Yeah, yeah, ha ha. p0rn drives the bandwidth on the internet. Thank goodness for LHC computing: because it is sure to have an impact on bandwidth over and above all those bill-paying consumers downloading p0rn, movies, games and music every night. Make sure you write to your senator and congressperson extolling its virtues, that's what LHC computing people want. LHC computing: the Tang of IT, the Teflon of Particle Physics.
Sorry to unload on you, but I've had it with Slashdot.
"Large Hardon Collider" Score 5: funny.
"It'll certainly result in new technologies for dealing with this stuff becoming cheaper.": Score 4: Insightful.
"It adds nothing to IT above what was demonstrably already there": Score 1: Ignored.
Gee willikers, maybe Vint Cerf could invent another useful protocol to route commercial data on the LHC networks when the beam is down. A protocol in addition to his very useful interplanetary communication protocol and his very useful communications protocol for robots. And maybe those very bright young men and women can find a way for me to help them analyze LHC data in my screen saver while I'm going to the potty. And it's going to cure cancer too? Oh please, raise my taxes now!
Oh, and goodbye! You fellas take care now. Don't eat too much bulls**t, it could give you bad breath.
It means absolutely nothing for the wider IT industry. LHC Computing is engineered to distribute very large volumes of data (in the Petabytes/year range) around the world to scientists in an open and agreed upon format. It is paid for out of the science budgets of participating governments.
The complementary challenges in the IT industry revolve around how to fairly distribute commercially available bandwidth and how to secure data and maintain privacy.
In terms of open structure and intended use, LHC computing resembles the friendly collegial atmosphere of the early ARPANET, which is widely credited creating many of the bandwith and security problems IT is currently struggling with today.
Company data practices share some of the blame. But why are they gathering and retaining the data to begin with? Like a clean desk policy at a bank, companies should be required to purge credit card details, most contact info, Driver's license numbers, SSNs, etc after a transaction is concluded.
As soon as you decide to retain data, it will be broken into someday, and there ain't no Great Wall of China that's going to keep 'em out. Charging IT professionals criminally in this scenario is like charging overworked housecleaning staff with entropy violations.
I wonder if communications sources and sinks are traveling relative to one another at relativistic speeds, would the protocol have to include information about velocity relative to a chosen standard inertial frame? Otherwise you could possibly get weird effects, like sending a Kerberos ticket from a moving spaceship and it would be observed to expire at different times in different frames. Or maybe the communications infrastructure could include a measurement of the redshift of interplanetary communications signals and use that to infer relative velocities and include that with locally generated timestamps - you could call it the Hubble router.
One should make a distinction between software intended for general use outside of a corporate setting and software intended for use in corporate backrooms. Agile development only works when the users are invested in the software. So you're 100% right about the former case: general users aren't usually invested enough in a piece of software to stick around and help out the developers by providing usability comments and such. People get paid to do that in corporate dev shops - why does anyone think general users will do that for free?
On the other hand, user involvement and management involvement are critical to internal corporate software development. User involvement is needed to properly understand the business cases and provide usability feedback, and management involvement is needed to make overall feature decisions with an eye on keeping down costs and enhancing efficiency. Agile development helps deliver software that addresses business issues at a low cost.
As a professional developer, the main risk is that internal users will come up with a feature request only to have it watered down or rejected by management in order to keep development costs down. Then the users are unhappy with me, I'm unhappy with the managers, and I end up providing a "most-of-the-way-there" product that satisfies no one fully, but keeps savings flowing into senior management wallets. (Management can force the users to use the software, at least until someone board member's brother-in-law sells us an alternate solution.)
But I tend to favor the Agile Development process in that case too because about the only leverage I have is the fact that I've involved the users and managers at every step, documented the software as well as the decisions, and a have trail of accepted release candidates.
Done correctly, conservative comments on liberal blogs like Kos could draw firey responses which could then be held up as examples of the mainstream left.
If Excel and Word are conceivably viable alternatives with VBA, why not Emacs? You could get lots of obscureness points for it being based on LISP, and you could write a grant proposal to develop it into something serious in, oh say, 20 years? (That's the way academia works, isn't it?;-)
I'm not sure if that was meant as a joke, but I happen to agree with you for the following reason: a programming language is successful when it opens up the field to low to mid grade programmers. These may be people who are professionals in other areas and are just dabbling with a specific task, incurious people who are just trying to make a living, or newbies. If the programming language has constructs and tools available that support these people, then the cost of producing programs goes down and the language becomes more widely adopted by industry.
