Many universities also warn students against putting personal information on such online sites out of concern that it makes them targets for predators...
Uh, hello? These are adults. At what point will "society" start making people accontable for their actions instead of trying to protect anyone from every making their own choices? Hell, might as well ban college students from drinking because they may get arrested for driving drunk (and let's ignore the responsible drinkers), or ban sex because you never know when a some "baby-momma drama" might break out. If these adults want to put up their own personal information, then that's their right. If someone does something stupid and posts about it online, if within the school's jurisdiction and on campus, deal with the action rather than banning websites.
Kennedy said some Kent students who list phone numbers and addresses have been contacted inappropriately, either by strangers or sports agents.
If adults choose to list personal info and are contacted, well, it was their choice. Take the info down or quit complaining. And just how is it a bad thing for athletes to be contacted by agents? Wait, that may mean the school loses a star athlete a year sooner than anticipated, and they wouldn't want the pros competing for players now, would they?
I started on eBay back when it was still new and I was still a minor.
There are some big advantages to sniping. One is that, as the number of bids goes up (this is not the same as number of bidders as each bid counts seperately), so does an item's desireability. Simply put, people tend to want what other people want. By waiting until the last few seconds, it would appear that there is one less person intersted. One person might not seem a big difference, but in terms of bid count, it can make a huge differece.
Another advantage is that if someone wants something and is outbid, that person may get in the mindset of, "Well, it's just a few more dollars." Have multiple bidders in this mindset and the price goes up. Or it may give a bidder a chance to save up more money of it's not just a few dollars, or find a way to get the money. Saving a bid prevents other bidders from having a chance to up bids, or from having time to find another way to get more money.
One advantage I see as important is that, if you use a sniping program, you put in your bid and that's that. There's no time to up your bid if it isn't high enough, which only results in you bidding more than you would have thinking maybe just another dollar, another five, maybe one more.
Congratulations on keeping/getting it together. It is indeed difficult to support yourself and got to school at the same time, and when you add in the support of another person.... The internet has indeed made it possible for people to succeed in life when, just 25 years ago, we'd all be struggling justto make ends meet. It's no wonder people used to marry so young. The two incomes were needed, and now we have more options and more control over our lives.
Except Rob Malda ("Remember the days when "getting Slashdotted" was every sysadmin's worst nightmare? Referrals from the "News for Nerds" website would send so much traffic to websites that many crashed. But for those that survived the flood, it was the online equivalent of a papal benediction. Today, the buzz has moved elsewhere. Slashdot's editor-driven story selection model is being supplanted by user-generated systems such as Digg. According to recent Alexa data, Digg already has more daily reach and generates more page views than Slashdot. Malda knows his subject, and he's a good editor, but in the end, he's just no match for the power of the multitudes."). He's on there. But the rest of us I suppose are a bit more important. Ain't it nice to be appreciated?
"We are asking local police enforcement for more of a presence and are beefing up internal security, all of that directly because of MySpace."
Yeah, way to make it sound like MySpace's fault that campers aren't being supervised online by their parents and are posting pictures.
Camp Nashoba North in Raymond, Me., allows digital cameras, but is banning iPods that play movies because "a child or anyone could put something inappropriate on it."
Yes, but "a child or anyone" can also sneak in an "inappropriate" magazine, or "inappropriate" material on a computer, or an "inappropriate" book. Anyway, isn't the point of most camps to encourage interaction and to be away from technological things and to not hole up in the bunks?
Island Lake camp in Starrucca, Pa., recently asked campers to take its name off Web sites, concerned about... image.
If this camp is concerned with its image, then perhaps the directors need to rethink how they're running the camp. If campers are so unhappy with their experiences that they are using their right to free speach to give their reviews, the directors need to take this into consideration instead of all but demanding that they are running things the right way and shouldn't have complaints posted.
"One camp director called me in a panic," said Christopher Thurber, a psychologist who advises camps. "She had Googled her camp's name and linked to a soft-core porn site where she found pictures of her campers in their bathing suits. And what's in the background? The camp banner."
