what's illegal about downloading a copy of a tv show which is broadcast (ie. one you could pick up with an antenna)? downloading a dvd rip would be one thing, but If I use my computer to record something freely available, why can't I throw it up in a torrent? I'm not going to get sued for recording on vhs and giving that tape to a few buddies.

Or, I could realized that as my ferrari is being displayed in public view, and is likely to be seen by someone who wishes to steal it, regardless of whether or not an old image on the internet may or may not contain it.

While your example of a conversation may not be black and white, this is. As you say, you can have a private conversation in public. You cannot, however, have a private display in public. If it's out there, it's out there.

You're ignoring the point. This is not an invasion of privacy. Everything is out there in public view.

If I post pictures of myself on facebook, Those are in public view, and I can't bitch about privacy.

If I park my car in the driveway, it is in public view, and I can't bitch about privacy.

I don't believe the google streetview cars are equipped with zoom lenses that search for windows to peer inside. They're cars that drives and takes relatively low quality, panoramic pictures constantly. It does this on public roads (except for 1 incident I've heard of). it is no different than someone walking down the street.

the difference is, with software, the lion's share of your purchase goes to the creator of that software, not a bunch of lawyers :P

I believe most artists get something like 5-10% of each cd sale, with the riaa getting something like 60%.

Musicians have and will always make their money through live perfomances.

possibly, I just noticed today that technet now has a firefox plugin for WGA, letting you use firefox instead of IE.

that would be a problem with you local team. not the organization.

your average joe will probably never switch to linux, unless microsot + apple both disappear.

most people just don't give a shit, and even if they did, are not tech savvy enough to use anything that doesn't "just work".

and yes, windows does "just work". through windows update microsoft has gotten almost as good as mac at finding at least generic working drivers. 90% of all users will be able to work just fine with default settings, and 99% of all users will never need or want to touch the command line, unless they call tech support and are asked to run something trivial like ipconfig.

yes, ubuntu has gotten better about this, but it still just isn't there.

Windows 7 really is less resource intensive. my anecdote:

* dell optiplex gx260
* p4 (no HT) 2.4GHz
* 1GB ram
* nvidia geforce 2mx (aw yeah. had to use xp drivers, and it's only dx7 so it bluescreens if I try to do a system rating... but it works :P)

no, I can't do aero, but it's good enough, runs as fast as xp for all the common tasks i throw at is (rdp, web browsing, office apps, etc)

also: win 7 can use any vista driver.

New and inventive ways to spend our tax dollars is what we need to get out of a recession/depression. see: FDR, The Works Project Administration, etc.

plus, better our tax dollars go to directly helping taxpaying citizens, rather than funding a war which pretty much no-one supports.

yes, the power supply cares, the whole point of the power supply IS to convert AC to DC, and step it down to a usable level. :P

The problem with switching to DC is not in replacing the power supply, but upgrading the wiring in the data center (plus other equipment like the UPS', which in any decent server room will be HUGE mothers)

The argument against this is that the upgrade would be too much of a huge cost/PITA to justify what could be only a small increase in efficiency.

well, dc will stop your heart, ac will cause you to fibrillate. Both can cause massive tissue damage. So 480v 3-phase is just as scary.