Dr. Tom

Actually, I said "virtual slavery of the artists." It's not actual slavery, but it's pretty close. Many bands don't earn back the advances they get on their contracts. The RIAA owns the master tapes from the recording session, despite the fact the artist has to pay for the studio time and equipment usage out of their own pockets. The RIAA has a lot more say with respect to what songs get released as singles, if any. That's a very shitty work-for-hire arrangement. What I'd love to see, like I just mentioned above, is a few large artists completely break with the RIAA and offer their entire albums for download thru their web sites. The RIAA would have to adopt a similar model or remain stubborn and die. Personally, I'd hope for their stubbornness to linger, but that's just me.

I see this argument listed time and time again everytime this issue is discussed and I wonder what else do music fans want? The ability to download the music they want, store it on their PCs, listen to it when they want, burn it to a CD if they want, and export it to a portable player if they want. Basically, they want full rights over the MP3 file once they have it, which, if they're paying for it, only seems fair. iTunes is Apple's baby, not the RIAA's. The RIAA only wishes Pressplay and MusicNet were that successful. Heck, is MusicNet even still around? The problem is that the RIAA wants to dispense digital music on its own byzantine terms, which are not the terms people want to see. Downloads from the RIAA expire after thirty days and can't be copied to a CD or portable player. This is despite the fact that you've paid for the download. Tell me again how the RIAA is embracing the digital age? The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way it's going back in. All the RIAA's doing now is trying to shove the stopper back in, and it's not working very well at all. Of course, calling music downloaders terrorists and trying to have them treated as such under the Patriot Act (a measure that was thankfully struck down; common sense does occasionally prevail in DC) doesn't help their cause or their public image. The RIAA has been inept at this from the very start. The old business model is dying. Years ago, the RIAA lost a class-action lawsuit regarding the price-fixing of CDs. After making the paltry payouts, the prices of CDs came down not at all. Now, years after the fact, some prices are finally coming down into the $10 range. Whither the RIAA, whatever will they do without that extra $8 of price-gougin... er, profit, on that $0.25 CD? Almost? They lost a class-action lawsuit and did nothing. It IS criminal. We've been speaking. We've been doing it for years. The RIAA needs to fully get behind the digital model and realize that the on-demand electronic distibution of music is the way of the present and the future. They need to stop treating consumers like criminals and give them full fair use rights over the songs they download. And a few major artists need to break away from the RIAA and offer their entire albums foen downloading for $5 or so. A lot of people would jump on that, and if enough bands started going that route, the RIAA would have to follow suit or die.

The Canadian health folks needs to ask the American college kids getting busted crossing the border where the good weed is.

I wonder how many pieces of silver Saddam paid him for that statement.

I blame Flyboy for this poll.

Give THEE. Thee thee thee, a thousand times thee. "Thou" is subjective; "thee" is objective. Just for that, I hope you stubbed your toe yesterday.

Then don't get your knickers in such a twist about it.

No one is saying Depp cannot criticize the American government if he feels it necessary. He has been called a coward for doing it from foreign shores, and a hypocrite for taking American money to star in American movies for predominately American audiences. The latter's a bit silly, IMO, but that's neither here nor there. Johnny Depp can say what he wants about the US government (within reason), and that's fine. However, the last time I checked, American citizens who make American money are ALLOWED to tell a fellow American that he's an ignorant fuckhead and that he should kindly shut the fuck up. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it's definitely a two-way street. Pity some can't handle the traffic. Nope, and Depp is free to exercise it. So are those who criticize him.

I aim to please.

Mike, haven't you heard? Whenever anyone makes a claim on the internet that someone else should shut their piehole, it's absolutely and unequivocally an infringement on the yapper's freedom of speech! Why, I'll bet the First Amendment is being subverted 1,000,000 times a day in cyberspace! This outrage really must stop. Remember, kids: the next time you say "OMG STFU N00B~!!11!!!1!! LOL 2003~!1!!!1!" you're pissing on the graves of the Founding Fathers.