The only legit concern I found in this article, and it had nothing to do with MySpace, and I doubt a child posted in a soft-core porm site. As these are minors, the owner of the site and the poster should be prosecuted for child endangerment.
...an ex-fiancé and I used to both spend so much time online that we could be in the same room and would IM rather than vocally speak to each other. Our housemate found this to be funny, though slightly disturbing, and, in the end, we had such a breakdown in real communication that we broke up (as if you couldn't tell by the "ex").
With increased time online and increased time at work, people are making more friends online, and it seems rarely every meeting them in person. While I have made my closest in-person friendships due to the internet, and am very close with some people I've met online, but haven't yet met in person (this summer I have plans to meet three of them with whom I am especially close), I've also seen in-person people very dear to me become unable to handle in-person relationships and friendships as they are much more comfortable dealing with people online, their primary mode of contact.
Internet contact gives them more control as to how much contact, when, the ability to hide faults about themselves that they may not like, therefore not letting others get to know the real person, while others are doing the same, etc., and puts them at a disadvantage for connecting with people within a close proximity on an intimate level or at a real friendship level as they don't have as much control and don't know how to deal with humans being flawed and how to deal with conflicts and such that people tend to try very hard to avoid with online friends. These three things alone indicate a lack of trust in online friends, and a lack of trust of people online can become a general lack of trust in people at all.
It hurts to fall in love with someone, only to have that person, when he moves cross country and to a place a couple miles from you, decide he can't handle the closeness, and then it's over. It also hurts when you meet someone in person you met online as a friend, and any illusions are shattered, and that friendship ends.
I count myself excrutiatingly lucky to have so many people, both in person (most whom I met first online or through someone I met online) and online, with whom I can confide about important matters, but it's taken work to accomplish this circle I have now, and it's takena lot of trial and error, and the determination to not hide flaws to put forward only a good foot forward. Truth be told, no one does or says the right thing all the time, and we all have our insecurities. The question is whether or not we are secure enough to let our imperfections through rather than to mask them. This tendency to hide becomes habit that carries over into in-person friendships and relationships.
This is not to say that all online contact is bad. True, it is easier to keep in touch with friends who have moved away, and we may not always want to peel our butts from our chairs at work to go talk to our bosses, who may not be available at that time, and those little note papers of yesteryear are easily misplaced, when a simple e-mail will due and won't get lost. It can be easier and quicker sometimes to get in touch with your doctor. And sometimes it's easier to make local friends with 10+hr. workdays.
But it's also true that too much internet use has led to a population of recluses and a loss of personal social skills.
Years ago I used AOL at my mom's house, and they wouldn't cancel it. Somehow I ended up with two accounts. The bank my debit card was connected to reversed charges for one account. For the other, I was told I needed to take that up with AOL. AOL customer service said they'd cancel it, but when I was still charged month after month, I decided to cancel that debit card. When they couldn't get a charge to go through, they eventually stopped and cancelled it. But to this day, they still send collection notices. I swear I'm not making it up when I say that they now address their notices to "Idiot Moron." I ought to have my mom send one to me instead of just throwing them away, scan it, and post it online as an example of AOL's customer dis-service.
If she met someone, she either gave info or put up too much info to allow herself to be found. Either way, he knew where she went to school as he picked her up, and they knew what the other looked like, or had some way to know who the other way. Where were her parents during this, and why were they not monitoring their children's online activities and teaching them online safety? The others criminals here are the parents for neglecting to keep their own children safe (this is not to justify that man because what he did is still wrong, but he's not the only wrong-doer here). And that girl also needs to take some responsibility. It's not like she was innocently walking down the street and some random person grabbed her. No, she met someone online and gave him hinformation on where to find her, either directly or through posting enough on her MySpace page.
