True the Soviets lost a number of men during construction of the launch platforms but as i had stated and is verifiable if you had watched (Secrets of Soviet Space Disasters on the History channel which does air in repeats) their were several accidents during actual missions that resulted in the deaths of cosmonuats more so during the early days of the soviet space program than during the early days of the US space program. Some cosmonuats died during re-entry to earth even, which didn't happen with the US Space program till the early part of the 21st century with the columbia disaster. Yes the deaths of US astronauts was quite public but the deaths of soviet cosmonuats wasn't thats kinda the point the US program successes as well as failures were very much in the open which was not so with the soviet program which ended up producing the soyuz capsules. Yes this started out about soyuz during missions and that is why i made the statements i did the early soviet program wasn't any safer and indeed was less so than the early US program which does argue against the statements about the commies being better than Nasa, you know the main title of the parent post in the subject header which itself argues against your statement about this not really being about Nasa vs. comunism (I mean how could you make such a statement when the very parent post has that in the subject header?) I mean comeon how stupid do you think i am making a statement like that when the parent subject header says that. That was the whole point of the parent post that commie's are better than nasa and hence why i posted to argue that no they weren't for the reasons i pointed out in my post.
Ok i lost you on the comments of the soviet shuttle mainly i guess because you didn't make the connection partly due to your own inability to see the reason in it i guess. What i was trying to say is that the reason Nasa went to the shuttle was to try and cut down the cost of going to space with a re-usable space shuttle and was hence the reason the soviets started work on their shuttle but because of not being able to see it through to making use of it because of the colapse of the soviet government it was abandoned or rather never made use of during the soviet space program which i guess looking back was a good thing as neither the US nor soviets were really ready for shuttles. The fact that older soyuz capsules are better or rather simpler and hence easier to use than the current US shuttle shows this but it doesn't show that commies are better than nasa quite the opposite in fact. Nasa was better with it's early US program than the soviets were with their early program and the fact that the US actually got shuttles made and put into use earlier and was able to make use of them while the soviets had to fall back to soyuz also shows this. But the fact that Nasa couldn't make the shuttle work without failures and disasters (both of which were the result of pressure put on nasa with an ever shrinking budget to continue to perform and have ever increasing success with less and less money to do so with) was more the cause of politics not of nasa itself so the comparison that soyuz which is arguably a simpler craft from an ealier time and much easier to use without problems isn't a fair one given the circomstances. I don't know what my ealier post about the soviet shuttle has to do with you linking to it has to do with me saying no more? I never said they didn't have one in fact im the one that said they did so the statement and link is redundant. The reason nasa is scrapping the shuttle i think has more to due with ever increasing public attention being paid to shuttle launches looking for any and every little thing that could spell a disaster for that mission and making a very public deal about it even though the US shuttle program had only 2 failures in over twenty years of launches which resulted in deaths of astronuats is pretty good when you think about it compared to the early soviet program which as i said had several deaths during l
Welcome back to the Comstock era everybody were one man or group or orginisation gets to decide what is correct and moral for the rest of the nation like it or not he/they are the sole voice of morality for the next 50 years.:(
Ok so i think the pissing and shitting is kinda sick myself but as long as their consenting adults and it's got proper safeguards in place to keep the kiddies out i don't see where it needs regulation.
allot of people are forgetting or are not aware of the early failures of the Soviet space program because of the fact that they weren't public about it unless it was a success.
Several cosmonauts died in the early soviet space program, some during re-entry others on the pad during liftoff (See secrets of soviet space disasters which aired and does re-air on the history channel). These failures only started to become known after the fall of the soviet union. NASA may have lost some astronauts in the Apollo program but not as many as the soviets lost during this time. NASA went back and found it's problems after that and managed to prevent a later disaster during Apollo 13 to bring the astronauts back safely despite major damage to the craft. Not only that but the US program actually managed to make it to the moon while the soviets didn't. Do in no small part to the fact that their launch vehicle was designed to use 34 small engines which had most in the launch stage that all had to fire at the same time to get a straight launch something they never were able to get to work. The US on the other hand used larger engines that needed fewer int the launch and subsequent stages making it easier to get the engines to fire at the same time 4 large engines instead of several smaller engines. After the US beat the soviets to the moon the engines ended up in a warehouse till after the fall of the soviet union when i believe they were purchased by the US.
The Soviets also built a shuttle but never got it into space before the fall of the soviet union they managed to get as far as glide trials on the back of a soviet aircraft similar to our first trials before launching our first shuttles into space. Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules. In the future it's looking more like we may be using space elevators anyway to bring our cargo and people into space where most of the cost and danger are removed by not having to go through the costly dangous and resource wasting launch phase.
I think it's not that the commies are better than NASA it's that both had better easy launch vehicles back when the soyuz and Apollo capsules were made with more of a drive to achieve the goal and less concern over the costs back then which after reaching the moon the focus in the US changed from doing it to OK why keep doing it and spending the money when we could spend it at home trying to fix the problems of earth (meanwhile most of this money ends up being spent on anything and almost everything but that to benefit the rich and thoughs crooked people in government). Cost became more and more of an issue and NASA was under more and more pressure to perform with less and less and to do it more often. Launching on extremely cold days when logic should have told them not to and o-ring designers told them they shouldn't. Then they fall back into pretty much the same pattern that lost challenger and end up loosing Columbia as well simply because they became complacent and gave into pressures from budget concerns. And as i said before the soviet disasters were just never talked about like they never happened. Plus it helps when you don't have to justify your costs and expenditures to congress or the public because their is no congress and the public doesn't have a voice unless they wanna end up in a Gulag or shot. So you can spend all you want on what you want at least till your economy collapse because it could no longer support the expenses from a communist style government.
In the end both were flawed and both had and have their problems which costed lives. NASA became reckless and made mistakes which costed lives but was very public ensuring that they would do things to fix or try to fix the problem, whereas the soviet leaders just didn't seam care about cosmonauts who died other than to make sure that information didn't leak out especially to the west. Both also had produced very good launch vehicles after much expense and loss of some or several lives and both could be argued that they were safer than todays shuttles.
Let's see their was Nobody will need anything faster than a 286, And the famous PC's will never need more than 640k of ram. Plus many other idiot sayings that couldn't be farther from the truth between then and now. Now we have the current idot saying "Pc's are relics LOL.
I guess it's true what they say some people never learn.
Maybe one day when they come out with a cellphone sized device with the power of a pc expandability of a pc and is able to project a virtual screen the size of modern PC's along with either a full size projection keboard or 99.999% perfect voice recognition then yeah i could see pc's maybe becoming relics but not before then as their just to limited in the capabilities or lacking the ability to do the things that the broad range of people want and need to do and can only do on a real PC.
I couldn't ever think of playing a game or watching a video or my prerecorded shows on a little tiny cellphone or Ipod screen or anything similar as their just to tiny to be useable for such things, And gaming consoles and PVR boxes sure while all fine for certain console games they just aren't as flexible as pc games or several PC based apps for PVR or anything else that people would want to do outside of what Corperations etc would want to let you do like moded games in the vein of Quake, Unreal and so-on.
