And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of "raving fanboy":) Students in the crowd, I hope you're taking notes!
Honestly guy, give it a rest. To still be trying to claim that in late 2007 is borderline delusional.
Uh huh. Let's ignore the more patent examples like Madden '07, which is universally agreed to look a great deal better on 360 compared to PS3. This may simply be due to EA being incompetent, so let's ignore that. We see consistently that cross-platform games like COD4 and Assassin's Creed look identical on both platforms (there are many side-by-side comparison videos on both game sites and YouTube). For exclusives the distinction is more difficult to make, but it's widely agreed that there is no current PS3 game that can trump the best looking 360 games. In the future, perhaps, I certainly agree that the PS3 has more potential horsepower under the hood, but to claim that in late 2007 the PS3 has exceeded the 360's graphics standards is absurd. Even the once-mighty looking MGS4 trailers now look downright pedestrian with the release of COD4, which has the war-torn look done exceptionally well on BOTH platforms.
I am entirely convinced that the 360 and PS3 will consistently be neck and neck in terms of graphical quality this gen, and that the deciding factor will be who has what games, and how fun they are. That battle is far from over, though for an American-style gamer (I despise JRPG gameplay), the 360 is trouncing the PS3. There are clear reasons why the 360 is failing in Japan - there is only one worthy JRPG on the platform, Eternal Sonata, and even its gameplay is somewhat old-hat compared to some of the newest PS2 RPGs in that market. MS needs to step up their game in those genres if they want to capture any portion of that market.
Security can be defined in many ways. A house secured like Fort Knox in the wrong neighbourhood will still be subject to break-ins and robberies, while a house with a simple security latch in a good neighbourhood doesn't have to worry about such things, despite being relatively insecure. Which house would I rather live in? I run a Mac, and given Apple's rising market share I'm counting the days until my intrusion-free status becomes a thing of the past, but I'm enjoying every moment until then. And perhaps I will move to Linux by then (Ubuntu is getting better, though their UI is still too ass-backwards in many places for me to really want to switch).
If your job is that much fun, is your company hiring?
Sadly, not right now I don't think. But I agree with parent - plenty of people love the work they do, and wouldn't give it up for anything, except perhaps a job that is even more in line with their interests. The company I work for right now is great - producing high-end CG production tools for the film and television industry. It's incredibly rewarding, gets my brain in gear every day, and all in all I wouldn't contemplate retirement (not at my age anyway) in exchange. This is mostly because I imagine if I had to retire right now, I would spend my days fiddling with very much the same software - such is my passion after all.
Maybe, as an engineer, you should find a company whose products and services are in line with your own personal development interests. I'd never willingly take a job at some finance company, diddling SQL all day in a massive DB I didn't care about. But then again, I've been chasing this graphics dream since high school, so YMMV.
It's possible you're one of those guys who went into software for the money, in which case good sir, you're already screwed. You can't find passion for a job in an industry you never wanted to be in in the first place. I personally know many other software engineers who chose CS because it was the most financially secure career path. They all toil away in the dungeons of some big financial corp, hacking SQL, while I get to play with 3D graphics and talk to producers, directors, and very talented artists about their work and what I can do to make it all possible.
True, in an ideal world we would do R&D on everything imaginable, such that we maintain superiority in all technologies. This is unfortunately not always possible. For rocketry and spaceflight, however, the USA is leaps and bounds beyond almost every country on Earth, with its only real competitor being Russia, so there's an incentive to maintain the lead. Not to mention that this particular field has military applications and consequences. You really don't want to rely on foreign expertise when it comes to your military technologies.
Except spacecraft rarely *fly*. They float in space, or they are free-falling back to Earth. Neither of which suggests any innate ability to stay afloat.
There are some very good reasons for building an all-American rocket beyond mere politics. It has everything to do with developing domestic expertise in the field, and encouraging R&D in the country for these technologies, which can only serve as a foundation for developing even more.
Beyond what the other posters have mentioned, brute forcing the problem is also rarely a good solution. Instead of spending tens of million each launch to lift a huge, heavy spacecraft into orbit, its weight should be optimized, both for the sake of proper engineering and for the sake of cost cutting. I won't presume to know the specific technical difficulties of a project as complicated as the CEV, but there's a balance between more lift power and reducing spacecraft weight.
