. Or where their home directory is ("Why can't I save it to C:\.. er.. / ? It worked fine under windows!"). An interface is not the mere sum of its components...
I doubt a stupid user could tell the difference between a Windows system and a KDE 2 system that has been configured to look like Windows.
Sigh. I can safely say that if the icon colors are a shade of red off, they'll be calling about it... believe me.. they'll be able to tell. *whimpering at the prospect of more phone calls*
Economic growth is not the same as physical growth.
You are correct. However there is a strong correlation between the two. Why are we tearing buildings down every 10 years, putting up new ones, using them for a couple years, then tearing them down and starting over again? That is a terrible waste of resources. Neither extreme is correct, but I believe that the statement that we are losing resources faster than we are gaining them is for the most part true. We will run out of oil eventually. If we continue to deforest at the rate we are we will put the CO2 balance out of kilter in the atmosphere. These are demonstratable, proven things.
It must be tiring to work so hard at being so wrong.
A pity you can't debate with someone without resorting to personal slams. Even worse, atleast I have an excuse - I'm 20, wet behind the ears, and with only alittle real-world experience. You, on the other hand, should have learned by now not to dismiss people out of hand. Besides, I'd like to remind you that even the greatest baseball player of all time (Babe Ruth) couldn't hit the ball even half the time. We all say stupid things, and we all have silly notions of how the world really works. Rather than rail on someone for it, I decided it was more productive to try to educate people and let them arrive at their own conclusions - hell, they might even arrive at the same one you did.
The whole point of the book is that there we need to place a higher value on healthy intact ecosystems.
Capitalism's worst flaw is that it externalizes its problems. The environment is an all but too well-known example of this. Why properly dispose of waste products when you can dump them in international waters? Even if you are caught the fines amount to less than the proper disposal would have cost! This is happening even in the US' version of capitalism!
As a consumer and an environmentalist, you have to power to reward those companies.
Oh, so I should be happy with a volvo when my neighbor can use the cost offset of not buying enviro-friendly products to go buy a porsche? Great solution there! You might convince me of that, but not the 300 million other people who live on this slab of earth we call the United States.
Capitalism and environmentalism can have healthy happy marriage if capitalism places a higher value on the natural environment being healthy and free of pollutants.
I think you mean the consumer. And no, because people follow the path of least resistance. The problem is not convincing the individual - with enough education that is possible. It is convincing society at large, people who are more than willing to ignore truths to have material and personal gain. It's a big, anonymous system out there - who's gonna complain if I buy styrofoam cups instead of wax ones? Nobody. Zero social incentive. Plenty of monentary incentive though.
First though, we need to believe that the systems works (i.e. not spout FUD).
I'm sorry, but as an engineer any system that doesn't work on its own merits is not worth consideration. I'm not about to start believing in supernatural beings and praying for my next chip design. I treat ideas the same as I would anything else: by looking at the empirical evidence. Right now, there are very strong indications that the environmentalists are losing the war against capitalism. I rather doubt this book will change the balance much. To use your own dialect: the free market has spoken.
In 1998, how much of the free market believed that Linux would never be able to compete with MS?
The free market doesn't think. The people who are in it do (well, this may be an overstatement, but bear with me). And the vast majority of those people used Microsoft products. The vast majority still do. So if free market = consumers, then their position still hasn't changed. "Linux, what's that? Nah, won't catch me using it."
I reaffirm my position that capitalism and environmentalism are at odds with each other fundamentally. You can't reconcile them and still claim to be a member of both.
Don't forget that the free in "free market" is the same free as in "free software."
Rather humorous quote, that. As RMS put it, it's "free as in freedom, not free as in beer". I find it hard to imagine my GPL-licensed programs could exploit me, but I think you'd be laughed at to your face if you claimed nobody exploits anyone under capitalism.
Polish proverb - under capitalism, man exploits man, under communism, the opposite is true.;) Not terribly relevant to the issue at hand, but a cute quote nonetheless.. if only because it's true.
