Why the hell is a ruling on antitrust action being made based on the current market, not when the action was first filed? This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. If I get arrested for a crime, which is later repealed, I'm still under arrest and guilty of the crime.
When this case was filed, RIAA et al were suing anyone who had anything to do with online music distribution...at one point Napster was arguing that the lawsuits were less about copyright violations and more about forcing consumers to use RIAA's own crappy services.
Now two years later, because everyone had no choice but to go along with the insane pricing and restrictions RIAA wanted to begin with, we suddenly have plenty of options and competition? Bull! We consumers have already been harmed. the lion's share of online music cost is RIAA royalties. We now have to choose between the Microsoft/WMA world or the Apple/AAC world, with no way to move purchases from one to the other. This is exactly what RIAA wanted all along, and by forcing early adopters to choke to death on the crappy v1 PressPlay and MusicNet, everyone else thinks iTunes Music Store and Wal-Mart are wonderful.
F that. Yet another case of our Republican administration yanking the leash back to reward their favorite corporate donors.
The only thing about this whole mess that is true is that P2P applications are so far staying well ahead of the piracy police...so, yes, I guess it is true that consumers have plenty of choices and options...Kazaa, eDonkey/Overnet, iMesh, BitTorrent.
Although most laptops use some really funky voltages like 19.5 or whatever, my intention was to work off 12VDC since there is an abundance of power options for car/boat applications. However, laptops do have car adapters so its not far off the mark, no idea how efficient it may be however.
I'm under the impression that there are circuits that can take one DC voltage and turn it into another DC voltage (with more/less current depending on the direction). I vaguely remember working with a circuit that would take 4AA's as an input (6VDC) and put out 12VDC...the circuit wasn't more than a few diodes and transistors, certainly not a transformer. If a laptop can run off a battery, it stands to reason a desktop, which is pretty much the same damn motherboard/components, could do it just was well.
As for dirty power, you obviously don't let it touch the system, just like with laptops. Use the power to charge batteries then batteries to run the system, be it desktop or laptop. If the power source is solar/wind/water you could do the same and then your system is pretty flexible. As long as you can charge the batteries be it by car or hamster wheel, you can use it. Pedal power, anyone?
A car may not be the most efficient generator, but it is certainly the most convenient. How far out there is this cabin? Stands to reason he'll be in the car and hour or two anyway, so why not just charge up the batteries on the drive over? There's more than enough power put out while the car is running to charge several batteries simultaneously. Having a generator means another engine to maintain and keep fueled, not to mention those things weren't designed to run quiet. I wouldn't want to have to fire that up every couple hours and hear it echo through the countryside.
I agree solar is pretty much a dead end, but fuel cells I would have to say are a great idea. If he plans to cook at all he'll already have to arrange propane delivery.
...due to going from 120VAC->12VDC that both computers actually use. If you get a desktop, the power supply does it, if you get a laptop the power adapter does it. Maybe the laptop will use less energy because there's no fan on the power supply but either way you are still going to lose a big chunk of energy due to the conversion. I can barely hold my laptop power adapter it gets so warm...that's got to be more than a few watts.
What you should do is get yourself a computer with a 12VDC power input. They sell power supplies that take in 12VDC and have standard motherboard power connectors (although the last time I shopped for one it was using AT connectors). They work well for computers used in cars and boats. A little more expensive, but they basically take the power in and put it right to the motherboard and components.
Speaking of cars, will you have one? Why not use that as the power source? Get a laptop with a ton of extra batteries and keep three or four charging from car adapters wired into the car's trunk or something. If you get a laptop with a mobile processor that sips power, you should have well more than enough power. I work with a Dell Inspiron 600m and I ususually get 3-4 hours per battery. I have two spares I can hot swap so it is easy for me to go an entire 9 hour day running off of batteries.
Also, how much storage do you need? Why not go completely solid state? You could boot from say a CD, load everything into RAM and then power down the CD drive. At that point all you need is a USB key or other flashram to keep your data safe and that should be it. No hard drive, no CD-ROM should mean a lot less power right? Those are both big draws on my laptop.
All right, it's clear you just want to argue. If you think going to a movie at 10:45 in anyway resembles the audience for a premiere night showing, you are mistaken and any comments you have are irrelevant to the situation I described.
You still skate around the fact that the endings were pick and choose. Who do you think rules Rohan? The movie makes it quite clear that Eowyn will...do we need to spend ten minutes showing that? No. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out from comments made during the movie. Nor do we need to know "what happens to everyone" from Sauruman to Hallway Soldier #34 to have a closing with mainstream appeal...which is again what Jackson was aiming for either intentionally or indirectly.
And if you haven't read the book, why the hell are you even talking about whether the ending was an appropriate adaptation of the book?
The first available screening was the midnight screening and anyone who went to that was probably surrounded by die-hard fans, and maybe in costume at that. Not the same experience as going Wednesday night with the more casual fans.
"Everyone knows the ring will be destroyed" How? Because "everyone knows the good guys always win" or because "everyone already read the book"? Knowing the ending or not, what people went to see was the portrayal of it. Once the ring/Gollum went in the lava, the next question was would Frodo/Sam make it out, having Gandalf save them would answer that and provide certainly a satisfactory ending. Everyone already knows that Minas is safe and thanks to the earlier premonition, what happy endings await the King and his elf bride. But I agree that it's probably better to show this part, and had the movie ended there that too would have been satisfying. Everything else was obvious (Sam even said he's marry that girl earlier in the film) and increasingly anti-climatic.
Again, arguments about this ending being long for the sake of being true to the book fall flat on their face in the light of Jackson's not showing what happened with Sauruman and the Scourging because it would have ended the movie on perhaps a sour/bittersweet note. So, if Jackson obviously feels the need to pick and choose scenes to make a more traditional/mainstream movie, I fail to see the point of choosing the most tedious scenes possible that seem solely to have fan appeal, rather than putting them also in the extended DVD edition. The only people who might miss the last paragraph are the hardcore fans that want to see everything else that was skipped too anyway.
That was my point. He makes a movie that exaggerates minor book details to make them more grandious and plot-worthy...but then goes literal for the ending and I think as a result manages to irritates both sides of the audience.
Since it's reasonable on topic, I'd like to voice my thoughts on the Return of the King.
I walked in with advance warning that right about the point where you think the movie is finished, be prepared for another 20 minutes of wrap-up. Even knowing this, I was totally unprepared for the lame and completely unncessary scenes at the end and honestly it ruined the experience for me.
First of all...okay, Frodo and Sam are good friends, but could Peter Jackson have made it any more homosexual? The audience where I watched kept laughing every time there was a scene with Frodo and Sam all dewy-eyed staring at each other with sappy music. I swear for a split second everyone thought Frodo was going to kiss Sam on the lips as they said goodbye at the boat.
Second, after blowing our load at the battle of the black gate, all everyone wants to do is roll over and go to sleep. I don't know if my experience was the same as everyone else's but for the next twenty minutes I witnessed the combined figiting of 300+ people, standing up, then sitting back down, murmuring, sighing loudly, leaving, groaning...it was pretty damn distracting and unpleasant.
