Great, so you don't vote on candidates, but nearly every state has an initiative on the ballot. Most ballot initiatives I have seen are simple judgment calls...
Prop 1A - Anti-Clowning Law.
Yes, I support a law against clowning.
No, I believe clowning should be legal.
Most ballot initiatives are that simple. I've had the pleasure of voting on several initiatives just this year and all of them were really simple to read and understand as I was voting on them. There was no flip of the coin, no guessing or lack of information. I informed myself in the booth.
I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for.
Could you be any more naive? There isn't a single political candidate in any party, that you could agree with on everything they stood for, unless that candidate was yourself. Then again, you'd probably end up changing your mind on something and then believe your vote for yourself went against everything you stood for when you voted for yourself.
Based on that observation, intimate relationships with other people will probably be a nightmare for you.
Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of a crime that dealt with a financial transaction. She was convicted of "lying" to cover her ass when asked about the transaction. A transaction, that if she hadn't made would've cost her around $50,000 - she paid nearly $200k in fines and did some time in powderpuff prison.
They spent millions to prosecute her, damaged her company to the tune of millions of dollars and used her as a scape goat for a common practice that all large brokers still engage in today.
I would argue her punishment wasn't any more relevant than the punishment we are decrying.
I'm not saying an otherwise popular artist is losing money on a concert. I am saying that the economy involved in touring isn't much different than that of selling records and bands on the lower end aren't making the killing everyone seems to believe they are. File sharing helps the smaller bands, so long as those hearing the music purchase it. Touring helps to support a release, make new fans and earn some money, but in the end MOST artists would benefit more financially from sales than a tour.
I can name dozens of bands who have very profitable tours, but few, if any, of them are smaller, independent artists. There are also niche artists that are playing to smaller crowds at significantly higher prices, but these artists tend to have a solid fanbase in the first place. An up and coming artist or an independent artist with a small fanbase isn't going to make a lot of money by touring.
Remember, traditionally bands really make their money touring, not from music sales which the labels gouge them on.
This is P2P propaganda that is unsupported by reality. Some bands, like "The Dead" maybe make most of their money from touring. Most bands, contrary to Slashdot rumor, do not make a killing on the road. The more popular the band/artist (Madonna, The Eagles, Phish) the more they can make. The smaller the band (Interpol, Deathcab For Cutie, Sigur Ros) the less potential they have to make a reasonable sum of money on the road.
Just like major label record deal, playing a live concert introduces contracts, fees and complications that tend to sap money out of lesser artists. Coco from Man or Astroman once posted a great article (can't find the link) on the subject on the bands website. In short, as they became more popular and played larger venues to more people, they made less money touring.
Jumping from the bar circuit to the larger club circuit doubled or tripled the fees they were responsible to pay. So, on top of their transportation costs, food costs, lodging costs, maintenence costs, managerial fees, they were now responsible for advertising fees, booking fees, security fees, insurance and a host of other miscelleanous fees and expenses that nickle and dimed them to death. His conclusion was that they made slightly more playing to an audience of 150 in a bar than they did playing to 600 people at a club. This is true for many indie bands and less than platinum selling acts playing medium sized venues.
On the other hand, synch royalties is where its at for smaller artists, which is why you are seeing Deathcab for Cutie, Sigur Ros et al on so many TV soundtracks and in advertising these days. One commercial, one TV show or one movie can make a smaller artists year and it boosts their sales, which in turn brings them more mechanical royalties.
Ahh yes, I did misunderstand your post and apologies if I was overly harsh.
I do think the RIAA isn't changing fast enough, but they are much more flexible than we believe.
Huh? The RIAA isn't going anywhere. This is like having a death-watch for GE. "Their profits are down 5% this quarter - they're going under!" Just ignore the billion in liquid assets. The RIAA isn't dead and they aren't going down anytime in the next 5 years.
What I am tiring of is the constant "I want the RIAA to go down, but I'm not doing anything about it other than illegally downloading music." The truth is, like it or not, they have a legitimate claim to the product folks are illegally downloading. And yes, the majority of P2P clients/networks primarily goal is to "share" copyrighted material. Like it or not, music belongs to someone - a label, an organization, an artist, a band, Michael Jackson. This might shock some, but many things in art/business/life are owned by someone who doesn't want to give it away.
