🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33982@ogicse.ogi.edu> jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
>Returning to the subject at hand, I would have to guess that Marcus had
>something like the National Endowment for the Arts in mind as an example
>of how the government can effectively promote the arts.

Modulo Jesse Helms, the NEA doesn't interfere with the art,
nor does it impose a direct tax for the purpose of
"compensating the artists" involved (which we all know
means "compensating the record company weasels interspersed).

The government has no right nor any power to limit the ability
of individuals to make copies for personal use of purchased music.

If that means some record companies will eat dirt, so be it.

The current state of affairs, in which the government has
colluded with music industrialists to cripple the technology,
is nothing more or less than restraint of interstate commerce
(think up your own scenarios for it; I prefer not to limit
it with examples).

Unfortunately, they keep playing with the formula so that
we can't get a decent case together for overturning the
whole debacle.

The recording and electronics industries are feeling the
precise effect of their actions:  The margin on DAT
equipment and media sucks even though the prices are
exhorbitant, the breakeven for the R&D expenditure is
years away, and the volume is a dribble.  If it weren't
for the fact that most of it has been kludged from computer
backup technology they'd have no market for it at all.

Until they get their heads out of their butts and their
feet off the brakes, they're not going to make much money
on these things.


[We now return you to your regularly scheduled subtopic:]

>In article <9277@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>If I hadn't just read an article in rec.arts.funny about how 53% of the
>>nation's college students think gravity doesn't work on the moon, I'd be
>>amazed at the naivety of your opinion.
>
>[that's rec.humour.funny for those of you trying to track that article]

Oops.  Y'know, going off caffein-loaded sodas (now that
there's a caffeine-free Diet Dr. Pepper(R) to go along with
caffeine-free diet Coke(TM)) has played absolute havoc with
my associative memory, and my spelling has suffered... :-/

>Somehow nearly 50% of college students not having a clue about gravity
>doesn't surprise or bother me nearly as much as supposedly scientifically
>educated students (such as engineers) who think that there's no gravity
>in earth orbit because you see guys floating around in space shuttles
>(my experience is that the number is surprisingly high).

(Freefall == no gravity) as much as (lagrange point == no gravity).

Nowhere is there no gravity at all, only points of no _net_
gravity.  (That's not the same as no net force, as my sore
back can attest...)

However, to say (on the moon == no gravity) is just plain dumb.

				--Blair
				  "Just a little matter
				   in the mass market."