That's funny. I'm reading the comments because of that tag.:) See the tagging system really works!! Just because I think the french suck doesn't mean I'm moron. It means I'm sufficiently pissed off by their numerous idiotic actions. This just being the latest (though admittedly I don't care much about this Amazon thing). What really pissed me off was all of their moral high ground posturing when we went into Iraq. Then to find out the real reason they didn't want to get involved was because they were gaming the oil for food program. Fuck the french!! Maybe the reason the Americans are pissed off is because they have the most to lose when this is the level of support we get from our allies.
That's because most educated people are capable of using the Internet to look at climate trends over a long period of time. When they do, they discover the same thing that I have. It's cyclical, and all this global warming crap is a ploy to extract money from the public to combat a problem that will eventually go away on it's own. In the 70s it was global cooling. Weather trends have gone warmer and cooler for 100s of years without any help from us. I'm all for a cleaner environment for other reasons (like the toxins aren't good for humans), but let's not give anymore credence to this nonsense called global warming.
Ummm..... I hate to break it to you, but life's not fair. Even in a sociallist environment there still exists a structure that you are very unlikely to rise to the top of unless you are born into it.
Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was.
I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but you seem to be ill informed regarding immigration. You're right on one count; just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it, but please let's use some common sense. I'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.
Here's another: if someone is going to disregard our immigration laws what other laws do they choose to ignore? Twice when I lived in California I was hit by an illegal with no insurance, no drivers license, no comprende. Both times the police impounded their vehicle, and took the moron to jail, but that doesn't help me. Now my insurance has to cover the cost, I have to pay my deductible, and everyone's rates go up. Meanwhile, they get out of jail the next morning, go drop their welfare check on a new clunker and a six pack and do it again. No, my friend there is very good reason why it's illegal, and it should be.
Ask anyone involved in law enforcement who has the least regard for the law in the border states. My brother was telling me the other day that they just caught a serial rapest in AZ that was going after children. He was an illegal. Big surprise there. If they want to come here they need to frickin' get in line like everyone else and respect the law of the land. I have no problem if someone wants to come here legally, pay their dues like everybody else, and make a better life for themselves and their families. That's what this country is all about. If someone wants to come here and sit on welfare, break the law, and disregard the personal rights of their fellow Americans then I think they need to be booted straight away. If I was president I would make it so.
They better have a good disaster recovery plan. Imagine a whole data center lost in one fell swoop as it sinks to the bottom of the sea!!! That's one major loss of carrier.
Well I think (as I indicated in my post) that safety has come a long way for nuclear power. You mention Three Mile Island, but fail to recognize that people there are still dying of cancer at a much higher rate since 1979 for some unknown reason. Suspiciously, there is no direct indication that it is because of the melt down, but I think it's fair to say that those in charge of investigation might have a reason to obscure the truth. I've seen a documentary many years ago that indicated the percentage of those closer to the site of the incident had a greater chance of dying of cancer than those further away. So yes it's safe until there's an accident. The consequenses if there is an accident are so extreme that I would not exactly call it a "good" solution.
I didn't say that coal was what we should stick with either (thanks for putting words in my mouth though). I am simply saying that wind generation, while a good idea for supplimental power, is not the solution to meet base load. It won't be able to do what the article claims. Yes nuclear is the cleaner between itself and coal, unless there's an accident with the plant, the fuel, or the waste, and then it becomes much more dirty for a much longer time. Furthermore, I think we need to continue to investigate solar, geothermal, and other means of generation before we say that nuclear is the best solution.
There is a plant that is being built here at INL, and it won't even be online until 2020. When it is, we will puchase a share of power from them to help meet our demand. The problem is they are still going to have waste that has to be stored for a long period of time. The US is currently running out of room to dump this stuff, and the stuff we've already been dumping for years is now having to be moved because the places it's being stored are no longer viable. The waste at those facilities is starting to leak into the ground. Now we have this waste in trucks roaming about the country that can be hit by terrorists, get into an accident and spill the contents, become hijacked and sold off to the nearest nut job, etc. Additionally, the facilities to move the waste to haven't even been built yet, and there's no room at the current facilities that are viable. Do you think this situation is going to improve over the next 12 years? My guess is that it's going to get worse. But let's not look at that, instead let's put our fingers in our ears and sing "la la la la la.. I'm not listening" while we're all lead down the primrose path. It's 250 miles from my back yard, and I still think it's a bad idea.