Now, giving that this movie is aimed at the masses and not particularly at die-hard LOTR fans (given that the plot was changes to give it more mainstream appeal), why in God's name would Peter Jackson decide to throw in all this extra crap at the end which a) pissed off real fans because it wasn't the Scourging b) pissed off mainstream fans because it was irrelavant crap.
Everyone I talked to was in agreement that the movie should have ended with (ugh) Gandalf on the eagles rescuing the hobbits. Particularly the view from on high with Frodo flying over the mountain. Everyone at that point knows they are safe, that the bad guys are gone, good guys win, fade to "The End" and stick the rest of the movie on DVD.
But no...cut to the coronation scene. Okay, we'll indulge Jackson and sit through a completely predictable closing scene. Oh he gets the girl, yay. Oh, the hobbits are honored okay...allright, perfect ending now, right?
Nope...okay, back to the shire, back to the pub, having a nice homey scene. Clink the glasses, hey that's a perfect place to end it, we've come full circle from Shire to Shire. End, right?
NO...now we drag Bilbo's withered carcass around to take him to the Elf ship. Why? What mainstream fan even remembers this all started three years ago with Bilbo? As far as anyone knows, he died of old age from not having the ring. You leave Sauruman's ending out of the movie, a character that played a much more pivotal role, but instead show what happens to basically a bit character? Why not tell me the life story of the doorkeeper at the bar too? I really want to know if he was able to pursue his dream of becoming a lute player. Okay, so Bilbo asks about the ring, Frodo lost it, cute scene. Cut, it's a wrap.
AAAAAAAAH NO. Now we have an interminally long and weepy scene at the boat. Oh, Frodo's going too? Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo. Okay, he's going on board with Bilbo and Gandalf, the book has been turned over to Sam, and now the ship sails into the sunset in terrible movie cliche number #412. Fade out...perfect time for "The End"
MOTHER#@#@!%!% JACKSON NO DAMMIT...(sound of entire audience groaning at once) we are back at the shire to show Sam coming home? WTF? Did anyone think he was going to run away and go whoring? We knew he was married and had kids. Why do we need to see it? Who cares? And so we end staring at the round hobbit door...did the movie even begin with a round hobbit door...ah forget it, is this the end?
Okay...The End. Now I can go take that leak I've been holding in for a kidney-busting three and a half hours.
WTF? My four hour validation doesn't cover Return of the King? I have to pay an extra $4 because no one from the theater bothered to memo the parking staff about the insane length of the number one box office draw?
And maybe now you can see why I didn't particularly enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped.
Wasn't ex-RIAA head Hillary Rosen consulting with the Iraqi Governing Council on how to write the copyright section of the Iraqi constitution?
Why not just write a mandate for Trusted Computing to guarantee the security of any imported US content and guarantee a RIAA-type organization can end up in control of whatever Iraqi culture blooms?
Iraq presents an opportunity for a democracy to form that gains all the advantages of hindsight. It would be the chance to correct all of the mistakes that were made with Amercian democracy (such as ignorance of money's impact on all three branches or the constant war of state vs federal rights). Unfortunately, now that corporate American wields such control, it seems highly unlikely that any new "democracy" we spawn would follow noble, altruistic ideals but instead follow capitalist whatever-makes-trade-for-US-companies ideals.
Futher proof that there is no room for democratic ideals in Iraqi is that the Shiite majority would easily control any democratic system that was implemented, something that I'm sure the US will not tolerate.
In 1999 or there abouts Free-PC was doing the "ad-supported computer" scheme. Of course, back then streaming video for ads was out of the question and so they just chopped a 1024x768 desktop to be an 800x600 desktop with standard animated GIF type ads around the surplus.
I was lucky enough to get one. Free-PC had no chance. I think they were toast even before the dot-com bubble burst. In the end, the were bought by eMachines who had no interest in supporting the crazy scheme so they sent us all letters giving us ownership of the computers.
Truth be told, I thought it was a decent machine for an (ugh) Presario. Has some kind of AMD, I think it was a K2-66 maybe. I kept lugging around because I intended to find an upgrade for it, but the fastest processor it supports (a KIII+) goes on eBay for ridiculously absurd prices.
But anyway, back on topic, I think companies are nuts to keep trying this. It took all of five minutes for people to figure out how to hack the Free-PC to be a normal PC (not to mention, play any game that used DirectX and ads go bye bye). I highly recommend people sign up for this. I'd bet dollars to pesos they go under in a year and everyone walks away with a free computer. History repeats itself right?
Sappy slow music plays. We zoom in on two women walking along the beach.
Young woman: Mom, can I ask you a personal question?
Older woman: Sure dear, what?
Young woman: Have you ever...you know...felt LIKE USING AOL?
Older woman: Oh my goodness. Yes dear, there have been times like that, times when I wasn't feeling so fresh. That's why I always trust EARTHLINK. You see, EARTHLINK gives me back that clean feeling.
Young woman: Really mother? How does it work?
Older woman: You simply insert the EARTHLINK applicator into your CDROM DRIVE and let it cleanse and soothe your COMPUTER.
Yound woman: Wow mom, that sounds like just what I need, where can I get EARTHLINK?
This is the same kind of crap that RIAA pulled on MP3.Com! Legally, I can buy a CD with music on it. Legally, I can encode a CD to MP3s and put them on my hard drive. Legally I can upload my MP3s from my hard drive to my remote server to listen to them at work, etc. I could probably even legally mail my CD to someone and hire them to encode it for me.
But just because MP3.Com took it one logical step further and encoded their copy of your CD to elimiate shipping costs, they were found guilty of copyright infringement.
Here we have an MIT setup where if they bought a bunch of CDs and hired a bunch of students to encode them it's legal, but if they just buy the already encoded songs, it's illegal. This kind of legal hair-splitting is such crap.
I don't know if this is a situation where people need to grow some balls and actually stand up to these kind of logical quagmires or a case where courts are idiotic enough to buy such arguments. And while we are on the subject, it's worth pointing out that if I distribute music over coaxial cable I'm apparently fine but if I distribute over twisted pair, I'm aching for a lawsuit.
And MPAA and RIAA wonder why people don't respect the laws about copyright...
If you live in CA, it is now legal for motorcycles to run red lights as long as they wait a reasonable amount of time and the light doesn't cycle. I'm not exactly sure of the wording, but it was one of the oodles of bills that Gray Davis has been furiously signing before we kick his lame duck ass out of office.
Right...in which case the customer goes up to the ISP and says "I need 50GB of bandwidth, here is $X"...what is the ISP supposed to do? "Oh, no I can't sell you that. The only reason you would need 50GB is to do something illegal." If the ISP did that, then the customer would just go to another ISP that would sell that to them. Either there's a law preventing people from selling X (like spray paint to minors) or the ISP has a right to operate in the marketplace.
This is a clear example of a shotgun lawsuit. I'm surprised they didn't sue Microsoft too.