On the other hand, while quality, fully functional and maintainable programs will still be written by experts, experts can bend any Turing complete language with appropriate I/O libraries to their will. (As well, experts can turn any simple system into an overdefined complicated mess.)
The one thing which seems to make no difference to the success of a programming language (but I really really really wish it did) is the ease of deployment, versioning, packaging and runtime configuration. It's time consuming on the order of requirements gathering to successfully plan and execute deployment for anything other than a statically linked executable.
20 years ago it might have been said "It truly sickens me how many developers STILL don't know how to use free()." And now we have garbage collection.
Web developers are like anyone else - security awareness falls along a bell curve. You can rail against the bottom half of the curve; or a few people can endeavor to improve the system, and thereby move the whole curve up.
Why not just take away text SQL queries from web development environments? But I'm sure someone brighter than I could come up with a better one.
Darned powerful corporations, tooooo powerful if you ask me. So powerful they can subvert committees in Norway made up of over twenty people! And all over that OO-Thingy. Scary. Charge them with shifty shennanigans too, the gallows for them and build the platform over a black hole.
Even if a lawsuit were filed, I doubt it would hold up in court. Contract law generally does not hold that contracts are enforceable when honest mistakes were made as to the terms. There has to be a "meeting of the minds". Did anyone think that Amazon was giving them a great deal here, or did they just think that they won the lottery at Amazon's expense?
Unfortunately, the premises of the argument as described in the article are wrong. The question of copyright should not revolve around the axis of "lock up all the pirates" versus "gee, can't really stop those darned pirates". The question of copyright revolves around how far we as a society are willing to limit our own rights in order to provide a fair incentive to creators of content (music, movies, books, etc) to be creative. Copyright law does not exist in order to make mega-millionaires out of marginal talent or their producers. Nor does copyright law exist in order to fund a whole cottage industry whose sole existence is to defend copyright law. The question should rather be asked of NBC Universal and other entertainment industry heavyweights: Do you recognize the tidal wave of violations of fair use rights of citizens around the world by giant corporations, the wholesale trampling of our privacy rights by pervasive industry electronic monitoring, and the perversion of our very legal systems to the service of picking the pockets of presumed (but never proven) copyright "violators"? People are fed up, and think it is about time the law swung back over to our side.
And if that means fewer mass produced media mediocrities, so be it.
It's interesting how on one hand, teachers are roundly criticized for poor student performance and then they are criticized for attempting to maintain discipline in the classroom. Here are some excerpts from Lee's essay:
"Blood, sex and booze," according to the complaint. "Drugs, drugs, drugs are fun. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, s... t... a... b..., puke."
"So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P 90s and started shooting everyone, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."
I disagree (on constitutional grounds) that he should be prosecuted, but at the very least he should have been expelled.
Oh my god! A school is suspending students? Call the ACLU! If we don't stop them, surely Bushitler will start using school suspensions to put us all under the yoke of neocon conservative dogs everywhere!
But seriously, don't worry, public shcools will be stopped. Especially if there is no legal way for public school administrators to stop teenage snots from "exercising their free speech" to the detriment of everyone else who works at or goes to that public school. I personally would never consider teaching at a public school, and everyone I know who does is perpetually worn out by dealing with crap like "Bong Hits for Jesus" that has zero to do with teaching. I usually urge them to quit because I wouldn't stand for it myself, though secretly I think that they must not have very high self esteem to be willing to put up with abuse day after day. If you have not even a school suspension in your back pocket to keep a class orderly, and yes what you do outside of class must be weighed also according to how it affects things in the class, then I urge all public school teachers to find their pride, to quit and to find other jobs.
Keep chipping away, Agent Dero, and the rest. And I'll keep looking forward to the day when I don't have to support these expensive behemoths with my property taxes. And it'll solve the illegal immigration problem too: all of those too poor to afford a private school can work in the factories instead. It will serve them right for the public schools' having uniforms and their radical anti-pr0n agenda.
I see. So the damage caused by downloading a $0.70 song is $750.00 for the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause thunderstorms on the Great Plains. Forget the DHS, let's send the money to the Weather Channel!