I work for a power company that does generation, transmission, and distribution. We're just starting to use wind farms here, and one of the bigest problems is meeting the load with something else when the wind stops. Not exactly sustaining for base-load. Durring the summer we rely heavily on hydro, but durring the winter we have to purchase a lot of power from our surrounding partners. That's typically what we fall back on. It's true that an equivalent wind farm takes more space, however it's not the only thing to be considered. Unlike a reactor, wind farms typically don't melt down leaving the whole area contaminated for miles and miles around. Yes, I know great strides have been made in the area of saftey, and a catostrophic melt down is a lot less likely today than it was 25 years ago. But still, when it comes down to building one or the other in my back yard I'd take the wind farm every time if it was actually capable of producing continuous power. Since it's not we need to continue to look for a better answer. Nuclear IMHO, is not it. Even the limited danger of melt down is unacceptable to me because of the intense consequences. Add to that the lack of available storage for radio active material for several hundered years, all the while ensuring it doesn't leak, isn't stolen and used in a dirty bomb, isn't disposed of improperly, etc. The bad idea we started with just looks worse all the time.
Do you really believe that? AFAIK the 9/11 commission was made up of a bipartisan group of people, and they were pretty serious about getting to the bottom things. Reading the reports I didn't get the impression it was a whitewash job at all. It seem like there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get thrown about because the truth is far less interesting. I'm pretty sure I've heard everything -- from "America caused 9/11" (as if) to "We're going to war for oil, and we don't care about the Iraqi people at all" (yeah, that's why gas is going to hit $4 + / gal by Christmas because of that great surplus of Iraqi oil that we've got). Please??? It's a bunch of non-sense plain and simple. The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here. I think all of this alarmism over Iraq, Gitmo, etc. just detracts from the real issues that we should be looking at. And before you get all partisan and call this a problem created by republicans please remember that plenty of democrats are on board to remove our freedoms in the name of safety as well, and they're all pandering to the same big businesses as the republicans. This problem transcends political boundary lines.
Please don't misunderstand. I was not advocating holding prisoners indefinately without a trial. I think that's BS too. What I meant (and I probably didn't state this as plainly as I could have) is that when the 5th ammendment was written we knew who our enemies were. They wore uniforms and the side a person was on was clearly defined. I'm not for locking every single suspect until we decide the war is over, but my point is what do you do with these peolpe who are fighting against us yet they aren't part of the military. I'll wholeheartedly concede that we should not be breaking our own laws. However, we do have a very real problem here that needs a real solution, and in the mean time we have to find a way to be able to fight against an army that blends in with the rest of the civians, is not contained within any particular set of borders, and doesn't follow any of the international laws including the Geneva convention.
Ok fine, and I would find myself agreeing with you if it were not for knowing how this actually works in practice. Case in point: in my neighborhood we've got a bunch of morons spray painting all over the place. They hit a wall that belongs to the city every couple of weeks. People's houses, the sidewalk in front of my house, every utility pole on my block, trash cans.... you get the idea. It's starting to look like downtown WATTS in Dullsville, ID. The city comes by cleans it off the wall, homeowners have to remove it from their property at their own expense, and it's an endless cycle. The police know who is doing involved. These bright fools even have their own web sites where they brag about their exploits. But without catching them in the act they have no evidence to charge them with a crime. This has been going on for over a year. Now when it's just spray paint that's one thing, but now a rival gang is starting to swing through, crossing it out and painting their own crap beside or over top of what was there. How long before this little pissing match escallates into drive by shootings where my kids, my wife, or myself wind up dead? How long should law enforcement wait before acting on what they know regardless of the evidence they have? Not to say every person in there is guilty, but usually where there is smoke there is fire. In this given situation we are talking about a little more than spray paint as well. We're talking about guys that are possibly killing multiple members of our military and well as civilians in one fell swoop. What are those lives worth? Yes it's certainly appealing emotionally to just draw a big target on the US Gubement and throw stones, but try backing up and looking at the big picture here.