Personally, I haven't bought (or (illegally) downloaded) any new music published by an RIAA affiliated label in close to a decade. In my opinion the best way to punish the RIAA is to not give them my money. Instead, I focus my habits on independent labels and if I absolutely have to have some crappy new major label release, I buy it used*.
Just like Wal-Mart bashing, RIAA bashing is really easy to do and it rallies the troops. In reality, if everyone who talks the talk would walk the walk, we'd all care less about what the RIAA is upto. Music is a want, not a need. It is really, really simple to avoid them. Don't buy their affiliated products. Don't even download them.
* Yes, I know... technically they made money on the used media and by my purchasing it I am removing a used copy from the shelf which might help sell a new copy. But, it beats buying it new and giving my money directly to an organization I don't like and it beats downloading it and then acting like a self-righteous Robin Hood.
What would that be? Go bankrupt and destroy your credit like Dave Ramsey did? Then, to get out of debt, you figure out that you can start a credit counseling business that will receive federal funding for each poor sucker you can sign up. But wait, you come up with ground-breaking ideas like "don't buy crap you can't afford" and get a radio show on a fledgling, local Christian-Conservative talk radio station where you then suggest to 80% of your callers that they need to go visit your credit counseling business. (insert cash register sound as you ride the cash cow into syndication)
80% of what Dave Ramsey "preaches" I was taught in high school economics. The other 20% is random bullshit that doesn't work in the real world.
I suppose when you go car shopping you complain that a fairly reliable Honda costs 20%-30% more than an unreliable, poorly designed GM. Sure, the Honda gets 25% better fuel economy, performs better and doesn't break down as much, but the GM is cheaper and it has a longer warranty than the Honda.
If I didn't sell any copies, I'd owe the money back to the label...
Slight correction - advances in the recording industry are "recoupable but not refundable." There may be odd exceptions to this rule, but the standard contract will not allow a record label to sue an artist if their work fails to break even against the advance.
...it's exactly the same as buying the record from Circuit City or Tower Records... from which the artists get the same amount of money: none.
Actually, I know a lot of musicians and songwriters who earn mechanical royalties on music sold at retail locations. Apparently, these "record stores" have existed for a few years and afforded tens of thousands of people a good living.
I find it sad that no one gave a damn what these people made until P2P came along and they had a reason to question the distribution chain. All of the sudden every P2P file trader is an activist who just standing up to the man. Utter bullshit.
Three things I feel compelled to point out that...
#1. Contrary to popular belief, the RIAA does not earn money on each song/cd/record sold. The RIAA is primarily financed through membership. These days the RIAA probably makes more money from negotiated settlements with P2P users than anything else.
#2. AllOfMP3.com does not pay the artists, labels or the rights organizations that represent artists or labels. ROMS, one of two "organizations" they claim to pay, has nothing to do with artists rights or the payout of royalties. FAIR seems equally dubious.
#3. Check with Merge Records and ask them how many copies of "69 Love Songs" by the Magnetic Fields have been sold on AllofMP3.com. They won't know because 1.) AllofMP3 is not open to audit as most distributors are (online and otherwise) and because 2.) They have not received a dime from AllofMP3.com.
Morally speaking, buying from AllOfMP3.com on par with downloading via P2P. Either way artists get the same amount of money - none.
And to be on topic, I don't find most basic DRM that evil as long as I know what I'm getting into before I commit my money. I don't think Apple using an expiration date on "rented" videos is a big deal. In fact, I welcome having a new choice in the marketplace.
If I don't like it I won't spend my money on it. Amazing how that works for so many aspects of life.
On the other hand Quark lost market share by not moving to OS X in a timely manner. My wife's firm moved to InDesign when they upgraded to new OS X native machines back in the day. For every person who held out, another switched applications. Quark really dragged their feet on the conversion and I don't think Adobe will hold out as long on the move to UB, particularly if the hardware is selling well. People want the new hotness.
To stay on topic, I've always felt that Apple releases hardware and then developers create software to take full advantage of it. In short, hardware drives software development. It seems to differ slightly from the WinTel universe where hardware upgrades are often invoked by mew software. Admittedly, I have this perception because I always upgrade when new software runs dog slow on my PC. I don't seem to do that on my Mac as much, though the Intel move will probably hasten an upgrade from suddenly ancient G4.
