HEY! Alright, go ahead and rag on 8-tracks, but I happen to be in possession of a 5.25 HD floppy (heh.. flashback -- who here remembers flipping a diskette over to get to side 2?). It's not hooked up to anything, and it might not even work, but I have one.
Records, on the other hand... Walk into any Circuit City and I bet you can buy one. If not, I know you can still get 'em from Crutchfield (like I did about 6 months ago... a decent little Technics unit). That's not what I would call "difficult or impossible to find working readers for." I imagine it will be an extraordinarily long time before no one makes LP players anymore. Why? Because it's a format which holds interest for us (Americans, at least. I can't speak for any other cultures). 5.25"-ers were all transferred to modern media if their contents were interesting. No sweat. And you know what? If you have an 8-track with audio proof that Einstein killed JFK by poisoning his left nut, you are sure as hell going to find someone willing to lend you their 8-track player, or fix yours, or take that tape into a lab and figure out that it has magnetically-encoded analog waveforms on it and start copying it off.
If something requires a device for viewing/reading/etc, over time, those devices will cease to work or be produced.
At which point, if the data is of actual interest, it will be transferred to modern media. Think those old Honeymooners episodes were recorded on digital tape? Anthropologists are a very resourceful bunch. If the data's there, they'll pull it out eventually.
It seems to me that a lot of her argument is based upon the assumption that photographers with digital cameras wont "experiment" as much, (because
they can see their pictures as soon as they take them) and that they will delete unnecessary pictures because of storage issues.
As an amateur photographer, I can say I experiment a hell of a lot more with my little 1.3Mpix Fuji than with my 35mm Nikon. Why? If I blow my wad on a subject with the digital, and it turns out they all suck, the only thing I've lost is an hour or two. Of course, it IS only a 1.3 megapixel, so if I DO get a sweet shot, chances are it won't be high enough quality to be worth framing. On the other hand, if I run through a couple rolls of T-Max, I have a good hour or so developing them (including cleaning the kitchen up so I have room to work) before I can look at the negatives. If there are any I want to try to develop, I have to completely clean up the kitchen, set up my homemade blackout curtains, and wait for nightfall before I can even get started. Then, I can count on a couple hours of screwing around to come up with maybe 5 prints (hey, I'm an amateur, alright? It takes me a little while). Of course, they'll be good prints. They'll be suitable for framing. But I'm out roughly $1-2 for each print (paper for the tests and final) made, whether they're any good or not. Including chemicals, I'd say it costs me about $40 and a whole weekend to go through the whole process (from winding my own film to enlarging) on 4 rolls of film.
Consequently, I whip out the digital for any old thing. It will also (more or less) fit in my shirt pocket. It's not exactly unobtrusive, but unlike the Nikon, it does NOT need its own bag! I would take it everywhere if I weren't worried about damaging it with the shock my bag experiences on a regular basis. Not to mention that it eats up those AAs.
Of course, the ritual of rolling your film, messing with exposure settings, cropping, etc., is part of the experience. It puts me into the creative mode (kinda like getting back into programming after 5 years of nothing but PC troubleshooting. You can't just jump in and do your best -- you have to warm up to it and get in the proper frame of mind), starts me thinking much more about composition, light and dark, etc. My digital shots tend to be more along the lines of snapshots whereas at least with the Nikon I always TRY (primarily BECAUSE of the expense involved).
Lastly, I don't think digital cameras will ever fully replace film, at least not until photo printers become a lot cheaper for the average consumer. Your
grandmother won't want to whip out a Flash card everytime someone wants to see a picture of her grandson, she's going to want something tangible, in
a frame. Photos will never stay entirely digital.
I agree, but for different reasons. I can envision the technology that will allow "purely digital" photos to be something tangible. Imagine, for example, a transparent (insert arbitrary size here) card. You hold it between you and your subject, getting the composition just right. Say "Photo, preview" and it computes the level of zoom it needs to match your perpective and displays the image on the front side. Say "update" and it grabs a new image to adjust composition. "Zoom in" or "zoom out." "Photo, record" saves the image, and you can tuck that little gadget into a frame or prop it up on your desk. Sit it next to another such gadget and say "Photo, reprint" and it copies the image to your Grandma's photogadget, so SHE can tuck it in a frame if she wants. (Hmm... maybe I should patent that idea...)
