A VHS movie is not 'data'. Look up the definition of data. And just becuae it was widely copied does not mean it's legal.
Sure, but it's not legal. And the reasons you give for copying are all justifiable in some manner, but again not legal. Most people here bizarrely think that just because the movie is now digital they can make legal copies of it. No you cannot. Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
I understand that you will still argue about exactly what data is, but VHS is an analog format and the dictionary defines analog as: "of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure." Further, data can be used to describe a body of information.
Regardless, I do agree that in most cases it isn't legal.
No, I bought a movie, not a software program. You would never say your VHS tapes were full of data. Just because the medium happens to be digital people take this as an excuse to think they can do whatever they like with it.
Every other product I have, cars, TV, etc. all run the risk of being damaged in some way each and every time I use them. does that mean I should have free copies of each? People have this strage idea that just because a product is digital it has no real value and is somehow treated special.
Who's version of fair use is that? Yours? What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like?
I would say a VHS tape is full of data, and plenty of people backed up their VHS tapes to bootleg copies. It is a bit more difficult, and rarer, than copying DVDs but it still wasn't uncommon. I would argue that mainstream society was a bit less tech savvy then as well. Also, with analog the copy quality goes downhill pretty fast, and one would pay to have a pristine original again.
If I had the means, I would backup my car, my TV, my wife's diamond wedding ring (IANM), etc. When I bought the DVD I paid for their production costs + manufacturing costs. If I take really good care of the DVD, I can get say 1000 uses for $20. If I take poor care of the DVD, I get maybe 50 uses for $20. Obviously, they are not charging per use, so I'm not taking anything away from them there. Why should I pay for their production costs again just because I need new media? I am covering the costs of the media by doing the manufacturing myself, same with format shifting. What if they don't offer the product in the format I need? What if it's rare/out of production?
Or what if you find out, as I did, that the object you've been plugging your network cables into all of this time wasn't a firewall at all, BUT A TOASTER!
I really hope not. I was under the impression that my voting record was private.
Your voting record is private in the sense that no one can tell who you voted for.
However, at least in the state I am in (and I imagine most others), the government has full access to who votes and in what elections. It keeps track of the last ten or so elections (state primaries, presidential, etc) and whether or not you cast a ballot, along with your basic personal information. The government certainly has access to this information, and provides it to parties that request it for a fee.
It is useful in checking to see if the employees taking off for voting are actually voting, registered voter statistics, party affiliations, etc.
They look like an organization that is anti-income tax. As such, their numbers are probably designed to account for only income tax. They don't state what those numbers do and do not include, however they do not add up to the total income of the federal government, so I must assume they are either incompetent or non-ehaustive. If you do not take the full numbers, you can't judge how much comes from a place.
Honestly, I didn't really get that feeling from the site that they were anti-income tax, and it certainly doesn't jive with their stated goals either. Like I said for such an old organization, I didn't find any negative opinions on their work, but I did find a lot of citations from papers and articles. If you have any information disparaging their credibility other than your qualms with their headers and data disclosure, please post it.
You still have provided absolutely no information that helps your cause. You also said you pay $3.00 a gallon, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Alaskans pay one of the lowest gasoline taxes in the nation. It must be a past-time in Alaska to complain about the federal government taxing the poor profits of the oil companies, when that money could go....? Oh yes, to the mega-corporations that have very little to do with Alaska other than taking her resources, destroying natural habitat, causing man-made disasters each time the pipelines explode/oil tankers crash/etc, and contributing to the only fund in the United States that pays the residents. If you have problems with the Permanent Fund not paying what you think you could get for your portion of the oil rights that you claim, take that up with the state of Alaska and not the federal government. Last I checked you all had a $40 billion windfall for doing absolutely nothing.
You act like the federal government came in and stole your oil rights, and you, the other residents, and the oil companies are the victims. Yet you have no information, and every single magazine, newspaper, and independent research document shows that Alaskans have it well off. Compared to the average state, which does pay personal income tax, has higher gasoline taxes, doesn't receive a dividend for living there (or not living there for some non-residents), pays a sales tax, and the list goes on and on. Yet you think you could make so much more money on the open market with your portion of the oil, well I say go ahead. Even your own newspapers realize it, but you are too busy complaining to notice.