I wonder how long it will be before MS and Google will be fighting over who get's the failed Sun company.
He said miles not lightyears.
Our galaxy is 75,000 lightyears across making the distance from the edge to the center about 37,500 lightyears and were about 2 thirds out from galactic center which puts us about 25,000 lightyears from galactic center. That is if my math is right (just my luck it probably isn't).
Though i think 25,000 miles is a bit far myself can't recall how far away the moon is from us but i think that is a fair chunk of the way their if not to it. I don't think we'd need the elevator to stretch quite that far as long as we can get to orbit the rest is much easier.
When you're Sony you don't take a hint very easily that people don't want this type of thing. Sony memory stick comes to mind as does minidisc just to name a couple of times Sony fought tooth and nail to get people to use their format even though most didn't want em at all. ANd let's not forget how long it took them to admit not supporting mp3's was a mistake that cost them millions if not billions.
So judging from Sony's past record it will take 5 to 10 years for them to finnaly get the message that DRM'ed music just won't sell. Mean time people are getting frustrated passing by music disc's for their PSP's because of DRM from a company that pigheadedly pushes a format or DRM that nobody wants years after the rest of the industry finally takes the hint.
Sorry i accidently cut off part of my post during editing i meant start out saying i saw some inaccuracies in both posts and i decided to set the record straight more or less.
obviously give my opinion on this mainly on yours since you have the biggest post that has some inaccuracies or omissions or just plain got it all wrongs that i wish to correct.
First yes i agree about the media point i won't comment on the hypocrisy at this point as for the genocide thoughs outside of Germany didn't know about the genocide taking place in Germany at the time or at least thoughs outside of certain governments didn't so slamming on this is just wrong.
Nice point on the inability to ratify a constitution.
Though the French and Russian revolutions didn't happen in America the American revolution and civil war did and were both just as bloody if not more so so this is a bad observation to make given our own past.
Good to hear you're no fan of the RIAA or corporate dirtbags they don't need any more encouragement in fact they need less as well as less hold over the government.
(Now here's one of main rubs) The problem with global warming and Europe is not that it will no longer give them cold weather in fact just the opposite it will give them to much cold weather. The problem is that ice melting off the arctic, Greenland and some glaciers from Canada will introduce allot of fresh water into the Atlantic shutting down the great Atlantic track according to climate models and theories (Three things are needed to keep the Atlantic track going salt, water and heat from the sun near the equator) and this will cause the Atlantic track to shut down no longer transferring warmth from the equator to the arctic causing warmer weather along the equator (maybe leading to more rainforests or to desserts who knows) and lack of warming currents going to the arctic and thereby preventing winds blowing across the Atlantic from helping to warm Europe which has been theorized could lead to at least a mini iceage in Europe lasting perhaps 150 years or more according to some. In fact because of warmer currents which ride along the surface of the ocean would no longer be moving it would lead to a buildup of colder oceans which would cause the air currents to transfer their warmth to the oceans while picking up more (For lack of a better thought) coldness being transferred to the air currents causing more cooler air to blow across the continent. I don't know how this would effect the Americas as i don't know how the air currents blow across the US ( i think they come from the pacific but I'm not sure ). It could lead to warmer weather in the US or to the same cooling effect as Europe is theorized to face, though judging by previous iceages it would more than likely cause the same thing here so the better place to be would be in the south.
So i wouldn't go laughing what effects one part of the world in one way or another effects the rest possibly in the same way or maybe in the opposite. I won't comment on the next as cheap shots like that aren't even worth it.
Good to see you're well traveled and got to know the people their. I however haven't so i can't comment on that other than to say i have seen plenty of racists here in the states so weather Europeans are the most or not it's still nothing to brag on.
True Europe has had it's own failings as far as doing the decent or moral thing but then so has the US. Taking WWI for example the people of the US choose not to get involved for most of that war for pretty much the same reasons we choose not to get involved in the start and for a good time afterwards and then we were in no small way also negligent in allowing hitler to become strong enough to run roughshod over Europe by pulling our forces out of thoughs zones that had been setup as a buffer against Germany despite the protests and please of the French who were right in the path of any future German force coming through the prior buffer zone. And not doing anything about it when hitler moved armed troops into thoughs zones in clear violation of said Versailles treaty as well as in WWII because we didn't want to get involved in what the people saw as the problems of
The accent Greeks had a discussion about life elsewhere in the universe once and the argument or discussion was heavily in favor of life existing elsewhere until Socratese i believe made the argument against, it on the basis that in order for their to be any perfect thing their had to by definition only be one example or representation of it. So in order for life on earth to be perfect (we now know or should know that life on earth is far from perfect)their had to by that fact be no life elsewhere. The argument swayed the doubters and ever since thoughs who believe their are other worlds out their with life on them have fought an uphill battle against the naysayers who themselves have taken their argument beyond the idea of man or life on earth as being perfect to other reasons why it's not possible. Like god created the universe all galaxies all the stars and worlds as well as moons etc... And then sticks out his finger and points to one world around one star in one galaxy and says their that's where i will create life and nowhere else. Hence Sagans immortal words "If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space".
Someone told me once (I forgot who) that some people are horribly mortified by the thought that god maybe cheating on us with another world somewhere out their and they don't wanna find out. Personally if i was a god fearing man (Why do people say that? Why should we fear god? What kind of god would create life so that he/she could make that life fear him/her? Seams like a messed up idea, I would rather worship a god who loves me and wants me to love him/her instead of fearing him/her but that's just me.) i would rather have a god that goes out and fills a universe able to supporting life with well life instead of letting it just sit their like that empty and unused, That is a waste. Besides where is it written that god said he would create life only on earth? I recall no such passage and no such verse where god or Jesus said that God only made life on earth so why not? ---Rhetorical question
Of course their could always be some poor delusional fool out their that still clings to Socratese argument that life on earth is perfect so their can be only one.
Anyway this study seams about as half baked as Socratese perfect world argument.
If by larger you mean denser then yes the atmosphere was denser back then much more forests and much denser. The atmosphere was closer to 24% Oxygen whereas today it's much lower around 13% to low as I've heard some paleontologists say to support large creatures like T-Rex and such. I believe humans need about 8% Oxygen to live, Anything under that and we die. I believe the large dinosaurs needed around 18% Oxygen to live though i can't recall for sure but it's sort of a big block in the way of anyone who would want to bring back the big beasts.
So yeah the atmosphere was denser back then and that would have contributed to making it easier to fly, Still early flyers would have needed to use many of the same features found in today's birds to get into the sky at such a large size.
Yeah like that isn't the pot calling the kettel black!
Gate's and C.O. have raped and ripped off the american public not to mention eruope for so long it would have been about time to turnabout. To bad bush got into the oval office and let em get off scott free.
Personally i say good riddance china deserves em and i personally belive that the US and eruope would dump or we can only hope outlaw all MS products as well as the heads of MS from the US and eruope in response leaving MS to whither and die in china with no possibility of returning to the west.