The problem is that even intelligent and concerned consumers cannot really understand the full implications of the products they buy...
More to the point: capitalism makes the assumption that people are intelligent and rational. Having worked tech support for three years, I can say with authority that they are not.
yet people expect to turn on a computer and *BOOM* it should work and make you 100x more productive.
You know, and that's just it: we have all these tools to be more and more productive.. but where's all that spare time I ought to be afforded for using all these productivity enhancers? I was working 8 hour days 2 years ago.. I'm still working 8 hour days now.. and the computers are twice as powerful as they were then. Back during the 60's people predicted we would only be working 20 hours a week right now and be able to support a family of four. Gee, I worked IT - 60 hours a week, NO spare time, and wasn't getting paid nearly what I was worth. Yup, gotta love those "productivity enhancers". Well, I'm off to Best Buy... my computer is running too slow, I need a faster one to get more free time..
Maybe if he didn't have to spend all his time trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio up he wouldn't need such drastic measures? Try posting something useful, and maybe taco won't need to "bitchslap" people summarily.
Best quote in the whole book is in the first page of it:
"Imagine for a moment a world where cities have become peaceful and serene because cars and buses are whisper quiet, vehicles exhaust only water vapor, and parks and greenways have replaced unneeded urban freeways."
Imagine getting that past congress. Or the multi-national oil conglomerates.
Most slashdotters will say there is replacement software out there.. and then forget the most important part of the desktop: the user.
Yes, it's official: The average user doesn't know how to use linux. This is your single, biggest challenge. People do not like change. They have used Windows "for X goddamn years, and goddamnit, I'm not going to switch!" I worked tech support for three years. I dealt with thousands upon thousands of callers. I can safely say that less than 1% of them are currently capable of doing anything much beyond logging in. Most would even protest that.
Yes, linux has many alternatives to MS products available but, like most linux offerings, comes up short on UI. Oh, and for those who are already hammering in their replies - I'd like to remind you I've used linux for the past four years, as well as NT, W2K, Windows 98, hell, I've been on computers since the DOS 3.3. So yes, I do know what I'm talking about here. Your average desktop user has the IQ of a lobotomized flatworm.
If you want corporate acceptance of linux, I have two pieces of advice for you: Don't force it, and don't evangelize it. There are alot of reasons for this, but the simplest one is that if you can't show your boss how to use it, you're not going to get it deployed. The other reason is that despite what people say about this industry moving at warp speed, corporations move about as fast as dark molasses in the dead of a minnesota winter. Most corporations don't upgrade until they have to - they have no time for training, IT is usually busy resetting passwords and deleting that #$@! office assistant from the desktop.
You want linux in the workplace? Code it. Use it. Debug it. Repeat. Linux will not get in the door by simply mentioning it... it must win by proving itself superior. We have no marketing department, our sales department is an FTP server in North Carolina and our programming department spans seven continents. Am I getting through?
I'd like to remind you of another uninnovator: AOL. What happens when people who use AOL get clued? They leave. Unless the government has some overpowering control over the marketplace, I rather doubt this will stifle innovation.
I think he was making a tongue-in-cheek joke about how C++ combines the inherent evil of assembly with the bloat of high-level languages in the least optimal fashion.
Forget the satellites, they're probably purchasing Iridium for the bandwidth. Does anyone here know how valuable those frequencies are? Let me give you a hint - the lowest price to get sat frequencies is around 20 million.:( I did alittle research on how feasible it would be to launch a satellite to broadcast DeCSS and other controversial materials via wireless - international jurisdiction, they couldn't shut it down. In any event, the satellite is actually pretty cheap - about $10-20k to put it into orbit with a nice transmitter and a few solar cells plus the mandatory stuff you'd find in a comm sat. Anyway, the bandwidth was what scrapped the project - it is prohibitively expensive to get those frequencies through an auction.:(
Have you ever actually tried what you are suggesting?