"In my experience investigating the revenue structure of Web sites such as [mp3s4free.net] the ISP hosting the Web site, [Com-cen], stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files," Speck's affadavit.
The way this dumbass words it, it sounds like he's saying the ISP is making big bucks because of all the increase in traffic the illegal files generate. No, that would cost them big bucks. The only way an ISP would be making a profit in this situation is if they were getting paid by the website. In which case, how is this different than any other ISP customer using his connection to upload warez or music or whatever?
I mean, either the ISP is benefitting from all the downloads, which makes them part of this, or they are just providing a service to a customer who can then use it for good or bad like anyone else.
To put it another way, it's like suing Comcast because they know that the only people who pay for broadband are the people who want to illegally download music and movies. If they didn't want illegal downloads, they wouln't need broadband. And god knows, anyone who pays for increased upload speed is surely a pirate!
Seriously, this is the stupidest case argument I've heard in quite some time. Even if Australia doesn't have any kind of DMCA ISP-shield or (highly unlikely) common-carrier regulations, then this is either the ISP is running the free MP3s and thus costing themselves a crapload in bandwidth, or it's the ISP's customer to blame, in which case the ISP has nothing to do with it.
Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system,
Closed system? What, closed like Office file formats? Like middleware portions of the OS? Like network communications? Like the MSN Messanger service? Like pretty much everything Microsoft has ever done?
Where iPod owners cannot access content from other services
Wrong. If said other services allow users to burn CDs or download MP3s then yes, they can. If said other services won't allow users to do either...well, why the hell would anyone want to use them? Basically the only thing iTunes can't work with is DRM-locked WMA files that prohibit burning, and even then you could just use the audio out-in trick to rerecord them to MP3.
Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store
Limited? Like songs from every major label limited? Like a kazillion independant lables limited? Like a few thousand audio books limited? Like 13 million sales limited? Yeah, iTMS is really the downside to this equation.
this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services
Choice in music services, like that they all use WMA. Choice in devices, like that they all play WMA. And choice in music, like that it's available in WMA.
to burn to a CD or put on a portable device
Which was pretty much unheard of before Apple negotiated a major play for user rights. Before iTMS you were lucky to even "check out" a song to a portable player, burning or keeping it there was practically unheard of from the major label services.
Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices
That's like saying if I redeem my Pepsi points I can't get any of the Coke products out there. It's simple, iTunes is for the iPod. If you own some other portable device then they are probably going to want you to use their included software. Why? Because WM is bare-bones basic player function only and customers are not satisfied trying to manage their music through crappy Windows Media Player. So using iTunes with an iPod is no different than using MusicMatch or whatever come with a Rio etc.
I'm no Apple fanboy but this guy rivals the Iraqi Information Minister.
This is school-led and endorsed, and taking time from the normal school day. There would be *no* case whatsoever is this were before the school-day started, or after it ended (and in fact, many high schools have 'prayer clubs' that meet after school hours - and those are just fine).
You are arguing minor semantics. In other words, if a pledge is led after the tardy bell rings, then it's state-sponsored indoctrination but if it's done five minutes beforehand then it's "just fine"? That's not the issue being discussed. This case argues that the pledge is wrong any time because state-paid teachers and state-maintained classrooms are being used.
When the teacher - a state-sponsored authority figure - stands up and says "recite the pledge", there's no mention that this is voluntary, rather it's led.
Again, semantics. In other words, the only thing wrong with having the pledge in schools is that teachers don't make it clear that it's voluntary? This case argues that pledges are wrong even if they are clearly voluntary because it somehow "harms" the child who chooses not to partcipate.
If a student voluntarily stood up at the beginning of the day and recited the pledge, that would be perfectly allowable, and, according to the First Amendment
Bzzz, incorrect. Schools have repeatidly suppressed and censored student-led acts related to religion. The most famous one which I can't find a link to at the moment involved a high school student who wanted to thank god in his graduation speech. The school told him he could not and if he did mention God in his speech he would not graduate. It was a big stink. The day of the speech, he got one or two sentances into it and then went "ah...ah...choo!" at which point nearly the entire student body shouted out "GOD BLESS YOU". But again, this is semantics. If students can lead a pledge but teachers can't, then can teachers invite students to lead a pledge? Can they have a sign on their desk saying "Pledges welcome here"? There is no compromise position in this case.
This is why it's ad hominem - you don't speak for Newdow, do you? You don't know what 'personal vendetta against his ex-wife for being a Christian' he has, and to claim to speak for him so as to diminish his beliefs is an attack of the worst sort
Oh please. Michael Newdow makes the claim that he is trying to correct some huge injustice. I can't suggest an alternate theory to his modivations? You don't find it interesting that his wife and daughter are both churchgoing supporters of the current pledge? I can't challenge his worthiness as a "role model" or "hero" for claiming otherwise in court?
I'm not attacking the argument by attacking Newdow. I believe the argument fails on its face because it is an attempt to criminalize discomfort. But regardless of the issue, Newdow does interviews claiming to try and protect his daughter, all the while his statements are false. For some reason, that fact hasn't gotten the attention in the press it deserves, which is why I bring it up.
It's one thing to attack, say, George W Bush's enviromental policies by saying "GW used to be a drug abuser". That's ad hominem. But if George W Bush were to describe himself as a role model or example of moral brilliance, then examining his prior acts is perfectly reasonable.
It's one thing for Newdow to claim that it is wrong for his tax dollars to go to pay for Army chaplains. It's quite another for Newdow to claim that it's wrong for his daughter to be exposed to the pledge that she voluntarily participates in and is supported by her mother.
I fail to see how allowing voluntary participation in a traditional recitation qualifies as the textbook example of indoctrination.
Maybe we shouldn't let anyone play the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games on the fear it might offend someone attending who isn't a US citizen. Maybe we should rename half the cities in this country because they were named after Christian saints. Both of these are sources of discomfort for some people. I fail to see the point in history of the country or constitution were people gained the right not to be uncomfortable. We address issues where there is harm, not discomfort. If there is no harm, then the arguement is automatically moot.
Besides this, my criticism of Michael Newdow goes directly his argument. His argument is that he has been harmed. The courts decided he was not harmed. So now, he is using his daughter as an unwilling pawn to take a second bite at the apple. He claims an injury that does not exist. He is not doing this to right a wrong or stick up for some poor overlooked victim. He's doing it to get attention for himself and to pursue personal vendettas against his ex-wife for being a Christian and wanting to raise her daughter how she sees fit.
It's a custody battle that one immature parent has used to seek attention. We wouldn't tolerate this behavior from children yet somehow he is proclaimed a hero.
Are there legitamate church/state issues? I'm sure there are. But people like Michael Newdow end up souring the issue in the public mind and creating a hostile enviroment that gives zealots on the opposing side the perfect opportunity to create an even worse situation.