Is it so hard to understand that the 5th ammendment was written in a time when we were not dealing with a group of individuals who think it's a good idea to kill Americans? Yes they should be treated with a certain base level of human decency, but it seems that many here have overlooked the fact that #1 they are not American citizens, and #2 while they are not soldiers of a particular recognized military organization they are neither your average joe civilian either. What do we do with these guys? Do we say "yes we know you're trying to kill us, but because you're not an American citizen, or the member of a recognized military organization we'll just let you get back to your busines"????? Think about the consequenses. We can't just let them go. We're fighting in an arena that we have never had to fight in before. It's kind of like fighting against gangs in the streets when they dress in suits and ties and blend in with the business men. It's no longer obvious who is benign and who is looking to take you out. So all of you who have so much criticism for the way this has been handled (not to say it couldn't have been handled better, but) what's your good idea of how to deal with these issues? Let's hear your plan. If the way we are doing things is not right then what is?
Amen!! My thoughts exactly. I'm not particularly prone to violence, however it's starting to look like the only way we're going to see positive change in this country is if we stand up for ourselves. People standing up for what they believed in is what made this country great in the first place. It's the blind apathy that's killing it.
Of those who did not pay anything, how many would have purchased the album if it had not been available for free download? Between that, and the minimal compensation from a standard record contract I'd call this endeavor a success. I also think that if this model took off there might be more of a social push to encourge cheapskates to support the bands they listen to.
See that's what I was thinking too. That's all I need. Update my video drivers, and then have to explain to my boss why the server that supports critical operations just went into reduced functionality mode until MS believes that it's a genuine server again. No thanks.
I'm thinking that there is no music that is worth putting up with these terms. If these are the terms then I refuse to consume the product. There are plenty of good artists out there that understand the folly of such restrictive endeavors. I like being able to make mixes (I made a four hour DAT tape last night). Take away my ability to do that, or require me to purchase the material everytime I make a new mix and the product no longer has much value to me. I've also ripped everything I own including tapes and LPs to a hard drive that I take with me when I travel. I understand that giving away material hurts the artist and the industry, and I certainly don't agree with doing so, but what we're talking about here is the foundation of fair use. I've puchased the material, and they're going to tell me that I can only use it in a certain way? I don't think so. Lately I've been giving far more business to independents anyway, but it's because of nonsense like this that caused me to start looking more at the independents.
Radiohead has an interesting idea. I'm not very fond of their music, but I hope it works out for them. The Dischord record label www.dischord.com sells their CDs online for $10. There are plenty more independents out there. Sony really didn't have much to offer me before, and now I'm seeing them as irrelevant. Way to go.
I just moved to Idaho a year ago, and yes there are more good looking women here than where I came from. But I guess it all depends on the eyes you are looking through.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately it's not. Are there companies out there taking advantage of a bad situation? Yeah, kind of goes along with capitalism. The threat is very real though.
Well it goes a little beyond that I'm afraid. I happen to work for a company that produces electricity, and I can tell you that we have to be able to communicate what we are generating, and what our demand is to our surrounding utilities. We do not do this over the Internet (thank goodness), but there is some risk involved there. We are also currently in hte process of being audited by INL, and will no doubt have plenty of things to do to stay busy in the coming months. Someone else pointed out earlier that connectivity is almost a necessity now days due to federal regulation that requires the exchange of information to stablize the grid. Gone are the days when each utility could exist in its own little bubble. It has also been mentioned that most of this equipment is old, and was developed and implemented in a day and age where security was not a concern. I'm a little concerned to see things like this on Slashdot, as I'd like a few more months to nail down my network before we get to deal with all of the 1337 kids. Nothing to see here please move along.
Exactly. I have no use for theaters anymore. I just got an HDTV projector with a 119" screen. I am my own theater. Number one, it's very rare that a movie comes out that I actually want to see. Number two, in the rare event that a movie did come out that I wanted to see I would wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. Number three, why would I go sit in a theater with all of the distractions of rude kids, cell phones, $8 bags of pop corn, etc when I can enjoy it much more in the privacy of my own home? And now it seems theater owners are just chomping at the bit for someone to make an example of. No thanks, not interested.