However, with the advent of typewriters, word processors, computers, and even PDAs, the vast majority of us (humans) still write by hand most of the time. Breaking it down even further, with ball-points, gel inks, roller balls, etc., there still exists a significant subculture which enjoys writing with a fine fountain pen (ink-dipping and all). I imagine that will exist as long as our culture exists. Likewise, I don't think "analog" photography will go ever go away. Even if it becomes "just a niche market." My personal favortie form of graphic arts is charcoal on paper. How ____ing obsolete is that?
First problem is that CDR media does degrade. Most estimates I've heard say that
CDR media's lifespan is about a decade or so. After that, things get shaky.
To throw some unconfirmed information into the fray: I am currently holding a Verbatim DataLifePlus CD-R 80, with "Azo Blue Technology" (which came with the Dell PCs we got in at work). On the "booklet" blurb, it says:
Proprietary metal azo recording dye
Superior resistance to UV irradiation
100 years archival life
blah blah blah Assuming they're obeying the "truth-in-advertising" laws, perhaps CD-R technology has advanced a bit since you heard your estimates. By the way -- anyone know what azo is?
-j
Correct. The car was not stolen (nor were a lot of valuable, non-music-related items, including a $400 Valtentine-1 radar detector and a $120 Gtech Pro).
Luckily, some of the hardware was covered by my insurance -- stereo and amp were, since they were "installed" in the car. Sub wasn't, 'cause it was strapped down in the hatch area, and not actually screwed/bolted in. Heh, if I'd only known. CDs were not covered at all.
...some of which might be hard to find now.
You hit the nail on the head. Incidentally, if anyone knows where to get MC 900 Ft Jesus recordings (other than "One Step Ahead of the Spider") please let me know!
...I save having fragile CD
cases in my car (which take up room; I have a CD holder which holds 20+CD's in the same space as 3 jewel cases) and if the hostile environment of the car (dust, dropping CD's
while changing etc) damages a CD, I just make another copy.
Not to mention theft! Some [expletive deleted] broke into my car last fall and made off with about $600 worth of stereo equipment and about $600 worth of CDs (don't believe it when they tell you a detachable faceplate is protection against theft). Every single one of my favorite albums was stolen (and I stil haven't replaced most of them). The morning I discovered this, I swore I'd never keep an original CD in the car again.
wind power could provide enormous quantities of electricity if we simply encouraged it and allowed market forces to improve the technology
What, pray tell, happens to the climate when the natural flow of air is slowed by millions of resistive turbines all over the world?
After all, no one thought burning a few dinosaurs could hurt anything, back in the day. Surely slowing air movement on a large scale, or pulling heat out of geothermal sources on a large scale, or blocking sunlight from theearth's surface on a large scale, etc. etc. etc. would NEVER hurt anything, right?
The simple fact is that if we want engergy on a large scale, we're going to have to take it from somewhere on a large scale. That means we will impact the environment on a large scale. That is, until we can start doing off-planet energy generation/conversion, and then we'll just be ruining it for something other than earth.
Have you read the Bill of Rights? I point your attention to
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.
privacy n.
1.
a.The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
b.The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
Should the 4th ammendment and definition of privacy not satisfy you, lets look at our magic bullet...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution does not mean said right may be taken away.
Deal with it. We have a right to privacy.
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 1
Word of warning to you and other non-liberals and non-democrats: Mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian, and other Carnivore-targetted words, and you get tuned out. Those words and phrases are like big red buttons in the minds of most Americans, and they either turn those minds on (in your case) or they turn them off (in the case of just about everyone in metro DC). You get dismissed as a "right-wing nutcase" instantly unless you're speaking to a sympathizer.
Re:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 1
This was probably flamebait, but I'll bite, 'causeit pissed me off.
Did Daddy not hug you as a child? Just because you can't trust YOURSELF around women doesn't mean other men can't. Or perhaps you are a woman who's been mistreated by men, in which case you have my pity.
Back, however, to privacy. If you honestly don't understand the need for personal privacy and security in one's own property, there would seem to be something wrong with you. It's a basic human urge. Privacy is what allows us our human dignity.
No one ever had any actual privacy; merely artificially imposed curtains that conceal malicious actions by some against others.