Seriously, because of fighting for useless symbolic guestures like the Pledge, we will end up with Congress passing a law acknowledging God or something equally stupid. Let's remember that the Supreme Court is also considing the issue of Internet censorship...FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why three times? Because the majority wants porn censored and regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the majority rules and what the majority wants, the majority gets. And if the Supreme Court strikes it down, a new version will be passed probably before the week is out.
Pick your battles. This is a stupid one and its being fought for all the wrong reasons.
What people don't know is that this whole case was the work of a single person, Michael Newdow, who has been trying for years to pursue his crazy adgenda of rewriting history. This is not the first time he's sued over his perception of religion in government. He tried to sue Congress and the Army because they both have chaplains. Both cases were dismissed because he had no standing to complain. He brought up the Pledge first here in Sacramento. He committed perjury by making claims that his daughter was traumatized and emotionally scarred by having to recite a pledge she didn't believe it.
Perjury. He and his wife separated well before he brought his suit. His wife and daughter both attend church and the daughter quite willingly participates in the pledge. The case was eventually thrown out, again, because he had no standing to complain since he didn't have custody. Why he was not charged with perjury escapes me.
Things changed a year later. His wife moved I think to Florida (probably to get away from this kook) but somehow he got partial custody or visitation rights. Tada, now he had standing. He promptly filed suit again...EVEN THOUGH HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER NEVER CLAIM INJURY.
So basically we have a complete nut and anti-religion zealot using a lie and his daughter to promote his adgenda. And yet he's being called a hero?
Regardless of what people believe, history cannot deny that this country was founded by religious men with religious principles. God is mentioned, referrenced and cited. Aetheists somehow want people to believe that the mere presence of religion in history causes them harm. Why don't they give up their Easter and Christmas holidays if they are so offended by the government's tacit endorsement of religion?
There are aetheists who want to re-date our entire timeline so as not to center around the birth of Christ. So should we have the entire country reset all our clocks in the name of separation of church and state? They are already lawsuits trying to get every instance of "AD" in government (including stone monuments, cornerstones, etc) changed to "ACE".
Stop it stop it stop it.
People like Michael Newdow are a plague on our society. Troublemakers for the sake of making trouble. The expression goes, give them an inch and give up a mile.
It's simple, if aethists want to make changes like this or get "In Dirt We Trust" put on a coin, etc. then they should find some legislators who agree with them. But they are in denial that aethism is a minority view, and rather than accept that the majority wills something, they want to try to make everyone so miserable that we give in to them.
Aetheists like Michael Newdow are NO DIFFERENT than some yahoo suing to make a Department of God because its absence offends him. We would never accept a minority kook trying to make a religious change that the majority feels is unwarranted, so we do we accept a minority kook trying to make an anti-religious change that the majority feels is unwarranted? It's called the status quo and it will be maintained and should be maintained until a significant portion of the population feels that change is warranted. Otherwise the entire country is subject to the irrational whims of the minority and everything is chaos.
My local phone company (well, pretty much all the West Coast's phone company) SBC will only pursue an abuse or harrassment claim if you first file with the police department.
This means you have to physically go down to the police department, fill out paperwork for a harassment claim, then you can call SBC and give them the case number and they will enable call trapping on your line and take steps to block that one and only that one caller.
What a crock. Could they make it any harder? Not to mention, the lady at the police station made it very plain by the tone of her voice that the last thing they wanted to waste their time with was a telemarketter complaint.
I thought about switching phone companies but I hear AT&T isn't any better...oh and the minor detail that SBC is still a monopoly where I live so I can't even get another carrier.
I too was looking forward to the day the complaint process was online. Saturday was the day. I came home and checked my machine.
Two calls, both telemarketing. I eagerly got my pen and paper out and awaited the contact information. There was none. Instead, the messages, after chewing up three or four minutes of digital memory, ended with "If you would like more information, press 1. If you would like to remove yourself from future calls, press 8."
Those f'ing creeps. Knowing that if they had left any kind of information I would have reported them, they are hiding it. Seriously, what can I do? The first call was about interest rates. The second call was about legal protections. I'm almost positive that the first call was a credit card or loan. And I'm virtually certain that the second one was those damn PrePaid Legal spammers. But how can I prove it? Both calls showed up "Out of Area" on my caller ID.
F the entire telemarketting industry. No pity. After we kill all the spammers, let's keep the fires nice and hot for their landline brethren.
Why should it cost more? You don't think Seagate writes a crapload of bits to the drive during testing? You don't think they could see to it that the last pass leaves a certain combination of bits (Lindows) instead of some other combination of bits (1010101010.. or SEAGATE OWNERZ YOU!!!)
Anyway, even if there is a cost, it seems clear that Lindows is paying it. Lindows isn't going to sell more hard drives, if anything it will sell less since people don't need the uber-GB that an XP install requires. So if Seagate isn't getting anything out of it, there's no reason for them to increase the cost to customers and hurt themselves in the market.
Rather, it makes sense they are selling this otherwise empty space to whoever wants to use it. Lindows gets a change to make a convert. If nothing else, its free advertising. Hell, if I buy a drive that comes pre-loaded I'd probably check it out for curiousity sake.
It's a smart idea. I predict that other hard drive makes make similar deals. What if someone decided to load the drive full of DRM music that people could just click-n-buy? Think about it...
When does Kazaa partner with Western Digital to bring us hard drives preloaded with assorted music, movies and games?
They could do like NetZero does and advertise it as Internet SuperDuperDownload Accelerator. Download music and movies instantly! It's just a form of caching right? Right?
I couldn't view the PDF but it almost sounded like Intel's big invention was basically to only allow transfer among private IPs. Specifically:
The DTCP specification, embodied in home networks, would permit consumers to play downloaded music or movies on any PC or digital device in the home. However, the downloaded material can't be transmitted outside the home or copied
Now what embodies a "home" network as opposed to an "outside" network? Private IPs. Almost all the people I know with broadband and multiple computers are using some kind of NAT. Think how easy it would be to put a chip in a consumer electronic device that sniffed out the IPs of files as they come in or out. Anything with 192.168.x.x is allowed and anything else is denied.
Now, I'm sure the hard core networking guys could use PPTP or something to "extend" their home network around the world but for 99% of the people out there, they already can't figure out how to share files over NAT (try listening to all the complaints about DCC not working in any IRC filesharing channel) so it's doubtful that they would know how to bypass this either.
And because it's the a chip in the electronic device that controls the input/output you couldn't just write a program that would be NAT aware like the modern P2P sharing programs. You'd essentially have to modchip all your devices, which could end up being a lot more trouble than its worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell is a ruling on antitrust action being made based on the current market, not when the action was first filed? This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. If I get arrested for a crime, which is later repealed, I'm still under arrest and guilty of the crime.
When this case was filed, RIAA et al were suing anyone who had anything to do with online music distribution...at one point Napster was arguing that the lawsuits were less about copyright violations and more about forcing consumers to use RIAA's own crappy services.