Egghat - I believe they could be sliding, but I think it depends on how you view market share. Is it Mac OS vs. anything running Windows or Apple vs. Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony, etc?
1) the website is simply at another address, well-educated users will spot the lack of https and the different URL
My mother forwarded me a very good phishing attempt that actually used a script that overwrote the data in the address bar. So, when you clicked on the link to the website you usually visit you saw the website you expected and your browser told you you were secure and at the right address, but you were being phished at a third party site. The email was even formatted to look like the typical "your bill is ready to view" email that she receives every month.
The script only worked with IE on Windows and not with Firefox or Safari and ironically her bank only supported IE at the time. Surely by now IE has fixed the bug that allowed this occur, but I can easily see how folks might've been taken by this.
While Sears still has their own cards, most retailers with credit accounts have outsourced these to Visa/Mastercard and gone to more of a "rewards" setup because it was cheaper. The "in-house" and closed-system credit models are slowly fading away at the consumer level.
"Remarkable" is a poor choice of words in this context, but I believe the author was trying to imply their "remarkable market share growth" over the past year will continue.
What I love are the assholes who troll fresh auctions with "Buy It Now" prices and no reserve to remove the "BIN" option from others auctions. They bid $1 simply to remove the "Buy It Now" price just to be a pain. You can track them doing it across hundreds of auctions a day. As a seller I find this unacceptable, particularly when I'm paying to use the BiN function. My BIN price should remain until bidding reaches 25% of the BIN price or $25, whichever is lower.
I stopped using Ebay as a resource to purchase or sell anything because of sniping, BIN wasting trolls and rampant fraud. In my mind the only feature they could add that might bring me back is automatic auction extension when a bid is placed.
I should've prefaced my comment with "my wife is a Librarian, so I spend a lot of time perusing the media section at my local library." I see kids thumbing through the massive vinyl collection at the main library all of the time, so I simply assume most kids are hip to the concept.
The 45's comment made me think if maybe it is a terminology thing. Records have a lot of slang associated with them - singles, 7's, 7 inch, 45's, 78's, 33's, wax, vinyl, shellac... I'm sure there are more.
Really now, how many people, including young people, truly have no idea what a vinyl record is? The concept isn't nearly as foreign as it might seem, particularly when the average public and school library is still chocked full of vinyl records. You really think school systems are going back and replacing all of their copies of "Peter and the Wolf" with CD's or MP3's? Hell no.
Most kids know what a horse and buggy are, even though they've probably never ridden on one. Same goes for records.
Oh... and maybe those kids can learn all about how SST ripped off their artists and had to relinquish most of their catalog. Since the artists (or another label) own their work now, their music is much more likely to be preserved.
A Linux user using a public restroom with other people in it? There's something fishy about that joke.
Seriously though, this joke is mildly humorous if you assume that most people piss on their hands like a Major League Baseball pitcher. Urine is fairly sterile, but the coliform bacteria that make their way around your nether-regions isn't exactly healthy. That's why we wash our hands!
So, with that in mind, the linux user in the joke is a very disgustingly dirty person whom I hope never has a career in fast food.
On the flipside, how hard would it be for someone to blog as another student and what would the ramifications be?
"I'm user Joe_Smith from Libertyville... I'm going to knife the principal if he reads my blog."
How hard will the human Joe Smith have to work to prove he isn't user Joe_Smith? How much burden of proof will the school disctrict need to suspend/expel him?
And does anyone get the irony that the town is "Libertyville." Yeah... as if.
I am participating in a charity ride for diabetes research and sent out fairly original emails to all of my friends and family. Out of about 60 I sent, 25 of them were caught and/or deleted by a SPAM filter. Admittedly, 15 of the SPAM filtered recipients worked for the same firm, but these are people with whom I occasionally correspond and have never had an inkling of trouble.
Fortunately I found out about it early and was able to work around it, but I can imagine that thousands of Tour de Cure riders who are emailing their friennds for support are experiencing the frustration of having their correspondence marked as SPAM simply because keywords are setting a red flag (give me money) or the source of the email (diabetes.org) is getting them blocked.
Shameless self promotion and diabetes research fundraising: If you want to sponsor me, an overweight nerd with a sense of humor and a soon-to-be-sore taint, on the Tour de Cure...
Visit my Tour de Cure website
I have a hard time taking commentary on Apple seriously when the author invokes the lemming myth. Contrary to myth, they don't all follow each other to certain death.