Now that would be just payment for the decades of legalized rape and piliaging that MS was allowed to do on the public at large. That and making us put up with that piece of crap windows OS i mean really 66k plus bugs in xp alone and thats supposed to be state of the art?
OK so im bitter but i put up with gate's crappy OS's for almost 2 decades and this is how he repays the public? And the lawsuit wasn't B.S. OK that cow in charge of the DOJ went about it all wrong trying to get them for being a monopoly instead of going after them for the real crime they commited namely orriginally theft or copyright infringment (which was why they had to sign the we won't put a competing product into our OS to begin with). I still say the DOJ should have shut down MS and sent gates and co. to jail in the first place instead of giving them that easy out like that. They do deserve to rot in prison for life not live the high life off the peoples hard earned cash. I guess letting them rot in china would be almost as good lol.
And their are alternatives to windows though i still say linux needs work and nobody i mean nobody should give that evil jobs a chance to prove he's worse than gates could ever be. So what other choices are their? I guess we'll have to wait and see how things go.
Personally if MS moves to china i'll never buy an MS product ever again i can tell you that for sure.
I thought that was what you were meaning when you said "The only thing that fights terrorism is turning off the TV and talking to your neighbors face to face." and now you say this isn't a story of how to be nice to them and they'll be nice to you.
Im sorry but that was how you posted it as an implication that if we go out and talk to these terrorists and be nice to them our preverbial niehbors so to speak that they would be nice to us. As for the beating swoards into plowshares part that's kinda also implied by your stance that weapons don't do anything to stop terror only to make terror and the part at the end restating that guns only make terror. It tends to imply a stance that if we get rid of our weapons then their wouldn't be any terror however the terrorists themselves as pointed out wont get rid of their weapons till they have met their goals which are to wipe out as many of us as they can till most of us become muslim and the rest are paying them blood money to not kill us and accept their rule over us for not being muslim (their will always be non muslims as without them islam can't survive with it's tax based society). And that was my counterpoint to the points you seemed to be making or implying intentionally or accidently in the parent post. If thats not what you were meaning fine but that's what was implied.
AS for being a new yorker and how people outside and a few inside have reacted to 911 well thats because it wasn't souly an attack on new york to attack new york nor DC it was an attack on the US as a whole and that's what Osama intended their's no misstaking that. That's why people outside of new york take it so personally. BTW we did try the turn the other cheak after the first WTC bombing, The bombing of the US berricks in the middle east, as well as a US embasy bombing all commited by El Quida all durring Clintons term in the white house and only struck back after the USS cole bombing. What came out of that other than blowing up a few tents and killing some camels? An outcry from some that we were only asking for terrorists to attack us for doing it? ??? attacking us for doing that they were attacking us already their was no they will attack us they were attacking us not going after them wasn't going to keep them from hitting us again. It only tells them were weak cowards that they can keep hitting us till we surrender to them and give them what they wanted. And if you wonder about why some people are out for vengence it's because of all thoughs attacks which weren't attacks against thoughs places they were all attacks on the US as a country (more than that it was an attack on all non muslim counries as the WTC as a hub for trade with many counries and they all lost people that day). To stand their and imply that 911 or any of the rest were attacks against thoughs places souly parrodon me for saying so but it just plain narrow minded and short sighted. I personally don't see it as blood vengence though i see it more as justice and as doing what we have to do when faced with a enemy that wants to kill us till we give into them and join them or pay them blood money and let them rule us. A fact that if you remember Osamas speach afterwards where he said that the only way they would stop their attacks on us is if we paid several million dollars and converted to islam (their was more but i can't recall it now). Any illusions about what it would take to end the terror should have been laid to rest then.
Yes iraq was most likely not involved in 911 but had been a problem for much longer than El Quida. So we were going to go into iraq one way or another if not when we did then within the next 5 to 10 years as Sadam wasn't going to leave us with a choice. The only difference between now and 5 to 10 years would be the increased cost of fighting it in 5 to 10 years both in money and lives. I say Sadam wasn't going to give us a choice is because I mean come on over ten years trying to inspect the
Don't take this the wrong way but if you had studied history you would know that the terrorists would still be trying to kill us even if we all dropped our weapons and tried to play nice with them.
One of the first edicts of islam is that muslims must fight non muslims till they either a) become muslims b) submit to muslim rule and pay muslim taxes (Muslims aren't suposed to tax other muslims so the only way they had of collecting taxes was through non muslims) or c) die fighting the muslim armies.
For the first century christian europe did nothing against the muslim forces attacking christian europe taking christian lands and booty and killing christians. Not fighting didn't convince the muslim forces to stop lay down their weapons nor to be friends (that's when the crusades begain after over a century of muslim attacks and pillaging). Islam's laws as laid out by mohammad make this impossible unless you propose we all either convert to islam which is impossible because it would conflict with another of mohammads edicts which as previously stated muslims can't tax other muslims. So in order for islams tax base society to continue their would have to be non muslims to subjugate and tax or fight and pillage from otherwise their governmental system would collapse and they would be forced to violate mohammads edict of not taxing muslims.
Bottom line islam needs to get money like it does now off of oil from other non muslims to keep their government going or to fight non muslims for spoils or to rule and tax non muslims. It's a system designed to promote violence to other religions and to keep themselves going off of the suffering of others that can't hope to end it even by all of us converting to islam because they can't allow us all to become islamic without destroying their own society in the proccess.
So turning off the tv and going out to talk to your neighbor while a good idea and benificail in the long run towards getting along with most people providing they wanna get along with you to begin with. But it will do nothing to stop terrorism not as long as their are thoughs out their who are intent on not getting along or causing terror to get what they want or need through whatever means avalible to them.
As for the guns they are also used to defend as well as to attack and yes ultimatly to kill but in a time when men are killing men and the only thing they had to defend themselves with were guns, swords, spears, knives, arrows etc.. it was what had to be used because non lethal means weren't avalible to them. Yes their were also plenty of examples where thoughs supposedly defending became as bad as their attackers or started out as bad as them their were also thoughs who just wanted to live peacefully but couldnt and had to fight to protect themselves. Rest assurd though that even if we replace our lethals with non lethals their will still be others out their who don't share the same views about the lives of others who will continue to develop and perfect new ways of killing to allow them to continue killing us to achieve their goals whatever they may be.
Sowing swords into plowshares is a great idea something to strive for but unless everybody wants it it's an unobtainable goal, And clearly from looking at history and looking at whats happening now it's still just as unobtainable as it has ever been even without the TV.
Is it any wonder then why people hide themselves in fantasy worlds rather than going out to talk to their neighbors? It's just plain safer and gives them something to distract and make them forget for a time the things they can do nothing about.
Why should i take time to correct a couple typos when the editors/writers themselves most often can't take time to do so when it is even more important to do so?
Well at least i got to flush out a grammar nazi at any rate.:)
No they said they will port OSX to intel machines, However the intel machines they mean or meant are apple intel machines sold by apple or by licensed distributers that have a special chip(s) in them that tells OSX that it is a apple machine and then allows OSX to install on that machine. You can also install windows on that machine as well and it will run without problems but the Intel OSX OS will not run on any intel machine without apples special chip(s) unless of course you have something now like VMware that emulates a Dos machine which could emulate the chip and theirby allow the new intel OSX to install in the virtual machine.