Now two years later, because everyone had no choice but to go along with the insane pricing and restrictions RIAA wanted to begin with, we suddenly have plenty of options and competition? Bull! We consumers have already been harmed. the lion's share of online music cost is RIAA royalties. We now have to choose between the Microsoft/WMA world or the Apple/AAC world, with no way to move purchases from one to the other. This is exactly what RIAA wanted all along, and by forcing early adopters to choke to death on the crappy v1 PressPlay and MusicNet, everyone else thinks iTunes Music Store and Wal-Mart are wonderful.
F that. Yet another case of our Republican administration yanking the leash back to reward their favorite corporate donors.
The only thing about this whole mess that is true is that P2P applications are so far staying well ahead of the piracy police...so, yes, I guess it is true that consumers have plenty of choices and options...Kazaa, eDonkey/Overnet, iMesh, BitTorrent.
- JoeShmoe
.
Touche.
Although most laptops use some really funky voltages like 19.5 or whatever, my intention was to work off 12VDC since there is an abundance of power options for car/boat applications. However, laptops do have car adapters so its not far off the mark, no idea how efficient it may be however.
- JoeShmoe
.
I'm under the impression that there are circuits that can take one DC voltage and turn it into another DC voltage (with more/less current depending on the direction). I vaguely remember working with a circuit that would take 4AA's as an input (6VDC) and put out 12VDC...the circuit wasn't more than a few diodes and transistors, certainly not a transformer. If a laptop can run off a battery, it stands to reason a desktop, which is pretty much the same damn motherboard/components, could do it just was well.
As for dirty power, you obviously don't let it touch the system, just like with laptops. Use the power to charge batteries then batteries to run the system, be it desktop or laptop. If the power source is solar/wind/water you could do the same and then your system is pretty flexible. As long as you can charge the batteries be it by car or hamster wheel, you can use it. Pedal power, anyone?
A car may not be the most efficient generator, but it is certainly the most convenient. How far out there is this cabin? Stands to reason he'll be in the car and hour or two anyway, so why not just charge up the batteries on the drive over? There's more than enough power put out while the car is running to charge several batteries simultaneously. Having a generator means another engine to maintain and keep fueled, not to mention those things weren't designed to run quiet. I wouldn't want to have to fire that up every couple hours and hear it echo through the countryside.
I agree solar is pretty much a dead end, but fuel cells I would have to say are a great idea. If he plans to cook at all he'll already have to arrange propane delivery.
- JoeShmoe
.
...due to going from 120VAC->12VDC that both computers actually use. If you get a desktop, the power supply does it, if you get a laptop the power adapter does it. Maybe the laptop will use less energy because there's no fan on the power supply but either way you are still going to lose a big chunk of energy due to the conversion. I can barely hold my laptop power adapter it gets so warm...that's got to be more than a few watts.
What you should do is get yourself a computer with a 12VDC power input. They sell power supplies that take in 12VDC and have standard motherboard power connectors (although the last time I shopped for one it was using AT connectors). They work well for computers used in cars and boats. A little more expensive, but they basically take the power in and put it right to the motherboard and components.
Speaking of cars, will you have one? Why not use that as the power source? Get a laptop with a ton of extra batteries and keep three or four charging from car adapters wired into the car's trunk or something. If you get a laptop with a mobile processor that sips power, you should have well more than enough power. I work with a Dell Inspiron 600m and I ususually get 3-4 hours per battery. I have two spares I can hot swap so it is easy for me to go an entire 9 hour day running off of batteries.
Also, how much storage do you need? Why not go completely solid state? You could boot from say a CD, load everything into RAM and then power down the CD drive. At that point all you need is a USB key or other flashram to keep your data safe and that should be it. No hard drive, no CD-ROM should mean a lot less power right? Those are both big draws on my laptop.
Those are just a couple thoughts I had...
- JoeShmoe
.
All right, it's clear you just want to argue. If you think going to a movie at 10:45 in anyway resembles the audience for a premiere night showing, you are mistaken and any comments you have are irrelevant to the situation I described.
You still skate around the fact that the endings were pick and choose. Who do you think rules Rohan? The movie makes it quite clear that Eowyn will...do we need to spend ten minutes showing that? No. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out from comments made during the movie. Nor do we need to know "what happens to everyone" from Sauruman to Hallway Soldier #34 to have a closing with mainstream appeal...which is again what Jackson was aiming for either intentionally or indirectly.
And if you haven't read the book, why the hell are you even talking about whether the ending was an appropriate adaptation of the book?
Enough.
-JoeShmoe
.
The first available screening was the midnight screening and anyone who went to that was probably surrounded by die-hard fans, and maybe in costume at that. Not the same experience as going Wednesday night with the more casual fans.
"Everyone knows the ring will be destroyed" How? Because "everyone knows the good guys always win" or because "everyone already read the book"? Knowing the ending or not, what people went to see was the portrayal of it. Once the ring/Gollum went in the lava, the next question was would Frodo/Sam make it out, having Gandalf save them would answer that and provide certainly a satisfactory ending. Everyone already knows that Minas is safe and thanks to the earlier premonition, what happy endings await the King and his elf bride. But I agree that it's probably better to show this part, and had the movie ended there that too would have been satisfying. Everything else was obvious (Sam even said he's marry that girl earlier in the film) and increasingly anti-climatic.
-JoeShmoe
.
Again, arguments about this ending being long for the sake of being true to the book fall flat on their face in the light of Jackson's not showing what happened with Sauruman and the Scourging because it would have ended the movie on perhaps a sour/bittersweet note. So, if Jackson obviously feels the need to pick and choose scenes to make a more traditional/mainstream movie, I fail to see the point of choosing the most tedious scenes possible that seem solely to have fan appeal, rather than putting them also in the extended DVD edition. The only people who might miss the last paragraph are the hardcore fans that want to see everything else that was skipped too anyway.
That was my point. He makes a movie that exaggerates minor book details to make them more grandious and plot-worthy...but then goes literal for the ending and I think as a result manages to irritates both sides of the audience.
-JoeShmoe
.
** SPOILERS ** obviously
Since it's reasonable on topic, I'd like to voice my thoughts on the Return of the King.
I walked in with advance warning that right about the point where you think the movie is finished, be prepared for another 20 minutes of wrap-up. Even knowing this, I was totally unprepared for the lame and completely unncessary scenes at the end and honestly it ruined the experience for me.
First of all...okay, Frodo and Sam are good friends, but could Peter Jackson have made it any more homosexual? The audience where I watched kept laughing every time there was a scene with Frodo and Sam all dewy-eyed staring at each other with sappy music. I swear for a split second everyone thought Frodo was going to kiss Sam on the lips as they said goodbye at the boat.
Second, after blowing our load at the battle of the black gate, all everyone wants to do is roll over and go to sleep. I don't know if my experience was the same as everyone else's but for the next twenty minutes I witnessed the combined figiting of 300+ people, standing up, then sitting back down, murmuring, sighing loudly, leaving, groaning...it was pretty damn distracting and unpleasant.
Now, giving that this movie is aimed at the masses and not particularly at die-hard LOTR fans (given that the plot was changes to give it more mainstream appeal), why in God's name would Peter Jackson decide to throw in all this extra crap at the end which a) pissed off real fans because it wasn't the Scourging b) pissed off mainstream fans because it was irrelavant crap.