Hardly what I would call a fair test to what Linux has to stand up against.
It is and it isn't, it entirely depends on the purpose of your evaluation. If you're looking for the most versatile OS that also works out of the box with a wide range of hardware, sure, Ubuntu wins. But if you're a layman who just wants things to *work* without worrying about hardware configs, Macs win.
Ah, but then you have the problem of purity. The byproduct of the radioactive decay is no doubt a heavy metal - i.e. you really would want to minimize the amount going into the patient's bloodstream. So, for the sake of the test, you would desire a substance that is fairly pure - i.e. you can minimize the dose but maximize the activity level to gain a better reading.
So yes, while it's possible (but not feasible) to create a large stockpile, you will still need purification facilities to constantly re-process the decayed material out of your stockpile, which is really quite pointless.
For power users like you and I, sure, I love my context menus, but for casual tech-illiterate grandma users, it's a fricking Godsend.
have one mouse button on their trackpad (!!)
Use before bash. Apple trackpads right click if you put two fingers on the trackpad. IMHO this is a far superior way to right click. PC users love the tap-to-click feature because, in fitting two buttons on the trackpad, neither button are large enough to comfortably hit with your thumb (the biggest finger you've got). On a Mac this is eliminated - the button is large and easy to access with your thumb, allowing a very easy index-middle finger configuration for scrolling, and using the thumb to click. Not to mention the two-finger scrolling thing is INFINITELY superior to cramming your finger to the edge of the pad to scroll.
you cant tap the pad, like every single other computer, and have it count as a click
Yes you can. It's in System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Trackpad
You have to hunt for menus in unrelated places instead of merely right clicking on the exact thing you want.
I'd say that's more of a Windows/Linux trait than anything else. You either have interfaces cluttered by an insane number of buttons that each do simple tasks, or you start hiding less-commonly used features under layers upon layers of submenus in some obscure location. Keep in mind that OS X does have context menus - it simply involves holding down your mouse button for slightly longer (about 1 second) than a regular click to bring them up. So besides the slowness (which doesn't impact casual users) of it, the functionality of an Apple one-button mouse vs. a PC two-button mouse are identical.
IMHO it's a decent, but not perfect, compromise. Casual users get to think only about one button, while being able to achieve the same things as power users, albeit at a slower rate. Power users can still have their two-button mice if they really want to blaze along. Both have equal functionality as far as the OS is concerned.
Why is everybody letting Rogers get away with these shenanigans? Rogers' practises must be costing some business users serious money. I simply don't understand.
Rogers is one of the dirtiest businesses I have ever seen in my life, far exceeding even the worst excesses of Microsoft when they were truly untouchable.
I have no idea why they keep their internet customers... it's probably due to marketing. In Ontario both Bell and Rogers both bite the big one, and since they are the only two choices most people are aware of, there's no incentive to switch to an equally crappy service.
I too use TekSavvy and cannot be happier. Customer service is prompt, there are no touch-tone menus to surf through to get some help, and the prices are LESS THAN HALF of what Rogers charges for roughly equivalent service. (fyi it's 5Mbps, 200GB/month for $25 vs. 6Mbps, 75MB/month for $50.)
I really do wish that company did more marketing, if only so they can really stick it to Rogers. These guys are robbers in every way imaginable. They use their domination of Canada's GSM market to extort ridiculous charges from their users, and force unbelievably expensive cable bundles down your throat for daring to want to watch TV. It's ridiculous, and IMHO ought to be illegal.
You may not know this, but "Rogers" is already synonymous with "taking it up the arse" up here in Canada. After all, who else charges $210/month for 500MB of wireless data transfer? Or creates a 3G broadband network but refuses to allow actual 3G phones to access it (restricting you to this huge BRICK of a wireless "modem" they provide you)? Or raising their prices almost 30% in the last 2 years?
I just wish someone like Google or Microsoft sues Rogers into oblivion for this crap. I'm pretty sure impersonating another corporation's official communications (loading the Google homepage, for example) is fraud.
Er... That's a horrible idea. The point here is to prevent innocents from being harmed. That can be done through prevention (e.g. education and social programs to prevent crime), or prosecution (e.g. jailing). Jailing is a last line of defense - social programs have failed to catch this person before a crime was committed, the most we can do now is ensure that he/she does not commit again.