Just in case you're confused, not every action performed by every governmental agency is directed by the president or even the "Bush Administration". The government is made up of individuls who have individual reasons for the things they do. You are aware of that right??? Yes, there are things that Bush has done that I certainly don't like, or condone (and I voted for him - I have the right to be pissed off), but blaming him for everything that is wrong with the government is a bit extreme. I totally see the slashdotliberalwhining. It makes perfect sense to me. I see a lot of well thought out comments here even if I don't always agree, but by and large it seems like there's an awful lot of groupthink Bush bashing lately. Do you honestly think that things would be any different with a democratic president? How about a liberterian president? These problems are not going to be solved by finding someone to blame and pointing fingers. How about come up with a better solution to the problems, and use it as a platform to run for office. Heck I'd even vote for you if I liked your ideas.
I know I'm going to piss a lot of people off here, but oh well. While I certainly do not think Bush is the best president that we've ever had, he's hardly the worst. Bush has at least accomplished something in the time that he's been in office that even his father couldn't accomplish. Yes, the Iraq war is quite ugly, but I can't help but wonder what might have happened if we had left Sadam in power. For years he thumbed his nose at the US, broke every treaty he entered in to, killed his own people, and even though it's popular to state there were no WMDs that's not entirely true. What we were looking for specifically being nuclear WMDs weren't there, but there were still chemical (sarin) WMDs that he should not have had. Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
No, that's not flamebait (not very well articulated, but it's a valid point). Seriously, how can one write laws, and set legal precident regarding issues that one does not understand? This is precisely the problem. The people responsible for dealing with these issues (malicious activity, spam, etc) don't have a clear grasp on how the technology works, or the long term consequences of their actions. I think it's an excellent idea for these people to educate themselves before foisting their "solutions" on society.
Yes, this was exactly my thought as well. I think it makes much more sense to allow everyone to learn from these tools, and then tighten their security accordingly. Making these tools illegal actually gives the advantage to individuals who have little interest in obeying the law in the first place. Way to go Germany. First Hiter, now this.... WTF????
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny. I'm reading the comments because of that tag. :) See the tagging system really works!! Just because I think the french suck doesn't mean I'm moron. It means I'm sufficiently pissed off by their numerous idiotic actions. This just being the latest (though admittedly I don't care much about this Amazon thing). What really pissed me off was all of their moral high ground posturing when we went into Iraq. Then to find out the real reason they didn't want to get involved was because they were gaming the oil for food program. Fuck the french!! Maybe the reason the Americans are pissed off is because they have the most to lose when this is the level of support we get from our allies.
That's because most educated people are capable of using the Internet to look at climate trends over a long period of time. When they do, they discover the same thing that I have. It's cyclical, and all this global warming crap is a ploy to extract money from the public to combat a problem that will eventually go away on it's own. In the 70s it was global cooling. Weather trends have gone warmer and cooler for 100s of years without any help from us. I'm all for a cleaner environment for other reasons (like the toxins aren't good for humans), but let's not give anymore credence to this nonsense called global warming.
Ummm..... I hate to break it to you, but life's not fair. Even in a sociallist environment there still exists a structure that you are very unlikely to rise to the top of unless you are born into it.
I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but you seem to be ill informed regarding immigration. You're right on one count; just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it, but please let's use some common sense. I'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.
Here's another: if someone is going to disregard our immigration laws what other laws do they choose to ignore? Twice when I lived in California I was hit by an illegal with no insurance, no drivers license, no comprende. Both times the police impounded their vehicle, and took the moron to jail, but that doesn't help me. Now my insurance has to cover the cost, I have to pay my deductible, and everyone's rates go up. Meanwhile, they get out of jail the next morning, go drop their welfare check on a new clunker and a six pack and do it again. No, my friend there is very good reason why it's illegal, and it should be.
Ask anyone involved in law enforcement who has the least regard for the law in the border states. My brother was telling me the other day that they just caught a serial rapest in AZ that was going after children. He was an illegal. Big surprise there. If they want to come here they need to frickin' get in line like everyone else and respect the law of the land. I have no problem if someone wants to come here legally, pay their dues like everybody else, and make a better life for themselves and their families. That's what this country is all about. If someone wants to come here and sit on welfare, break the law, and disregard the personal rights of their fellow Americans then I think they need to be booted straight away. If I was president I would make it so.
