Being from Australia, cd prices can and frequently do cost $18 - $20 US Sanity cheapest price $14.99AU = $13.13US, most expensive, $26.72AU = $23.41US for single cd albums, the 2 cd albums are about $21.88AU = $19.72US. It must be very expensive shipping the product to Australia (I believe they "press" the disks in Asia, closer to Australia than the US). As an aside, the price increase for the extra disk seems excessive to me regardless of your valid points on Bill Of Materials / end cost relationships. On a good note, prices have come down recently, and I believe are still going downward - is this as a result of the pressure from downloads? If it is, then this would give some vindication for "not paying till the price is reasonable" argument - I'm curious when the price will be right. My belief on this "illegal downloading" issue is it is easier to download via a torrent than locate the item and purchase it (especially in Australia), when people pay for something, it should be easier, not harder, the major labels must address this - by raising their performance. I do agree with you though, you do not need a reason to put a parrot on your shoulder and start saying things like "Arrh me laddies". I also agree with your assessment of the standard of "popular music", it has been of a consistent standard for a long time - I often wonder as to the reason (surely it can't be purely marketing/peer pressure, there must be other reasons - one possibility is it is me with the shocking taste in music).
I suspect the idea is to make it easier in court cases to trust the computer forensics evidence and to stop trusted employees "accidentally altering" evidence. It should also give people some sort of protection from the backyard boys.
The only problem I see with it is it has to be administered by bureaucrats - bureaucracy tends to be like an alimentary canal - no matter what you put in, you end up with shit.
It seems that just because it is Microsoft you're whining about people objecting to losing functionality , I hope people object regardless of whether it is Microsoft or Apple or Linux if functionality is removed without consent or choice (I do appreciate it is not as easy to have that happen with the open source model, one of it's strengths - and yes, it does have weaknesses too).
It could be a very effective method to scare people afraid of dying, what terrorist would want to start a gun fight 30,000 feet in the air when it would mean they will die? Terrorists would not think to get several people on the same flight, all carrying large calibre weapons - I mean, when was the last time you heard of several hijackers on the same plane? Even then, I've seen the movies, I bet I could kill them before they had a chance to shoot, these terrorists have got slow reflexes and are dumb. if someone looks nervous, just blow him (the terrorist wouldn't be female) away, that way they won't have time to do any damage, if anyone reaches for their gun, shoot first, ask question later - that way the terrorists will know the U.S. means business. There should also be a law that allows a peace loving man to shoot a "muzlem" on suspicion, they're easy to spot, if they did that to the "muzlems" on those flights on 9/11, we wouldn't have this problem, they all had those big beards and had those towels on their heads. That brings me to another point, terrorists all have beards, if the Government had any balls they'd make it legal to shoot a bearded person on suspicion, bet that would teach them a lesson, no-one's gonna mess with the United States then. bunch of pussies these politicians, got no idea at all. Sarcasm aside, bear in mind that the hijackings were done using box cutters, it was fear and surprise that assisted the terrorists, if they tried the same thing again, it would not work as people would overcome them. If they could carry "serious" weapons on board, they are already resigned to death, you are not, it would not be one person, it would not be a group sitting together, they would be very happy to have several people shooting, you might worry about the type of ammunition you would use - in case of damaging the plane, I would expect the terrorist would be equally worried to pick ammunition for maximum damage. regardless of whether the plane can withstand the damage, having 10 -20 people shooting in a confined space would please the terrorists. That said, it is giving me immense enjoyment trying to guess what will be banned next over there, we should have a competition, guess the next dangerous weapon of mass destruction outlawed on a plane and win a "home-defence system". You have my profound sympathies, I know there's a saying you deserve the government you voted for, but NO-ONE deserves what you people are putting up with these last few years. Let's hope for a better time in 2008 for you guys.
You seem to struggle with the English language, I suggested that your gung-ho attitude might be better served on topic, since you want to beat your chest....