Knowing someone is likely to reoffend and releasing him into general society is a stupid idea, since it defeats the purpose of jailing him in the first place. IMHO there needs to be an impartial method to determine likelihood of reoffence, and if high enough, the person should remain jailed until fully rehabilitated.
Which brings me back to my original point - if you're confident that this person will not reoffend, then why shackle him with all of this needless documentation on lists and databases? He won't do it again, so what the hell are we hassling him for? And if you're afraid he will, then why did you let him out?
Yes, in fact the rest of the VGAs show exactly how much worse it can get. Scrawling the names of winners on naked women in bodypaint? Sammy L. Jackson putting in a half-assed effort and cracking insulting, needlessly misogynistic jokes? I'm no feminist, and even I was offended.
That awards show alone erased whatever sliver of mainstream respect good game developers have earned the industry over the years. Thanks a lot, Spike.
For that piece of turd I'm now boycotting Spike as a channel indefinitely.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand I'm against these databases; once you've served your time you should be a free man in every way.
Damn right. If a person has served his time, he should not have it haunting him. After all, if he's been rehabilitated then he will not re-offend, and if he won't re-offend what's the point with burdening him with this skeleton in the closet? If indeed he is STILL a risk to society, then what the heck is he doing walking free?
Tell him that you will not vote for a representative who cannot represent the views of his constituents, and regretfully inform him that he cannot count on your vote in the next election. That's all. Encourage more people in your community to speak to your MP about the same matter - if enough people show their interest in the issue, your MP *will* do something, or risk losing his seat shortly.
Absolutely agreed. I emailed my MP on the matter (could have written a real letter, that's on my to-do for next time this bill inevitably shows up). This is an example of representative government actually working, we ought to be celebrating. When your government works like it's supposed to, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant keep it working!
My praise and congratulations go out to Dr. Geist, who successfully rallied the people. If only there were more men like him out in the world.
You bring up some very good points. I do firmly believe that the average person consumes enough media that it would be completely unaffordable if they were to pay for it all. This suggests that media in general is vastly overpriced (or at least priced beyond most people's willingness to pay). Perhaps we need to move away from big-budget Hollywood blockbusters and towards smaller productions with lower cost (closer to the TV model?).
Something seems fishy here. A cheap bastard who pays $2,000 for a laptop from one of the limited number of companies that sells it without a Windows license, then pirates Windows because he can't afford it?
No, in this case I'm referring to the guy who paid $2K for his laptop, but a year down the line is impressed by the glitziness of Vista, but instead of paying the $100 or so to buy a copy, just chooses to download it.
I do agree that copyright law as it stands has a lot of problems that require fixing. But I do not agree that copyright as a concept is fundamentally broken. If content can be copied and redistributed at will, there will be little purpose for creators to keep on creating. For music you can get away with live performances, merchandising, etc, but what about movies? Software? There are a *lot* of places where copyright is important, worthwhile, and downright necessary.
Like all other things in life, the whole copyright argument is one big gradient, nothing is cut and dry and black and white. There are border cases like singing the Birthday song, or playing satellite TV in a bar, where it's hard to say that the infringement is doing significant, if any damage to the copyright holder at all. But there are extremely clear-cut cases where the violation *is* hurting the creator tangibly, and IMHO our society at this point has far too lax an attitude towards them.
Pirating a copy of Vista, pirating a copy of a DVD, burning an album from a friend, those are all, to me, very far on the "wrong" end of the spectrum. There are plenty of movies that I'd like to watch, but I feel is not worth the price of admission. Instead of pirating the movie, I simply wait until it's out on DVD, or if I don't even deem it THAT interesting, I'll simply forego seeing it altogether. The same goes for software. I'd like a copy of iLife '08, many of the new features look like they'll make my life easier. But I'm cash-strapped around Christmas time, so instead of pirating it I'm going to forego using it until I buy it.
I'm merely expecting some level of integrity out of people. If you fundamentally disagree with the someone's business practices, boycott their products. It is no justification for stealing/pirating them. If you believe the price for a product is too high, then don't buy it, and don't use it. It's not as if movies and music are basic necessities in life.
Slashdot Mirror
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of "raving fanboy" :) Students in the crowd, I hope you're taking notes!