Yes. Do alittle digging in public records.. you'll find out the where and what. Unless, of course, you prefer to sit in that comfy chair of yours and criticize me without suggesting any alternatives...
Shoe - you are correct, with the exception of a few states which make it legal to use facsimiles as a means of serving someone. Another trick is to immediately motion for a change of venue - that will force it to your local jurisdiction instead of wherever they chose. If you want to stick 'em hard before you give up you can also substitute the judge - but be ready to capitulate right after they get the next hearing scheduled.;)
Just some advice from someone who's been there, and done that (didn't get the t-shirt though).
Such a network would only be successful with a coalition of businesses. Businesses by their nature do not like doing more than the bare minimum to make money - hence the reason most e-commerce sites do not offer payment by money order or cashier's check. No, it must be a credit card.
E-commerce companies are lazy. Keep this in mind when trying to form any "trust network". In addition, you'll need to show a clear profit-making incentive for companies to participate - it makes no sense (business-wise) to work with another unless you make a profit. I don't believe such a trust network is viable anyway without a central authority - if any member of the network acts in a dubious fashion it will be publicized, and companies will be less interested in joining due to bad PR. In addition, without a central authority you have no ability to remove bad elements from the pool. Just my $0.02.
Contrast that to the vast number of albums sold. Looking considerably less significant, isn't it?
Uhh.. your assertion might work if everyone who bought a CD put up a webpage. Sadly, that isn't true.
Looks like a typical fluff piece written by a third-party journalist. What of it?
Did you read the article? There were parts from quotes on people who work for the record industry. Regardless of WHO wrote it, the quotes speak for themselves. Even Jon Katz makes a point every now and then.
Your first link states that CD sales are declining near universities. By 7 percent.
I don't know about you, but if I was a business, a 7% loss would be a big deal - when the stock market plunged last week it didn't go 7% and people were panicing and talking about how the bubble had burst. Especially considering 7% of 1.4 billion dollars is about 9.8 million dollars of lost sales...
Your third link, to the "pay Lars" site, lists a grand total of $399.00 raised at the time of my viewing (during the writing of this message).
I deduce that you have recently had your humorous surgically removed...
Summary: Your figures serve only to underscore how few boycotters there are, compared to the CD-buying masses.
My summary is alittle different - Napster is havnig a substantial near-term loss of money for the record industry and represents a long-term threat to its monopoly, hence the response. Remember, even during the American Revolution the majority of the people wanted to reconcile with Britain. Most did not want war - it only took a very small minority to break ties with Britain. Boycotting may not be economically effective, but its political and social effects are long-reaching.
Who are the criminals here in the MP3 debate? Is it the people downloading? the lawmakers who passed silly IP laws like this? the courts for upholding such laws against public opinion and the constitution? The RIAA for engaging in unethical and monopolistic business practices?
To the industry - you brought this on yourself. You trained people too well to mindlessly consume, and now they do so without conscience. As you have so eloquently shown the general public, the only moral in this country left is the Dollar, and people have learned that lesson all too well - they now freely trade MP3s without any guilt. And I must ask, is it wrong? Motley Crue and Offspring are just a few of the many bands speaking out against you. Bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre who have sided with you and the pro-IP fight have met with icy criticism and a mass exodus of their fans.
Your grip on music in this country will be broken. We will download and trade, eat away at your margins, lay waste to your corporate image and take pleasure in doing so. We have no remorse. Afterall, we're consumers.. just like you taught us to be.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a science. Science can tell me that given this, this, and that, you get this result. If I hold a torch under a glass of water, the water will boil. Economic theory can't do that - it can plot relationships - like if unemployment goes up that GNP may go down, but it is NOT a hard science. Economic theory can do things like tell you how to build a portfolio to eliminate risk (historical footnote: the two guys who came up with the theories surrounding risk in the stock market were one of the first to make an attempt at quantifying real, tangible, things. Until about the mid 70's economic theory had formulas consisting of things like "consumer happiness" in them). You can call it a science, even make it sound like science, but science has definable traits which economic theory lacks.. one of those would be the ability to reach a firm conclusion from the data. That's kindof the problem with economics - it is a living model. You cannot have a control group where you drop a hundred consumers into Economy A and another hundred into Economy B and see what happens. As such, it fails the first litmus test of being a science.