Back to the whole concept of "projection" -- perhaps you should pick up an Abnormal Psychology book and look into it. First of all, "artifically imposed curtains" are "real" privacy. That's like saying "we never had shelter, only artificially imposed homes." The response, of course, is "duh."
Unfortunately, I feel my arguments will fall upon deaf ears, and that a foray into psychology would stray too far off topic.
Suffice it to say, the desire for privacy is a basic, entirely natural human urge, and to deny it is like keeping a Laborador Retriever from digging holes, or keeping a cat from grooming itself. If you don't understand it, for your own sake, you should spend more time worrying about your own state of mind and less about others'.
MiniDiscs are NOT good for archiving. I've been using MD for music ever since the price of Sony's original consumer audio desk fell to $300 (roughly 5 years). Many of my original recordings are now deteriorating, and need to be re-recorded. Yes, I DO take care of them (most of that time, they've been sitting in a box in my closet -- I got bored with MD when the price of CD-Rs came down, 'cause no one else could listen to my mixes!).
Yes, MD is a cool medium, but it's not good for archiving. What would be great (As I dream) is a TiVo with MD for small recordings (as they only hold about 150MB if I'm not mistaken), and CD-R (or dare I dream, cost-effective DVD-R) for archiving.
Come to think of it, I don't have any 5+ year-old CD-Rs -- can anyone vouch for their resitance to deterioration? Obviously, CDs are great for archiving, but I suspect CD-Rs might be less permanent.
If a cop stands next to me and listens to me talk to someone on the telephone, does this violate my rights under the 4th Amendment? Of course not.
It does if you are in your home and don't know he's crouched outside your window listening. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not apply to things out in the open. If you're at a pay phone, no, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the guy standing next to you. If you have a bag of pot sitting on the car seat next to you, in plain view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you have a bag of pot in a closed and locked briefcase, or in the trunk, or in your own home, yes, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a cop has to right to go into your closed briefcase, trunk, or home to see if you're doing anything wrong without probable cause.
Yet if he uses a wiretap device to listen to my communications, which is, after all, just another form of listening, it does. As I said above, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain situations. That applies to phone lines, as well as within your own home. If I'm talking on a cell phone on the subway, I can not reasonably expect that the guy 8 inches from me will not hear what I'm saying, and if he happens to be a cop, well, he can use the information he gathers in any way he likes. I DO however have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone in my own home. I reasonably expect that I can check my account balance with my bank's phone system with privacy. I reasonably expect that I can get saucy with my girlfriend on the phone without the sordid little details getting back to my mom, or her dad. If the government wants to violate that privacy, it must jump through certain hoops -- it must demonstrate probable cause (cop hears death screams from behind my door), or get a search warrant (show that I'm up to something, that I'm not just a law-abiding citizen). If it can not do either of these, the government is not allowed to barge into my life just in case I'm being bad.
I'm trying to keep this as un-patriotic as possible, so if I slip, please try to look past my unabashed love for true Americanism and see my arguments.
American media is the worst. By far.
No argument there. I nearly spit every day I read the paper, watch the "news," listen to the radio, etc. The simple fact is that there is a new class of people that wants to be lazy (and I, frequently, am one of them). Many people unfortunately confuse this with "American." Don't. This class of people exists, predominately in cities, all over the world ([cough] Paris, Tokyo[cough]). However, perhaps more than in most other countries, our businesses exploit this consumer class. Yes, our media outlets are primarily corporate-controlled. Why? Because we're greedy bastards. We (stereotypically) don't mind selling out. Even the most counter-cultured among us change our tunes when 7 figures worth of US$ are flashed in front of our faces. As repugnant as the resulting media environment may be, I STILL prefer it to Government controlled media. But that's another rant.
It's all money, and money produces crap entertainment in the long run. Just like American fast food, fatty, dull and tasteless after a while.
Hey... fast food is an acquired taste. Take up your holier than thou mantle if you like, but the fact remains that McDonalds is earning money in Paris, Rome, etc. (home of fantastic "real" cuisine).