For you to be so scared that you need to keep a gun next to you to feel safe in bed is a sad thought, I hope your country is not that bad.
To believe that sending a girl out with a gun in her purse would somehow make her safe from "rapist/s" is also a very distressing thought, there is a very real possibility that the "rapist/s" could take her purse. I have not know that much fear where I would need a gun to feel safe and in control of my life - I have been to the U.S. a couple of times, once in North Carolina and once in Los Angeles, a few weeks at a time for work. I found the people friendly and helpful and had a great time there but that was a short stay, if your country is that dangerous I would recommend Australia as a great place to bring up a family (I think it is the best place in the world) and you will not need a gun to feel safe.
Please can we get back on topic? It's times like these I'm glad I don't live in the United States, geez H Christ, daughters with hidden guns should really fix file corruption problems (along with acne). Wonderful country.
Wow, thanks, the guy at the shop was going to sell me a "home offence gun". Got to ask for the safe "home defence" model, should nicely complement my "outdoor attack gun".
You obviously don't read very well, I pointed out that ALTHOUGH HIGH SCHOOL MIGHT BE STATE RESPONSIBILITY, HIGHER EDUCATION IS FEDERAL. Every report has shown that spending is down on this as well as other areas, you want to go around turning a blind eye to things, looking at your obviously precious Liberal party through your rose coloured glasses. Spending has not increased in comparison to the rest of the developed countries, this is another story, there are plenty but you obviously are only interested in seeing things that agree with you. Health is the same, just google it and read a bit, it might be enlightening for you. Oh government debt was around for a lot longer than Labor was in power, we had debt in the sixties, it actually started taking off in Fraser's era (Howard was Treasurer). I still maintain both are only interested in one thing - their own little club. You think Howard was great, good luck to you, our infrastructure is falling apart, there is no plan for the future of our country (apart for THE FUTURE FUND!! YIPPEEE), water resource management (gets a good run every election - remember last election when they were going to fix the Murray?), rail always gets a mention as well, all forgotten within a few months. These things are obviously not important to you because like your reading, your vision is selfish and self serving, blind to anything else.
By the way, why don't you check your facts before making rash statements about the National debt? We owe more than when Labor was in power The Age, Howard has shifted the debt to the public (by not providing what was previously provided) and people as ignorant as you believe they have fixed the debt problem, so long as we keep running a balance of trade deficit, we are heading for troubled times. Neither party has an answer for this.
Easy to get rid of the debt when you sell all your assets, also easy to manage the economy when your main concern is politicians super. How about creating a scheme and calling it a "Future Fund"? WTF is a "Future Fund"? Thirty billion put aside to cover for our FANTASTIC POLITICIANS UNFUNDED SUPER!!! Don't pay for hospitals, don't pay for schools - I know it is supposed to be the job of the state government to pay for public schools but not for Universities and higher education institutions. I gather a Howard brown nose like you would have read the latest assessment on the funding of our education institutions - from overseas assessments AND government assessment (ABS and treasury, which Howard suppressed) - no, I do not think this bunch are going to be any different, they will put their interests first.
I believe we don't have much to choose from in Australia and am very much inclined to tell people to vote for whoever is not in power - just to keep the manure turning. Don't give the bastards too much chance to feather their own nests, they certainly don't have any long term plans, apart from getting them selves on as many boards as they can when they leave politics.
You can argue about how great the liberals are if you want but to spot the difference between the two is a mighty achievement (just consider the fact that the liberals introduced the same stuff (ID card - and you should pay attention, the ID card legislation was open-ended, if Labor wanted to "sneak in" what ever they wanted, they could have - I am positive the Liberals would have as I am that once this government get cosy, they'll want to.
A pox on both their houses.
Let's hope Gunns set up a pulp mill near you so you can show everyone how they have nothing to worry about - just kidding, I hope I will be shown to be wrong about this bunch, I certainly felt like a right moron for voting the last one in.