They better have a good disaster recovery plan. Imagine a whole data center lost in one fell swoop as it sinks to the bottom of the sea!!! That's one major loss of carrier.
That's funny I just watched that movie last night. To think we were worried about the USSR all those years.
Well I think (as I indicated in my post) that safety has come a long way for nuclear power. You mention Three Mile Island, but fail to recognize that people there are still dying of cancer at a much higher rate since 1979 for some unknown reason. Suspiciously, there is no direct indication that it is because of the melt down, but I think it's fair to say that those in charge of investigation might have a reason to obscure the truth. I've seen a documentary many years ago that indicated the percentage of those closer to the site of the incident had a greater chance of dying of cancer than those further away. So yes it's safe until there's an accident. The consequenses if there is an accident are so extreme that I would not exactly call it a "good" solution.
I didn't say that coal was what we should stick with either (thanks for putting words in my mouth though). I am simply saying that wind generation, while a good idea for supplimental power, is not the solution to meet base load. It won't be able to do what the article claims. Yes nuclear is the cleaner between itself and coal, unless there's an accident with the plant, the fuel, or the waste, and then it becomes much more dirty for a much longer time. Furthermore, I think we need to continue to investigate solar, geothermal, and other means of generation before we say that nuclear is the best solution.
There is a plant that is being built here at INL, and it won't even be online until 2020. When it is, we will puchase a share of power from them to help meet our demand. The problem is they are still going to have waste that has to be stored for a long period of time. The US is currently running out of room to dump this stuff, and the stuff we've already been dumping for years is now having to be moved because the places it's being stored are no longer viable. The waste at those facilities is starting to leak into the ground. Now we have this waste in trucks roaming about the country that can be hit by terrorists, get into an accident and spill the contents, become hijacked and sold off to the nearest nut job, etc. Additionally, the facilities to move the waste to haven't even been built yet, and there's no room at the current facilities that are viable. Do you think this situation is going to improve over the next 12 years? My guess is that it's going to get worse. But let's not look at that, instead let's put our fingers in our ears and sing "la la la la la.. I'm not listening" while we're all lead down the primrose path. It's 250 miles from my back yard, and I still think it's a bad idea.
I work for a power company that does generation, transmission, and distribution. We're just starting to use wind farms here, and one of the bigest problems is meeting the load with something else when the wind stops. Not exactly sustaining for base-load. Durring the summer we rely heavily on hydro, but durring the winter we have to purchase a lot of power from our surrounding partners. That's typically what we fall back on. It's true that an equivalent wind farm takes more space, however it's not the only thing to be considered. Unlike a reactor, wind farms typically don't melt down leaving the whole area contaminated for miles and miles around. Yes, I know great strides have been made in the area of saftey, and a catostrophic melt down is a lot less likely today than it was 25 years ago. But still, when it comes down to building one or the other in my back yard I'd take the wind farm every time if it was actually capable of producing continuous power. Since it's not we need to continue to look for a better answer. Nuclear IMHO, is not it. Even the limited danger of melt down is unacceptable to me because of the intense consequences. Add to that the lack of available storage for radio active material for several hundered years, all the while ensuring it doesn't leak, isn't stolen and used in a dirty bomb, isn't disposed of improperly, etc. The bad idea we started with just looks worse all the time.
Do you really believe that? AFAIK the 9/11 commission was made up of a bipartisan group of people, and they were pretty serious about getting to the bottom things. Reading the reports I didn't get the impression it was a whitewash job at all. It seem like there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get thrown about because the truth is far less interesting. I'm pretty sure I've heard everything -- from "America caused 9/11" (as if) to "We're going to war for oil, and we don't care about the Iraqi people at all" (yeah, that's why gas is going to hit $4 + / gal by Christmas because of that great surplus of Iraqi oil that we've got). Please??? It's a bunch of non-sense plain and simple. The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here. I think all of this alarmism over Iraq, Gitmo, etc. just detracts from the real issues that we should be looking at. And before you get all partisan and call this a problem created by republicans please remember that plenty of democrats are on board to remove our freedoms in the name of safety as well, and they're all pandering to the same big businesses as the republicans. This problem transcends political boundary lines.