Everyone I talked to was in agreement that the movie should have ended with (ugh) Gandalf on the eagles rescuing the hobbits. Particularly the view from on high with Frodo flying over the mountain. Everyone at that point knows they are safe, that the bad guys are gone, good guys win, fade to "The End" and stick the rest of the movie on DVD.
But no...cut to the coronation scene. Okay, we'll indulge Jackson and sit through a completely predictable closing scene. Oh he gets the girl, yay. Oh, the hobbits are honored okay...allright, perfect ending now, right?
Nope...okay, back to the shire, back to the pub, having a nice homey scene. Clink the glasses, hey that's a perfect place to end it, we've come full circle from Shire to Shire. End, right?
NO...now we drag Bilbo's withered carcass around to take him to the Elf ship. Why? What mainstream fan even remembers this all started three years ago with Bilbo? As far as anyone knows, he died of old age from not having the ring. You leave Sauruman's ending out of the movie, a character that played a much more pivotal role, but instead show what happens to basically a bit character? Why not tell me the life story of the doorkeeper at the bar too? I really want to know if he was able to pursue his dream of becoming a lute player. Okay, so Bilbo asks about the ring, Frodo lost it, cute scene. Cut, it's a wrap.
AAAAAAAAH NO. Now we have an interminally long and weepy scene at the boat. Oh, Frodo's going too? Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo. Okay, he's going on board with Bilbo and Gandalf, the book has been turned over to Sam, and now the ship sails into the sunset in terrible movie cliche number #412. Fade out...perfect time for "The End"
MOTHER#@#@!%!% JACKSON NO DAMMIT...(sound of entire audience groaning at once) we are back at the shire to show Sam coming home? WTF? Did anyone think he was going to run away and go whoring? We knew he was married and had kids. Why do we need to see it? Who cares? And so we end staring at the round hobbit door...did the movie even begin with a round hobbit door...ah forget it, is this the end?
Okay...The End. Now I can go take that leak I've been holding in for a kidney-busting three and a half hours.
WTF? My four hour validation doesn't cover Return of the King? I have to pay an extra $4 because no one from the theater bothered to memo the parking staff about the insane length of the number one box office draw?
And maybe now you can see why I didn't particularly enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped.
-JoeShmoe
.
What, have you been living under a rock? Fine, here's oodles of links for you:
Iraq shiite 60% majority
-JoeShmoe
.
Wasn't ex-RIAA head Hillary Rosen consulting with the Iraqi Governing Council on how to write the copyright section of the Iraqi constitution?
Why not just write a mandate for Trusted Computing to guarantee the security of any imported US content and guarantee a RIAA-type organization can end up in control of whatever Iraqi culture blooms?
Iraq presents an opportunity for a democracy to form that gains all the advantages of hindsight. It would be the chance to correct all of the mistakes that were made with Amercian democracy (such as ignorance of money's impact on all three branches or the constant war of state vs federal rights). Unfortunately, now that corporate American wields such control, it seems highly unlikely that any new "democracy" we spawn would follow noble, altruistic ideals but instead follow capitalist whatever-makes-trade-for-US-companies ideals.
Futher proof that there is no room for democratic ideals in Iraqi is that the Shiite majority would easily control any democratic system that was implemented, something that I'm sure the US will not tolerate.
- JoeShmoe
.
(looks over at the Compaq 5301 in the corner)
Where have we heard this before? Oh yes, Free-PC.
In 1999 or there abouts Free-PC was doing the "ad-supported computer" scheme. Of course, back then streaming video for ads was out of the question and so they just chopped a 1024x768 desktop to be an 800x600 desktop with standard animated GIF type ads around the surplus.
I was lucky enough to get one. Free-PC had no chance. I think they were toast even before the dot-com bubble burst. In the end, the were bought by eMachines who had no interest in supporting the crazy scheme so they sent us all letters giving us ownership of the computers.
Truth be told, I thought it was a decent machine for an (ugh) Presario. Has some kind of AMD, I think it was a K2-66 maybe. I kept lugging around because I intended to find an upgrade for it, but the fastest processor it supports (a KIII+) goes on eBay for ridiculously absurd prices.
But anyway, back on topic, I think companies are nuts to keep trying this. It took all of five minutes for people to figure out how to hack the Free-PC to be a normal PC (not to mention, play any game that used DirectX and ads go bye bye). I highly recommend people sign up for this. I'd bet dollars to pesos they go under in a year and everyone walks away with a free computer. History repeats itself right?
- JoeShmoe
.
Sappy slow music plays. We zoom in on two women walking along the beach.
Young woman: Mom, can I ask you a personal question?
Older woman: Sure dear, what?
Young woman: Have you ever...you know...felt LIKE USING AOL?
Older woman: Oh my goodness. Yes dear, there have been times like that, times when I wasn't feeling so fresh. That's why I always trust EARTHLINK. You see, EARTHLINK gives me back that clean feeling.
Young woman: Really mother? How does it work?
Older woman: You simply insert the EARTHLINK applicator into your CDROM DRIVE and let it cleanse and soothe your COMPUTER.
Yound woman: Wow mom, that sounds like just what I need, where can I get EARTHLINK?
Older woman: I have some right here in my purse!
(Laughter)
- JoeShmoe
.
This is the same kind of crap that RIAA pulled on MP3.Com! Legally, I can buy a CD with music on it. Legally, I can encode a CD to MP3s and put them on my hard drive. Legally I can upload my MP3s from my hard drive to my remote server to listen to them at work, etc. I could probably even legally mail my CD to someone and hire them to encode it for me.
But just because MP3.Com took it one logical step further and encoded their copy of your CD to elimiate shipping costs, they were found guilty of copyright infringement.
Here we have an MIT setup where if they bought a bunch of CDs and hired a bunch of students to encode them it's legal, but if they just buy the already encoded songs, it's illegal. This kind of legal hair-splitting is such crap.
I don't know if this is a situation where people need to grow some balls and actually stand up to these kind of logical quagmires or a case where courts are idiotic enough to buy such arguments. And while we are on the subject, it's worth pointing out that if I distribute music over coaxial cable I'm apparently fine but if I distribute over twisted pair, I'm aching for a lawsuit.
And MPAA and RIAA wonder why people don't respect the laws about copyright...
- JoeShmoe
.
If you live in CA, it is now legal for motorcycles to run red lights as long as they wait a reasonable amount of time and the light doesn't cycle. I'm not exactly sure of the wording, but it was one of the oodles of bills that Gray Davis has been furiously signing before we kick his lame duck ass out of office.
- JoeShmoe
.
Right...in which case the customer goes up to the ISP and says "I need 50GB of bandwidth, here is $X"...what is the ISP supposed to do? "Oh, no I can't sell you that. The only reason you would need 50GB is to do something illegal." If the ISP did that, then the customer would just go to another ISP that would sell that to them. Either there's a law preventing people from selling X (like spray paint to minors) or the ISP has a right to operate in the marketplace.