Would she and her mom still be suing if that guy had been 17, or 16, 15, or 14? More than his age, MySpace can't protect against deviants as they come in all ages. Him being 19 or 14 has nothing to do with the fact that he was capable of assaulting her, and her parents didn't teach her to not give out her personal information.
Realistically, adults over 18 can have credit cards, which are used to "verify" someone to be at least 18. Teens 16 and over can have licenses, and 15 and over permits. So I guess all someone has to do to pretend to be 14 is claim to not have any of that, right? The younger you are, the less you're going to have when it comes to ID that can be electronically verified. Plus would you really want your child on a site that has to verify age, either as an adult or minor, to ensure a little safety? And this can't ensure in any way that someone, adult or minor, isn't capable of committing any crimes!
I doubt I need to reinforce the fact that parents need to be parents, monitor their kids, teach their kids responsible behavior, and hold both the parents and their kid at partly responsible in cases such as this.
...then it wouldn't be so elite to have a college education, and so many people would be "educated" that there wouldn't be enough "uneducated" people left to hire to do the yard work, clean houses, and prepare fast food because they'd all want to make what their degrees are worth. *rolls eyes*
Animals have been moved from on habitat to another by humans. If we hadn't come to be, I have doubts that the ecosystem would have tipped in the direction it has. Conservation and preservation.
I do hate that the computer I am on pollutes, but I also recycle what I can, don't use more lights than neccessary, more energy than neccessary, and when I had a car, one that got high mileage per gallon, oil was recycled rather than just dumped, though now I take public transportation or walk, among other things, rather than taking, taking, taking, just because I can. Oh, I still have my car, but why use it when there are better alternatives? That's the problem, most people do nothing but take all they can.
Excuse me for misreading and reading that as Earth being the lifeless rock.
Under what natural circumstance would rabbits be left alone on an island without predators?
AC...I have a suspicion of who this could be, aside from "just about anybody."
Conservation. There's still plenty of life here that is more worthy of being saved than we are. The deer and rabbits didn't rape this "lifeless rock" almost past use and use up all they could because they felt entitled to it, above other species, as humans have done.
LOL, never fear, I'm sure the Ninja Turtles can find some way of battling a space mutant. They didn't do too bad at keeping Craing from ruining the world, and he had a gigantic technodrome that I doubt that goat has.:)
While it's true that an astroid could destroy us all in an instant, and it's true that to ensure we survive should something beyond our control happen to any planet we inhabit, would you not agree that we need to learn to take care of what we have? Be it one planet or many, should each planet's people not learn to preserve and not destroy? A better reason to move out would indeed be to prevent total extinction should an asteroid hit, or something like that occur, that to move out because we are a whole are making the choices that are leading to this planet's ruin, but that doesn't negate the fact that people need to learn to take care of what we have.
Plant and animal are renewable. New plants grow as the old are eaten, new animals are born as others are slaughtered. Not taking more than we need while respecting what we did take helps reach a balance. Some take is neccessary for all life, but there is such a thing as too much. This planet still has the space to grow the food, both plant and animal, neccessary for all humans to have enough to eat. Drilling everywhere neccessary for the fuel to feed to gas-guzzling SUVs while dumping chemicals into the land and water, sending so much smog into the air we breath, throwing away plastic and paper and metals - this is where we have control. The industrious Victorians went as far as to cut down old garments into new ones, or into rag strips to sew and weave into rugs. This prevented more land from being needed to grow more cotton for that fabric. There is so much we can do that most people choose not to do out of laziness, thinking that someone else will do it, or just because they think they're entitled to not do their share for whatever reason.
While humanity needs to be preserved, so do the resources and places we live. We can't keep running from our problems, especially when we cause the problems. They must be tackled first. Otherwise the problem will remain. We'll go to one body, then another, and another, leaving little, if anything, but destruction in our wake. A balance needs to be reached rather that deciding to take, take, take to preserve humans. That's selfish, greedy. The question needs to be how to reach that balance before moving on to other planets and moons.