If you can't argue the facts, pound the table.
I thought that most (if not all) environmentalists supported Kyoto, which would have placed severe restrictions on how we live, from SUVs to heating oil to decreased economic activity. That's not a strawman then. If you are quibbling about the word "complete control", then I capitulate. I meant "complete economic control", but you could have quite reasonably inferred that from the context.
If the majority of environmentalists want to see technology and science progress, then they would do well to renounce Kyoto, because Kyoto would have exactly the opposite effect in the US. That's why many people (including me) don't trust them.
"Real scientists talk about one issue at a time, and their opinions have a logical consistency rather than a political one."
And yet most environmental scientists and environmentalists use science to support the disasterous Kyoto accords, which would have done practically nothing vis a vis global warming, wrecked western economies, and given some of the worst polluting nations a pass. And they've done this by charging loudly and regularly that the Bush administration is muzzling science, even though no one has lost a cent of research dollars to my knowledge, nor has anyone been thrown in jail or lost tenure over it. And global warming skeptics are regularly dismissed (as you do above) on the basis of their imagined funding sources rather than on the merits of their arguments. I find rather a lot of politics in there and little "logical consistency."
Too bad not all scientists are unbiased and apolitical. I'm especialy looking forward to a scientific answer to the question "How long do we have?" Maybe next you can scientifically tackle the question of just why Americans are "backwards and ignorant". You can start by staring at your navel some more.
Why is (was) the above reply marked Score 1: Troll? It is absolutely right. Another basis for fraud I was thinking of was voting one way, counterfeiting the voter receipts to appear to go the other way, and charging electoral fraud after the fact.
Too bad the designers of this system didn't have fraud in mind when they designed it.
"This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."
Just because a scientific study says one thing or another about nature doesn't mean that it says anything at all about public policy. Maybe if environmentalists would stop playing for complete control over our lives and learn how to compromise, some rational discussion could ensue about how science applies to policy. Admitting that the Kyoto protocols are somewhere between a complete failure and a con job would be a start. Environmentalists tried to foist a treaty on us that would (a) cost us somewhere in the trillions of dollars, (b) have no noticeable effect on global warming (ie- less than a tenth of a degree Celsius reduction over the next century), and (c) let some of the worlds biggest polluters continue to poison the atmosphere (ie- China). Doesn't the fact that they pushed it so hard for so long means that it is environmentalists who are ignoring science? Or perhaps science speaks only to the left side of the issues?
Although the article implies that the Standard Model will have to be revised as a result of this experiment, this result does not really change the Standard Model all that much. The theoretical method used to establish neutrino mass, ie- that neutrino oscillations imply neutrino mass, is itself a Standard Model prediction. Rather the results fixes some of the unbound parameters of the theory. In other words, the arguments are better known now, but the method signatures remian the same.
I think it may have been true at one time, but with today's digital technology, the cost of production and distribution is practically zero. I can cut an album out of my closet with a few hundred in used mixing and recording equipment, make the mp3s available for download, and even burn my own CDs at 24X and drop them off at local record stores or sell them online. For a few thousand in direct one-time costs, I could even upgrade my equipment and do a "professional" job.
The major labels exist for one reason only: marketing and promotion. Once people figure this out and start competing with low cost online marketing and distribution systems, the major labels should pass into history. Really, it never ceases to amaze me that the companies that comprise the RIAA get away with suing 12 year olds and old ladies and breaking into home computers with nary a spot on their public reputations.
By the way, this is how every dollar is spent by the coop of bands in the RIAA:
$0.02 Bleach treatments for Michael Jackson
$0.03 Special wardrobe for Superbowl halftime performances
$0.05 Bribing congress to pass the DMCA
$0.05 Web sites and fan clubs for
$0.10 New boobs for (former) teen superstars
$0.10 Filing lawsuits against children and old ladies
$0.15 Pancake makeup for Madonna
$0.15 Sending Rocco out to break the legs of a few DJs
$0.15 Renting WETA rendering farm for digital reprocessing of Ashlee Simpson performances
$0.25 Recalling millions of CDs infected with malicious Sony/BMG malware
-$0.05 Artists share of what they owe the record company on your revenue
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah, ha ha. p0rn drives the bandwidth on the internet. Thank goodness for LHC computing: because it is sure to have an impact on bandwidth over and above all those bill-paying consumers downloading p0rn, movies, games and music every night. Make sure you write to your senator and congressperson extolling its virtues, that's what LHC computing people want. LHC computing: the Tang of IT, the Teflon of Particle Physics.