Please don't misunderstand. I was not advocating holding prisoners indefinately without a trial. I think that's BS too. What I meant (and I probably didn't state this as plainly as I could have) is that when the 5th ammendment was written we knew who our enemies were. They wore uniforms and the side a person was on was clearly defined. I'm not for locking every single suspect until we decide the war is over, but my point is what do you do with these peolpe who are fighting against us yet they aren't part of the military. I'll wholeheartedly concede that we should not be breaking our own laws. However, we do have a very real problem here that needs a real solution, and in the mean time we have to find a way to be able to fight against an army that blends in with the rest of the civians, is not contained within any particular set of borders, and doesn't follow any of the international laws including the Geneva convention.
Ok fine, and I would find myself agreeing with you if it were not for knowing how this actually works in practice. Case in point: in my neighborhood we've got a bunch of morons spray painting all over the place. They hit a wall that belongs to the city every couple of weeks. People's houses, the sidewalk in front of my house, every utility pole on my block, trash cans .... you get the idea. It's starting to look like downtown WATTS in Dullsville, ID. The city comes by cleans it off the wall, homeowners have to remove it from their property at their own expense, and it's an endless cycle. The police know who is doing involved. These bright fools even have their own web sites where they brag about their exploits. But without catching them in the act they have no evidence to charge them with a crime. This has been going on for over a year. Now when it's just spray paint that's one thing, but now a rival gang is starting to swing through, crossing it out and painting their own crap beside or over top of what was there. How long before this little pissing match escallates into drive by shootings where my kids, my wife, or myself wind up dead? How long should law enforcement wait before acting on what they know regardless of the evidence they have? Not to say every person in there is guilty, but usually where there is smoke there is fire. In this given situation we are talking about a little more than spray paint as well. We're talking about guys that are possibly killing multiple members of our military and well as civilians in one fell swoop. What are those lives worth? Yes it's certainly appealing emotionally to just draw a big target on the US Gubement and throw stones, but try backing up and looking at the big picture here.
Is it so hard to understand that the 5th ammendment was written in a time when we were not dealing with a group of individuals who think it's a good idea to kill Americans? Yes they should be treated with a certain base level of human decency, but it seems that many here have overlooked the fact that #1 they are not American citizens, and #2 while they are not soldiers of a particular recognized military organization they are neither your average joe civilian either. What do we do with these guys? Do we say "yes we know you're trying to kill us, but because you're not an American citizen, or the member of a recognized military organization we'll just let you get back to your busines"????? Think about the consequenses. We can't just let them go. We're fighting in an arena that we have never had to fight in before. It's kind of like fighting against gangs in the streets when they dress in suits and ties and blend in with the business men. It's no longer obvious who is benign and who is looking to take you out. So all of you who have so much criticism for the way this has been handled (not to say it couldn't have been handled better, but) what's your good idea of how to deal with these issues? Let's hear your plan. If the way we are doing things is not right then what is?
Amen!! My thoughts exactly. I'm not particularly prone to violence, however it's starting to look like the only way we're going to see positive change in this country is if we stand up for ourselves. People standing up for what they believed in is what made this country great in the first place. It's the blind apathy that's killing it.
Of those who did not pay anything, how many would have purchased the album if it had not been available for free download? Between that, and the minimal compensation from a standard record contract I'd call this endeavor a success. I also think that if this model took off there might be more of a social push to encourge cheapskates to support the bands they listen to.
See that's what I was thinking too. That's all I need. Update my video drivers, and then have to explain to my boss why the server that supports critical operations just went into reduced functionality mode until MS believes that it's a genuine server again. No thanks.