It appears to me that you might be assisting in devaluing ISO standards by your statements. Please judge each action by it's own merit (even Microsoft actions which appear very unsavory in this episode by btw)
If it is all about cost and efficiency, how much do governments give in tax concessions to oil, gas and nuclear companies (note, this is on top of R& D concessions)? How much do they give to "alternative" technologies? A 1999 article, recent article more emphasis on the future requirements would be good, encourage getting answers to nuclear waste, a big injection of resources toward the "alternative" sector so that we can get results quicker.
I suspect (hope) that everyone would be happier to use clean renewable energy if the option was viable. Strong government involvement, encourage research in these areas (as much as the encouragement given to oil companies to dig up National parks and protected wilderness areas) would speed up finding some important answers. If the answer is that we can dispose nuclear waste safely and it will solve our energy needs for this century, great. If we increase the efficiency of renewable energy supplies, even better - at least we will not have to re-visit this problem again.
I like the answer to "The universe must have started from somewhere it must have a beginning so God must have created it" to which I ask " So if God created the universe, who created God?" The answer? "God lives outside time and space so the rules do not apply to God, God is infinite and cannot be created" He actually referred to "God" as "him" ergo giving God sexuality, makes you wonder what he gets up to all alone, lots of cold showers I guess. These answers are easily obtained by praying to all knowing Google, hallowed be thy name.
Slashdot Mirror
Is he guilty? - U.S. law: Guilty until proven rich. How much money does he have?
Where do I get a whitebox notebook?
Even if they're politicians?
Being from Australia, cd prices can and frequently do cost $18 - $20 US Sanity cheapest price $14.99AU = $13.13US, most expensive, $26.72AU = $23.41US for single cd albums, the 2 cd albums are about $21.88AU = $19.72US.
It must be very expensive shipping the product to Australia (I believe they "press" the disks in Asia, closer to Australia than the US). As an aside, the price increase for the extra disk seems excessive to me regardless of your valid points on Bill Of Materials / end cost relationships.
On a good note, prices have come down recently, and I believe are still going downward - is this as a result of the pressure from downloads? If it is, then this would give some vindication for "not paying till the price is reasonable" argument - I'm curious when the price will be right. My belief on this "illegal downloading" issue is it is easier to download via a torrent than locate the item and purchase it (especially in Australia), when people pay for something, it should be easier, not harder, the major labels must address this - by raising their performance.
I do agree with you though, you do not need a reason to put a parrot on your shoulder and start saying things like "Arrh me laddies".
I also agree with your assessment of the standard of "popular music", it has been of a consistent standard for a long time - I often wonder as to the reason (surely it can't be purely marketing/peer pressure, there must be other reasons - one possibility is it is me with the shocking taste in music).
I suspect the idea is to make it easier in court cases to trust the computer forensics evidence and to stop trusted employees "accidentally altering" evidence. It should also give people some sort of protection from the backyard boys.
The only problem I see with it is it has to be administered by bureaucrats - bureaucracy tends to be like an alimentary canal - no matter what you put in, you end up with shit.
It seems that just because it is Microsoft you're whining about people objecting to losing functionality , I hope people object regardless of whether it is Microsoft or Apple or Linux if functionality is removed without consent or choice (I do appreciate it is not as easy to have that happen with the open source model, one of it's strengths - and yes, it does have weaknesses too).
I think it's the underside of their foot, and judging by the look of it, they've stepped in something rather unpleasant....
I used to use both hands too.... until my left hand caught me in a compromising position with my right hand.
It could be a very effective method to scare people afraid of dying, what terrorist would want to start a gun fight 30,000 feet in the air when it would mean they will die? Terrorists would not think to get several people on the same flight, all carrying large calibre weapons - I mean, when was the last time you heard of several hijackers on the same plane? Even then, I've seen the movies, I bet I could kill them before they had a chance to shoot, these terrorists have got slow reflexes and are dumb.
if someone looks nervous, just blow him (the terrorist wouldn't be female) away, that way they won't have time to do any damage, if anyone reaches for their gun, shoot first, ask question later - that way the terrorists will know the U.S. means business.