Back to the point, however. You're complaining about our corporate entertainment engine. You seem to think that's all we have here in the states. You're mistaken. You're falling prey to that very same lazy consumerism we both so revile in our writings. You're only eating what corporate America is feeding you. Would it be fair if I were to fly into de Gaulle, and judge France on the ads I see in the terminals? Of course not. To find NON-corporate entertainment, one must go out into the world and f*cking LOOK for it. The price of freedom is responsibility. I'm not trying to convince anyone that the US is a free country or anything (if it ever was, it hasn't been since the '70s, when I was born), but we DO still have a more freedom-oriented society than some places. The freedom for big ugly corporations to brainwash us with corp-rock 24-7, and our own freedom to turn the f*cking radio off and go to a f*cking blues club. The responsibility is ours to seek out something else if we don't like it.
Next time you're sick of the radio here, try it. Go to a bookstore on live music night. Don't like it? Start your own band. That's a freedom/responsibility dichotomy I can live with.
"All her friends do them, and despite you teaching her that they are bad for her, when she is 14 years old she cares about what her friends say, not what you say"
projection
Psychology.
a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: "Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field" (Alex Shoumatoff).
b. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Just because you would've turned into a crackhead if you had access to crack doesn't mean everyone else would. I, for one, grew up around alcohol. My parents drank on special occasions, always had a very well-stocked liquor cabinet (top shelf -- you can afford the good stuff when you never use it), and offered me a sip the first time I showed curiosity, and thereafter whenever I asked. Consequently, I knew alcohol tasted like death, and my parents demistified it enough for me that I never felt the urge to go get blitzed at my friends' parties. Marijuana was a similar story. When I expressed interest, my parents told me what they knew of the drug (both had experimented in their late-'60s-college-days), let me know what would happen to me if they ever found any in my posession, and I was content to hold of experimenting until I got off to college myself. No sweat.
Your problems are your own -- stop trying to project them upon everyone else.
Not if you could get a pack of 20 joints for $3.50 or so.
Also, when marijuana is smoked with a water pipe, a goodly portion of the water-soluable carcinogens are filtered out. Furthermore, the THC is var more volitle than the other components of the plant... when heated to a certain temperature, the THC vaporizes and is inhalable, while the bulk of the plant matter and it's carcinogens are still safely un-combusted. Devices called vaporizers do this, supposedly offering a much better high. Unfortunately, this avenue is not much explored, since pot paraphernalia is illegal in the US. A joint can be easily tossed. When used, they pretty much disappear into your lungs, and the air. A bong or vaporizer just hangs around to incriminate you. Then, of course, there's the already-mentioned cooking method...
Anyway, the point is there are many ways to use THC with little or no carcinogenic effects.
"I want to be free to raise my children without having to have them exposed to drugs. Simple as that."
I, on the other hand, want to be free to raise my children to be strong enough and intelligent enough to make such important decisions on their own. I can not determine their future any more than you can. It is not our place to be our children's parents forever, and it sure as hell isn't the government's job, or your job, to be my children's parents. It sounds to me like "Brave New World" would be a happy place for you, Kha0S.
"In short, you must choose between your freedom as it currently exists, or a drug free society.
"Of course, we could try something like really implementing some serious social welfare programs to help raise some of these poorer kids out of
the squalid neighborhoods that we always identify with the drug problem. Hell, we could siphon the money off of the rich white families in upper
class suburbs whos kids are into the exact same stuff."
And thus, move towards a communist structure, therefore forcing you to "choose between your freedom as it currently exists, or a drug free society." The simple fact is that a nanny-state and freedom are mutually exclusive. I'll take freedom, thank you.
>and yet you are legally able to copy songs off of the radio...
Only because to play a song on the radio, the radio station has already paid significant royalties to the music companies. Although, perhaps if you recorded an.mp3 off the radio...
>therefore, mp3's are legal, so long as the data has traveled over a radio link.
The fact that it's transmitted by radio is not, unfortunately, the distinction. It's the royalties paid by the stations.