But doing it this way gives you a slower running OS as you are now running a machine with an OS that is running a program the emulates a machine running an OS creating twice the overhead and slowing the emulated OS to half the speed it would have on a native apple intel machine. But it is for apple emulation at least faster than previous offerings from pearpc and others who have come out with apple emulators which ran at about 1/5th the speed if memory serves because of extra overhead emulation of apple hardware that was needed to make the os work.
So it's a improvement for thoughs who want to run OSX on non apple intel machines but not for people who want to use OSX on a intel machine with the same speed and power of an apple intel machine unless of course their proccessor happens to be twice the speed of intel's proccessor that apple is/will use in their 'apptel machines' (yeah my first catchphrase i came up with it i claim all rights to it:D) otherwise it will be running slower than the apptel machines(ok you can use it but if you make any money off it i get my royalties from it).
I had talked with my brother about this when apple first anounced going to intel hardware and he said it was a big mistake for apple to go that route as they would never come close to overtaking MS that way and they would remain stuck in a niche market just as before. He's right MS didn't make it's fortune on hardware they made it on software and thats where apple should be setting it's sights but Jobs has never been much for letting loose of apples stranglhold on their customers.
I like how through my whole post you could only find thoughs tiny bits to comment on.
The how is it fair snippet that you broke out of the sentance and highlighted as the crux of the argument was answered in my prior post. In that sony has the right to take it's dispute over breaking of said contract to court to be righted and as such is hardly basis for argument over. Sony can and im sure will be compensated and as such doesn't merit the calling of musicians as money grubbing nor as theives. And hence ill concieved as i also posted previously.
As for my comments about why you were whining about it they weren't whining mearly pointing out your whining and informing you about the facts of the story and not whining. And your right this is a forum for discusion as well as for whining no matter how ill informed but that doesn't mean that it's not a forum for pointing out of ill informed opinions or whines.
And im glad also that you will choose not to proceed with that logic but i never started with that logic you did so im glad at least that you will choose to not continue with it.
And your right it is my opinion just as what you posted was youre opinion.
Actually that was the definition of slavery in case you were unaware.
In acient greece greeks who were poor or people from other neerby countries who were poor and couldn't find a job or who owed money to a certian rich party and couldn't afford to pay it back would enter into such a contract to work for free till they paid off their debit to the other person (usually this was a debit that couldn't be paid off in that persons lifetime hence indentured for life or slave who the owner could treat however he or she wanted) slaves and slave owner wasn't always white and black sometimes the were white and white. The romans did this as well as taking slave prisoners through acts of conquest so what you propose is hardly new.
Entering into a contract where you agree to work for nothing or where you agree to become someones slave is in violation of antislavery laws in many counrties including the 'US' so even if you wanted to enter into such an agreement Sony couldn't accept it as it's illegal for them to do so as well as for you to do so.
Now what the Mciroshaft Boogle:D case is something else altogether and is playing out just the way contracts that are broken should play out in court where the law gets to decide who's right and who's wrong in the contract dispute and who gets compensation over the violation of said contract. Thats how it works just because you sign a contract doesn't mean you loose your right to complain about it if you later deem it to be unfair to you thats what contract disputes and hearing of said disputes in court are for. You never under any circumstances give up your right to dispute a contract or anything else for that matter unless it has already been heard in the courts in which case you have excercised your right to dispute and the court ruled. This is considered a basic human right and cannot be taken away from any human being under human rights laws.
It just amazes me that people even now in our day and age don't understand this.:(
It's not like Sony doesn't have any recourse here they have the right to sue them for breaking the contract.
Besides how is it fair to hold musicicians to a contract that forces them to charge more and recieve less because the customers are going elsewere. They have a right to make money off the music they created, Thats what this is music that they created and then entered into a contract with sony to distribute that music through Sony's music service. This isn't content that they created for sony games or sony movies or sony's whatever this was music they created for the consumer that had only sony's music service at the time for distribution. The only money they likely recieved was money from signing the agreement to distribute their music through sony's music service and to give 'x' amount of the profits to sony as distributer and they get to keep the rest.
If the musicians don't like how sony is handling Itunes and they want to put their music onto itunes thats their choice they hold the copyrights to the music it's theirs not sony's hence why they hold the copyrights to the music.
Sony as I said does have recourse here if they broke a contract with sony to distribute the music then sony can sue them in court over this. That's what contracts are for to hold the parties to the agreement or to give the wronged party legal recourse in court for compansation if the other breaks the agreement. These contracts are made and broken everyday sony itself has broken more than a few contracts before when it suited them and they stood to make more money so how is this any surprise that it now happens to them?
Hence your snippy ill informed and ill concived coments about "money-grubbing whores and glorifying thieves" as well as the rest of you're post are way off the mark and have absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question.
I got news for you then babies aren't delivered by storkes either.
Just to give you a heads up on that one:D
Oh and welcome to the real world where everybody gets screwed at least ten times daily by some rich bastard with more money than he'll ever spend in his or his childrens lifetime just so he can get even more of what he has to much of to begin with.
It's because all thoughs copyright holders out their with copyrighted stories that they can still make money off of because disney keeps extending copyright law to keep the mouse out of the public domain so now all these old copyright works that came out after mickey can still make them money all they have to do is remake the original story with a few changes. So why think up anything new or original when the they can still make money off the old stuff without hardly any effort on their part.
Disney and Mickey were the worst things to happen to TV and movies but most people just don't relize it yet.
You haven't been paying attention to cartoon network lately have you?
Their has been at least 2 different transformers cartoons since 911 both featuring at the original voice actor for optimus prime though non of the others from the original series that i know of are in the latest transformers energon and now cybertron which is just a continueation of energon which was a continuation of an earlier transformers show using the same story line. Before that was a weird japanime styled transformers that was even worse than the ones airing now. anime doesn't work for transformers when they make the characters are presented with about the same level of enteligence as ash and the rest from the pokemon series.
AS for the rest of the actors Lenard Nemoy was the voice of Galvatron in the last Transformers movie and Judd Nelson voiced Hotrod/Rodimus Prime.
I just hope if their going to do another movie they don't use the current Transformers series for the story/character base as it just plain sucks like the previous ones have since the original series went off the air. Of course their was the ransformers beast wars while not as good as the original it was certainly better than anything that has come out post 911.
Thinking about it all the remakes i have seen including the current one and the prior bad japanime one all used the original optimus voice actor so at least he's still around.
I remember OS2 2.0 with it's big stack of disk which i think was close to if not over 30 itself. Then i got the OS2 2.1 warp upgrade which also had a huge stack of disks.