Honestly guy, give it a rest. To still be trying to claim that in late 2007 is borderline delusional.Uh huh. Let's ignore the more patent examples like Madden '07, which is universally agreed to look a great deal better on 360 compared to PS3. This may simply be due to EA being incompetent, so let's ignore that. We see consistently that cross-platform games like COD4 and Assassin's Creed look identical on both platforms (there are many side-by-side comparison videos on both game sites and YouTube). For exclusives the distinction is more difficult to make, but it's widely agreed that there is no current PS3 game that can trump the best looking 360 games. In the future, perhaps, I certainly agree that the PS3 has more potential horsepower under the hood, but to claim that in late 2007 the PS3 has exceeded the 360's graphics standards is absurd. Even the once-mighty looking MGS4 trailers now look downright pedestrian with the release of COD4, which has the war-torn look done exceptionally well on BOTH platforms.
I am entirely convinced that the 360 and PS3 will consistently be neck and neck in terms of graphical quality this gen, and that the deciding factor will be who has what games, and how fun they are. That battle is far from over, though for an American-style gamer (I despise JRPG gameplay), the 360 is trouncing the PS3. There are clear reasons why the 360 is failing in Japan - there is only one worthy JRPG on the platform, Eternal Sonata, and even its gameplay is somewhat old-hat compared to some of the newest PS2 RPGs in that market. MS needs to step up their game in those genres if they want to capture any portion of that market.
Security can be defined in many ways. A house secured like Fort Knox in the wrong neighbourhood will still be subject to break-ins and robberies, while a house with a simple security latch in a good neighbourhood doesn't have to worry about such things, despite being relatively insecure. Which house would I rather live in? I run a Mac, and given Apple's rising market share I'm counting the days until my intrusion-free status becomes a thing of the past, but I'm enjoying every moment until then. And perhaps I will move to Linux by then (Ubuntu is getting better, though their UI is still too ass-backwards in many places for me to really want to switch).
Sadly, not right now I don't think. But I agree with parent - plenty of people love the work they do, and wouldn't give it up for anything, except perhaps a job that is even more in line with their interests. The company I work for right now is great - producing high-end CG production tools for the film and television industry. It's incredibly rewarding, gets my brain in gear every day, and all in all I wouldn't contemplate retirement (not at my age anyway) in exchange. This is mostly because I imagine if I had to retire right now, I would spend my days fiddling with very much the same software - such is my passion after all.
Maybe, as an engineer, you should find a company whose products and services are in line with your own personal development interests. I'd never willingly take a job at some finance company, diddling SQL all day in a massive DB I didn't care about. But then again, I've been chasing this graphics dream since high school, so YMMV.
It's possible you're one of those guys who went into software for the money, in which case good sir, you're already screwed. You can't find passion for a job in an industry you never wanted to be in in the first place. I personally know many other software engineers who chose CS because it was the most financially secure career path. They all toil away in the dungeons of some big financial corp, hacking SQL, while I get to play with 3D graphics and talk to producers, directors, and very talented artists about their work and what I can do to make it all possible.
You must be new here.
True, in an ideal world we would do R&D on everything imaginable, such that we maintain superiority in all technologies. This is unfortunately not always possible. For rocketry and spaceflight, however, the USA is leaps and bounds beyond almost every country on Earth, with its only real competitor being Russia, so there's an incentive to maintain the lead. Not to mention that this particular field has military applications and consequences. You really don't want to rely on foreign expertise when it comes to your military technologies.
Except spacecraft rarely *fly*. They float in space, or they are free-falling back to Earth. Neither of which suggests any innate ability to stay afloat.
There are some very good reasons for building an all-American rocket beyond mere politics. It has everything to do with developing domestic expertise in the field, and encouraging R&D in the country for these technologies, which can only serve as a foundation for developing even more.
Beyond what the other posters have mentioned, brute forcing the problem is also rarely a good solution. Instead of spending tens of million each launch to lift a huge, heavy spacecraft into orbit, its weight should be optimized, both for the sake of proper engineering and for the sake of cost cutting. I won't presume to know the specific technical difficulties of a project as complicated as the CEV, but there's a balance between more lift power and reducing spacecraft weight.