Blame Nixon if you think the TAPS shouldn't have even been built. But then you all wouldn't have your precious dividend would? Maybe you should take a poll and see if the residents would like to turn their dividends in because the corporations aren't getting a fair shake on their taxes.
Maybe you are right. Maybe, the residents do deserve their $300 million bridge. They're obviously delusional enough to think they need it.
Wow, this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory so that Alaska residents can feel like they are unfairly burdened by federal taxes. You act like the Tax Foundation group was set up yesterday to attack Alaska. It has been around since 1937, and I could find no information attacking its credibility as a third-party, non-profit research group.
Perhaps all of the other tax breaks and oil money I wrote about are also lies? Perhaps the mainstream media wants to prove to us mainlanders that Alaskans are doing quite well when actually they are indentured servants unfairly put upon by the federal government.
Consider your own Juneau Empire, the state's third largest newspaper, also saw fit to publish editorial information based on TaxFoundation.org's research. Republished from the Peninsula Clarion, another Alaskan newspaper. (source)
"They have one of the lowest overall tax burdens of any place in the nation; they have one of the highest qualities of life; and in no other place do residents get an annual permanent fund dividend check. Last year's check meant an extra $1,106.96 to every man, woman and child who qualified. This year's check is expected to be even larger.
Alaskans also need to consider what they expect from government and who should pay for what they expect from government. Tax time is a good reminder that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but Alaskans' permanent fund dividends come pretty close. Not only that, but Alaskans finish paying their tax burden more than a month earlier than many of their counterparts in the Northeast.
It could be a lot worse."
And I don't really see what the tax rates on the oil have anything to do with the taxes Alaskans pay, or are you saying that the mega-corporations that pump and produce oil from Alaska are unfairly burdened by taxes that oil companies in other states don't have to pay? Do you have some personal claim to this oil? Are you saying that Exxon, Mobil, and ConocoPhillips (three of the largest oil and gas leaseholders in Alaska) are unfairly burdened by taxes? All the information I can find on those companies and Alaska involve either the state or its residents filing lawsuits against the companies or complaining that the companies don't pay enough taxes compared to oil-producing nations, so that the residents can get bigger Permanent Fund checks.
If you dispute my information, please post your own verifiable numbers on personal taxation or oil taxation that proves your point. I'd also like to see anything you come up with attacking Tax Foundation, and I will no longer use them as a source for my information. You see what I do after each disputable claim? I post a link to the source where I found it, so that you can interpret the information for yourself and decide if the methods of collecting or the source are questionable. All you and the other poster have done is post conspiracy theories with no facts, and you wonder why the rest of us won't support your tirades?
You still cannot dispute that fact that by simply being a resident of Alaska you benefit from quite a few unique tax reliefs, low state taxes, low gasoline tax, and free oil money simply for living there. I hate taxes as much as anyone, but Alaskans have it better off compared to almost anyone else in the nation.
You quoted www.taxfoundation.org. In that paper, they specifically state "taxes paid to Washington D.C." Well, I'm a resident of Alaska, and my taxes are mailed to Fresno, CA. I'm assuming they are knowingly lying about where the taxes are paid to in order to generate an emotional response regarding sending the taxes so far away. Also, I can only assume that the numbers are income tax only. There are federal taxes taken from the oil produced here. From what I can tell (from my knowledge of the taxes paid by Alaska and the numbers through your link), they did not include "taxes paid to Washington
Ok, then how about Alaska just keeping the hundreds of billions of Federal tax dollars that are continuously sucked out of it without even close to a reasonable quantity of reinvestment in federal funds? This isn't free money. This is trying to develop the state so it isn't just sucked dry by the lower 48. (There is a reason that there was a push for Alaska to secede from the union in 1972...)
Believe it or not the reason for federal funds is to do large projects that need to be done. Have you ever noticed all of that infrastructure that you rely on everyday? Federal funds at work. So you are using a museum as a comparison? Those sorts of things are kind of important but I fail to see anyone thinking that compares to this type of project. Job training programs? If there is a chance that the people involved will become taxpayers then hell yes, federal funds should be used.
The city in question is packed into the base of a mountain and the ocean. There are no roads that lead there. The only way to get there is by boat or by plane, and if you take a plane you will still have to take a boat to get to town.