Slashdot Mirror
Scuba divers killed by rouge dolphin with dart gun story at eleven. :P
True the Soviets lost a number of men during construction of the launch platforms but as i had stated and is verifiable if you had watched (Secrets of Soviet Space Disasters on the History channel which does air in repeats) their were several accidents during actual missions that resulted in the deaths of cosmonuats more so during the early days of the soviet space program than during the early days of the US space program. Some cosmonuats died during re-entry to earth even, which didn't happen with the US Space program till the early part of the 21st century with the columbia disaster. Yes the deaths of US astronauts was quite public but the deaths of soviet cosmonuats wasn't thats kinda the point the US program successes as well as failures were very much in the open which was not so with the soviet program which ended up producing the soyuz capsules. Yes this started out about soyuz during missions and that is why i made the statements i did the early soviet program wasn't any safer and indeed was less so than the early US program which does argue against the statements about the commies being better than Nasa, you know the main title of the parent post in the subject header which itself argues against your statement about this not really being about Nasa vs. comunism (I mean how could you make such a statement when the very parent post has that in the subject header?) I mean comeon how stupid do you think i am making a statement like that when the parent subject header says that. That was the whole point of the parent post that commie's are better than nasa and hence why i posted to argue that no they weren't for the reasons i pointed out in my post.
Ok i lost you on the comments of the soviet shuttle mainly i guess because you didn't make the connection partly due to your own inability to see the reason in it i guess. What i was trying to say is that the reason Nasa went to the shuttle was to try and cut down the cost of going to space with a re-usable space shuttle and was hence the reason the soviets started work on their shuttle but because of not being able to see it through to making use of it because of the colapse of the soviet government it was abandoned or rather never made use of during the soviet space program which i guess looking back was a good thing as neither the US nor soviets were really ready for shuttles. The fact that older soyuz capsules are better or rather simpler and hence easier to use than the current US shuttle shows this but it doesn't show that commies are better than nasa quite the opposite in fact. Nasa was better with it's early US program than the soviets were with their early program and the fact that the US actually got shuttles made and put into use earlier and was able to make use of them while the soviets had to fall back to soyuz also shows this. But the fact that Nasa couldn't make the shuttle work without failures and disasters (both of which were the result of pressure put on nasa with an ever shrinking budget to continue to perform and have ever increasing success with less and less money to do so with) was more the cause of politics not of nasa itself so the comparison that soyuz which is arguably a simpler craft from an ealier time and much easier to use without problems isn't a fair one given the circomstances. I don't know what my ealier post about the soviet shuttle has to do with you linking to it has to do with me saying no more? I never said they didn't have one in fact im the one that said they did so the statement and link is redundant. The reason nasa is scrapping the shuttle i think has more to due with ever increasing public attention being paid to shuttle launches looking for any and every little thing that could spell a disaster for that mission and making a very public deal about it even though the US shuttle program had only 2 failures in over twenty years of launches which resulted in deaths of astronuats is pretty good when you think about it compared to the early soviet program which as i said had several deaths during l
Welcome back to the Comstock era everybody were one man or group or orginisation gets to decide what is correct and moral for the rest of the nation like it or not he/they are the sole voice of morality for the next 50 years. :(
Ok so i think the pissing and shitting is kinda sick myself but as long as their consenting adults and it's got proper safeguards in place to keep the kiddies out i don't see where it needs regulation.
Not quite
allot of people are forgetting or are not aware of the early failures of the Soviet space program because of the fact that they weren't public about it unless it was a success.
Several cosmonauts died in the early soviet space program, some during re-entry others on the pad during liftoff (See secrets of soviet space disasters which aired and does re-air on the history channel). These failures only started to become known after the fall of the soviet union. NASA may have lost some astronauts in the Apollo program but not as many as the soviets lost during this time. NASA went back and found it's problems after that and managed to prevent a later disaster during Apollo 13 to bring the astronauts back safely despite major damage to the craft. Not only that but the US program actually managed to make it to the moon while the soviets didn't. Do in no small part to the fact that their launch vehicle was designed to use 34 small engines which had most in the launch stage that all had to fire at the same time to get a straight launch something they never were able to get to work. The US on the other hand used larger engines that needed fewer int the launch and subsequent stages making it easier to get the engines to fire at the same time 4 large engines instead of several smaller engines. After the US beat the soviets to the moon the engines ended up in a warehouse till after the fall of the soviet union when i believe they were purchased by the US.
The Soviets also built a shuttle but never got it into space before the fall of the soviet union they managed to get as far as glide trials on the back of a soviet aircraft similar to our first trials before launching our first shuttles into space. Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules. In the future it's looking more like we may be using space elevators anyway to bring our cargo and people into space where most of the cost and danger are removed by not having to go through the costly dangous and resource wasting launch phase.
I think it's not that the commies are better than NASA it's that both had better easy launch vehicles back when the soyuz and Apollo capsules were made with more of a drive to achieve the goal and less concern over the costs back then which after reaching the moon the focus in the US changed from doing it to OK why keep doing it and spending the money when we could spend it at home trying to fix the problems of earth (meanwhile most of this money ends up being spent on anything and almost everything but that to benefit the rich and thoughs crooked people in government). Cost became more and more of an issue and NASA was under more and more pressure to perform with less and less and to do it more often. Launching on extremely cold days when logic should have told them not to and o-ring designers told them they shouldn't. Then they fall back into pretty much the same pattern that lost challenger and end up loosing Columbia as well simply because they became complacent and gave into pressures from budget concerns. And as i said before the soviet disasters were just never talked about like they never happened. Plus it helps when you don't have to justify your costs and expenditures to congress or the public because their is no congress and the public doesn't have a voice unless they wanna end up in a Gulag or shot. So you can spend all you want on what you want at least till your economy collapse because it could no longer support the expenses from a communist style government.
In the end both were flawed and both had and have their problems which costed lives. NASA became reckless and made mistakes which costed lives but was very public ensuring that they would do things to fix or try to fix the problem, whereas the soviet leaders just didn't seam care about cosmonauts who died other than to make sure that information didn't leak out especially to the west. Both also had produced very good launch vehicles after much expense and loss of some or several lives and both could be argued that they were safer than todays shuttles.
Let's see their was Nobody will need anything faster than a 286, And the famous PC's will never need more than 640k of ram. Plus many other idiot sayings that couldn't be farther from the truth between then and now. Now we have the current idot saying "Pc's are relics LOL.
I guess it's true what they say some people never learn.
Maybe one day when they come out with a cellphone sized device with the power of a pc expandability of a pc and is able to project a virtual screen the size of modern PC's along with either a full size projection keboard or 99.999% perfect voice recognition then yeah i could see pc's maybe becoming relics but not before then as their just to limited in the capabilities or lacking the ability to do the things that the broad range of people want and need to do and can only do on a real PC.
I couldn't ever think of playing a game or watching a video or my prerecorded shows on a little tiny cellphone or Ipod screen or anything similar as their just to tiny to be useable for such things, And gaming consoles and PVR boxes sure while all fine for certain console games they just aren't as flexible as pc games or several PC based apps for PVR or anything else that people would want to do outside of what Corperations etc would want to let you do like moded games in the vein of Quake, Unreal and so-on.
I wonder how long it will be before MS and Google will be fighting over who get's the failed Sun company.
