Case in point, my brother bought a CD, it wouldn't play in his car CD player. He pop'd it on his linux box and was able to make a copy despite the copy protection. Heres the irony. If the CD wasn't copy protected, we would have had no reason to make a copy of it... fortunately the protection was useless and easily circumvented for fair use.
Yes, redundant indeed! I mean, who would bother to make a self-cooling can when you can just put the drinks in the fridge!! Of what possible use could this can be? Only way I can see it being useful is when there are no fridges around... but then again I guess thats the whole point, huh?
Its hard to respond to such statements filled with rage and cursing.. I wish no harm to rich people or anyone with a differing opinion.
I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. It would be fine for very few people to control a great ammount of wealth if they could be trusted to use it properly. Yes many people do contribute to charity and help... and yes it is their money to do with as they please; however, by the undeniable fact that few people have most of the wealth while the majority have none (thinking globaly here) shows that those rich people would rather keep most of it for themselvs, if they could be trusted, then the poverty rate would be greatly reduced. The simple fact is that no single person has any use for $100 million... the tricky part is deciding where the cut off is, what is too much, what is too little... I'm not qualified to answer that, you aren't, probably no one is. Why do these people insist on keeping so much money that they will never use?..I reserve judgment on a person by person basis, but it does seem to point to greed..
I do respect the philosophy of an economic 'survival of the fittest' if you will.. I'm not saying that someone who does nothing or very little should be given millions of dollars, but I think no sentient being should be left to sleep on a dirt floor and drink dirty water and eat moldy bread while the rich have more than they know what to do with. If someone works hard, they deserve to have more money that those who do not, but even the very laziest and lowly do not deserve starvation. With current technology, the only way to ensure this would be to put an upper cap on how much wealth any one person is allowed to have (but again who desides...). This is my personal philosphy and most likely not yours.
In actuallity, I'd like to see our civilization grow beyond the need for money... The funny thing is, you might say that would not work because there are people in the world that would abuse it, those who would take more than their share and do less work. Well let me put this out there... perhapse those are the same people who hoard so much money as it is, taking more than what (I consider to be) their fair share...
I don't wish to engage in class warfare, I wish to get rid of classes altogether... the other side (making the generalization that all liberal arguments are class based, insinuating that conservative ones are not is not logical. Both sides do it, and it is not the basis for the entire viewpoint of either side) of it wants to make an even large gap in the classes because "its their right to make as much money as possible" well if that isn't greed, I don't know what is...
Oh, and imo, the reason why no large goverment can spend money wisely is because "big business" has its hands in too many pockets.. this leads to unwise spending, which fuels arguments like yours that the gov't can't be trusted... so it is argued that we need to rely on the private sector, corporations become more powerful and interferes in governemtn even more. sort of goes in a spiral from there. It is entirely possible for a large governemt to wisely take care of the nation when those in control trully have their hearts in the right place, and not in their own personal greed. Almost all polititions, republican, democratic, and other have this problem.
Its funny, it seems to me that too many politicians wish to get elected just to get elected, once they're there all they work on is winning the next election.. why? greed.. they want it, they don't want the other guy to have it. They don't want to be in office to help the country, they simply want the recognition without the responsability. (again, this isn't true of everyone.. but I would not be surprised at all if it was the motivating force behind some of our current leaders). They know that all it takes to get re-elected is enough money, they can make the public think whatever they want regardless of whether or not their policies are good are bad for the nation as a whole
Increase taxes, Increase spending, make a better world for all mankind...oh, but I guess that richest 1%, already making several hundred million a year would be too devistated to have a few more million in taxes taken out of their humble stipend.
Umm... the current administration is geared towards bringing government down to record low levels (military excluded). They're using a 'starve the beast' tactict where, by making taxes sound bad, the public want less taxes. Unfortunately what happens is the taxes get reduced on the rich and what burden is left is shifted towards the poor. As revenue goes down, so must government programs, eventually reducing the size of the government.
Paul Krugman talks about it quite well:
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue= day&todayDate=09/10/2003
Could always see if the timing works out for Enterprise to come across the nexus.. he could go in and meet kirk and picard ^_^..but not bring them out so they can go on to finish Generations...
I am not sure which is worse... the people who read this post and think Mr. Wolfe, not Google registered on September 11th (like it matters...) or the mods who mark an alarming number of such posts up while the posts clarifying the situation are getting marked down.