I can understand why you would only want the available federal funds spent in your area. Being self centered is a fairly normal idea but that isn't the way it works. Alaska comprises 1/5th of the area of the US! Think about this. If you take the lower 48 and divide it into 4 pieces it would equal the the size of Alaska. And in all of that area there is less then 2,000 miles of road that can be categorized as "Highway". And this state shoulders an exceeding unfair percentage of the federal tax burden.
Federal funds for a bridge in this case is completely in line with the way federal transportation funds are SUPPOSED to be used. Find a different example if you want to showcase wasteful spending.
Please show what voodoo math you have done that shows Alaska pays hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal tax without receiving back similar (or greater funds). I can find absolutely no evidence of this phenomena you describe of Alaska being a tax burdened state. According to this paper Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 1981-2004, they have received more than their money back from the Federal government each year since 1985. This ratio has been increasing pretty much steadily each year since then, and in the final year of the paper 2004, they were the 2nd "best" state in this regard, and receive $1.87 for each dollar they spend. Combined with the fact that there is no state income tax, the lowest state & local tax burden of any state in the nation, residents receive around $1000 a year from the oil permanent fund (source), pay the lowest gasoline tax, don't have a general state sales tax, and land has even been given away to outsiders to encourage settlement (source) -- I would say that Alaskan residents are sitting pretty when it comes to taxes either state or federal.
Although if you can post any information that proves otherwise, I am game to see it.
I don't see how anyone can really defend this bridge. The residents don't want it, and even if they did they don't deserve $300 million specifically for it. Like the poster that lives in the city said, they are not even willing to foot 5% of the bill. I am all for Alaska getting its share of federal money, but this was a pork waste project for one of the grandfathers of pork diverting it from a city that needed it (although New Orleans is another city whose residents should rethink their choice of settlement).
If the residents don't like it, we can move each of them that aren't happy with the current land and buy them land elsewhere in Alaska with federal money, and still save a good portion of the $300 million.
The volumentric measurement of one bannana is approximately 17.8 cubic thoughts per misspelled fruit.
For one begal, it's 14.2 cubic thoughts per panhandler.
For comparison:
1 begal = 14.2 per panhandler.
1 bengal = 29.3 per loud meow.
1 beagle = 2.3 per dog's breath (1 dog's breath ~ 2.3 hog's heads)
--Rob
For some reason, this makes perfect sense.
But, I think what we are all forgetting is that "Begal" and "Bannana" and "volumentric" are all trademarked entities of Wal-Mart. These are the Sam's Choice version of the old, tired products that everyone is used to. Wal-mart is providing these at a great discount of cost compared to the original, with preservatives that are guaranteed to keep the product fresh until 3007. And the technology...if I even told you the technology involved you would become a cyborg simply by listening.
WARNING: Begals contain less than 1% of bagel materials, 97-99% begal filler, and 0-2% dangerous glass shards. This product is created on a machine that also processes glass shards, and some glass shards may be in this product.
Excuse me I think I got some shards stuck in my throat, I'm going to go to the kitchen and wash it down with a nice glass of Oranj Joose.
---
Now, if only I could mod and post in the same thread, you would be set for life.
Apache is arguably correct? Way to go out on a limb. Everything is arguably correctly just as it is an arguably incorrect. Hell, I could say that the Goatse man is the best web software, and I would be arguably correct.
I use Namecheap as well, and always use a similar coupon code. Never had a problem with them, and they seem to have a good reputation unlike most of the competition.
According to the blog of Larry Osterman, veteran engineer at Microsoft, "the amount of code that runs in the kernel (coupled with buggy device drivers) causes the audio stack to be one of the leading causes of Windows reliability problems."
Also:
"A software mixer can mix 100 voices at once in about 1% of the CPU these days on a Core 2 Duo. EAX quality reverb is something we have and can be done in about another 2% of that CPU," says Paterson. "This will still come out faster than using hardware accelerated audio."
This isn't even an issue. If I had cited an encylopedia article, ANY encyclopedia article, for even the most basic college paper -- I would have been sincerely marked down. An encylopedia, especially wikipedia, can be a great place to begin for overall knowledge on a subject. But it should never be the place you finish on any subject that you really care about.
The internet is hard to cite anyway because pages are so fluid. The information you cited yesterday might be gone today. Wikipedia is even more unreliable than the internet at large as far as durability of a specific piece of information, since a single article can change dozens or hundreds of times in a day.
Slashdot Mirror
A VHS movie is not 'data'. Look up the definition of data. And just becuae it was widely copied does not mean it's legal.