You seriously can't see how we could end up destroying other planets and moons, despite there being so little there? Stripping them of any resources already there, dumping on them?
Okay, you go reach for, and ultimately destroy, what's out there instead of taking responsibility for learning how to take care of what you already have. Instead of, you know, something called being a grown-up.
However, do you not think it in the best interest for the survival of ALL species that we also learn to take care of this planet before inhabiting other planets and moons? The biggest threat to our survival is none other than ourselves. We can't outrun ourselves or escape the damage we cause simply by moving somewhere else.
He's held seminars on how to build a competing website. One of my exes used to know the guy. He's got enough money. Why must people wonder at a person/company turning down the possibility of making more money when already that person/company makes more than enough?
Besides, placing ads on the site may just drive people away. Part of the allure of the site is that it's anti-ad. It makes its money by charging to put up job ads (NOT resumes or seeking employment, just those compaies/people looking to hire), and only in three (it could have gone up) metropolitan areas. Craig's got a plan that bring in more money that he and his employees need. Why knock him for not being overly selfish as too many companies are these days?
A couple years back, for April Fool's Day, ads were placed on the site. Aaaaaahhhhh, that was good!
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?
It's not like iTunes downloads are the greatest quality. Certainly nothing to play on a regular TV. The quality can be a bit poor for a screen the size of the iPod screen (I have one, have tons on it, and sometimes shows aren't the greatest). People will not be buying movies to replace DVDs. Or very few will anyway. Try having a movie night with movies in such low quality.
Perhaps a middle grouns to this could be $9.99 for the quality of what is sold now, meant for iPods, or $14.99 for DVD-quality, prices going down depending on popularity and age (NO ONE will be stupid enough to pay $14.99 for a DVD-quality download of a movie that sells for $6.99 on DVD, or at least I hope).
But then again, if they'd like people to resort to piracy, I guess it's their financial loss. Their cut of $9.99 is better than nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Many universities also warn students against putting personal information on such online sites out of concern that it makes them targets for predators...
Uh, hello? These are adults. At what point will "society" start making people accontable for their actions instead of trying to protect anyone from every making their own choices? Hell, might as well ban college students from drinking because they may get arrested for driving drunk (and let's ignore the responsible drinkers), or ban sex because you never know when a some "baby-momma drama" might break out. If these adults want to put up their own personal information, then that's their right. If someone does something stupid and posts about it online, if within the school's jurisdiction and on campus, deal with the action rather than banning websites.
Kennedy said some Kent students who list phone numbers and addresses have been contacted inappropriately, either by strangers or sports agents.
If adults choose to list personal info and are contacted, well, it was their choice. Take the info down or quit complaining. And just how is it a bad thing for athletes to be contacted by agents? Wait, that may mean the school loses a star athlete a year sooner than anticipated, and they wouldn't want the pros competing for players now, would they?
I started on eBay back when it was still new and I was still a minor.
There are some big advantages to sniping. One is that, as the number of bids goes up (this is not the same as number of bidders as each bid counts seperately), so does an item's desireability. Simply put, people tend to want what other people want. By waiting until the last few seconds, it would appear that there is one less person intersted. One person might not seem a big difference, but in terms of bid count, it can make a huge differece.
Another advantage is that if someone wants something and is outbid, that person may get in the mindset of, "Well, it's just a few more dollars." Have multiple bidders in this mindset and the price goes up. Or it may give a bidder a chance to save up more money of it's not just a few dollars, or find a way to get the money. Saving a bid prevents other bidders from having a chance to up bids, or from having time to find another way to get more money.
One advantage I see as important is that, if you use a sniping program, you put in your bid and that's that. There's no time to up your bid if it isn't high enough, which only results in you bidding more than you would have thinking maybe just another dollar, another five, maybe one more.
Congratulations on keeping/getting it together. It is indeed difficult to support yourself and got to school at the same time, and when you add in the support of another person.... The internet has indeed made it possible for people to succeed in life when, just 25 years ago, we'd all be struggling justto make ends meet. It's no wonder people used to marry so young. The two incomes were needed, and now we have more options and more control over our lives.