And the most basic discover of economics is that when things become scarce their price rises. And yet, the price of resources has been dropping.
Funny you should mention that. I just got back from the gas station - prices are up to $1.70 over here, from $1.19 this past fall. But, not being one to trust only my experiences, decided to consult my macroeconomics book (ISBN 0-07-046814-1, Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies). The consumer price index (CPI) in 1929 was 17, and in 1970 was at 38.8. About those falling prices...
Do you realize that over most of the last century, the US has had continuous growth in the amount of land dedicated to forests?
Yes, but did you know that most forests aren't in the US?
Don't say things which are obviously wrong, or not obviously right, or provably wrong with a little bit of research and I won't slam you. Sheesh!
I did my research. Can you apologize?
Perhaps we should start over with the basics. Given that...
Conclusion: People who are uninformed and/or stupid will be exploited by people who understand the system and are motivated to maximize profits. What does this mean? For the uninformed public, it means they have the "freedom to be exploited".
You mean like the one that comes with Linux Mandrake 7 and resides in /dev/sda2 on my system? :^)
Anyone who looks at it anywhere near objectively will notice that anyone who has used Windows can deal with it -
Sure.. but try telling them how to configure their networking or get a dialup connection. It's a snazzy interface, but the app support comes up way short. Besides.. I haven't heard of any usability studies - only people who like the software and the bottom of the bag for linux users usually weighs in around "Super Power User" in the computer industry. Not that I disagree.. but we could use some objective analysis here.
even StarOffice adds itself to the KDE menus so even the most stupid user can find it.
Well, yeah, but underneath KDE is still the "what the f-ck is that?" filesystem we endearingly call ext2. Try explaining to a user some time why saving a file to /tmp is a Bad Idea. Or where their home directory is ("Why can't I save it to C:\.. er.. / ? It worked fine under windows!"). An interface is not the mere sum of its components...
I doubt a stupid user could tell the difference between a Windows system and a KDE 2 system that has been configured to look like Windows.
Sigh. I can safely say that if the icon colors are a shade of red off, they'll be calling about it... believe me.. they'll be able to tell. *whimpering at the prospect of more phone calls*
You are correct. However there is a strong correlation between the two. Why are we tearing buildings down every 10 years, putting up new ones, using them for a couple years, then tearing them down and starting over again? That is a terrible waste of resources. Neither extreme is correct, but I believe that the statement that we are losing resources faster than we are gaining them is for the most part true. We will run out of oil eventually. If we continue to deforest at the rate we are we will put the CO2 balance out of kilter in the atmosphere. These are demonstratable, proven things.
It must be tiring to work so hard at being so wrong.
A pity you can't debate with someone without resorting to personal slams. Even worse, atleast I have an excuse - I'm 20, wet behind the ears, and with only alittle real-world experience. You, on the other hand, should have learned by now not to dismiss people out of hand. Besides, I'd like to remind you that even the greatest baseball player of all time (Babe Ruth) couldn't hit the ball even half the time. We all say stupid things, and we all have silly notions of how the world really works. Rather than rail on someone for it, I decided it was more productive to try to educate people and let them arrive at their own conclusions - hell, they might even arrive at the same one you did.
Capitalism's worst flaw is that it externalizes its problems. The environment is an all but too well-known example of this. Why properly dispose of waste products when you can dump them in international waters? Even if you are caught the fines amount to less than the proper disposal would have cost! This is happening even in the US' version of capitalism!
As a consumer and an environmentalist, you have to power to reward those companies.
Oh, so I should be happy with a volvo when my neighbor can use the cost offset of not buying enviro-friendly products to go buy a porsche? Great solution there! You might convince me of that, but not the 300 million other people who live on this slab of earth we call the United States.