Sure, but it's not legal. And the reasons you give for copying are all justifiable in some manner, but again not legal. Most people here bizarrely think that just because the movie is now digital they can make legal copies of it. No you cannot. Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
I understand that you will still argue about exactly what data is, but VHS is an analog format and the dictionary defines analog as: "of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure." Further, data can be used to describe a body of information.
Regardless, I do agree that in most cases it isn't legal.
I would say a VHS tape is full of data, and plenty of people backed up their VHS tapes to bootleg copies. It is a bit more difficult, and rarer, than copying DVDs but it still wasn't uncommon. I would argue that mainstream society was a bit less tech savvy then as well. Also, with analog the copy quality goes downhill pretty fast, and one would pay to have a pristine original again.
If I had the means, I would backup my car, my TV, my wife's diamond wedding ring (IANM), etc. When I bought the DVD I paid for their production costs + manufacturing costs. If I take really good care of the DVD, I can get say 1000 uses for $20. If I take poor care of the DVD, I get maybe 50 uses for $20. Obviously, they are not charging per use, so I'm not taking anything away from them there. Why should I pay for their production costs again just because I need new media? I am covering the costs of the media by doing the manufacturing myself, same with format shifting. What if they don't offer the product in the format I need? What if it's rare/out of production?
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
What would make you more upset?
1) You walk into someone's office at work and find a list of the funniest quotes by you, that they had remembered from previous conversations.
2) You find out that they have been secretly tape recording every conversation you had with everyone at the office.
Or what if you find out, as I did, that the object you've been plugging your network cables into all of this time wasn't a firewall at all, BUT A TOASTER!
sounds like multi player Microsoft Bob to me...
Personally, I'm glad the kid didn't beat any of the lubed older guys!
Your voting record is private in the sense that no one can tell who you voted for.
However, at least in the state I am in (and I imagine most others), the government has full access to who votes and in what elections. It keeps track of the last ten or so elections (state primaries, presidential, etc) and whether or not you cast a ballot, along with your basic personal information. The government certainly has access to this information, and provides it to parties that request it for a fee.
It is useful in checking to see if the employees taking off for voting are actually voting, registered voter statistics, party affiliations, etc.
Honestly, I didn't really get that feeling from the site that they were anti-income tax, and it certainly doesn't jive with their stated goals either. Like I said for such an old organization, I didn't find any negative opinions on their work, but I did find a lot of citations from papers and articles. If you have any information disparaging their credibility other than your qualms with their headers and data disclosure, please post it.
You still have provided absolutely no information that helps your cause. You also said you pay $3.00 a gallon, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Alaskans pay one of the lowest gasoline taxes in the nation. It must be a past-time in Alaska to complain about the federal government taxing the poor profits of the oil companies, when that money could go....? Oh yes, to the mega-corporations that have very little to do with Alaska other than taking her resources, destroying natural habitat, causing man-made disasters each time the pipelines explode/oil tankers crash/etc, and contributing to the only fund in the United States that pays the residents. If you have problems with the Permanent Fund not paying what you think you could get for your portion of the oil rights that you claim, take that up with the state of Alaska and not the federal government. Last I checked you all had a $40 billion windfall for doing absolutely nothing.
You act like the federal government came in and stole your oil rights, and you, the other residents, and the oil companies are the victims. Yet you have no information, and every single magazine, newspaper, and independent research document shows that Alaskans have it well off. Compared to the average state, which does pay personal income tax, has higher gasoline taxes, doesn't receive a dividend for living there (or not living there for some non-residents), pays a sales tax, and the list goes on and on. Yet you think you could make so much more money on the open market with your portion of the oil, well I say go ahead. Even your own newspapers realize it, but you are too busy complaining to notice.
Blame Nixon if you think the TAPS shouldn't have even been built. But then you all wouldn't have your precious dividend would? Maybe you should take a poll and see if the residents would like to turn their dividends in because the corporations aren't getting a fair shake on their taxes.
Maybe you are right. Maybe, the residents do deserve their $300 million bridge. They're obviously delusional enough to think they need it.Wow, this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory so that Alaska residents can feel like they are unfairly burdened by federal taxes. You act like the Tax Foundation group was set up yesterday to attack Alaska. It has been around since 1937, and I could find no information attacking its credibility as a third-party, non-profit research group. Perhaps all of the other tax breaks and oil money I wrote about are also lies? Perhaps the mainstream media wants to prove to us mainlanders that Alaskans are doing quite well when actually they are indentured servants unfairly put upon by the federal government.