>The *REAL* reason they don't want you to make >digital copies of digital source has nothing to >do with piracy. They want to ensure that >eventually, when a new media format arrives, you >are not allowed to take your existing media and >copy it to the new format. No, that's only part of the real reason. It's not just about piracy -- it's about the fact that most music sucks, but they sell it anyway. From the RIAA page: "In the end, the losers will be those who love music, because the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the music industry cannot exist without financial support." I'm sorry, what breadth and depth of talent supported by the industry? Has anyone listened to the crap being played at the awards shows? The feces spewing out of MTV? I can't listen to even my favorite radio stations for more than an hour before hearing something vile enough to force me to seek out something better. Those of you out there with sizable music collections -- how often do you listen to your CDs? Until recently, I had over 400 CDs. If I REALLY loved a song, I'd buy the CD -- the vast majority of the time, that would be the only worthwhile song on the CD, and just as often, that song's hook would be worn out within a few months, leaving me with a $12-$18 iridescent coaster. I culled my flock recently, taking over 200 CDs to the used-cd store. They only bought about half of them, for about $2 a peice. The rest? They're sitting in a bag somewhere. What does that equal? Round the number out to 200 BAD CDs I bought in a moment of instant-gratification weakness. Average them to $14 a piece, and I'm out $2800. Temper that with those I was able to sell, and I'm only out $2700. That's $2700 out of the pocket of a 17 year old for something that's worthless within a couple months. Nice scam, huh? Recently I've learned not to buy CDs until I know they have "Staying Power". Not, however, before I handed the music industry, with all the "breadth and depth" of talent they bring me, over $6000. Well, since wising up about three years ago, I've only spent about $250 on CDs, including gifts. I think the vast majority of the music pushed by the record companies is total crap. I think they know this, and create immense hype around every new thing just so impressionable youths will shell out their hard-earned drug money for CDs. I think the real reason they're afraid of digital copies is because it allows people to listen to music enough to build up a tolerance to the hook and see the music for the crap it is. Normally they wouldn't figure that out for a couple months -- long after the crap- er, album has gone platinum.
Slashdot Mirror
Records, on the other hand... Walk into any Circuit City and I bet you can buy one. If not, I know you can still get 'em from Crutchfield (like I did about 6 months ago... a decent little Technics unit). That's not what I would call "difficult or impossible to find working readers for." I imagine it will be an extraordinarily long time before no one makes LP players anymore. Why? Because it's a format which holds interest for us (Americans, at least. I can't speak for any other cultures). 5.25"-ers were all transferred to modern media if their contents were interesting. No sweat. And you know what? If you have an 8-track with audio proof that Einstein killed JFK by poisoning his left nut, you are sure as hell going to find someone willing to lend you their 8-track player, or fix yours, or take that tape into a lab and figure out that it has magnetically-encoded analog waveforms on it and start copying it off.
At which point, if the data is of actual interest, it will be transferred to modern media. Think those old Honeymooners episodes were recorded on digital tape? Anthropologists are a very resourceful bunch. If the data's there, they'll pull it out eventually.
Consequently, I whip out the digital for any old thing. It will also (more or less) fit in my shirt pocket. It's not exactly unobtrusive, but unlike the Nikon, it does NOT need its own bag! I would take it everywhere if I weren't worried about damaging it with the shock my bag experiences on a regular basis. Not to mention that it eats up those AAs.
Of course, the ritual of rolling your film, messing with exposure settings, cropping, etc., is part of the experience. It puts me into the creative mode (kinda like getting back into programming after 5 years of nothing but PC troubleshooting. You can't just jump in and do your best -- you have to warm up to it and get in the proper frame of mind), starts me thinking much more about composition, light and dark, etc. My digital shots tend to be more along the lines of snapshots whereas at least with the Nikon I always TRY (primarily BECAUSE of the expense involved).
I agree, but for different reasons. I can envision the technology that will allow "purely digital" photos to be something tangible. Imagine, for example, a transparent (insert arbitrary size here) card. You hold it between you and your subject, getting the composition just right. Say "Photo, preview" and it computes the level of zoom it needs to match your perpective and displays the image on the front side. Say "update" and it grabs a new image to adjust composition. "Zoom in" or "zoom out." "Photo, record" saves the image, and you can tuck that little gadget into a frame or prop it up on your desk. Sit it next to another such gadget and say "Photo, reprint" and it copies the image to your Grandma's photogadget, so SHE can tuck it in a frame if she wants. (Hmm... maybe I should patent that idea...)
However, with the advent of typewriters, word processors, computers, and even PDAs, the vast majority of us (humans) still write by hand most of the time. Breaking it down even further, with ball-points, gel inks, roller balls, etc., there still exists a significant subculture which enjoys writing with a fine fountain pen (ink-dipping and all). I imagine that will exist as long as our culture exists. Likewise, I don't think "analog" photography will go ever go away. Even if it becomes "just a niche market." My personal favortie form of graphic arts is charcoal on paper. How ____ing obsolete is that?