I've bought precisely one CD in the past four years. That one was purchased with a gift card, so it's not like *I* was the one paying for it. I've written numerous essays on the internet decrying the RIAA, their refusal to change their business model to embrace the digital age, their virtual slavery of the artists under their umbrella, and their generally shitty business practices. I listen to CDs or talk radio in the car. Yes, I've downloaded music, but I can also count on one hand the number of entire albums I've copped in the four years since I've bought a CD. At least 80% of the music I've downloaded consists of songs I already own in CD or tape format (I have about 1000 combined), and it's my right as a consumer to be able to listen to those songs on my PC if I want to. I've shown my balls. My sack is hanging out there for the world to see.

The movie industry has seen their business model change in the face of the DVD explosion. It used to be that a movie HAD to make money at the box office to be a success, since revenues from VHS sales and rentals were limited. Now, a movie can lose money at the box office but have a successful run on DVD and be given a thumbs-up. Look at Terminator 3: it wasn't a runaway box office success, but you know it's going to sell a bajillion copies on DVD, especially since it'll be out in time for the holidays.

A look at week 2, and a look back at week 1.

Wonderful article. I've thought we should have been more hardline toward these worthless pieces of shit for some time. It's good to see people are not being brainwashed by the popularity of appeasement and are actively defending a tougher stance against terrorists and the regimes which support them.

Actually, all you do is look up at a small red dot of light. The doctor tells you which way to move your eye, then zaps the appropriate spot with the laser. The entire surface of your eye is mapped out in advance so they know precisely where they have to correct things. Numbing eyedrops are applied to the eye when the surgery is to be done, and then the cornea is peeled back so the laser can do its job. All of that might sound rather gruesome, but it's really not. And TSA, the scalpel job is RK (radial keratotomy), while the laser procedure was commonly called PRK, and now has several other names. I had RK done on my right eye because it cost less (laser surgery was a lot more costly then than it is now) and wish I had opted for the laser on both. The lasered eye turned out better.

One, when I was 19, for going 71 in a 45-mph zone. I know for a fact I wasn't going that fast, but I got PBJ in court. Since then, I've been pulled over twice (once for 63 in a 50, the other for 61 in a 50) and gotten warnings both times, since I have a clean driving record. As you can tell, I still speed; I'm just not reckless about it.

So can I. 1. The economic policies of Howard Dean. 2. The economic policies of Dick Gephardt. 3. The economic policies of John Kerry. 4. The economic policies of Joe Lieberman. 5. The economic policies of virtually every Democrat. Sue me, but you made that one too easy.

There were more results. That was just the most direct that I found, since a lot of them had tiny blurbs buried amidst paragraphs of unrelated things. My search criteria, btw, was "countries in which incest is legal." A more refined search might yeild better (and more) results.

Washington Redskins @ Atlanta Falcons Cleveland Browns @ Baltimore Ravens Detroit Lions @ Green Bay Packers Tennessee Titans @ Indianapolis Colts Buffalo Bills @ Jacksonville Jaguars Pittsburgh Steelers @ Kansas City Chiefs - LOCK this bitch up Houston Texans @ New Orleans Saints Miami Dolphins @ New York Jets San Francisco 49ers @ St. Louis Rams Seattle Seahawks @ Arizona Cardinals Carolina Panthers @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers Cincinnati Bengals @ Oakland Raiders New England Patriots @ Philadelphia Eagles Denver Broncos @ San Diego Chargers Chicago Bears @ Minnesota Vikings Dallas Cowboys @ New York Giants - MNF kkk has my picks and tiebreaker points for his competition.

And the source of the quote.

And comparing buying illegal drugs to receiving life-saving medical procedures is sooooo valid...

It's normally a very expensive process to replace a screen, and even original manufacturer's warranties sometimes don't cover this. Considering that laptop has a few years on it, it might be harder to find the right screen, and thus, be even more expensive.

I dealt with contacts for about seven years. To me, it was no big deal, but I can see why people would have an aversion to putting things on their eyes. You really ought to look into eye surgery, then. The price has gone down a lot since I had mine done in '97, and the procedure has gotten even better. In fact, I should probably have mine touched up.

I got very good trade-ins on some old games at Game Stop. They're a smaller chain than EB, so they might be more willing to give a little better price to get people in the door. Plus, they have a deal where, if you trade in three games on one console, you get an extra $10 total on your trade-in. If there's one in your area, Ripper, look into it.