Except Rob Malda ("Remember the days when "getting Slashdotted" was every sysadmin's worst nightmare? Referrals from the "News for Nerds" website would send so much traffic to websites that many crashed. But for those that survived the flood, it was the online equivalent of a papal benediction. Today, the buzz has moved elsewhere. Slashdot's editor-driven story selection model is being supplanted by user-generated systems such as Digg. According to recent Alexa data, Digg already has more daily reach and generates more page views than Slashdot. Malda knows his subject, and he's a good editor, but in the end, he's just no match for the power of the multitudes."). He's on there. But the rest of us I suppose are a bit more important. Ain't it nice to be appreciated?
"We are asking local police enforcement for more of a presence and are beefing up internal security, all of that directly because of MySpace."
... image.
Yeah, way to make it sound like MySpace's fault that campers aren't being supervised online by their parents and are posting pictures.
Camp Nashoba North in Raymond, Me., allows digital cameras, but is banning iPods that play movies because "a child or anyone could put something inappropriate on it."
Yes, but "a child or anyone" can also sneak in an "inappropriate" magazine, or "inappropriate" material on a computer, or an "inappropriate" book. Anyway, isn't the point of most camps to encourage interaction and to be away from technological things and to not hole up in the bunks?
Island Lake camp in Starrucca, Pa., recently asked campers to take its name off Web sites, concerned about
If this camp is concerned with its image, then perhaps the directors need to rethink how they're running the camp. If campers are so unhappy with their experiences that they are using their right to free speach to give their reviews, the directors need to take this into consideration instead of all but demanding that they are running things the right way and shouldn't have complaints posted.
"One camp director called me in a panic," said Christopher Thurber, a psychologist who advises camps. "She had Googled her camp's name and linked to a soft-core porn site where she found pictures of her campers in their bathing suits. And what's in the background? The camp banner."
The only legit concern I found in this article, and it had nothing to do with MySpace, and I doubt a child posted in a soft-core porm site. As these are minors, the owner of the site and the poster should be prosecuted for child endangerment.
...an ex-fiancé and I used to both spend so much time online that we could be in the same room and would IM rather than vocally speak to each other. Our housemate found this to be funny, though slightly disturbing, and, in the end, we had such a breakdown in real communication that we broke up (as if you couldn't tell by the "ex").
With increased time online and increased time at work, people are making more friends online, and it seems rarely every meeting them in person. While I have made my closest in-person friendships due to the internet, and am very close with some people I've met online, but haven't yet met in person (this summer I have plans to meet three of them with whom I am especially close), I've also seen in-person people very dear to me become unable to handle in-person relationships and friendships as they are much more comfortable dealing with people online, their primary mode of contact.
Internet contact gives them more control as to how much contact, when, the ability to hide faults about themselves that they may not like, therefore not letting others get to know the real person, while others are doing the same, etc., and puts them at a disadvantage for connecting with people within a close proximity on an intimate level or at a real friendship level as they don't have as much control and don't know how to deal with humans being flawed and how to deal with conflicts and such that people tend to try very hard to avoid with online friends. These three things alone indicate a lack of trust in online friends, and a lack of trust of people online can become a general lack of trust in people at all.
It hurts to fall in love with someone, only to have that person, when he moves cross country and to a place a couple miles from you, decide he can't handle the closeness, and then it's over. It also hurts when you meet someone in person you met online as a friend, and any illusions are shattered, and that friendship ends.
I count myself excrutiatingly lucky to have so many people, both in person (most whom I met first online or through someone I met online) and online, with whom I can confide about important matters, but it's taken work to accomplish this circle I have now, and it's takena lot of trial and error, and the determination to not hide flaws to put forward only a good foot forward. Truth be told, no one does or says the right thing all the time, and we all have our insecurities. The question is whether or not we are secure enough to let our imperfections through rather than to mask them. This tendency to hide becomes habit that carries over into in-person friendships and relationships.
