Well said!

You're missing the point, Alarindris. Or maybe you're just making a completely unrelated one?

I've always been into computers, and was a die-hard Windows fan until the Intel macs were released. I made the switch, and haven't looked back; HOWEVER, I didn't make the switch "to be cool (as was discussed above)," nor did I make it because windows = bad, apple = good. IMHO, they're both computer industry giants whose main interest is (ding!) PROFITS.

That being said, I'm in the "Free-thinking" business; music is what I do, it's who I am. I choose Mac, NOT because of it's affiliation with the "young, hip, etc." crowd, but because when it comes down to it, Macs are simply more stable than Windows. The MAJORITY of creative software - audio, in my case, but artwork and video as well - is run on macs. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of great software selections on PC; however, when I walk into a studio (and this also goes for film/photo editing) chances are 9/10 times the main computer will be a mac, typically running Pro Tools (which also runs on windows). The reasoning behind this lies in the fact that Pro Tools, and pretty much every major Digital Audio Workshop (DAW) runs incredibly stable on the Mac. Pro Tools doesn't even support Windows 7 yet! The thousands of high quality plug-ins out there for purchase? They all run incredibly stable on a mac, too. Why? Because Mac has become the "creative" industry standard, an attribute largely due to its stability in the first place.

As a music professional, I take great care to make sure my data stays uncorrupted. I back up EVERYTHING multiple times, JUST in case my computer crashes/gets wiped, etc. My computer IS my office. I wouldn't be able to do what I do without one (unless I have an analog studio - anyone want to invest $30,000?). I don't need the cost-effectiveness of a PC, I need the guaranteed stability that comes with buying a mac.

On a different note: Apple's do-it-yourself recording, filming and photo editing software is big business. It remains powerful enough to produce professional art, while remaining cheap enough for practically anyone (college hipster kids included) to purchase. Tie that into a couple generations of internet users who drown themselves in media, and what do you get? A few million you-tube directors who all want macs, because it's what the professionals use, and there's a chance in hell their parents might actually buy it for them.

A current debate among Audio Engineers (what I do for a living) is how one should mix music. With the majority of the market listening to music on mp3 (typically of lower quality compression), engineers question whether or not they should actually mix to make mp3's sound better. Currently, an old-guard engineer will find a good mix that translates to all sounds systems. That mix will then be rendered down for CD quality. Either before or after this step (most of the time after), the song is converted to mp3 form for digital distribution. The new school of engineer argues that with mp3's dominating the market, an effort should be made to ensure that albums are mixed to sound good in mp3, and to avoid the digital artifacts that can be heard when a .wav file is compressed (sounds like gurgling, but very subtle). Another argument is whether or not albums should even be mixed primarily for sound system translation! (translation = the mix one hears on one's home monitors sounds the same, or translates, to another speaker system). Newer engineers argue that earbuds are becoming more and more used, even more so than speaker systems! Thus, shouldn't audio be mixed primarily for headphone listening? Personally, I can hear the difference between a high-quality wave or flac file, and an mp3. I try and get 320kbps mp3 format, simply because difference is lesser. Sure I can hear it, but listening like an Audio Engineer and listening like a regular joe are two different mindsets. When I'm listening to the music, I'm not listening to the gurgling sound that results from mp3 downconversion/compression.

The survey percentages given are obviously fabricated

Somewhere in this country there is a scientist, or team of scientists being interrogated as to why the satellite launched failed. Someone, somewhere, is being executed for this. Gives me the willies!

Well said

Games like Halo and COD 4 have maxed out the FPS multiplayer market; therefore, making a shiny, new multiplayer shooter probably won't sell, since the kid who's finally gotten that sweet perk won't want to toss all the effort he's put online into the garbage. Games like Bioshock, Half-Life, Portal, Halo 1 and pretty much every Blizzard game ever made, take a gimmick or style of play and weave a compelling, engaging story around it. Game developers need to understand that there is no magical gameplay formula for single player games; there is only the story, and whether the player can get attached enough to the elements that make up the gaming experience. As for multiplayer-only oriented games, don't expect to make much money unless the idea you have blows what's already being played to smithereens. I think we know specifically which games are being mentioned here: Starcraft 2 and Diablo III. Both multiplayer, both coming out, both will make Blizzard a boatload of money.