Seriously though, Boot Camp is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get more folks to check out Apple. From the recent purchases of my friends and co-workers, Boot Camp is doing a good job too.
I'm so sick of this Libertarian bullshit. I supported the LP for years and all I managed to do was help the Neo-Cons elect assholes who shat on the country and wiped their backside with the consitution. Words cannot express my regret for believing that I could send a message to Washington by voting for someone who had no chance of ever being elected. I certainly sent a message... "here are the keys, crash the car."
I love the concept of the LP, but I also hate to see assholes continually elected because of third party idealism*. Had all of the Reforms, Greens and Libs and voted for viable candidates in the last few elections this country might not have the massive problems we have now.
Yes, I realize this creates a vicious loop... "gee, I'd support the Libertarian Party, but they have no power...
Slashdot Mirror
Great, so you don't vote on candidates, but nearly every state has an initiative on the ballot. Most ballot initiatives I have seen are simple judgment calls...
Prop 1A - Anti-Clowning Law.
Yes, I support a law against clowning.
No, I believe clowning should be legal.
Most ballot initiatives are that simple. I've had the pleasure of voting on several initiatives just this year and all of them were really simple to read and understand as I was voting on them. There was no flip of the coin, no guessing or lack of information. I informed myself in the booth.
I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for.
Could you be any more naive? There isn't a single political candidate in any party, that you could agree with on everything they stood for, unless that candidate was yourself. Then again, you'd probably end up changing your mind on something and then believe your vote for yourself went against everything you stood for when you voted for yourself.
Based on that observation, intimate relationships with other people will probably be a nightmare for you.
Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of a crime that dealt with a financial transaction. She was convicted of "lying" to cover her ass when asked about the transaction. A transaction, that if she hadn't made would've cost her around $50,000 - she paid nearly $200k in fines and did some time in powderpuff prison.
They spent millions to prosecute her, damaged her company to the tune of millions of dollars and used her as a scape goat for a common practice that all large brokers still engage in today.
I would argue her punishment wasn't any more relevant than the punishment we are decrying.
I'm not saying an otherwise popular artist is losing money on a concert. I am saying that the economy involved in touring isn't much different than that of selling records and bands on the lower end aren't making the killing everyone seems to believe they are. File sharing helps the smaller bands, so long as those hearing the music purchase it. Touring helps to support a release, make new fans and earn some money, but in the end MOST artists would benefit more financially from sales than a tour.
I can name dozens of bands who have very profitable tours, but few, if any, of them are smaller, independent artists. There are also niche artists that are playing to smaller crowds at significantly higher prices, but these artists tend to have a solid fanbase in the first place. An up and coming artist or an independent artist with a small fanbase isn't going to make a lot of money by touring.
This is P2P propaganda that is unsupported by reality. Some bands, like "The Dead" maybe make most of their money from touring. Most bands, contrary to Slashdot rumor, do not make a killing on the road. The more popular the band/artist (Madonna, The Eagles, Phish) the more they can make. The smaller the band (Interpol, Deathcab For Cutie, Sigur Ros) the less potential they have to make a reasonable sum of money on the road.
Just like major label record deal, playing a live concert introduces contracts, fees and complications that tend to sap money out of lesser artists. Coco from Man or Astroman once posted a great article (can't find the link) on the subject on the bands website. In short, as they became more popular and played larger venues to more people, they made less money touring.
Jumping from the bar circuit to the larger club circuit doubled or tripled the fees they were responsible to pay. So, on top of their transportation costs, food costs, lodging costs, maintenence costs, managerial fees, they were now responsible for advertising fees, booking fees, security fees, insurance and a host of other miscelleanous fees and expenses that nickle and dimed them to death. His conclusion was that they made slightly more playing to an audience of 150 in a bar than they did playing to 600 people at a club. This is true for many indie bands and less than platinum selling acts playing medium sized venues.
On the other hand, synch royalties is where its at for smaller artists, which is why you are seeing Deathcab for Cutie, Sigur Ros et al on so many TV soundtracks and in advertising these days. One commercial, one TV show or one movie can make a smaller artists year and it boosts their sales, which in turn brings them more mechanical royalties.
Ahh yes, I did misunderstand your post and apologies if I was overly harsh.
I do think the RIAA isn't changing fast enough, but they are much more flexible than we believe.