Sorry to unload on you, but I've had it with Slashdot.
"Large Hardon Collider" Score 5: funny.
"It'll certainly result in new technologies for dealing with this stuff becoming cheaper.": Score 4: Insightful.
"It adds nothing to IT above what was demonstrably already there": Score 1: Ignored.
Gee willikers, maybe Vint Cerf could invent another useful protocol to route commercial data on the LHC networks when the beam is down. A protocol in addition to his very useful interplanetary communication protocol and his very useful communications protocol for robots. And maybe those very bright young men and women can find a way for me to help them analyze LHC data in my screen saver while I'm going to the potty. And it's going to cure cancer too? Oh please, raise my taxes now!
Oh, and goodbye! You fellas take care now. Don't eat too much bulls**t, it could give you bad breath.
It means absolutely nothing for the wider IT industry. LHC Computing is engineered to distribute very large volumes of data (in the Petabytes/year range) around the world to scientists in an open and agreed upon format. It is paid for out of the science budgets of participating governments. The complementary challenges in the IT industry revolve around how to fairly distribute commercially available bandwidth and how to secure data and maintain privacy. In terms of open structure and intended use, LHC computing resembles the friendly collegial atmosphere of the early ARPANET, which is widely credited creating many of the bandwith and security problems IT is currently struggling with today.
Company data practices share some of the blame. But why are they gathering and retaining the data to begin with? Like a clean desk policy at a bank, companies should be required to purge credit card details, most contact info, Driver's license numbers, SSNs, etc after a transaction is concluded. As soon as you decide to retain data, it will be broken into someday, and there ain't no Great Wall of China that's going to keep 'em out. Charging IT professionals criminally in this scenario is like charging overworked housecleaning staff with entropy violations.
I wonder if communications sources and sinks are traveling relative to one another at relativistic speeds, would the protocol have to include information about velocity relative to a chosen standard inertial frame? Otherwise you could possibly get weird effects, like sending a Kerberos ticket from a moving spaceship and it would be observed to expire at different times in different frames. Or maybe the communications infrastructure could include a measurement of the redshift of interplanetary communications signals and use that to infer relative velocities and include that with locally generated timestamps - you could call it the Hubble router.
One should make a distinction between software intended for general use outside of a corporate setting and software intended for use in corporate backrooms. Agile development only works when the users are invested in the software. So you're 100% right about the former case: general users aren't usually invested enough in a piece of software to stick around and help out the developers by providing usability comments and such. People get paid to do that in corporate dev shops - why does anyone think general users will do that for free?
On the other hand, user involvement and management involvement are critical to internal corporate software development. User involvement is needed to properly understand the business cases and provide usability feedback, and management involvement is needed to make overall feature decisions with an eye on keeping down costs and enhancing efficiency. Agile development helps deliver software that addresses business issues at a low cost.
As a professional developer, the main risk is that internal users will come up with a feature request only to have it watered down or rejected by management in order to keep development costs down. Then the users are unhappy with me, I'm unhappy with the managers, and I end up providing a "most-of-the-way-there" product that satisfies no one fully, but keeps savings flowing into senior management wallets. (Management can force the users to use the software, at least until someone board member's brother-in-law sells us an alternate solution.)
But I tend to favor the Agile Development process in that case too because about the only leverage I have is the fact that I've involved the users and managers at every step, documented the software as well as the decisions, and a have trail of accepted release candidates.
Done correctly, conservative comments on liberal blogs like Kos could draw firey responses which could then be held up as examples of the mainstream left.