Consider your own Juneau Empire, the state's third largest newspaper, also saw fit to publish editorial information based on TaxFoundation.org's research. Republished from the Peninsula Clarion, another Alaskan newspaper. (source)
"They have one of the lowest overall tax burdens of any place in the nation; they have one of the highest qualities of life; and in no other place do residents get an annual permanent fund dividend check. Last year's check meant an extra $1,106.96 to every man, woman and child who qualified. This year's check is expected to be even larger.
Alaskans also need to consider what they expect from government and who should pay for what they expect from government. Tax time is a good reminder that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but Alaskans' permanent fund dividends come pretty close. Not only that, but Alaskans finish paying their tax burden more than a month earlier than many of their counterparts in the Northeast.
It could be a lot worse."
And I don't really see what the tax rates on the oil have anything to do with the taxes Alaskans pay, or are you saying that the mega-corporations that pump and produce oil from Alaska are unfairly burdened by taxes that oil companies in other states don't have to pay? Do you have some personal claim to this oil? Are you saying that Exxon, Mobil, and ConocoPhillips (three of the largest oil and gas leaseholders in Alaska) are unfairly burdened by taxes? All the information I can find on those companies and Alaska involve either the state or its residents filing lawsuits against the companies or complaining that the companies don't pay enough taxes compared to oil-producing nations, so that the residents can get bigger Permanent Fund checks.
If you dispute my information, please post your own verifiable numbers on personal taxation or oil taxation that proves your point. I'd also like to see anything you come up with attacking Tax Foundation, and I will no longer use them as a source for my information. You see what I do after each disputable claim? I post a link to the source where I found it, so that you can interpret the information for yourself and decide if the methods of collecting or the source are questionable. All you and the other poster have done is post conspiracy theories with no facts, and you wonder why the rest of us won't support your tirades?
You still cannot dispute that fact that by simply being a resident of Alaska you benefit from quite a few unique tax reliefs, low state taxes, low gasoline tax, and free oil money simply for living there. I hate taxes as much as anyone, but Alaskans have it better off compared to almost anyone else in the nation.
You quoted www.taxfoundation.org. In that paper, they specifically state "taxes paid to Washington D.C." Well, I'm a resident of Alaska, and my taxes are mailed to Fresno, CA. I'm assuming they are knowingly lying about where the taxes are paid to in order to generate an emotional response regarding sending the taxes so far away. Also, I can only assume that the numbers are income tax only. There are federal taxes taken from the oil produced here. From what I can tell (from my knowledge of the taxes paid by Alaska and the numbers through your link), they did not include "taxes paid to Washington
Ok, then how about Alaska just keeping the hundreds of billions of Federal tax dollars that are continuously sucked out of it without even close to a reasonable quantity of reinvestment in federal funds? This isn't free money. This is trying to develop the state so it isn't just sucked dry by the lower 48. (There is a reason that there was a push for Alaska to secede from the union in 1972...)
Believe it or not the reason for federal funds is to do large projects that need to be done. Have you ever noticed all of that infrastructure that you rely on everyday? Federal funds at work. So you are using a museum as a comparison? Those sorts of things are kind of important but I fail to see anyone thinking that compares to this type of project. Job training programs? If there is a chance that the people involved will become taxpayers then hell yes, federal funds should be used.
The city in question is packed into the base of a mountain and the ocean. There are no roads that lead there. The only way to get there is by boat or by plane, and if you take a plane you will still have to take a boat to get to town.
I can understand why you would only want the available federal funds spent in your area. Being self centered is a fairly normal idea but that isn't the way it works. Alaska comprises 1/5th of the area of the US! Think about this. If you take the lower 48 and divide it into 4 pieces it would equal the the size of Alaska. And in all of that area there is less then 2,000 miles of road that can be categorized as "Highway". And this state shoulders an exceeding unfair percentage of the federal tax burden.
Federal funds for a bridge in this case is completely in line with the way federal transportation funds are SUPPOSED to be used. Find a different example if you want to showcase wasteful spending.