Capitalism and environmentalism can have healthy happy marriage if capitalism places a higher value on the natural environment being healthy and free of pollutants.
I think you mean the consumer. And no, because people follow the path of least resistance. The problem is not convincing the individual - with enough education that is possible. It is convincing society at large, people who are more than willing to ignore truths to have material and personal gain. It's a big, anonymous system out there - who's gonna complain if I buy styrofoam cups instead of wax ones? Nobody. Zero social incentive. Plenty of monentary incentive though.
First though, we need to believe that the systems works (i.e. not spout FUD).
I'm sorry, but as an engineer any system that doesn't work on its own merits is not worth consideration. I'm not about to start believing in supernatural beings and praying for my next chip design. I treat ideas the same as I would anything else: by looking at the empirical evidence. Right now, there are very strong indications that the environmentalists are losing the war against capitalism. I rather doubt this book will change the balance much. To use your own dialect: the free market has spoken.
In 1998, how much of the free market believed that Linux would never be able to compete with MS?
The free market doesn't think. The people who are in it do (well, this may be an overstatement, but bear with me). And the vast majority of those people used Microsoft products. The vast majority still do. So if free market = consumers, then their position still hasn't changed. "Linux, what's that? Nah, won't catch me using it."
I reaffirm my position that capitalism and environmentalism are at odds with each other fundamentally. You can't reconcile them and still claim to be a member of both.
Rather humorous quote, that. As RMS put it, it's "free as in freedom, not free as in beer". I find it hard to imagine my GPL-licensed programs could exploit me, but I think you'd be laughed at to your face if you claimed nobody exploits anyone under capitalism.
Polish proverb - under capitalism, man exploits man, under communism, the opposite is true. ;) Not terribly relevant to the issue at hand, but a cute quote nonetheless.. if only because it's true.
More to the point: capitalism makes the assumption that people are intelligent and rational. Having worked tech support for three years, I can say with authority that they are not.
You know, and that's just it: we have all these tools to be more and more productive.. but where's all that spare time I ought to be afforded for using all these productivity enhancers? I was working 8 hour days 2 years ago.. I'm still working 8 hour days now.. and the computers are twice as powerful as they were then. Back during the 60's people predicted we would only be working 20 hours a week right now and be able to support a family of four. Gee, I worked IT - 60 hours a week, NO spare time, and wasn't getting paid nearly what I was worth. Yup, gotta love those "productivity enhancers". Well, I'm off to Best Buy... my computer is running too slow, I need a faster one to get more free time..
Maybe if he didn't have to spend all his time trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio up he wouldn't need such drastic measures? Try posting something useful, and maybe taco won't need to "bitchslap" people summarily.
"Imagine for a moment a world where cities have become peaceful and serene because cars and buses are whisper quiet, vehicles exhaust only water vapor, and parks and greenways have replaced unneeded urban freeways."
Imagine getting that past congress. Or the multi-national oil conglomerates.
Yes, it's official: The average user doesn't know how to use linux. This is your single, biggest challenge. People do not like change. They have used Windows "for X goddamn years, and goddamnit, I'm not going to switch!" I worked tech support for three years. I dealt with thousands upon thousands of callers. I can safely say that less than 1% of them are currently capable of doing anything much beyond logging in. Most would even protest that.
Yes, linux has many alternatives to MS products available but, like most linux offerings, comes up short on UI. Oh, and for those who are already hammering in their replies - I'd like to remind you I've used linux for the past four years, as well as NT, W2K, Windows 98, hell, I've been on computers since the DOS 3.3. So yes, I do know what I'm talking about here. Your average desktop user has the IQ of a lobotomized flatworm.
If you want corporate acceptance of linux, I have two pieces of advice for you: Don't force it, and don't evangelize it. There are alot of reasons for this, but the simplest one is that if you can't show your boss how to use it, you're not going to get it deployed. The other reason is that despite what people say about this industry moving at warp speed, corporations move about as fast as dark molasses in the dead of a minnesota winter. Most corporations don't upgrade until they have to - they have no time for training, IT is usually busy resetting passwords and deleting that #$@! office assistant from the desktop.