He said miles not lightyears.
Our galaxy is 75,000 lightyears across making the distance from the edge to the center about 37,500 lightyears and were about 2 thirds out from galactic center which puts us about 25,000 lightyears from galactic center. That is if my math is right (just my luck it probably isn't).
Though i think 25,000 miles is a bit far myself can't recall how far away the moon is from us but i think that is a fair chunk of the way their if not to it. I don't think we'd need the elevator to stretch quite that far as long as we can get to orbit the rest is much easier.
Trouble with that is
When you're Sony you don't take a hint very easily that people don't want this type of thing. Sony memory stick comes to mind as does minidisc just to name a couple of times Sony fought tooth and nail to get people to use their format even though most didn't want em at all. ANd let's not forget how long it took them to admit not supporting mp3's was a mistake that cost them millions if not billions.
So judging from Sony's past record it will take 5 to 10 years for them to finnaly get the message that DRM'ed music just won't sell. Mean time people are getting frustrated passing by music disc's for their PSP's because of DRM from a company that pigheadedly pushes a format or DRM that nobody wants years after the rest of the industry finally takes the hint.
Sorry i accidently cut off part of my post during editing i meant start out saying i saw some inaccuracies in both posts and i decided to set the record straight more or less.
obviously give my opinion on this mainly on yours since you have the biggest post that has some inaccuracies or omissions or just plain got it all wrongs that i wish to correct.
First yes i agree about the media point i won't comment on the hypocrisy at this point as for the genocide thoughs outside of Germany didn't know about the genocide taking place in Germany at the time or at least thoughs outside of certain governments didn't so slamming on this is just wrong.
Nice point on the inability to ratify a constitution.
Though the French and Russian revolutions didn't happen in America the American revolution and civil war did and were both just as bloody if not more so so this is a bad observation to make given our own past.
Good to hear you're no fan of the RIAA or corporate dirtbags they don't need any more encouragement in fact they need less as well as less hold over the government.
(Now here's one of main rubs) The problem with global warming and Europe is not that it will no longer give them cold weather in fact just the opposite it will give them to much cold weather. The problem is that ice melting off the arctic, Greenland and some glaciers from Canada will introduce allot of fresh water into the Atlantic shutting down the great Atlantic track according to climate models and theories (Three things are needed to keep the Atlantic track going salt, water and heat from the sun near the equator) and this will cause the Atlantic track to shut down no longer transferring warmth from the equator to the arctic causing warmer weather along the equator (maybe leading to more rainforests or to desserts who knows) and lack of warming currents going to the arctic and thereby preventing winds blowing across the Atlantic from helping to warm Europe which has been theorized could lead to at least a mini iceage in Europe lasting perhaps 150 years or more according to some. In fact because of warmer currents which ride along the surface of the ocean would no longer be moving it would lead to a buildup of colder oceans which would cause the air currents to transfer their warmth to the oceans while picking up more (For lack of a better thought) coldness being transferred to the air currents causing more cooler air to blow across the continent. I don't know how this would effect the Americas as i don't know how the air currents blow across the US ( i think they come from the pacific but I'm not sure ). It could lead to warmer weather in the US or to the same cooling effect as Europe is theorized to face, though judging by previous iceages it would more than likely cause the same thing here so the better place to be would be in the south.
So i wouldn't go laughing what effects one part of the world in one way or another effects the rest possibly in the same way or maybe in the opposite. I won't comment on the next as cheap shots like that aren't even worth it.
Good to see you're well traveled and got to know the people their. I however haven't so i can't comment on that other than to say i have seen plenty of racists here in the states so weather Europeans are the most or not it's still nothing to brag on.
True Europe has had it's own failings as far as doing the decent or moral thing but then so has the US. Taking WWI for example the people of the US choose not to get involved for most of that war for pretty much the same reasons we choose not to get involved in the start and for a good time afterwards and then we were in no small way also negligent in allowing hitler to become strong enough to run roughshod over Europe by pulling our forces out of thoughs zones that had been setup as a buffer against Germany despite the protests and please of the French who were right in the path of any future German force coming through the prior buffer zone. And not doing anything about it when hitler moved armed troops into thoughs zones in clear violation of said Versailles treaty as well as in WWII because we didn't want to get involved in what the people saw as the problems of
The accent Greeks had a discussion about life elsewhere in the universe once and the argument or discussion was heavily in favor of life existing elsewhere until Socratese i believe made the argument against, it on the basis that in order for their to be any perfect thing their had to by definition only be one example or representation of it. So in order for life on earth to be perfect (we now know or should know that life on earth is far from perfect)their had to by that fact be no life elsewhere. The argument swayed the doubters and ever since thoughs who believe their are other worlds out their with life on them have fought an uphill battle against the naysayers who themselves have taken their argument beyond the idea of man or life on earth as being perfect to other reasons why it's not possible. Like god created the universe all galaxies all the stars and worlds as well as moons etc... And then sticks out his finger and points to one world around one star in one galaxy and says their that's where i will create life and nowhere else. Hence Sagans immortal words "If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space".
Someone told me once (I forgot who) that some people are horribly mortified by the thought that god maybe cheating on us with another world somewhere out their and they don't wanna find out. Personally if i was a god fearing man (Why do people say that? Why should we fear god? What kind of god would create life so that he/she could make that life fear him/her? Seams like a messed up idea, I would rather worship a god who loves me and wants me to love him/her instead of fearing him/her but that's just me.) i would rather have a god that goes out and fills a universe able to supporting life with well life instead of letting it just sit their like that empty and unused, That is a waste. Besides where is it written that god said he would create life only on earth? I recall no such passage and no such verse where god or Jesus said that God only made life on earth so why not? ---Rhetorical question
Of course their could always be some poor delusional fool out their that still clings to Socratese argument that life on earth is perfect so their can be only one.
Anyway this study seams about as half baked as Socratese perfect world argument.
No the black box edition is be the one that doesn't de-activate and send warnings back to M$ when you open the case ;)
If by larger you mean denser then yes the atmosphere was denser back then much more forests and much denser. The atmosphere was closer to 24% Oxygen whereas today it's much lower around 13% to low as I've heard some paleontologists say to support large creatures like T-Rex and such. I believe humans need about 8% Oxygen to live, Anything under that and we die. I believe the large dinosaurs needed around 18% Oxygen to live though i can't recall for sure but it's sort of a big block in the way of anyone who would want to bring back the big beasts.
So yeah the atmosphere was denser back then and that would have contributed to making it easier to fly, Still early flyers would have needed to use many of the same features found in today's birds to get into the sky at such a large size.
Yeah like that isn't the pot calling the kettel black!
Gate's and C.O. have raped and ripped off the american public not to mention eruope for so long it would have been about time to turnabout. To bad bush got into the oval office and let em get off scott free.
Personally i say good riddance china deserves em and i personally belive that the US and eruope would dump or we can only hope outlaw all MS products as well as the heads of MS from the US and eruope in response leaving MS to whither and die in china with no possibility of returning to the west.