This is not to say that all online contact is bad. True, it is easier to keep in touch with friends who have moved away, and we may not always want to peel our butts from our chairs at work to go talk to our bosses, who may not be available at that time, and those little note papers of yesteryear are easily misplaced, when a simple e-mail will due and won't get lost. It can be easier and quicker sometimes to get in touch with your doctor. And sometimes it's easier to make local friends with 10+hr. workdays.
But it's also true that too much internet use has led to a population of recluses and a loss of personal social skills.
Years ago I used AOL at my mom's house, and they wouldn't cancel it. Somehow I ended up with two accounts. The bank my debit card was connected to reversed charges for one account. For the other, I was told I needed to take that up with AOL. AOL customer service said they'd cancel it, but when I was still charged month after month, I decided to cancel that debit card. When they couldn't get a charge to go through, they eventually stopped and cancelled it. But to this day, they still send collection notices. I swear I'm not making it up when I say that they now address their notices to "Idiot Moron." I ought to have my mom send one to me instead of just throwing them away, scan it, and post it online as an example of AOL's customer dis-service.
If she met someone, she either gave info or put up too much info to allow herself to be found. Either way, he knew where she went to school as he picked her up, and they knew what the other looked like, or had some way to know who the other way. Where were her parents during this, and why were they not monitoring their children's online activities and teaching them online safety? The others criminals here are the parents for neglecting to keep their own children safe (this is not to justify that man because what he did is still wrong, but he's not the only wrong-doer here). And that girl also needs to take some responsibility. It's not like she was innocently walking down the street and some random person grabbed her. No, she met someone online and gave him hinformation on where to find her, either directly or through posting enough on her MySpace page.
Would she and her mom still be suing if that guy had been 17, or 16, 15, or 14? More than his age, MySpace can't protect against deviants as they come in all ages. Him being 19 or 14 has nothing to do with the fact that he was capable of assaulting her, and her parents didn't teach her to not give out her personal information.
Realistically, adults over 18 can have credit cards, which are used to "verify" someone to be at least 18. Teens 16 and over can have licenses, and 15 and over permits. So I guess all someone has to do to pretend to be 14 is claim to not have any of that, right? The younger you are, the less you're going to have when it comes to ID that can be electronically verified. Plus would you really want your child on a site that has to verify age, either as an adult or minor, to ensure a little safety? And this can't ensure in any way that someone, adult or minor, isn't capable of committing any crimes!
I doubt I need to reinforce the fact that parents need to be parents, monitor their kids, teach their kids responsible behavior, and hold both the parents and their kid at partly responsible in cases such as this.
...then it wouldn't be so elite to have a college education, and so many people would be "educated" that there wouldn't be enough "uneducated" people left to hire to do the yard work, clean houses, and prepare fast food because they'd all want to make what their degrees are worth. *rolls eyes*
Just don't destroy them while you're at it.
Animals have been moved from on habitat to another by humans. If we hadn't come to be, I have doubts that the ecosystem would have tipped in the direction it has. Conservation and preservation.
I do hate that the computer I am on pollutes, but I also recycle what I can, don't use more lights than neccessary, more energy than neccessary, and when I had a car, one that got high mileage per gallon, oil was recycled rather than just dumped, though now I take public transportation or walk, among other things, rather than taking, taking, taking, just because I can. Oh, I still have my car, but why use it when there are better alternatives? That's the problem, most people do nothing but take all they can.
Excuse me for misreading and reading that as Earth being the lifeless rock. Under what natural circumstance would rabbits be left alone on an island without predators? AC...I have a suspicion of who this could be, aside from "just about anybody."
Conservation. There's still plenty of life here that is more worthy of being saved than we are. The deer and rabbits didn't rape this "lifeless rock" almost past use and use up all they could because they felt entitled to it, above other species, as humans have done.