This is a clear example of a shotgun lawsuit. I'm surprised they didn't sue Microsoft too.
- JoeShmoe
.
"In my experience investigating the revenue structure of Web sites such as [mp3s4free.net] the ISP hosting the Web site, [Com-cen], stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files," Speck's affadavit.
The way this dumbass words it, it sounds like he's saying the ISP is making big bucks because of all the increase in traffic the illegal files generate. No, that would cost them big bucks. The only way an ISP would be making a profit in this situation is if they were getting paid by the website. In which case, how is this different than any other ISP customer using his connection to upload warez or music or whatever?
I mean, either the ISP is benefitting from all the downloads, which makes them part of this, or they are just providing a service to a customer who can then use it for good or bad like anyone else.
To put it another way, it's like suing Comcast because they know that the only people who pay for broadband are the people who want to illegally download music and movies. If they didn't want illegal downloads, they wouln't need broadband. And god knows, anyone who pays for increased upload speed is surely a pirate!
Seriously, this is the stupidest case argument I've heard in quite some time. Even if Australia doesn't have any kind of DMCA ISP-shield or (highly unlikely) common-carrier regulations, then this is either the ISP is running the free MP3s and thus costing themselves a crapload in bandwidth, or it's the ISP's customer to blame, in which case the ISP has nothing to do with it.
I don't get it.
- JoeShmoe
.
Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system,
Closed system? What, closed like Office file formats? Like middleware portions of the OS? Like network communications? Like the MSN Messanger service? Like pretty much everything Microsoft has ever done?
Where iPod owners cannot access content from other services
Wrong. If said other services allow users to burn CDs or download MP3s then yes, they can. If said other services won't allow users to do either...well, why the hell would anyone want to use them? Basically the only thing iTunes can't work with is DRM-locked WMA files that prohibit burning, and even then you could just use the audio out-in trick to rerecord them to MP3.
Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store
Limited? Like songs from every major label limited? Like a kazillion independant lables limited? Like a few thousand audio books limited? Like 13 million sales limited? Yeah, iTMS is really the downside to this equation.
this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services
Choice in music services, like that they all use WMA. Choice in devices, like that they all play WMA. And choice in music, like that it's available in WMA.
to burn to a CD or put on a portable device
Which was pretty much unheard of before Apple negotiated a major play for user rights. Before iTMS you were lucky to even "check out" a song to a portable player, burning or keeping it there was practically unheard of from the major label services.
Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices
That's like saying if I redeem my Pepsi points I can't get any of the Coke products out there. It's simple, iTunes is for the iPod. If you own some other portable device then they are probably going to want you to use their included software. Why? Because WM is bare-bones basic player function only and customers are not satisfied trying to manage their music through crappy Windows Media Player. So using iTunes with an iPod is no different than using MusicMatch or whatever come with a Rio etc.
I'm no Apple fanboy but this guy rivals the Iraqi Information Minister.
- JoeShmoe
.
This is school-led and endorsed, and taking time from the normal school day. There would be *no* case whatsoever is this were before the school-day started, or after it ended (and in fact, many high schools have 'prayer clubs' that meet after school hours - and those are just fine).
You are arguing minor semantics. In other words, if a pledge is led after the tardy bell rings, then it's state-sponsored indoctrination but if it's done five minutes beforehand then it's "just fine"? That's not the issue being discussed. This case argues that the pledge is wrong any time because state-paid teachers and state-maintained classrooms are being used.
When the teacher - a state-sponsored authority figure - stands up and says "recite the pledge", there's no mention that this is voluntary, rather it's led.
Again, semantics. In other words, the only thing wrong with having the pledge in schools is that teachers don't make it clear that it's voluntary? This case argues that pledges are wrong even if they are clearly voluntary because it somehow "harms" the child who chooses not to partcipate.
If a student voluntarily stood up at the beginning of the day and recited the pledge, that would be perfectly allowable, and, according to the First Amendment
Bzzz, incorrect. Schools have repeatidly suppressed and censored student-led acts related to religion. The most famous one which I can't find a link to at the moment involved a high school student who wanted to thank god in his graduation speech. The school told him he could not and if he did mention God in his speech he would not graduate. It was a big stink. The day of the speech, he got one or two sentances into it and then went "ah...ah...choo!" at which point nearly the entire student body shouted out "GOD BLESS YOU". But again, this is semantics. If students can lead a pledge but teachers can't, then can teachers invite students to lead a pledge? Can they have a sign on their desk saying "Pledges welcome here"? There is no compromise position in this case.
This is why it's ad hominem - you don't speak for Newdow, do you? You don't know what 'personal vendetta against his ex-wife for being a Christian' he has, and to claim to speak for him so as to diminish his beliefs is an attack of the worst sort
Oh please. Michael Newdow makes the claim that he is trying to correct some huge injustice. I can't suggest an alternate theory to his modivations? You don't find it interesting that his wife and daughter are both churchgoing supporters of the current pledge? I can't challenge his worthiness as a "role model" or "hero" for claiming otherwise in court?
I'm not attacking the argument by attacking Newdow. I believe the argument fails on its face because it is an attempt to criminalize discomfort. But regardless of the issue, Newdow does interviews claiming to try and protect his daughter, all the while his statements are false. For some reason, that fact hasn't gotten the attention in the press it deserves, which is why I bring it up.
It's one thing to attack, say, George W Bush's enviromental policies by saying "GW used to be a drug abuser". That's ad hominem. But if George W Bush were to describe himself as a role model or example of moral brilliance, then examining his prior acts is perfectly reasonable.
It's one thing for Newdow to claim that it is wrong for his tax dollars to go to pay for Army chaplains. It's quite another for Newdow to claim that it's wrong for his daughter to be exposed to the pledge that she voluntarily participates in and is supported by her mother.
- JoeShmoe
.
I fail to see how allowing voluntary participation in a traditional recitation qualifies as the textbook example of indoctrination.
Maybe we shouldn't let anyone play the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games on the fear it might offend someone attending who isn't a US citizen. Maybe we should rename half the cities in this country because they were named after Christian saints. Both of these are sources of discomfort for some people. I fail to see the point in history of the country or constitution were people gained the right not to be uncomfortable. We address issues where there is harm, not discomfort. If there is no harm, then the arguement is automatically moot.
Besides this, my criticism of Michael Newdow goes directly his argument. His argument is that he has been harmed. The courts decided he was not harmed. So now, he is using his daughter as an unwilling pawn to take a second bite at the apple. He claims an injury that does not exist. He is not doing this to right a wrong or stick up for some poor overlooked victim. He's doing it to get attention for himself and to pursue personal vendettas against his ex-wife for being a Christian and wanting to raise her daughter how she sees fit.
It's a custody battle that one immature parent has used to seek attention. We wouldn't tolerate this behavior from children yet somehow he is proclaimed a hero.