Now that would be just payment for the decades of legalized rape and piliaging that MS was allowed to do on the public at large. That and making us put up with that piece of crap windows OS i mean really 66k plus bugs in xp alone and thats supposed to be state of the art?
OK so im bitter but i put up with gate's crappy OS's for almost 2 decades and this is how he repays the public? And the lawsuit wasn't B.S. OK that cow in charge of the DOJ went about it all wrong trying to get them for being a monopoly instead of going after them for the real crime they commited namely orriginally theft or copyright infringment (which was why they had to sign the we won't put a competing product into our OS to begin with). I still say the DOJ should have shut down MS and sent gates and co. to jail in the first place instead of giving them that easy out like that. They do deserve to rot in prison for life not live the high life off the peoples hard earned cash. I guess letting them rot in china would be almost as good lol.
And their are alternatives to windows though i still say linux needs work and nobody i mean nobody should give that evil jobs a chance to prove he's worse than gates could ever be. So what other choices are their? I guess we'll have to wait and see how things go.
Personally if MS moves to china i'll never buy an MS product ever again i can tell you that for sure.
What????
I thought that was what you were meaning when you said "The only thing that fights terrorism is turning off the TV and talking to your neighbors face to face." and now you say this isn't a story of how to be nice to them and they'll be nice to you.
Im sorry but that was how you posted it as an implication that if we go out and talk to these terrorists and be nice to them our preverbial niehbors so to speak that they would be nice to us. As for the beating swoards into plowshares part that's kinda also implied by your stance that weapons don't do anything to stop terror only to make terror and the part at the end restating that guns only make terror. It tends to imply a stance that if we get rid of our weapons then their wouldn't be any terror however the terrorists themselves as pointed out wont get rid of their weapons till they have met their goals which are to wipe out as many of us as they can till most of us become muslim and the rest are paying them blood money to not kill us and accept their rule over us for not being muslim (their will always be non muslims as without them islam can't survive with it's tax based society). And that was my counterpoint to the points you seemed to be making or implying intentionally or accidently in the parent post. If thats not what you were meaning fine but that's what was implied.
AS for being a new yorker and how people outside and a few inside have reacted to 911 well thats because it wasn't souly an attack on new york to attack new york nor DC it was an attack on the US as a whole and that's what Osama intended their's no misstaking that. That's why people outside of new york take it so personally. BTW we did try the turn the other cheak after the first WTC bombing, The bombing of the US berricks in the middle east, as well as a US embasy bombing all commited by El Quida all durring Clintons term in the white house and only struck back after the USS cole bombing. What came out of that other than blowing up a few tents and killing some camels? An outcry from some that we were only asking for terrorists to attack us for doing it? ??? attacking us for doing that they were attacking us already their was no they will attack us they were attacking us not going after them wasn't going to keep them from hitting us again. It only tells them were weak cowards that they can keep hitting us till we surrender to them and give them what they wanted. And if you wonder about why some people are out for vengence it's because of all thoughs attacks which weren't attacks against thoughs places they were all attacks on the US as a country (more than that it was an attack on all non muslim counries as the WTC as a hub for trade with many counries and they all lost people that day). To stand their and imply that 911 or any of the rest were attacks against thoughs places souly parrodon me for saying so but it just plain narrow minded and short sighted. I personally don't see it as blood vengence though i see it more as justice and as doing what we have to do when faced with a enemy that wants to kill us till we give into them and join them or pay them blood money and let them rule us. A fact that if you remember Osamas speach afterwards where he said that the only way they would stop their attacks on us is if we paid several million dollars and converted to islam (their was more but i can't recall it now). Any illusions about what it would take to end the terror should have been laid to rest then.
Yes iraq was most likely not involved in 911 but had been a problem for much longer than El Quida. So we were going to go into iraq one way or another if not when we did then within the next 5 to 10 years as Sadam wasn't going to leave us with a choice. The only difference between now and 5 to 10 years would be the increased cost of fighting it in 5 to 10 years both in money and lives. I say Sadam wasn't going to give us a choice is because I mean come on over ten years trying to inspect the
Don't take this the wrong way but if you had studied history you would know that the terrorists would still be trying to kill us even if we all dropped our weapons and tried to play nice with them.
One of the first edicts of islam is that muslims must fight non muslims till they either a) become muslims b) submit to muslim rule and pay muslim taxes (Muslims aren't suposed to tax other muslims so the only way they had of collecting taxes was through non muslims) or c) die fighting the muslim armies.
For the first century christian europe did nothing against the muslim forces attacking christian europe taking christian lands and booty and killing christians. Not fighting didn't convince the muslim forces to stop lay down their weapons nor to be friends (that's when the crusades begain after over a century of muslim attacks and pillaging). Islam's laws as laid out by mohammad make this impossible unless you propose we all either convert to islam which is impossible because it would conflict with another of mohammads edicts which as previously stated muslims can't tax other muslims. So in order for islams tax base society to continue their would have to be non muslims to subjugate and tax or fight and pillage from otherwise their governmental system would collapse and they would be forced to violate mohammads edict of not taxing muslims.
Bottom line islam needs to get money like it does now off of oil from other non muslims to keep their government going or to fight non muslims for spoils or to rule and tax non muslims. It's a system designed to promote violence to other religions and to keep themselves going off of the suffering of others that can't hope to end it even by all of us converting to islam because they can't allow us all to become islamic without destroying their own society in the proccess.
So turning off the tv and going out to talk to your neighbor while a good idea and benificail in the long run towards getting along with most people providing they wanna get along with you to begin with. But it will do nothing to stop terrorism not as long as their are thoughs out their who are intent on not getting along or causing terror to get what they want or need through whatever means avalible to them.
As for the guns they are also used to defend as well as to attack and yes ultimatly to kill but in a time when men are killing men and the only thing they had to defend themselves with were guns, swords, spears, knives, arrows etc.. it was what had to be used because non lethal means weren't avalible to them. Yes their were also plenty of examples where thoughs supposedly defending became as bad as their attackers or started out as bad as them their were also thoughs who just wanted to live peacefully but couldnt and had to fight to protect themselves. Rest assurd though that even if we replace our lethals with non lethals their will still be others out their who don't share the same views about the lives of others who will continue to develop and perfect new ways of killing to allow them to continue killing us to achieve their goals whatever they may be.
Sowing swords into plowshares is a great idea something to strive for but unless everybody wants it it's an unobtainable goal, And clearly from looking at history and looking at whats happening now it's still just as unobtainable as it has ever been even without the TV.
Is it any wonder then why people hide themselves in fantasy worlds rather than going out to talk to their neighbors? It's just plain safer and gives them something to distract and make them forget for a time the things they can do nothing about.
And thats the sadest thing of all.
Why should i take time to correct a couple typos when the editors/writers themselves most often can't take time to do so when it is even more important to do so?
:)
Well at least i got to flush out a grammar nazi at any rate.