-j
Proprietary metal azo recording dye
Superior resistance to UV irradiation
100 years archival life
blah blah blah
Assuming they're obeying the "truth-in-advertising" laws, perhaps CD-R technology has advanced a bit since you heard your estimates.
By the way -- anyone know what azo is?
-j
Correct. The car was not stolen (nor were a lot of valuable, non-music-related items, including a $400 Valtentine-1 radar detector and a $120 Gtech Pro).
...some of which might be hard to find now.
Luckily, some of the hardware was covered by my insurance -- stereo and amp were, since they were "installed" in the car. Sub wasn't, 'cause it was strapped down in the hatch area, and not actually screwed/bolted in. Heh, if I'd only known. CDs were not covered at all.
You hit the nail on the head. Incidentally, if anyone knows where to get MC 900 Ft Jesus recordings (other than "One Step Ahead of the Spider") please let me know!
Question:
wind power could provide enormous quantities of electricity if we simply encouraged it and allowed market forces to improve the technology
What, pray tell, happens to the climate when the natural flow of air is slowed by millions of resistive turbines all over the world?
After all, no one thought burning a few dinosaurs could hurt anything, back in the day. Surely slowing air movement on a large scale, or pulling heat out of geothermal sources on a large scale, or blocking sunlight from theearth's surface on a large scale, etc. etc. etc. would NEVER hurt anything, right?
The simple fact is that if we want engergy on a large scale, we're going to have to take it from somewhere on a large scale. That means we will impact the environment on a large scale. That is, until we can start doing off-planet energy generation/conversion, and then we'll just be ruining it for something other than earth.
Which is fine by me.
Amendment IV
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.
Should the 4th ammendment and definition of privacy not satisfy you, lets look at our magic bullet...
Amendment IX
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution does not mean said right may be taken away.
Deal with it. We have a right to privacy.
Word of warning to you and other non-liberals and non-democrats: Mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian, and other Carnivore-targetted words, and you get tuned out. Those words and phrases are like big red buttons in the minds of most Americans, and they either turn those minds on (in your case) or they turn them off (in the case of just about everyone in metro DC). You get dismissed as a "right-wing nutcase" instantly unless you're speaking to a sympathizer.
This was probably flamebait, but I'll bite, 'causeit pissed me off.
Did Daddy not hug you as a child? Just because you can't trust YOURSELF around women doesn't mean other men can't. Or perhaps you are a woman who's been mistreated by men, in which case you have my pity.
Back, however, to privacy. If you honestly don't understand the need for personal privacy and security in one's own property, there would seem to be something wrong with you. It's a basic human urge. Privacy is what allows us our human dignity.
No one ever had any actual privacy; merely artificially imposed curtains that conceal malicious actions by some against others.
Back to the whole concept of "projection" -- perhaps you should pick up an Abnormal Psychology book and look into it. First of all, "artifically imposed curtains" are "real" privacy. That's like saying "we never had shelter, only artificially imposed homes." The response, of course, is "duh."
Unfortunately, I feel my arguments will fall upon deaf ears, and that a foray into psychology would stray too far off topic.
Suffice it to say, the desire for privacy is a basic, entirely natural human urge, and to deny it is like keeping a Laborador Retriever from digging holes, or keeping a cat from grooming itself. If you don't understand it, for your own sake, you should spend more time worrying about your own state of mind and less about others'.
MiniDiscs are NOT good for archiving. I've been using MD for music ever since the price of Sony's original consumer audio desk fell to $300 (roughly 5 years). Many of my original recordings are now deteriorating, and need to be re-recorded. Yes, I DO take care of them (most of that time, they've been sitting in a box in my closet -- I got bored with MD when the price of CD-Rs came down, 'cause no one else could listen to my mixes!). Yes, MD is a cool medium, but it's not good for archiving. What would be great (As I dream) is a TiVo with MD for small recordings (as they only hold about 150MB if I'm not mistaken), and CD-R (or dare I dream, cost-effective DVD-R) for archiving. Come to think of it, I don't have any 5+ year-old CD-Rs -- can anyone vouch for their resitance to deterioration? Obviously, CDs are great for archiving, but I suspect CD-Rs might be less permanent.