Please show what voodoo math you have done that shows Alaska pays hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal tax without receiving back similar (or greater funds). I can find absolutely no evidence of this phenomena you describe of Alaska being a tax burdened state. According to this paper Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 1981-2004, they have received more than their money back from the Federal government each year since 1985. This ratio has been increasing pretty much steadily each year since then, and in the final year of the paper 2004, they were the 2nd "best" state in this regard, and receive $1.87 for each dollar they spend. Combined with the fact that there is no state income tax, the lowest state & local tax burden of any state in the nation, residents receive around $1000 a year from the oil permanent fund (source), pay the lowest gasoline tax, don't have a general state sales tax, and land has even been given away to outsiders to encourage settlement (source) -- I would say that Alaskan residents are sitting pretty when it comes to taxes either state or federal.
Although if you can post any information that proves otherwise, I am game to see it.
I don't see how anyone can really defend this bridge. The residents don't want it, and even if they did they don't deserve $300 million specifically for it. Like the poster that lives in the city said, they are not even willing to foot 5% of the bill. I am all for Alaska getting its share of federal money, but this was a pork waste project for one of the grandfathers of pork diverting it from a city that needed it (although New Orleans is another city whose residents should rethink their choice of settlement).
If the residents don't like it, we can move each of them that aren't happy with the current land and buy them land elsewhere in Alaska with federal money, and still save a good portion of the $300 million.
Set those old machines to fold you insensitive bastards!
For some reason, this makes perfect sense.
But, I think what we are all forgetting is that "Begal" and "Bannana" and "volumentric" are all trademarked entities of Wal-Mart. These are the Sam's Choice version of the old, tired products that everyone is used to. Wal-mart is providing these at a great discount of cost compared to the original, with preservatives that are guaranteed to keep the product fresh until 3007. And the technology...if I even told you the technology involved you would become a cyborg simply by listening.
WARNING: Begals contain less than 1% of bagel materials, 97-99% begal filler, and 0-2% dangerous glass shards. This product is created on a machine that also processes glass shards, and some glass shards may be in this product.
Excuse me I think I got some shards stuck in my throat, I'm going to go to the kitchen and wash it down with a nice glass of Oranj Joose.
---
Now, if only I could mod and post in the same thread, you would be set for life.
In other news, the miles per gallon rating of the bicycle was also drastically reduced today by the US government.
But on the brighter side of things, the Hummer is now rated at 75mpg on the highway.
Then the secretaries and bored office workers would have no solitaire to play, you insensitive clod!
Apache is arguably correct? Way to go out on a limb.
Everything is arguably correctly just as it is an arguably incorrect.
Hell, I could say that the Goatse man is the best web software, and I would be arguably correct.
Take a stand for your beliefs, you pussy!
Great! I use words to mean whatever I feel like they should mean instead of the generally agreed upon conventions that have formed over time.
Flange Samson ton magnet flipper, lumberyard milquetoast tire iron?
I use Namecheap as well, and always use a similar coupon code. Never had a problem with them, and they seem to have a good reputation unlike most of the competition.
Remind me not to hire you as my system admin...
Marked as lame.
Inaccurate, and not to mention this kind of thing is listed as a feature of OpenDNS...
...Cockroaches don't have SSNs...
This is all good for SSNs, but what about other personal identifiers?
I'm tired of my local priest asking to see my penis for identification.
Do you think they gutted it as a joke?
According to the blog of Larry Osterman, veteran engineer at Microsoft, "the amount of code that runs in the kernel (coupled with buggy device drivers) causes the audio stack to be one of the leading causes of Windows reliability problems."
Also:
"A software mixer can mix 100 voices at once in about 1% of the CPU these days on a Core 2 Duo. EAX quality reverb is something we have and can be done in about another 2% of that CPU," says Paterson. "This will still come out faster than using hardware accelerated audio."
From this IGN article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/759/759538p1.html
I think you're overlooking the power of SQL Server SOUNDEX!
This isn't even an issue. If I had cited an encylopedia article, ANY encyclopedia article, for even the most basic college paper -- I would have been sincerely marked down. An encylopedia, especially wikipedia, can be a great place to begin for overall knowledge on a subject. But it should never be the place you finish on any subject that you really care about.
The internet is hard to cite anyway because pages are so fluid. The information you cited yesterday might be gone today. Wikipedia is even more unreliable than the internet at large as far as durability of a specific piece of information, since a single article can change dozens or hundreds of times in a day.