What I am tiring of is the constant "I want the RIAA to go down, but I'm not doing anything about it other than illegally downloading music." The truth is, like it or not, they have a legitimate claim to the product folks are illegally downloading. And yes, the majority of P2P clients/networks primarily goal is to "share" copyrighted material. Like it or not, music belongs to someone - a label, an organization, an artist, a band, Michael Jackson. This might shock some, but many things in art/business/life are owned by someone who doesn't want to give it away.
Personally, I haven't bought (or (illegally) downloaded) any new music published by an RIAA affiliated label in close to a decade. In my opinion the best way to punish the RIAA is to not give them my money. Instead, I focus my habits on independent labels and if I absolutely have to have some crappy new major label release, I buy it used*.
Just like Wal-Mart bashing, RIAA bashing is really easy to do and it rallies the troops. In reality, if everyone who talks the talk would walk the walk, we'd all care less about what the RIAA is upto. Music is a want, not a need. It is really, really simple to avoid them. Don't buy their affiliated products. Don't even download them.
* Yes, I know... technically they made money on the used media and by my purchasing it I am removing a used copy from the shelf which might help sell a new copy. But, it beats buying it new and giving my money directly to an organization I don't like and it beats downloading it and then acting like a self-righteous Robin Hood.
What would that be? Go bankrupt and destroy your credit like Dave Ramsey did? Then, to get out of debt, you figure out that you can start a credit counseling business that will receive federal funding for each poor sucker you can sign up. But wait, you come up with ground-breaking ideas like "don't buy crap you can't afford" and get a radio show on a fledgling, local Christian-Conservative talk radio station where you then suggest to 80% of your callers that they need to go visit your credit counseling business. (insert cash register sound as you ride the cash cow into syndication)
80% of what Dave Ramsey "preaches" I was taught in high school economics. The other 20% is random bullshit that doesn't work in the real world.
I put a little KY Jelly on the disk before I insert it into the slot. The CD player seems to whirr with joy!
I suppose when you go car shopping you complain that a fairly reliable Honda costs 20%-30% more than an unreliable, poorly designed GM. Sure, the Honda gets 25% better fuel economy, performs better and doesn't break down as much, but the GM is cheaper and it has a longer warranty than the Honda.
If I didn't sell any copies, I'd owe the money back to the label...
Slight correction - advances in the recording industry are "recoupable but not refundable." There may be odd exceptions to this rule, but the standard contract will not allow a record label to sue an artist if their work fails to break even against the advance.
...it's exactly the same as buying the record from Circuit City or Tower Records... from which the artists get the same amount of money: none.
Actually, I know a lot of musicians and songwriters who earn mechanical royalties on music sold at retail locations. Apparently, these "record stores" have existed for a few years and afforded tens of thousands of people a good living.
I find it sad that no one gave a damn what these people made until P2P came along and they had a reason to question the distribution chain. All of the sudden every P2P file trader is an activist who just standing up to the man. Utter bullshit.
Three things I feel compelled to point out that...
#1. Contrary to popular belief, the RIAA does not earn money on each song/cd/record sold. The RIAA is primarily financed through membership. These days the RIAA probably makes more money from negotiated settlements with P2P users than anything else.
#2. AllOfMP3.com does not pay the artists, labels or the rights organizations that represent artists or labels. ROMS, one of two "organizations" they claim to pay, has nothing to do with artists rights or the payout of royalties. FAIR seems equally dubious.
#3. Check with Merge Records and ask them how many copies of "69 Love Songs" by the Magnetic Fields have been sold on AllofMP3.com. They won't know because 1.) AllofMP3 is not open to audit as most distributors are (online and otherwise) and because 2.) They have not received a dime from AllofMP3.com.
Morally speaking, buying from AllOfMP3.com on par with downloading via P2P. Either way artists get the same amount of money - none.
And to be on topic, I don't find most basic DRM that evil as long as I know what I'm getting into before I commit my money. I don't think Apple using an expiration date on "rented" videos is a big deal. In fact, I welcome having a new choice in the marketplace.
If I don't like it I won't spend my money on it. Amazing how that works for so many aspects of life.