Are there legitamate church/state issues? I'm sure there are. But people like Michael Newdow end up souring the issue in the public mind and creating a hostile enviroment that gives zealots on the opposing side the perfect opportunity to create an even worse situation.
Seriously, because of fighting for useless symbolic guestures like the Pledge, we will end up with Congress passing a law acknowledging God or something equally stupid. Let's remember that the Supreme Court is also considing the issue of Internet censorship...FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why three times? Because the majority wants porn censored and regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the majority rules and what the majority wants, the majority gets. And if the Supreme Court strikes it down, a new version will be passed probably before the week is out.
Pick your battles. This is a stupid one and its being fought for all the wrong reasons.
- JoeShmoe
.
This whole case is a load of crap.
What people don't know is that this whole case was the work of a single person, Michael Newdow, who has been trying for years to pursue his crazy adgenda of rewriting history. This is not the first time he's sued over his perception of religion in government. He tried to sue Congress and the Army because they both have chaplains. Both cases were dismissed because he had no standing to complain. He brought up the Pledge first here in Sacramento. He committed perjury by making claims that his daughter was traumatized and emotionally scarred by having to recite a pledge she didn't believe it.
Perjury. He and his wife separated well before he brought his suit. His wife and daughter both attend church and the daughter quite willingly participates in the pledge. The case was eventually thrown out, again, because he had no standing to complain since he didn't have custody. Why he was not charged with perjury escapes me.
Things changed a year later. His wife moved I think to Florida (probably to get away from this kook) but somehow he got partial custody or visitation rights. Tada, now he had standing. He promptly filed suit again...EVEN THOUGH HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER NEVER CLAIM INJURY.
So basically we have a complete nut and anti-religion zealot using a lie and his daughter to promote his adgenda. And yet he's being called a hero?
Regardless of what people believe, history cannot deny that this country was founded by religious men with religious principles. God is mentioned, referrenced and cited. Aetheists somehow want people to believe that the mere presence of religion in history causes them harm. Why don't they give up their Easter and Christmas holidays if they are so offended by the government's tacit endorsement of religion?
There are aetheists who want to re-date our entire timeline so as not to center around the birth of Christ. So should we have the entire country reset all our clocks in the name of separation of church and state? They are already lawsuits trying to get every instance of "AD" in government (including stone monuments, cornerstones, etc) changed to "ACE".
Stop it stop it stop it.
People like Michael Newdow are a plague on our society. Troublemakers for the sake of making trouble. The expression goes, give them an inch and give up a mile.
It's simple, if aethists want to make changes like this or get "In Dirt We Trust" put on a coin, etc. then they should find some legislators who agree with them. But they are in denial that aethism is a minority view, and rather than accept that the majority wills something, they want to try to make everyone so miserable that we give in to them.
Aetheists like Michael Newdow are NO DIFFERENT than some yahoo suing to make a Department of God because its absence offends him. We would never accept a minority kook trying to make a religious change that the majority feels is unwarranted, so we do we accept a minority kook trying to make an anti-religious change that the majority feels is unwarranted? It's called the status quo and it will be maintained and should be maintained until a significant portion of the population feels that change is warranted. Otherwise the entire country is subject to the irrational whims of the minority and everything is chaos.
-JoeShmoe
.
No good.
My local phone company (well, pretty much all the West Coast's phone company) SBC will only pursue an abuse or harrassment claim if you first file with the police department.
This means you have to physically go down to the police department, fill out paperwork for a harassment claim, then you can call SBC and give them the case number and they will enable call trapping on your line and take steps to block that one and only that one caller.
What a crock. Could they make it any harder? Not to mention, the lady at the police station made it very plain by the tone of her voice that the last thing they wanted to waste their time with was a telemarketter complaint.
I thought about switching phone companies but I hear AT&T isn't any better...oh and the minor detail that SBC is still a monopoly where I live so I can't even get another carrier.
- JoeShmoe
.
I too was looking forward to the day the complaint process was online. Saturday was the day. I came home and checked my machine.
Two calls, both telemarketing. I eagerly got my pen and paper out and awaited the contact information. There was none. Instead, the messages, after chewing up three or four minutes of digital memory, ended with "If you would like more information, press 1. If you would like to remove yourself from future calls, press 8."
Those f'ing creeps. Knowing that if they had left any kind of information I would have reported them, they are hiding it. Seriously, what can I do? The first call was about interest rates. The second call was about legal protections. I'm almost positive that the first call was a credit card or loan. And I'm virtually certain that the second one was those damn PrePaid Legal spammers. But how can I prove it? Both calls showed up "Out of Area" on my caller ID.
F the entire telemarketting industry. No pity. After we kill all the spammers, let's keep the fires nice and hot for their landline brethren.
- JoeShmoe
.
Why should it cost more? You don't think Seagate writes a crapload of bits to the drive during testing? You don't think they could see to it that the last pass leaves a certain combination of bits (Lindows) instead of some other combination of bits (1010101010.. or SEAGATE OWNERZ YOU!!!)
Anyway, even if there is a cost, it seems clear that Lindows is paying it. Lindows isn't going to sell more hard drives, if anything it will sell less since people don't need the uber-GB that an XP install requires. So if Seagate isn't getting anything out of it, there's no reason for them to increase the cost to customers and hurt themselves in the market.
Rather, it makes sense they are selling this otherwise empty space to whoever wants to use it. Lindows gets a change to make a convert. If nothing else, its free advertising. Hell, if I buy a drive that comes pre-loaded I'd probably check it out for curiousity sake.
It's a smart idea. I predict that other hard drive makes make similar deals. What if someone decided to load the drive full of DRM music that people could just click-n-buy? Think about it...
- JoeShmoe
.
When does Kazaa partner with Western Digital to bring us hard drives preloaded with assorted music, movies and games?
They could do like NetZero does and advertise it as Internet SuperDuperDownload Accelerator. Download music and movies instantly! It's just a form of caching right? Right?
-JoeShmoe
.
I couldn't view the PDF but it almost sounded like Intel's big invention was basically to only allow transfer among private IPs. Specifically:
The DTCP specification, embodied in home networks, would permit consumers to play downloaded music or movies on any PC or digital device in the home. However, the downloaded material can't be transmitted outside the home or copied
Now what embodies a "home" network as opposed to an "outside" network? Private IPs. Almost all the people I know with broadband and multiple computers are using some kind of NAT. Think how easy it would be to put a chip in a consumer electronic device that sniffed out the IPs of files as they come in or out. Anything with 192.168.x.x is allowed and anything else is denied.
Now, I'm sure the hard core networking guys could use PPTP or something to "extend" their home network around the world but for 99% of the people out there, they already can't figure out how to share files over NAT (try listening to all the complaints about DCC not working in any IRC filesharing channel) so it's doubtful that they would know how to bypass this either.
And because it's the a chip in the electronic device that controls the input/output you couldn't just write a program that would be NAT aware like the modern P2P sharing programs. You'd essentially have to modchip all your devices, which could end up being a lot more trouble than its worth.
So that's my theory on how it'll work.
-JoeShmoe
.