There should also be a law that allows a peace loving man to shoot a "muzlem" on suspicion, they're easy to spot, if they did that to the "muzlems" on those flights on 9/11, we wouldn't have this problem, they all had those big beards and had those towels on their heads.
That brings me to another point, terrorists all have beards, if the Government had any balls they'd make it legal to shoot a bearded person on suspicion, bet that would teach them a lesson, no-one's gonna mess with the United States then. bunch of pussies these politicians, got no idea at all.
Sarcasm aside, bear in mind that the hijackings were done using box cutters, it was fear and surprise that assisted the terrorists, if they tried the same thing again, it would not work as people would overcome them. If they could carry "serious" weapons on board, they are already resigned to death, you are not, it would not be one person, it would not be a group sitting together, they would be very happy to have several people shooting, you might worry about the type of ammunition you would use - in case of damaging the plane, I would expect the terrorist would be equally worried to pick ammunition for maximum damage. regardless of whether the plane can withstand the damage, having 10 -20 people shooting in a confined space would please the terrorists.
That said, it is giving me immense enjoyment trying to guess what will be banned next over there, we should have a competition, guess the next dangerous weapon of mass destruction outlawed on a plane and win a "home-defence system". You have my profound sympathies, I know there's a saying you deserve the government you voted for, but NO-ONE deserves what you people are putting up with these last few years. Let's hope for a better time in 2008 for you guys.
not necessarily...
You seem to struggle with the English language, I suggested that your gung-ho attitude might be better served on topic, since you want to beat your chest....
For you to be so scared that you need to keep a gun next to you to feel safe in bed is a sad thought, I hope your country is not that bad.
To believe that sending a girl out with a gun in her purse would somehow make her safe from "rapist/s" is also a very distressing thought, there is a very real possibility that the "rapist/s" could take her purse.
I have not know that much fear where I would need a gun to feel safe and in control of my life - I have been to the U.S. a couple of times, once in North Carolina and once in Los Angeles, a few weeks at a time for work. I found the people friendly and helpful and had a great time there but that was a short stay, if your country is that dangerous I would recommend Australia as a great place to bring up a family (I think it is the best place in the world) and you will not need a gun to feel safe.
Please can we get back on topic? It's times like these I'm glad I don't live in the United States, geez H Christ, daughters with hidden guns should really fix file corruption problems (along with acne). Wonderful country.
Wow, thanks, the guy at the shop was going to sell me a "home offence gun". Got to ask for the safe "home defence" model, should nicely complement my "outdoor attack gun".
You obviously don't read very well, I pointed out that ALTHOUGH HIGH SCHOOL MIGHT BE STATE RESPONSIBILITY, HIGHER EDUCATION IS FEDERAL. Every report has shown that spending is down on this as well as other areas, you want to go around turning a blind eye to things, looking at your obviously precious Liberal party through your rose coloured glasses. Spending has not increased in comparison to the rest of the developed countries, this is another story, there are plenty but you obviously are only interested in seeing things that agree with you. Health is the same, just google it and read a bit, it might be enlightening for you. Oh government debt was around for a lot longer than Labor was in power, we had debt in the sixties, it actually started taking off in Fraser's era (Howard was Treasurer). I still maintain both are only interested in one thing - their own little club. You think Howard was great, good luck to you, our infrastructure is falling apart, there is no plan for the future of our country (apart for THE FUTURE FUND!! YIPPEEE), water resource management (gets a good run every election - remember last election when they were going to fix the Murray?), rail always gets a mention as well, all forgotten within a few months. These things are obviously not important to you because like your reading, your vision is selfish and self serving, blind to anything else.