No they said they will port OSX to intel machines, However the intel machines they mean or meant are apple intel machines sold by apple or by licensed distributers that have a special chip(s) in them that tells OSX that it is a apple machine and then allows OSX to install on that machine. You can also install windows on that machine as well and it will run without problems but the Intel OSX OS will not run on any intel machine without apples special chip(s) unless of course you have something now like VMware that emulates a Dos machine which could emulate the chip and theirby allow the new intel OSX to install in the virtual machine.
:D) otherwise it will be running slower than the apptel machines(ok you can use it but if you make any money off it i get my royalties from it).
But doing it this way gives you a slower running OS as you are now running a machine with an OS that is running a program the emulates a machine running an OS creating twice the overhead and slowing the emulated OS to half the speed it would have on a native apple intel machine. But it is for apple emulation at least faster than previous offerings from pearpc and others who have come out with apple emulators which ran at about 1/5th the speed if memory serves because of extra overhead emulation of apple hardware that was needed to make the os work.
So it's a improvement for thoughs who want to run OSX on non apple intel machines but not for people who want to use OSX on a intel machine with the same speed and power of an apple intel machine unless of course their proccessor happens to be twice the speed of intel's proccessor that apple is/will use in their 'apptel machines' (yeah my first catchphrase i came up with it i claim all rights to it
I had talked with my brother about this when apple first anounced going to intel hardware and he said it was a big mistake for apple to go that route as they would never come close to overtaking MS that way and they would remain stuck in a niche market just as before. He's right MS didn't make it's fortune on hardware they made it on software and thats where apple should be setting it's sights but Jobs has never been much for letting loose of apples stranglhold on their customers.
I like how through my whole post you could only find thoughs tiny bits to comment on.
The how is it fair snippet that you broke out of the sentance and highlighted as the crux of the argument was answered in my prior post. In that sony has the right to take it's dispute over breaking of said contract to court to be righted and as such is hardly basis for argument over. Sony can and im sure will be compensated and as such doesn't merit the calling of musicians as money grubbing nor as theives. And hence ill concieved as i also posted previously.
As for my comments about why you were whining about it they weren't whining mearly pointing out your whining and informing you about the facts of the story and not whining. And your right this is a forum for discusion as well as for whining no matter how ill informed but that doesn't mean that it's not a forum for pointing out of ill informed opinions or whines.
And im glad also that you will choose not to proceed with that logic but i never started with that logic you did so im glad at least that you will choose to not continue with it.
And your right it is my opinion just as what you posted was youre opinion.
Actually that was the definition of slavery in case you were unaware.
:D case is something else altogether and is playing out just the way contracts that are broken should play out in court where the law gets to decide who's right and who's wrong in the contract dispute and who gets compensation over the violation of said contract. Thats how it works just because you sign a contract doesn't mean you loose your right to complain about it if you later deem it to be unfair to you thats what contract disputes and hearing of said disputes in court are for. You never under any circumstances give up your right to dispute a contract or anything else for that matter unless it has already been heard in the courts in which case you have excercised your right to dispute and the court ruled. This is considered a basic human right and cannot be taken away from any human being under human rights laws.
:(
In acient greece greeks who were poor or people from other neerby countries who were poor and couldn't find a job or who owed money to a certian rich party and couldn't afford to pay it back would enter into such a contract to work for free till they paid off their debit to the other person (usually this was a debit that couldn't be paid off in that persons lifetime hence indentured for life or slave who the owner could treat however he or she wanted) slaves and slave owner wasn't always white and black sometimes the were white and white. The romans did this as well as taking slave prisoners through acts of conquest so what you propose is hardly new.
Entering into a contract where you agree to work for nothing or where you agree to become someones slave is in violation of antislavery laws in many counrties including the 'US' so even if you wanted to enter into such an agreement Sony couldn't accept it as it's illegal for them to do so as well as for you to do so.
Now what the Mciroshaft Boogle
It just amazes me that people even now in our day and age don't understand this.
And why are you whining about this?
It's not like Sony doesn't have any recourse here they have the right to sue them for breaking the contract.
Besides how is it fair to hold musicicians to a contract that forces them to charge more and recieve less because the customers are going elsewere. They have a right to make money off the music they created, Thats what this is music that they created and then entered into a contract with sony to distribute that music through Sony's music service. This isn't content that they created for sony games or sony movies or sony's whatever this was music they created for the consumer that had only sony's music service at the time for distribution. The only money they likely recieved was money from signing the agreement to distribute their music through sony's music service and to give 'x' amount of the profits to sony as distributer and they get to keep the rest.
If the musicians don't like how sony is handling Itunes and they want to put their music onto itunes thats their choice they hold the copyrights to the music it's theirs not sony's hence why they hold the copyrights to the music.
Sony as I said does have recourse here if they broke a contract with sony to distribute the music then sony can sue them in court over this. That's what contracts are for to hold the parties to the agreement or to give the wronged party legal recourse in court for compansation if the other breaks the agreement. These contracts are made and broken everyday sony itself has broken more than a few contracts before when it suited them and they stood to make more money so how is this any surprise that it now happens to them?
Hence your snippy ill informed and ill concived coments about "money-grubbing whores and glorifying thieves" as well as the rest of you're post are way off the mark and have absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question.
Uhm yeah and your just now figuring this out??
:D
I got news for you then babies aren't delivered by storkes either.
Just to give you a heads up on that one
Oh and welcome to the real world where everybody gets screwed at least ten times daily by some rich bastard with more money than he'll ever spend in his or his childrens lifetime just so he can get even more of what he has to much of to begin with.
You know why that is don't you?
It's because all thoughs copyright holders out their with copyrighted stories that they can still make money off of because disney keeps extending copyright law to keep the mouse out of the public domain so now all these old copyright works that came out after mickey can still make them money all they have to do is remake the original story with a few changes. So why think up anything new or original when the they can still make money off the old stuff without hardly any effort on their part.
Disney and Mickey were the worst things to happen to TV and movies but most people just don't relize it yet.
Megatron: That's bad comedy!
Sorry had to get a Transformers old school Quote in their.
You haven't been paying attention to cartoon network lately have you?
Their has been at least 2 different transformers cartoons since 911 both featuring at the original voice actor for optimus prime though non of the others from the original series that i know of are in the latest transformers energon and now cybertron which is just a continueation of energon which was a continuation of an earlier transformers show using the same story line. Before that was a weird japanime styled transformers that was even worse than the ones airing now. anime doesn't work for transformers when they make the characters are presented with about the same level of enteligence as ash and the rest from the pokemon series.
AS for the rest of the actors Lenard Nemoy was the voice of Galvatron in the last Transformers movie and Judd Nelson voiced Hotrod/Rodimus Prime.
I just hope if their going to do another movie they don't use the current Transformers series for the story/character base as it just plain sucks like the previous ones have since the original series went off the air. Of course their was the ransformers beast wars while not as good as the original it was certainly better than anything that has come out post 911.
Thinking about it all the remakes i have seen including the current one and the prior bad japanime one all used the original optimus voice actor so at least he's still around.
I remember OS2 2.0 with it's big stack of disk which i think was close to if not over 30 itself. Then i got the OS2 2.1 warp upgrade which also had a huge stack of disks.
Thoughs were the days.