http://www.next-episode.net/ (no torrents)

Too bad the vinyl itself is sonically slightly inferior format to high-enough resolution (CD and above) digital audio. Not to mention being limited to 18-22 minutes per side is a ridiculous and arbitrary constrainment on the artist's creativity and vision. The digital age gives audio its true potential. Do not mistake the stupidity of the loudness war or the lack of distortion produced by tubes to mean that digital is somehow less. I guess a true purist would insist on listening to the original DAT masters or whatever instead of second or third generation vinyl copies.

This is indeed because of the loudness war. It is not a defect or limitation of the CD or digital medium but rather due to a record label's marketing department's decision to alter (read: fuck up) the mastering process. Google 'death magnetic compression'.

You're wrong. We have both PRIOR RESTRAINT, approval rating process for media, AND after the fact banning (uk, germany, ...).

I don't get it. If congress can't set a federal drinking age how can they outlaw drugs? If the feds needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol how come one wasn't needed for the war on drugs?

Weekly Friday DVD swap meets before-movie-time in public squares would be nice. In fact, the DVD's could be legit, they can be watched hundreds of times just fine.

Well, unless you are one of the (fairly rare) people who have multiple internet-facing IPs in the location that they do their personal surfing from, rather than just a NAT box, your multiple computers won't do all that much. Even if you don't shell out for a static IP, most home broadband IPs are, de facto, stable for a few days at a time, if not rather longer. Multiple distinct signatures aren't a huge mystery if they come from the same IP.

Unless you are quite careful, multiple browsers is trivially defeated by Flash cookies, which are persistent per flash instance, not per browser(maybe Chrome's upcoming integration will change this, I don't know). The other plugin and font fingerprinting stuff should be reasonably robust cross-browser as well.

Then there are the time-of-day based inferences. IP geolocation should, barring specific attempts at obfuscation, or the occasional fuckup, at least get you within the right time zone. You can then start testing inferences based on the fact that, for instance, schoolchildren tend to browse at home earlier than office workers do, night-shift workers have a different schedule altogether, stay-at-home-moms keep roughly the same hours as work-from-home consultant types; but have different browsing habits, and so forth.

I'm not saying that privacy is completely impossible, just that it is harder than it looks.

My mistake, that is only for 2-3 sites that use your FB id to store profile settings

However, the other sites seem to be taking the data with explicit permission from FB. See http://www.microsoftteched.in/
On the bottom right there is a FB app click on the privacy button in it, there is a 4-5 page long document, but since it is on facebook.com, I assume that it is only for selected partners, so it should be as safe as your data is on FB itself

Because they can. Its their service, they can do whatever they want.

What I want to know is why its so hard for people to grasp that simple concept.

I've noticed recently that many non-facebook accounts (cnnmoney.com for example) know about my facebook account. Usually I see a link/graphic at the bottom of the page that says "click to 'like' this" or something similar.

Anybody know how to keep these third party sites from knowing about your facebook account?

What I find really amusing is that this will potentially impact WSU and all schools with sports teams called 'Cougars'. It's kind of like when AOL banned the word 'breast' and people in chat rooms had to talk about 'hooter cancer'!

Moralism is fucking stupid and society needs to get over it. Google is just contributing to the problem and acting like hypocrites to do it. China thinks they censor for 'morality' too, but that wasn't ok for Google, Google only wants to censor for morality on its own terms.

You do have to hand over two hard copies of your work, if it is published, to the copyright office and pay them to get a registered copyright ($35 and up depending on how you do it and what options you choose). If your work is unpublished, then there is no need to submit two hardcopies, but don't quote me on that - there may be exceptions to the "no hard copy required rule".

Since w are talking about published works, then the LOC has a copy of them. Not sure how long the hard copy rule has been in existence. That'd be a research project, which I'd rather not undertake at this time.

BTW, there's actually fines and punishments for not depositing a published copyrighted work (even if you don't register). even though it's not required to file a registration.

Why would you bother remotely wiping a phone you're going to blow up anyway?

Quite a few older women are attractive and dont have large asses or saggy breasts.

What we shouldn't be doing is kidnapping them abroad and draging them to israel for a kangaroo court or assassinating them around the globe. The couple countries in europe are the only places their trial should take place.