If a cop stands next to me and listens to me talk to someone on the telephone, does this violate my rights under the 4th Amendment? Of course not.
It does if you are in your home and don't know he's crouched outside your window listening. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not apply to things out in the open. If you're at a pay phone, no, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the guy standing next to you. If you have a bag of pot sitting on the car seat next to you, in plain view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you have a bag of pot in a closed and locked briefcase, or in the trunk, or in your own home, yes, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a cop has to right to go into your closed briefcase, trunk, or home to see if you're doing anything wrong without probable cause.
Yet if he uses a wiretap device to listen to my communications, which is, after all, just another form of listening, it does.
As I said above, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain situations. That applies to phone lines, as well as within your own home. If I'm talking on a cell phone on the subway, I can not reasonably expect that the guy 8 inches from me will not hear what I'm saying, and if he happens to be a cop, well, he can use the information he gathers in any way he likes. I DO however have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone in my own home. I reasonably expect that I can check my account balance with my bank's phone system with privacy. I reasonably expect that I can get saucy with my girlfriend on the phone without the sordid little details getting back to my mom, or her dad. If the government wants to violate that privacy, it must jump through certain hoops -- it must demonstrate probable cause (cop hears death screams from behind my door), or get a search warrant (show that I'm up to something, that I'm not just a law-abiding citizen). If it can not do either of these, the government is not allowed to barge into my life just in case I'm being bad.
THAT is the point.
I'm trying to keep this as un-patriotic as possible, so if I slip, please try to look past my unabashed love for true Americanism and see my arguments.
American media is the worst. By far.
No argument there. I nearly spit every day I read the paper, watch the "news," listen to the radio, etc. The simple fact is that there is a new class of people that wants to be lazy (and I, frequently, am one of them). Many people unfortunately confuse this with "American." Don't. This class of people exists, predominately in cities, all over the world ([cough] Paris, Tokyo[cough]). However, perhaps more than in most other countries, our businesses exploit this consumer class. Yes, our media outlets are primarily corporate-controlled. Why? Because we're greedy bastards. We (stereotypically) don't mind selling out. Even the most counter-cultured among us change our tunes when 7 figures worth of US$ are flashed in front of our faces. As repugnant as the resulting media environment may be, I STILL prefer it to Government controlled media. But that's another rant.
It's all money, and money produces crap entertainment in the long run. Just like American fast food, fatty, dull and tasteless after a while.
Hey... fast food is an acquired taste. Take up your holier than thou mantle if you like, but the fact remains that McDonalds is earning money in Paris, Rome, etc. (home of fantastic "real" cuisine).
Back to the point, however. You're complaining about our corporate entertainment engine. You seem to think that's all we have here in the states. You're mistaken. You're falling prey to that very same lazy consumerism we both so revile in our writings. You're only eating what corporate America is feeding you. Would it be fair if I were to fly into de Gaulle, and judge France on the ads I see in the terminals? Of course not. To find NON-corporate entertainment, one must go out into the world and f*cking LOOK for it. The price of freedom is responsibility. I'm not trying to convince anyone that the US is a free country or anything (if it ever was, it hasn't been since the '70s, when I was born), but we DO still have a more freedom-oriented society than some places. The freedom for big ugly corporations to brainwash us with corp-rock 24-7, and our own freedom to turn the f*cking radio off and go to a f*cking blues club. The responsibility is ours to seek out something else if we don't like it.
Next time you're sick of the radio here, try it. Go to a bookstore on live music night. Don't like it? Start your own band. That's a freedom/responsibility dichotomy I can live with.
projection
Psychology.
a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: "Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field" (Alex Shoumatoff).
b. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Just because you would've turned into a crackhead if you had access to crack doesn't mean everyone else would. I, for one, grew up around alcohol. My parents drank on special occasions, always had a very well-stocked liquor cabinet (top shelf -- you can afford the good stuff when you never use it), and offered me a sip the first time I showed curiosity, and thereafter whenever I asked. Consequently, I knew alcohol tasted like death, and my parents demistified it enough for me that I never felt the urge to go get blitzed at my friends' parties. Marijuana was a similar story. When I expressed interest, my parents told me what they knew of the drug (both had experimented in their late-'60s-college-days), let me know what would happen to me if they ever found any in my posession, and I was content to hold of experimenting until I got off to college myself. No sweat.
