So what happens if or when we mine enough Uranium from the Earth? Would the drop in radioactive heat allow the core to cool significantly faster, or is it just a redundant heat source? I'm working on the assumption that, even if we did mine out all the Uranium, the core wouldn't cool down fast enough to matter to anyone with an average human life span, but all the same I'm curious just how much of a cooling impact there would be.

From a practical, pragmatic standpoint your argument makes sense. The ultimate issue, however is moral and ethical one. The argument here is that although you can pirate the media, you shouldn't because you don't have a claim to it as agreed upon by yourself and the other party (the RIAA, MPAA, artist or equivalent in this case).

The fact that the RIAA/MPAA/etc engage in abusive tactics is irrelevant in this argument, although many try to make it seem that way. It's essentially "two wrongs don't make a right". The actual idea is that you could pirate, but you shouldn't (or don't) because you have a certain moral or ethical standard about how to behave with regards to society as a whole. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have culture where it's considered appropriate to deny one's immediate personal desires to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit over the long term. The opposite of this would more or less be to engage in satisfying one's immediate desires regardless of the ultimate effect that this has on society in general. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have a culture that is not interested in a stable whole so long as one's individual desires are accounted for.

Note that I haven't stated that one way is better or worse than the other. Society goes where it wants, and I think it's useless to apply such values as good or bad. You have to acknowledge the change that's taking place and either figure out how to turn it to your benefit, slow it down, or stop it. It's important to note, however, that this is the real crux of the "pirate/don't pirate" debate. At least, as far as I can tell. From a practical standpoint, there's really no useful argument against piracy. People have surprising moral flexibility, and if you can live with it and get away with it, then you will do it. And, since people (especially on Slashdot) will always find a way to get away with it, the question is, should you be able to live with it? If you believe in the "benefit society" argument, the answer is no, and if you believe in the "benefit myself" argument, the answer is yes. That's all. Any debate beyond that is justification and useless proselytizing. It really comes down to what you think is the most appropriate way to behave as outlined above.

I'm sure there are more nuances to consider here, but I think that's the crux of it.

Probably because it's hard, especially if you're an artist trying to work on the business side of things. Image Comics was explosive when it first came out, but it was founded and controlled by artists with little direct business experience. The company became plagued with missed deadlines. Rob Liefeld, one of the founding members left before the others had a chance to kick him out. Jim Lee has since come under the wing of DC (some years ago. Don't know about now). WildCATS and Savage Dragon had cartoons made out of them, but there wasn't enough creative control and the shows became terrible (WildCATS was out-of-the-box terrible). Whilce Fortacio (sp?) started out strong with Wetworks, but a personal crisis made him drop out and become the forgotten member of the group. Out of all of them Todd MacFarlane was the only one to really expand on what he was doing and build a thriving, multifaceted business.

In terms of the music industry, a poster below mentioned Tune Core and CDBaby. In addition, you can still find music shops that were essentially started up so that the people running them could finance and distribute their own band (in my experience this is more common with the punk stuff. Don't know about other genres). The underlying problem is the wearing of multiple hats. If you're an artist trying to be a businessperson, or a businessperson trying to make art, you're going to run into real conflict. I used to know one of the musicians in the band called PseudoCypher. He and his wife got tired of trying to "make it" in the industry by touring and hoping to get picked up by a company, so the wife went to school to find out about starting up their own label. Did it work? I don't know. Last I heard, they were still touring and waiting to get picked up. It's not easy to balance the needs of both positions, and it gets worse when you have multiple people involved. A bunch of people get together and they all want their say. Coordination becomes tough, and things start to fall apart. It becomes easier to find someone and say "Here. You do this, and I'll work on the other stuff.". Before you know it you're signing contracts and hoping you didn't make a mistake.

I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using PCs, as would be expected). Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it. Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.

Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?

I know you're joking, but we actually have something close to that. I work for a company that makes room and whole-house air purifiers. The president of our company was so sure of our products that he took one of our room air purifiers and sealed himself in a room filled with tear gas. He had goggles on to protect his eyes, but no gas mask. He basically just kept his nose by the vents of the air purifier and waited until the tear gas had dissipated.

When I first started with the company, I thought people were pulling my leg when they told me about it, but then I finally saw the video. I have to say, that was pretty neat.

I don't know if this is where you got the figure, but the 10,000 hours estimate comes up in the book This Is Your Brain On Music. There's a chapter somewhere in the middle on what it takes to be a great musician. The author states that, as a general average, it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. I think he also stressed that this is more or less a ballpark figure. Some people take longer, some fewer.