It is and it isn't, it entirely depends on the purpose of your evaluation. If you're looking for the most versatile OS that also works out of the box with a wide range of hardware, sure, Ubuntu wins. But if you're a layman who just wants things to *work* without worrying about hardware configs, Macs win.
Different needs for different markets, really.
The two best words in the English language! De-fault! De-fault!
Ah, but then you have the problem of purity. The byproduct of the radioactive decay is no doubt a heavy metal - i.e. you really would want to minimize the amount going into the patient's bloodstream. So, for the sake of the test, you would desire a substance that is fairly pure - i.e. you can minimize the dose but maximize the activity level to gain a better reading.
So yes, while it's possible (but not feasible) to create a large stockpile, you will still need purification facilities to constantly re-process the decayed material out of your stockpile, which is really quite pointless.
For power users like you and I, sure, I love my context menus, but for casual tech-illiterate grandma users, it's a fricking Godsend.
have one mouse button on their trackpad (!!)Use before bash. Apple trackpads right click if you put two fingers on the trackpad. IMHO this is a far superior way to right click. PC users love the tap-to-click feature because, in fitting two buttons on the trackpad, neither button are large enough to comfortably hit with your thumb (the biggest finger you've got). On a Mac this is eliminated - the button is large and easy to access with your thumb, allowing a very easy index-middle finger configuration for scrolling, and using the thumb to click. Not to mention the two-finger scrolling thing is INFINITELY superior to cramming your finger to the edge of the pad to scroll.
you cant tap the pad, like every single other computer, and have it count as a clickYes you can. It's in System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Trackpad
You have to hunt for menus in unrelated places instead of merely right clicking on the exact thing you want.I'd say that's more of a Windows/Linux trait than anything else. You either have interfaces cluttered by an insane number of buttons that each do simple tasks, or you start hiding less-commonly used features under layers upon layers of submenus in some obscure location. Keep in mind that OS X does have context menus - it simply involves holding down your mouse button for slightly longer (about 1 second) than a regular click to bring them up. So besides the slowness (which doesn't impact casual users) of it, the functionality of an Apple one-button mouse vs. a PC two-button mouse are identical.
IMHO it's a decent, but not perfect, compromise. Casual users get to think only about one button, while being able to achieve the same things as power users, albeit at a slower rate. Power users can still have their two-button mice if they really want to blaze along. Both have equal functionality as far as the OS is concerned.
"When you Buy More, you save more, and when you save more you can Buy More. But it all starts with BUY MORE" I love that slogan :D
My bad, that's 75GB/month, not MB :P But nonetheless, they are dinosaurs living in a market where people are offering 3x the usage for HALF the price.
Rogers is one of the dirtiest businesses I have ever seen in my life, far exceeding even the worst excesses of Microsoft when they were truly untouchable.
I have no idea why they keep their internet customers... it's probably due to marketing. In Ontario both Bell and Rogers both bite the big one, and since they are the only two choices most people are aware of, there's no incentive to switch to an equally crappy service.
I too use TekSavvy and cannot be happier. Customer service is prompt, there are no touch-tone menus to surf through to get some help, and the prices are LESS THAN HALF of what Rogers charges for roughly equivalent service. (fyi it's 5Mbps, 200GB/month for $25 vs. 6Mbps, 75MB/month for $50.)
I really do wish that company did more marketing, if only so they can really stick it to Rogers. These guys are robbers in every way imaginable. They use their domination of Canada's GSM market to extort ridiculous charges from their users, and force unbelievably expensive cable bundles down your throat for daring to want to watch TV. It's ridiculous, and IMHO ought to be illegal.
You may not know this, but "Rogers" is already synonymous with "taking it up the arse" up here in Canada. After all, who else charges $210/month for 500MB of wireless data transfer? Or creates a 3G broadband network but refuses to allow actual 3G phones to access it (restricting you to this huge BRICK of a wireless "modem" they provide you)? Or raising their prices almost 30% in the last 2 years?
I just wish someone like Google or Microsoft sues Rogers into oblivion for this crap. I'm pretty sure impersonating another corporation's official communications (loading the Google homepage, for example) is fraud.
Er... That's a horrible idea. The point here is to prevent innocents from being harmed. That can be done through prevention (e.g. education and social programs to prevent crime), or prosecution (e.g. jailing). Jailing is a last line of defense - social programs have failed to catch this person before a crime was committed, the most we can do now is ensure that he/she does not commit again.