Compare http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogpsot.com/ (linked above) to http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
If Excel and Word are conceivably viable alternatives with VBA, why not Emacs? You could get lots of obscureness points for it being based on LISP, and you could write a grant proposal to develop it into something serious in, oh say, 20 years? (That's the way academia works, isn't it? ;-)
I'm not sure if that was meant as a joke, but I happen to agree with you for the following reason: a programming language is successful when it opens up the field to low to mid grade programmers. These may be people who are professionals in other areas and are just dabbling with a specific task, incurious people who are just trying to make a living, or newbies. If the programming language has constructs and tools available that support these people, then the cost of producing programs goes down and the language becomes more widely adopted by industry. On the other hand, while quality, fully functional and maintainable programs will still be written by experts, experts can bend any Turing complete language with appropriate I/O libraries to their will. (As well, experts can turn any simple system into an overdefined complicated mess.) The one thing which seems to make no difference to the success of a programming language (but I really really really wish it did) is the ease of deployment, versioning, packaging and runtime configuration. It's time consuming on the order of requirements gathering to successfully plan and execute deployment for anything other than a statically linked executable.
Congratulations! Sounds like a very secure platform. Maybe there's time to include it in IE8.
20 years ago it might have been said "It truly sickens me how many developers STILL don't know how to use free()." And now we have garbage collection. Web developers are like anyone else - security awareness falls along a bell curve. You can rail against the bottom half of the curve; or a few people can endeavor to improve the system, and thereby move the whole curve up. Why not just take away text SQL queries from web development environments? But I'm sure someone brighter than I could come up with a better one.
Darned powerful corporations, tooooo powerful if you ask me. So powerful they can subvert committees in Norway made up of over twenty people! And all over that OO-Thingy. Scary. Charge them with shifty shennanigans too, the gallows for them and build the platform over a black hole.
Even if a lawsuit were filed, I doubt it would hold up in court. Contract law generally does not hold that contracts are enforceable when honest mistakes were made as to the terms. There has to be a "meeting of the minds". Did anyone think that Amazon was giving them a great deal here, or did they just think that they won the lottery at Amazon's expense?
Unfortunately, the premises of the argument as described in the article are wrong. The question of copyright should not revolve around the axis of "lock up all the pirates" versus "gee, can't really stop those darned pirates". The question of copyright revolves around how far we as a society are willing to limit our own rights in order to provide a fair incentive to creators of content (music, movies, books, etc) to be creative. Copyright law does not exist in order to make mega-millionaires out of marginal talent or their producers. Nor does copyright law exist in order to fund a whole cottage industry whose sole existence is to defend copyright law. The question should rather be asked of NBC Universal and other entertainment industry heavyweights: Do you recognize the tidal wave of violations of fair use rights of citizens around the world by giant corporations, the wholesale trampling of our privacy rights by pervasive industry electronic monitoring, and the perversion of our very legal systems to the service of picking the pockets of presumed (but never proven) copyright "violators"? People are fed up, and think it is about time the law swung back over to our side. And if that means fewer mass produced media mediocrities, so be it.
It's interesting how on one hand, teachers are roundly criticized for poor student performance and then they are criticized for attempting to maintain discipline in the classroom. Here are some excerpts from Lee's essay: "Blood, sex and booze," according to the complaint. "Drugs, drugs, drugs are fun. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, s ... t ... a ... b ..., puke."
"So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P 90s and started shooting everyone, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."
I disagree (on constitutional grounds) that he should be prosecuted, but at the very least he should have been expelled.
Oh my god! A school is suspending students? Call the ACLU! If we don't stop them, surely Bushitler will start using school suspensions to put us all under the yoke of neocon conservative dogs everywhere!
But seriously, don't worry, public shcools will be stopped. Especially if there is no legal way for public school administrators to stop teenage snots from "exercising their free speech" to the detriment of everyone else who works at or goes to that public school. I personally would never consider teaching at a public school, and everyone I know who does is perpetually worn out by dealing with crap like "Bong Hits for Jesus" that has zero to do with teaching. I usually urge them to quit because I wouldn't stand for it myself, though secretly I think that they must not have very high self esteem to be willing to put up with abuse day after day. If you have not even a school suspension in your back pocket to keep a class orderly, and yes what you do outside of class must be weighed also according to how it affects things in the class, then I urge all public school teachers to find their pride, to quit and to find other jobs.
Keep chipping away, Agent Dero, and the rest. And I'll keep looking forward to the day when I don't have to support these expensive behemoths with my property taxes. And it'll solve the illegal immigration problem too: all of those too poor to afford a private school can work in the factories instead. It will serve them right for the public schools' having uniforms and their radical anti-pr0n agenda.