On the other hand Quark lost market share by not moving to OS X in a timely manner. My wife's firm moved to InDesign when they upgraded to new OS X native machines back in the day. For every person who held out, another switched applications. Quark really dragged their feet on the conversion and I don't think Adobe will hold out as long on the move to UB, particularly if the hardware is selling well. People want the new hotness.
To stay on topic, I've always felt that Apple releases hardware and then developers create software to take full advantage of it. In short, hardware drives software development. It seems to differ slightly from the WinTel universe where hardware upgrades are often invoked by mew software. Admittedly, I have this perception because I always upgrade when new software runs dog slow on my PC. I don't seem to do that on my Mac as much, though the Intel move will probably hasten an upgrade from suddenly ancient G4.
Egghat - I believe they could be sliding, but I think it depends on how you view market share. Is it Mac OS vs. anything running Windows or Apple vs. Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony, etc?
My mother forwarded me a very good phishing attempt that actually used a script that overwrote the data in the address bar. So, when you clicked on the link to the website you usually visit you saw the website you expected and your browser told you you were secure and at the right address, but you were being phished at a third party site. The email was even formatted to look like the typical "your bill is ready to view" email that she receives every month.
The script only worked with IE on Windows and not with Firefox or Safari and ironically her bank only supported IE at the time. Surely by now IE has fixed the bug that allowed this occur, but I can easily see how folks might've been taken by this.
While Sears still has their own cards, most retailers with credit accounts have outsourced these to Visa/Mastercard and gone to more of a "rewards" setup because it was cheaper. The "in-house" and closed-system credit models are slowly fading away at the consumer level.
"Remarkable" is a poor choice of words in this context, but I believe the author was trying to imply their "remarkable market share growth" over the past year will continue.
What I love are the assholes who troll fresh auctions with "Buy It Now" prices and no reserve to remove the "BIN" option from others auctions. They bid $1 simply to remove the "Buy It Now" price just to be a pain. You can track them doing it across hundreds of auctions a day. As a seller I find this unacceptable, particularly when I'm paying to use the BiN function. My BIN price should remain until bidding reaches 25% of the BIN price or $25, whichever is lower.
I stopped using Ebay as a resource to purchase or sell anything because of sniping, BIN wasting trolls and rampant fraud. In my mind the only feature they could add that might bring me back is automatic auction extension when a bid is placed.
The 45's comment made me think if maybe it is a terminology thing. Records have a lot of slang associated with them - singles, 7's, 7 inch, 45's, 78's, 33's, wax, vinyl, shellac... I'm sure there are more.
Most kids know what a horse and buggy are, even though they've probably never ridden on one. Same goes for records.
Oh... and maybe those kids can learn all about how SST ripped off their artists and had to relinquish most of their catalog. Since the artists (or another label) own their work now, their music is much more likely to be preserved.
A Linux user using a public restroom with other people in it? There's something fishy about that joke.
Seriously though, this joke is mildly humorous if you assume that most people piss on their hands like a Major League Baseball pitcher. Urine is fairly sterile, but the coliform bacteria that make their way around your nether-regions isn't exactly healthy. That's why we wash our hands!
So, with that in mind, the linux user in the joke is a very disgustingly dirty person whom I hope never has a career in fast food.
"I'm user Joe_Smith from Libertyville... I'm going to knife the principal if he reads my blog."
How hard will the human Joe Smith have to work to prove he isn't user Joe_Smith? How much burden of proof will the school disctrict need to suspend/expel him?
And does anyone get the irony that the town is "Libertyville." Yeah... as if.
Fortunately I found out about it early and was able to work around it, but I can imagine that thousands of Tour de Cure riders who are emailing their friennds for support are experiencing the frustration of having their correspondence marked as SPAM simply because keywords are setting a red flag (give me money) or the source of the email (diabetes.org) is getting them blocked.
Shameless self promotion and diabetes research fundraising: If you want to sponsor me, an overweight nerd with a sense of humor and a soon-to-be-sore taint, on the Tour de Cure... Visit my Tour de Cure website
Seriously though, Boot Camp is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get more folks to check out Apple. From the recent purchases of my friends and co-workers, Boot Camp is doing a good job too.
I love the concept of the LP, but I also hate to see assholes continually elected because of third party idealism*. Had all of the Reforms, Greens and Libs and voted for viable candidates in the last few elections this country might not have the massive problems we have now.
Yes, I realize this creates a vicious loop... "gee, I'd support the Libertarian Party, but they have no power...