By the way, why don't you check your facts before making rash statements about the National debt? We owe more than when Labor was in power The Age, Howard has shifted the debt to the public (by not providing what was previously provided) and people as ignorant as you believe they have fixed the debt problem, so long as we keep running a balance of trade deficit, we are heading for troubled times. Neither party has an answer for this.
Easy to get rid of the debt when you sell all your assets, also easy to manage the economy when your main concern is politicians super. How about creating a scheme and calling it a "Future Fund"? WTF is a "Future Fund"? Thirty billion put aside to cover for our FANTASTIC POLITICIANS UNFUNDED SUPER!!! Don't pay for hospitals, don't pay for schools - I know it is supposed to be the job of the state government to pay for public schools but not for Universities and higher education institutions. I gather a Howard brown nose like you would have read the latest assessment on the funding of our education institutions - from overseas assessments AND government assessment (ABS and treasury, which Howard suppressed) - no, I do not think this bunch are going to be any different, they will put their interests first.
I believe we don't have much to choose from in Australia and am very much inclined to tell people to vote for whoever is not in power - just to keep the manure turning. Don't give the bastards too much chance to feather their own nests, they certainly don't have any long term plans, apart from getting them selves on as many boards as they can when they leave politics.
You can argue about how great the liberals are if you want but to spot the difference between the two is a mighty achievement (just consider the fact that the liberals introduced the same stuff (ID card - and you should pay attention, the ID card legislation was open-ended, if Labor wanted to "sneak in" what ever they wanted, they could have - I am positive the Liberals would have as I am that once this government get cosy, they'll want to.
A pox on both their houses.
Let's hope Gunns set up a pulp mill near you so you can show everyone how they have nothing to worry about - just kidding, I hope I will be shown to be wrong about this bunch, I certainly felt like a right moron for voting the last one in.
Meet the new boss, same as the old one.
Floating eyeball? They are in direct violation of my IP by using a likeness of my "third eye" (patent pending), are there any lawyers....
News Flash! Man trampled by ten thousand over excited lawyers. The lawyers were finally subdued whilst fighting over the man's bones (and wallet).
It appears to me that you might be assisting in devaluing ISO standards by your statements. Please judge each action by it's own merit (even Microsoft actions which appear very unsavory in this episode by btw)
Not much difference in performance between the two...
Whatever you put in results in the same thing coming out of both. (a pitiful attempt at humour)
If it is all about cost and efficiency, how much do governments give in tax concessions to oil, gas and nuclear companies (note, this is on top of R& D concessions)? How much do they give to "alternative" technologies? A 1999 article, recent article more emphasis on the future requirements would be good, encourage getting answers to nuclear waste, a big injection of resources toward the "alternative" sector so that we can get results quicker.
I suspect (hope) that everyone would be happier to use clean renewable energy if the option was viable. Strong government involvement, encourage research in these areas (as much as the encouragement given to oil companies to dig up National parks and protected wilderness areas) would speed up finding some important answers. If the answer is that we can dispose nuclear waste safely and it will solve our energy needs for this century, great. If we increase the efficiency of renewable energy supplies, even better - at least we will not have to re-visit this problem again.
I like the answer to
"The universe must have started from somewhere it must have a beginning so God must have created it"
to which I ask " So if God created the universe, who created God?"
The answer?
"God lives outside time and space so the rules do not apply to God, God is infinite and cannot be created"
He actually referred to "God" as "him" ergo giving God sexuality, makes you wonder what he gets up to all alone, lots of cold showers I guess.
These answers are easily obtained by praying to all knowing Google, hallowed be thy name.
You seem to have identified it a bit too easily...... I think there's a commandment about coveting other people's asses.
I keep telling you it's the gourd, not the sandal.
That's because it's written in Perl
Could this method be used to "wean them" off drugs? Controlled dosage and all that....
If it costs huge amounts of money to get justice, it it doesn't work it is decidedly unjust.
Then again, "legal system" and "justice" is an oxymoron