LOL, never fear, I'm sure the Ninja Turtles can find some way of battling a space mutant. They didn't do too bad at keeping Craing from ruining the world, and he had a gigantic technodrome that I doubt that goat has. :)
While it's true that an astroid could destroy us all in an instant, and it's true that to ensure we survive should something beyond our control happen to any planet we inhabit, would you not agree that we need to learn to take care of what we have? Be it one planet or many, should each planet's people not learn to preserve and not destroy? A better reason to move out would indeed be to prevent total extinction should an asteroid hit, or something like that occur, that to move out because we are a whole are making the choices that are leading to this planet's ruin, but that doesn't negate the fact that people need to learn to take care of what we have.
Plant and animal are renewable. New plants grow as the old are eaten, new animals are born as others are slaughtered. Not taking more than we need while respecting what we did take helps reach a balance. Some take is neccessary for all life, but there is such a thing as too much. This planet still has the space to grow the food, both plant and animal, neccessary for all humans to have enough to eat. Drilling everywhere neccessary for the fuel to feed to gas-guzzling SUVs while dumping chemicals into the land and water, sending so much smog into the air we breath, throwing away plastic and paper and metals - this is where we have control. The industrious Victorians went as far as to cut down old garments into new ones, or into rag strips to sew and weave into rugs. This prevented more land from being needed to grow more cotton for that fabric. There is so much we can do that most people choose not to do out of laziness, thinking that someone else will do it, or just because they think they're entitled to not do their share for whatever reason.
While humanity needs to be preserved, so do the resources and places we live. We can't keep running from our problems, especially when we cause the problems. They must be tackled first. Otherwise the problem will remain. We'll go to one body, then another, and another, leaving little, if anything, but destruction in our wake. A balance needs to be reached rather that deciding to take, take, take to preserve humans. That's selfish, greedy. The question needs to be how to reach that balance before moving on to other planets and moons.
You seriously can't see how we could end up destroying other planets and moons, despite there being so little there? Stripping them of any resources already there, dumping on them?
Okay, you go reach for, and ultimately destroy, what's out there instead of taking responsibility for learning how to take care of what you already have. Instead of, you know, something called being a grown-up.
However, do you not think it in the best interest for the survival of ALL species that we also learn to take care of this planet before inhabiting other planets and moons? The biggest threat to our survival is none other than ourselves. We can't outrun ourselves or escape the damage we cause simply by moving somewhere else.
And your descendents will destroy other celestial bodies that are out there as well. If we humans destroy this planet, it's what we deserve.
Or perhaps those who have demonstrated actual effort in preservation should be allowed to go while those who didn't care get left behind.
He's held seminars on how to build a competing website. One of my exes used to know the guy. He's got enough money. Why must people wonder at a person/company turning down the possibility of making more money when already that person/company makes more than enough?
Besides, placing ads on the site may just drive people away. Part of the allure of the site is that it's anti-ad. It makes its money by charging to put up job ads (NOT resumes or seeking employment, just those compaies/people looking to hire), and only in three (it could have gone up) metropolitan areas. Craig's got a plan that bring in more money that he and his employees need. Why knock him for not being overly selfish as too many companies are these days?
A couple years back, for April Fool's Day, ads were placed on the site. Aaaaaahhhhh, that was good!
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?
It's not like iTunes downloads are the greatest quality. Certainly nothing to play on a regular TV. The quality can be a bit poor for a screen the size of the iPod screen (I have one, have tons on it, and sometimes shows aren't the greatest). People will not be buying movies to replace DVDs. Or very few will anyway. Try having a movie night with movies in such low quality.
Perhaps a middle grouns to this could be $9.99 for the quality of what is sold now, meant for iPods, or $14.99 for DVD-quality, prices going down depending on popularity and age (NO ONE will be stupid enough to pay $14.99 for a DVD-quality download of a movie that sells for $6.99 on DVD, or at least I hope).
But then again, if they'd like people to resort to piracy, I guess it's their financial loss. Their cut of $9.99 is better than nothing.