I see. So the damage caused by downloading a $0.70 song is $750.00 for the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause thunderstorms on the Great Plains. Forget the DHS, let's send the money to the Weather Channel!
If you can't argue the facts, pound the table. I thought that most (if not all) environmentalists supported Kyoto, which would have placed severe restrictions on how we live, from SUVs to heating oil to decreased economic activity. That's not a strawman then. If you are quibbling about the word "complete control", then I capitulate. I meant "complete economic control", but you could have quite reasonably inferred that from the context. If the majority of environmentalists want to see technology and science progress, then they would do well to renounce Kyoto, because Kyoto would have exactly the opposite effect in the US. That's why many people (including me) don't trust them.
"Real scientists talk about one issue at a time, and their opinions have a logical consistency rather than a political one." And yet most environmental scientists and environmentalists use science to support the disasterous Kyoto accords, which would have done practically nothing vis a vis global warming, wrecked western economies, and given some of the worst polluting nations a pass. And they've done this by charging loudly and regularly that the Bush administration is muzzling science, even though no one has lost a cent of research dollars to my knowledge, nor has anyone been thrown in jail or lost tenure over it. And global warming skeptics are regularly dismissed (as you do above) on the basis of their imagined funding sources rather than on the merits of their arguments. I find rather a lot of politics in there and little "logical consistency."
Too bad not all scientists are unbiased and apolitical. I'm especialy looking forward to a scientific answer to the question "How long do we have?" Maybe next you can scientifically tackle the question of just why Americans are "backwards and ignorant". You can start by staring at your navel some more.
Why is (was) the above reply marked Score 1: Troll? It is absolutely right. Another basis for fraud I was thinking of was voting one way, counterfeiting the voter receipts to appear to go the other way, and charging electoral fraud after the fact. Too bad the designers of this system didn't have fraud in mind when they designed it.
"This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." Just because a scientific study says one thing or another about nature doesn't mean that it says anything at all about public policy. Maybe if environmentalists would stop playing for complete control over our lives and learn how to compromise, some rational discussion could ensue about how science applies to policy. Admitting that the Kyoto protocols are somewhere between a complete failure and a con job would be a start. Environmentalists tried to foist a treaty on us that would (a) cost us somewhere in the trillions of dollars, (b) have no noticeable effect on global warming (ie- less than a tenth of a degree Celsius reduction over the next century), and (c) let some of the worlds biggest polluters continue to poison the atmosphere (ie- China). Doesn't the fact that they pushed it so hard for so long means that it is environmentalists who are ignoring science? Or perhaps science speaks only to the left side of the issues?
The #1 customer listed on their site is S.W.I.F.T.; that dog's going away soon.
Although the article implies that the Standard Model will have to be revised as a result of this experiment, this result does not really change the Standard Model all that much. The theoretical method used to establish neutrino mass, ie- that neutrino oscillations imply neutrino mass, is itself a Standard Model prediction. Rather the results fixes some of the unbound parameters of the theory. In other words, the arguments are better known now, but the method signatures remian the same.
I think it may have been true at one time, but with today's digital technology, the cost of production and distribution is practically zero. I can cut an album out of my closet with a few hundred in used mixing and recording equipment, make the mp3s available for download, and even burn my own CDs at 24X and drop them off at local record stores or sell them online. For a few thousand in direct one-time costs, I could even upgrade my equipment and do a "professional" job. The major labels exist for one reason only: marketing and promotion. Once people figure this out and start competing with low cost online marketing and distribution systems, the major labels should pass into history. Really, it never ceases to amaze me that the companies that comprise the RIAA get away with suing 12 year olds and old ladies and breaking into home computers with nary a spot on their public reputations. By the way, this is how every dollar is spent by the coop of bands in the RIAA: $0.02 Bleach treatments for Michael Jackson $0.03 Special wardrobe for Superbowl halftime performances $0.05 Bribing congress to pass the DMCA $0.05 Web sites and fan clubs for $0.10 New boobs for (former) teen superstars $0.10 Filing lawsuits against children and old ladies $0.15 Pancake makeup for Madonna $0.15 Sending Rocco out to break the legs of a few DJs $0.15 Renting WETA rendering farm for digital reprocessing of Ashlee Simpson performances $0.25 Recalling millions of CDs infected with malicious Sony/BMG malware -$0.05 Artists share of what they owe the record company on your revenue