I think it's great to measure connection speeds and all, but isn't it a little redundant? We already know Internet Providers are limiting and degrading certain types of traffic. The question isn't IF they are, it's how we get them to stop doing it. Incidentally, that might just happen if Obama, a supporter pushes legislation through holding ISPs accountable for non-neutral networks.

I agree with you, to a certain extent. The question that comes to mind, however, is how a corporation will make money? Will you have to allow partial ownership of copyrights? Will copyright owners be forced to give a small percent of their earnings off of their copyrights to the corporation? By eliminating all corporate ownership of copyrights, you're effectively eliminating the underlying reason a corporation should exist. Without ownership of their product, they have no incentive to market and sell it. If they ARE making a profit from it, then what's the difference between the current system and your proposed one? The reason people allow corporations to own copyrights is because they then want to use their vast reserves of money and resources to market your product, something the average person couldn't afford to do on their own.

What you guys aren't acknowledging is that artists are signing contracts giving up their copyright ownership in order to make that thin nickel. They make more money by giving up their copyright than by holding on to it! The unfortunate state of our music industry coerces artists into relying on corporations to make a buck; however, as ease of informational dissemination occurs (e.g. the 'Indy Music' scene, Myspace, CD Baby, etc) we start to circumvent the corporate marketing ability by doing it ourselves. Only from there can we retain the copyright to our own artistic property, seeing as we don't need corporations to sell it for us anymore! Nonetheless, the "bastardization" of copyright has occurred through the natural buying and selling of copyright, not through any mis-use of copyright. As a musical artist, you can bet I wouldn't sell my copyright to a record exec, I'd barter over percentage return, and retain the ownership of my music. The only reason I can do this is because power is shifting into the hands of the artist. *skipping redundant phrasing here* Ten years ago, I would've been told to shove off, and another artist who was more amenable to being forcibly bent over would've been signed.

Ah, I found a reference that Kool-aid is in fact not a black stereotype - it is an association to Jim Jones, the suicide cult leader who fed his followers poisoned Kool-aid. Thus, by using it, I assume you are saying people flaunting their Obama votes are following the herd blindly, a.k.a "drinking kool-aid." Whew, okay, I was starting to sweat, thinking "Why would a racial comment appear on Slashdot?" I should've googled it before I commented.

...Despite the answer to that question, I'm definitely still very confused...

"You voted for Obama??? Want some more Koolaid???"

Am I racist for associating Koolaid with a black stereotype, or are you racist for delineating it? Or maybe just uninformed? Or maybe I'm just uninformed...I like to think of myself as not racist, but in taking insult at a phrase like that, am I perpetuating a stereotype that doesn't really have any basis for existence in the first place?

...I'm so confused...

As a twenty-year old kid (which I'm sure comes out in my posts) I think the paradigm shift needed to understand exactly what you're talking about can only come with maturity. Too many parents/teachers think growing up is about teaching kids rote information - "Don't take candy from strangers. Keep your room clean" - instead of teaching kids the critical thinking skills necessary to make intelligent decisions for themselves (I'm going to keep my room clean because it makes life easier, not because my parents said so). My best teachers have all urged their students to think as individuals rather than simply memorize for a grade. Once these logical, critical skills kick in, not only does school work (especially mathematics and economics) become easier, but life becomes more interesting with the realization that no answer is truly correct in how to live it.
In this case, it would take someone who has already understood this basic fundamental concept to say "teach, I'm keeping my notes and if you fail me because of it, you can kiss your job goodbye." Granted, that's a risky, although not inappropriate, line to take.

To sum it up: Preach on, brother!

Yea, they deserve it. They also deserve any repercussions from their ISP's due to their computer performing the trojan's payload. Frankly, if you download illegally, you're incurring a very real risk. Deal with it, or don't pirate; it's as simple as that.

Windows 7 is the best! It's not out yet, but it's the best! I've used it, all my friends have used it, and it blows Linus and Mac out the water! now, that'll be $200, Mr. Gates