I'm thinking that there is no music that is worth putting up with these terms. If these are the terms then I refuse to consume the product. There are plenty of good artists out there that understand the folly of such restrictive endeavors. I like being able to make mixes (I made a four hour DAT tape last night). Take away my ability to do that, or require me to purchase the material everytime I make a new mix and the product no longer has much value to me. I've also ripped everything I own including tapes and LPs to a hard drive that I take with me when I travel. I understand that giving away material hurts the artist and the industry, and I certainly don't agree with doing so, but what we're talking about here is the foundation of fair use. I've puchased the material, and they're going to tell me that I can only use it in a certain way? I don't think so. Lately I've been giving far more business to independents anyway, but it's because of nonsense like this that caused me to start looking more at the independents. Radiohead has an interesting idea. I'm not very fond of their music, but I hope it works out for them. The Dischord record label www.dischord.com sells their CDs online for $10. There are plenty more independents out there. Sony really didn't have much to offer me before, and now I'm seeing them as irrelevant. Way to go.
I just moved to Idaho a year ago, and yes there are more good looking women here than where I came from. But I guess it all depends on the eyes you are looking through.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately it's not. Are there companies out there taking advantage of a bad situation? Yeah, kind of goes along with capitalism. The threat is very real though.
Well it goes a little beyond that I'm afraid. I happen to work for a company that produces electricity, and I can tell you that we have to be able to communicate what we are generating, and what our demand is to our surrounding utilities. We do not do this over the Internet (thank goodness), but there is some risk involved there. We are also currently in hte process of being audited by INL, and will no doubt have plenty of things to do to stay busy in the coming months. Someone else pointed out earlier that connectivity is almost a necessity now days due to federal regulation that requires the exchange of information to stablize the grid. Gone are the days when each utility could exist in its own little bubble. It has also been mentioned that most of this equipment is old, and was developed and implemented in a day and age where security was not a concern. I'm a little concerned to see things like this on Slashdot, as I'd like a few more months to nail down my network before we get to deal with all of the 1337 kids. Nothing to see here please move along.
Exactly. I have no use for theaters anymore. I just got an HDTV projector with a 119" screen. I am my own theater. Number one, it's very rare that a movie comes out that I actually want to see. Number two, in the rare event that a movie did come out that I wanted to see I would wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. Number three, why would I go sit in a theater with all of the distractions of rude kids, cell phones, $8 bags of pop corn, etc when I can enjoy it much more in the privacy of my own home? And now it seems theater owners are just chomping at the bit for someone to make an example of. No thanks, not interested.
Just in case you're confused, not every action performed by every governmental agency is directed by the president or even the "Bush Administration". The government is made up of individuls who have individual reasons for the things they do. You are aware of that right??? Yes, there are things that Bush has done that I certainly don't like, or condone (and I voted for him - I have the right to be pissed off), but blaming him for everything that is wrong with the government is a bit extreme. I totally see the slashdotliberalwhining. It makes perfect sense to me. I see a lot of well thought out comments here even if I don't always agree, but by and large it seems like there's an awful lot of groupthink Bush bashing lately. Do you honestly think that things would be any different with a democratic president? How about a liberterian president? These problems are not going to be solved by finding someone to blame and pointing fingers. How about come up with a better solution to the problems, and use it as a platform to run for office. Heck I'd even vote for you if I liked your ideas.
I know I'm going to piss a lot of people off here, but oh well. While I certainly do not think Bush is the best president that we've ever had, he's hardly the worst. Bush has at least accomplished something in the time that he's been in office that even his father couldn't accomplish. Yes, the Iraq war is quite ugly, but I can't help but wonder what might have happened if we had left Sadam in power. For years he thumbed his nose at the US, broke every treaty he entered in to, killed his own people, and even though it's popular to state there were no WMDs that's not entirely true. What we were looking for specifically being nuclear WMDs weren't there, but there were still chemical (sarin) WMDs that he should not have had. Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
No, that's not flamebait (not very well articulated, but it's a valid point). Seriously, how can one write laws, and set legal precident regarding issues that one does not understand? This is precisely the problem. The people responsible for dealing with these issues (malicious activity, spam, etc) don't have a clear grasp on how the technology works, or the long term consequences of their actions. I think it's an excellent idea for these people to educate themselves before foisting their "solutions" on society.
Yes, this was exactly my thought as well. I think it makes much more sense to allow everyone to learn from these tools, and then tighten their security accordingly. Making these tools illegal actually gives the advantage to individuals who have little interest in obeying the law in the first place. Way to go Germany. First Hiter, now this .... WTF????
that would be a lot more interesting with a -R from /