Too bad indeed, good things our friends the Cook Islands have their commercial top level domain as.co.ck
At $150 for a two year registration for non Cook Island residents, its a little steep, but worth it for such a lovely domain as www.clearchannelsucks.co.ck...or in my case, www.radioshacksucks.co.ck...god I wish I could afford that.
This will probably get modded off topic or some such, but its important. Currently www.radioshacksucks.com is down from a temporary injuction filed in Texas by RadioShack Corporation. Another threat to first amendmant rights. I urge all of you who support RadioAid to take notice of our cause as well. Please read http://socaltom.blogspot.com/ and join our group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radioshacksucks/ to learn more. I also urge any sympathetic ear to submit a news story to Slashdot, several atempts made by myself and others have been rejected. I also encourage anyone from RadioAid to contact the person who runs the above mentioned Blog, maybe you can work together as these two situations could have impacts on the other. There is strength in numbers.
If they want to damage Sony's market share, they should make the console as good as possible and release it at the same time as the PS3... releasing it a couple years before hand just means people will have that much time to save up for their next system, the PS3, not to mention the millions of kids that will have entered the 'video game playing' age bracket that weren't there for xbox2, they will be getting the PS3, not that 2 year old crappy xbox2 system.
I think you could also look at it as them shooting themselvs in the foot..
As it is, people who are willing to pay for CDs are still buying them because they know they can rip them despite the copy protection. If the RIAA sees this acceptance as a green light to go through with more stringent copy protection, this chunk of people might start to not buy the abulms they would have otherwise bought and resort to piracy, a higher level of it than if they had non copy protected CDs. The variable factor as to wether or not this would have any effect is how big that chunk of the population is. Hopefully it would have enough influence to affect some change.
Slashdot Mirror
Case in point, my brother bought a CD, it wouldn't play in his car CD player. He pop'd it on his linux box and was able to make a copy despite the copy protection. Heres the irony. If the CD wasn't copy protected, we would have had no reason to make a copy of it... fortunately the protection was useless and easily circumvented for fair use.
I'm half tempted to go putting up nonsence zip files with movie names just for the hell of it, see if I get any emails.
Handy to see if your card number is out there, search for a range in which your number is and your last name.
He was kinda on DS9... reused footage from the Trouble with Tribbles episode.
Yes, redundant indeed! I mean, who would bother to make a self-cooling can when you can just put the drinks in the fridge!! Of what possible use could this can be? Only way I can see it being useful is when there are no fridges around... but then again I guess thats the whole point, huh?
...with all those santa movies on there, I half expected to see "KISS Saves Santa" but alas.. I guess it isn't a real movie.
...just use the EZLink internet terminals from Pantheon.. if Adam west endorses it.. it must be good!!! :(
Its hard to respond to such statements filled with rage and cursing.. I wish no harm to rich people or anyone with a differing opinion.
..I reserve judgment on a person by person basis, but it does seem to point to greed..
I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. It would be fine for very few people to control a great ammount of wealth if they could be trusted to use it properly. Yes many people do contribute to charity and help... and yes it is their money to do with as they please; however, by the undeniable fact that few people have most of the wealth while the majority have none (thinking globaly here) shows that those rich people would rather keep most of it for themselvs, if they could be trusted, then the poverty rate would be greatly reduced. The simple fact is that no single person has any use for $100 million... the tricky part is deciding where the cut off is, what is too much, what is too little... I'm not qualified to answer that, you aren't, probably no one is. Why do these people insist on keeping so much money that they will never use?
I do respect the philosophy of an economic 'survival of the fittest' if you will.. I'm not saying that someone who does nothing or very little should be given millions of dollars, but I think no sentient being should be left to sleep on a dirt floor and drink dirty water and eat moldy bread while the rich have more than they know what to do with. If someone works hard, they deserve to have more money that those who do not, but even the very laziest and lowly do not deserve starvation. With current technology, the only way to ensure this would be to put an upper cap on how much wealth any one person is allowed to have (but again who desides...). This is my personal philosphy and most likely not yours.