You want linux in the workplace? Code it. Use it. Debug it. Repeat. Linux will not get in the door by simply mentioning it... it must win by proving itself superior. We have no marketing department, our sales department is an FTP server in North Carolina and our programming department spans seven continents. Am I getting through?
I'd like to remind you of another uninnovator: AOL. What happens when people who use AOL get clued? They leave. Unless the government has some overpowering control over the marketplace, I rather doubt this will stifle innovation.
Is this any worse than playing with your siblings? >:)
The reason this fact is obscure is because you'll only be able to find it at -1 in a few minutes...
I think he was making a tongue-in-cheek joke about how C++ combines the inherent evil of assembly with the bloat of high-level languages in the least optimal fashion.
Click on my homepage, go from there. You think I'm gonna give you all the answers?
Yes. Do alittle digging in public records.. you'll find out the where and what. Unless, of course, you prefer to sit in that comfy chair of yours and criticize me without suggesting any alternatives...
Just some advice from someone who's been there, and done that (didn't get the t-shirt though).
E-commerce companies are lazy. Keep this in mind when trying to form any "trust network". In addition, you'll need to show a clear profit-making incentive for companies to participate - it makes no sense (business-wise) to work with another unless you make a profit. I don't believe such a trust network is viable anyway without a central authority - if any member of the network acts in a dubious fashion it will be publicized, and companies will be less interested in joining due to bad PR. In addition, without a central authority you have no ability to remove bad elements from the pool. Just my $0.02.
Contrast that to the vast number of albums sold. Looking considerably less significant, isn't it?
Uhh.. your assertion might work if everyone who bought a CD put up a webpage. Sadly, that isn't true.
Looks like a typical fluff piece written by a third-party journalist. What of it?
Did you read the article? There were parts from quotes on people who work for the record industry. Regardless of WHO wrote it, the quotes speak for themselves. Even Jon Katz makes a point every now and then.
Your first link states that CD sales are declining near universities. By 7 percent.
I don't know about you, but if I was a business, a 7% loss would be a big deal - when the stock market plunged last week it didn't go 7% and people were panicing and talking about how the bubble had burst. Especially considering 7% of 1.4 billion dollars is about 9.8 million dollars of lost sales...
Your third link, to the "pay Lars" site, lists a grand total of $399.00 raised at the time of my viewing (during the writing of this message).
I deduce that you have recently had your humorous surgically removed...
Summary: Your figures serve only to underscore how few boycotters there are, compared to the CD-buying masses.
My summary is alittle different - Napster is havnig a substantial near-term loss of money for the record industry and represents a long-term threat to its monopoly, hence the response. Remember, even during the American Revolution the majority of the people wanted to reconcile with Britain. Most did not want war - it only took a very small minority to break ties with Britain. Boycotting may not be economically effective, but its political and social effects are long-reaching.
Your turn.
Confirmed working - Asus K7M, rev 1.2, with K7-700 @ 100. AGP card: Guillemot GeForce 256.
Now, about those figures... look here, here and since some fans even feel they are directly harming metallica, they've setup a site to pay lars back.
I eagerly await your response.
Did you even read my post, AC?
To the industry - you brought this on yourself. You trained people too well to mindlessly consume, and now they do so without conscience. As you have so eloquently shown the general public, the only moral in this country left is the Dollar, and people have learned that lesson all too well - they now freely trade MP3s without any guilt. And I must ask, is it wrong? Motley Crue and Offspring are just a few of the many bands speaking out against you. Bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre who have sided with you and the pro-IP fight have met with icy criticism and a mass exodus of their fans.
Your grip on music in this country will be broken. We will download and trade, eat away at your margins, lay waste to your corporate image and take pleasure in doing so. We have no remorse. Afterall, we're consumers.. just like you taught us to be.