Knowing someone is likely to reoffend and releasing him into general society is a stupid idea, since it defeats the purpose of jailing him in the first place. IMHO there needs to be an impartial method to determine likelihood of reoffence, and if high enough, the person should remain jailed until fully rehabilitated.
Which brings me back to my original point - if you're confident that this person will not reoffend, then why shackle him with all of this needless documentation on lists and databases? He won't do it again, so what the hell are we hassling him for? And if you're afraid he will, then why did you let him out?
Oh good :) Then Windows can into the back of my closet, along with my Pogs and my desire to use the word "rad" all the time :P
Yes, in fact the rest of the VGAs show exactly how much worse it can get. Scrawling the names of winners on naked women in bodypaint? Sammy L. Jackson putting in a half-assed effort and cracking insulting, needlessly misogynistic jokes? I'm no feminist, and even I was offended.
That awards show alone erased whatever sliver of mainstream respect good game developers have earned the industry over the years. Thanks a lot, Spike.
For that piece of turd I'm now boycotting Spike as a channel indefinitely.
It's a "fad" so long as a minority group of people can act smug and self-righteous about not going with the flow :)
Damn right. If a person has served his time, he should not have it haunting him. After all, if he's been rehabilitated then he will not re-offend, and if he won't re-offend what's the point with burdening him with this skeleton in the closet? If indeed he is STILL a risk to society, then what the heck is he doing walking free?
Fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate... hate leads to suffering!
Maybe George Lucas was onto something...
Tell him that you will not vote for a representative who cannot represent the views of his constituents, and regretfully inform him that he cannot count on your vote in the next election. That's all. Encourage more people in your community to speak to your MP about the same matter - if enough people show their interest in the issue, your MP *will* do something, or risk losing his seat shortly.
Absolutely agreed. I emailed my MP on the matter (could have written a real letter, that's on my to-do for next time this bill inevitably shows up). This is an example of representative government actually working, we ought to be celebrating. When your government works like it's supposed to, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant keep it working!
My praise and congratulations go out to Dr. Geist, who successfully rallied the people. If only there were more men like him out in the world.
You bring up some very good points. I do firmly believe that the average person consumes enough media that it would be completely unaffordable if they were to pay for it all. This suggests that media in general is vastly overpriced (or at least priced beyond most people's willingness to pay). Perhaps we need to move away from big-budget Hollywood blockbusters and towards smaller productions with lower cost (closer to the TV model?).
No, in this case I'm referring to the guy who paid $2K for his laptop, but a year down the line is impressed by the glitziness of Vista, but instead of paying the $100 or so to buy a copy, just chooses to download it.
I do agree that copyright law as it stands has a lot of problems that require fixing. But I do not agree that copyright as a concept is fundamentally broken. If content can be copied and redistributed at will, there will be little purpose for creators to keep on creating. For music you can get away with live performances, merchandising, etc, but what about movies? Software? There are a *lot* of places where copyright is important, worthwhile, and downright necessary.
Like all other things in life, the whole copyright argument is one big gradient, nothing is cut and dry and black and white. There are border cases like singing the Birthday song, or playing satellite TV in a bar, where it's hard to say that the infringement is doing significant, if any damage to the copyright holder at all. But there are extremely clear-cut cases where the violation *is* hurting the creator tangibly, and IMHO our society at this point has far too lax an attitude towards them.
Pirating a copy of Vista, pirating a copy of a DVD, burning an album from a friend, those are all, to me, very far on the "wrong" end of the spectrum. There are plenty of movies that I'd like to watch, but I feel is not worth the price of admission. Instead of pirating the movie, I simply wait until it's out on DVD, or if I don't even deem it THAT interesting, I'll simply forego seeing it altogether. The same goes for software. I'd like a copy of iLife '08, many of the new features look like they'll make my life easier. But I'm cash-strapped around Christmas time, so instead of pirating it I'm going to forego using it until I buy it.
I'm merely expecting some level of integrity out of people. If you fundamentally disagree with the someone's business practices, boycott their products. It is no justification for stealing/pirating them. If you believe the price for a product is too high, then don't buy it, and don't use it. It's not as if movies and music are basic necessities in life.