In actuallity, I'd like to see our civilization grow beyond the need for money... The funny thing is, you might say that would not work because there are people in the world that would abuse it, those who would take more than their share and do less work. Well let me put this out there... perhapse those are the same people who hoard so much money as it is, taking more than what (I consider to be) their fair share... I don't wish to engage in class warfare, I wish to get rid of classes altogether... the other side (making the generalization that all liberal arguments are class based, insinuating that conservative ones are not is not logical. Both sides do it, and it is not the basis for the entire viewpoint of either side) of it wants to make an even large gap in the classes because "its their right to make as much money as possible" well if that isn't greed, I don't know what is... Oh, and imo, the reason why no large goverment can spend money wisely is because "big business" has its hands in too many pockets.. this leads to unwise spending, which fuels arguments like yours that the gov't can't be trusted... so it is argued that we need to rely on the private sector, corporations become more powerful and interferes in governemtn even more. sort of goes in a spiral from there. It is entirely possible for a large governemt to wisely take care of the nation when those in control trully have their hearts in the right place, and not in their own personal greed. Almost all polititions, republican, democratic, and other have this problem.
Its funny, it seems to me that too many politicians wish to get elected just to get elected, once they're there all they work on is winning the next election.. why? greed.. they want it, they don't want the other guy to have it. They don't want to be in office to help the country, they simply want the recognition without the responsability. (again, this isn't true of everyone.. but I would not be surprised at all if it was the motivating force behind some of our current leaders). They know that all it takes to get re-elected is enough money, they can make the public think whatever they want regardless of whether or not their policies are good are bad for the nation as a whole
Increase taxes, Increase spending, make a better world for all mankind. ..oh, but I guess that richest 1%, already making several hundred million a year would be too devistated to have a few more million in taxes taken out of their humble stipend.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just not by a license at all?
Umm... the current administration is geared towards bringing government down to record low levels (military excluded). They're using a 'starve the beast' tactict where, by making taxes sound bad, the public want less taxes. Unfortunately what happens is the taxes get reduced on the rich and what burden is left is shifted towards the poor. As revenue goes down, so must government programs, eventually reducing the size of the government. Paul Krugman talks about it quite well: http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue= day&todayDate=09/10/2003
I guess they figure the combination of hot chicks and little boys in the slideshow on their main page apeals to most internet users...
Could always see if the timing works out for Enterprise to come across the nexus.. he could go in and meet kirk and picard ^_^ ..but not bring them out so they can go on to finish Generations...
Maybe the person doing the webpage got the wrong photo and those pics are actually for this upcomming movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345292/
This is not "interesting", this is "not reading properly"
I am not sure which is worse... the people who read this post and think Mr. Wolfe, not Google registered on September 11th (like it matters...) or the mods who mark an alarming number of such posts up while the posts clarifying the situation are getting marked down.
Too bad indeed, good things our friends the Cook Islands have their commercial top level domain as .co.ck
At $150 for a two year registration for non Cook Island residents, its a little steep, but worth it for such a lovely domain as www.clearchannelsucks.co.ck ...or in my case, www.radioshacksucks.co.ck ...god I wish I could afford that.
This will probably get modded off topic or some such, but its important. Currently www.radioshacksucks.com is down from a temporary injuction filed in Texas by RadioShack Corporation. Another threat to first amendmant rights. I urge all of you who support RadioAid to take notice of our cause as well. Please read http://socaltom.blogspot.com/ and join our group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radioshacksucks/ to learn more. I also urge any sympathetic ear to submit a news story to Slashdot, several atempts made by myself and others have been rejected. I also encourage anyone from RadioAid to contact the person who runs the above mentioned Blog, maybe you can work together as these two situations could have impacts on the other. There is strength in numbers.
Are portable amplified speakers going to become illegal because they transfer the stolen music from electronic pulses into sound waves?
Redundnt my ass, I was the first to post that what this person had said was in itself redundant, who the hell is moderating this stuff?
Ya, the article pretty much said all that...
I wonder how many senators would have to go home and uninstall their CD burners and throw away their mp3 players and VCRs once(if) they pass this...
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't that alien head Balok from TOS? http://www.startrek.com/startrek/mediaview?id=2102 152
If they want to damage Sony's market share, they should make the console as good as possible and release it at the same time as the PS3... releasing it a couple years before hand just means people will have that much time to save up for their next system, the PS3, not to mention the millions of kids that will have entered the 'video game playing' age bracket that weren't there for xbox2, they will be getting the PS3, not that 2 year old crappy xbox2 system.
I think you could also look at it as them shooting themselvs in the foot..
As it is, people who are willing to pay for CDs are still buying them because they know they can rip them despite the copy protection. If the RIAA sees this acceptance as a green light to go through with more stringent copy protection, this chunk of people might start to not buy the abulms they would have otherwise bought and resort to piracy, a higher level of it than if they had non copy protected CDs. The variable factor as to wether or not this would have any effect is how big that chunk of the population is. Hopefully it would have enough influence to affect some change.