Your problems are your own -- stop trying to project them upon everyone else.
Not if you could get a pack of 20 joints for $3.50 or so.
Also, when marijuana is smoked with a water pipe, a goodly portion of the water-soluable carcinogens are filtered out. Furthermore, the THC is var more volitle than the other components of the plant... when heated to a certain temperature, the THC vaporizes and is inhalable, while the bulk of the plant matter and it's carcinogens are still safely un-combusted. Devices called vaporizers do this, supposedly offering a much better high. Unfortunately, this avenue is not much explored, since pot paraphernalia is illegal in the US. A joint can be easily tossed. When used, they pretty much disappear into your lungs, and the air. A bong or vaporizer just hangs around to incriminate you. Then, of course, there's the already-mentioned cooking method...
Anyway, the point is there are many ways to use THC with little or no carcinogenic effects.
"I want to be free to raise my children without having to have them exposed to drugs. Simple as that."
I, on the other hand, want to be free to raise my children to be strong enough and intelligent enough to make such important decisions on their own. I can not determine their future any more than you can. It is not our place to be our children's parents forever, and it sure as hell isn't the government's job, or your job, to be my children's parents. It sounds to me like "Brave New World" would be a happy place for you, Kha0S.
"In short, you must choose between your freedom as it currently exists, or a drug free society.
"Of course, we could try something like really implementing some serious social welfare programs to help raise some of these poorer kids out of the squalid neighborhoods that we always identify with the drug problem. Hell, we could siphon the money off of the rich white families in upper class suburbs whos kids are into the exact same stuff."
And thus, move towards a communist structure, therefore forcing you to "choose between your freedom as it currently exists, or a drug free society." The simple fact is that a nanny-state and freedom are mutually exclusive.
I'll take freedom, thank you.
>and yet you are legally able to copy songs off of the radio...
.mp3 off the radio...
Only because to play a song on the radio, the radio station has already paid significant royalties to the music companies. Although, perhaps if you recorded an
>therefore, mp3's are legal, so long as the data has traveled over a radio link.
The fact that it's transmitted by radio is not, unfortunately, the distinction. It's the royalties paid by the stations.
>The *REAL* reason they don't want you to make >digital copies of digital source has nothing to >do with piracy. They want to ensure that >eventually, when a new media format arrives, you >are not allowed to take your existing media and >copy it to the new format. No, that's only part of the real reason. It's not just about piracy -- it's about the fact that most music sucks, but they sell it anyway. From the RIAA page: "In the end, the losers will be those who love music, because the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the music industry cannot exist without financial support." I'm sorry, what breadth and depth of talent supported by the industry? Has anyone listened to the crap being played at the awards shows? The feces spewing out of MTV? I can't listen to even my favorite radio stations for more than an hour before hearing something vile enough to force me to seek out something better. Those of you out there with sizable music collections -- how often do you listen to your CDs? Until recently, I had over 400 CDs. If I REALLY loved a song, I'd buy the CD -- the vast majority of the time, that would be the only worthwhile song on the CD, and just as often, that song's hook would be worn out within a few months, leaving me with a $12-$18 iridescent coaster. I culled my flock recently, taking over 200 CDs to the used-cd store. They only bought about half of them, for about $2 a peice. The rest? They're sitting in a bag somewhere. What does that equal? Round the number out to 200 BAD CDs I bought in a moment of instant-gratification weakness. Average them to $14 a piece, and I'm out $2800. Temper that with those I was able to sell, and I'm only out $2700. That's $2700 out of the pocket of a 17 year old for something that's worthless within a couple months. Nice scam, huh? Recently I've learned not to buy CDs until I know they have "Staying Power". Not, however, before I handed the music industry, with all the "breadth and depth" of talent they bring me, over $6000. Well, since wising up about three years ago, I've only spent about $250 on CDs, including gifts. I think the vast majority of the music pushed by the record companies is total crap. I think they know this, and create immense hype around every new thing just so impressionable youths will shell out their hard-earned drug money for CDs. I think the real reason they're afraid of digital copies is because it allows people to listen to music enough to build up a tolerance to the hook and see the music for the crap it is. Normally they wouldn't figure that out for a couple months -- long after the crap- er, album has gone platinum.