'Safe'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
the generic name is zolpidem, if that helps
Thanks, Tep, I think it will.
Mal sat on his own! Tripoding, or frog style, or whatever it's called. But yay! Of course, he's also got stranger anxiety now.
I do not iTunes, because I can't use the music after downloading it, having no iPod. Every time I've tried to burn a CD from my iTunes music, I get only 6 songs on it. And I can't convert their proprietary file type to mp3. So, useless to me.
Dude, she's HUGE!
Yep.
Before you get too excited, Cass, fair use goes out the window if you have to circumvent electronic controls, as then the DMCA comes into play.I'm not actually using my theories, just happy that they aren't *all* illegal in spirit. Anyway, stuff that has "fair" in the title and then actually tries to be fair? I'm in favor.
Bonus round for checking my mail before going to bed? Client's Web site shell is done. Whoot. Bless freelancers who offer to work a few hours over a weekend. Gonna make that production meeting tomorrow morning a whole lot nicer for me. And, you know, the client will be happy too. Just in case it isn't all about me.
I'm sure it's all about you, Cass.
Except the part that's all about Lily. She has gotten so big! And perhaps even more adorable than before, which is hard to imagine, but there you have it.
I killed the board. I guess that means it's bedtime. Probably all for the best, or anyway it probably will be when I have to get up in the morning. The problem with holidays is that they end too soon.
Lily has a gorgeous smile--I loved the pictures of her with her grandma.
I'm pretty anal about this, but there is a good argument that downloading an entire song to determine whether or not you want to buy it is fair use, as long as you either buy or delete afterwards. Copyright holders should be treated fairly. But fair use is there for a reason, and should be used but not abused in order to avoid losing it altogether.
This is exactly the way it should work. If you like it, buy it, if not, delete it. Unfortunately far too many people never delete it.
The DMCA is a wicked and evil law. You can be prosecuted for any effort to circumvent copy protecting even if your use falls within fair use. It's ugly and wrong. The way that the RIAA is going about all of this is a mess too. The fact is music and record companies have always been far behind the curve when new technology comes into play and they try to control it through legislation. When FM radio came out the record companies tried to keep their music OFF the air since they were convinced it would lead to no one buying their music. Yeah, they called that one just a little bit wrong, don't ya thing?
This time around they don't seem to be finding any way to work with the new technology. The iTunes Music Store is one of the most functional of these efforts and there are still many items that are not realeased through it. There is also a movement in the record business that is really trying to find a business model that means the consumer is charged each time they listen to a song. You never actually own it, you pay a small fee each time you play it. They actually think that they can find a way to either legislate this or cram it down the consumers throat.
As should be clear by now, this is a thorny issue for me. I think that much of what the RIAA and the record companies are doing is wrong. However, that does not give me the right to steal music. I try to work within my field to find ways to make this all work so that the consumers get flexibility and the artists get fair recompense for what they do.
Okay, um, I'll shut up now.
There is also a movement in the record business that is really trying to find a business model that means the consumer is charged each time they listen to a song.
Pffft. They aren't thinking very far ahead, nor paying much attention to the fact that the technology exists for artists to sell their music via their own websites. The studios would make themselves obsolete before long.
(I've been watching Firefly DVDs, so I may have some Independents vs Alliance sentiment projecting into this)
Lily and the Hat = OMGSOCUTE!!!!
I would like to report that the oatmeal cookie recipe in The New Best Recipe cookbook (sans raisins, with swiss chocolate chunks) makes really yummy dough.
Not just good luck, but even after we hid the remote from the kids, they'd go up to the numberpad on the TV and start pushing random buttons. I think duct tape is the way to go.
We actually already have some of these They've saved our DVR and our DVD player, as well as the TV.
I have a shiny nickel for anybody that can explain the female species in 200 words or less.
We're pretty and smell good.
To that, I can only add, and we're the ones that have to have the babies.
I'm not actually going to buy something until I have heard enough to increase the liklihood that I will also actually enjoy it. It's why I really don't buy a lot of music now. The owners of the intellectual property no doubt don't care, but they would make a whole lot more money off of me if I could take their intellects for a test drive first.
Cass is me. Don't charge me $17 for an entire CD with just one decent song that you manage to release. Silly me--wanting real musical choice with real musical integrity. It's just crazy. And no, iTunes doesn't work on my ancient PC with it's craptacular version of Windows. *sigh*
More Lily pictures. We've been slacking this month.
Supersoaker Lily is adorable! She and Owen have the same hair thing going on in the front, by the way.
The way that the RIAA is going about all of this is a mess too. The fact is music and record companies have always been far behind the curve when new technology comes into play and they try to control it through legislation
YESYESYES! This. Why try to put the genie back into the bottle? Why didn't they spend their scads of cashly profits on harnessing this new technology to their advantage instead of fighting it? I seem to recall the record companies saying, when CD's first came out, "oh, the price will go down as the technology goes up." Um, no. They want to charge nearly $20 for a CD is some places--and they're not signing great bands--it's all, "mmm...she could be the next JESSICA SIMPSON!" Which is the thorny side of this for me--being the consumer, rather than the producer, like Drew. I agree that intellectual property should be protected. Artists should make money for what they produce.
That being said, however, I get the feeling that the recording industry in general is a lot like a pyramid scheme. In order for artists to make the insane cash--they need to start their own labels, signing other younger artists in order to reap the real profits from the music. That's when they seem to get super techy about copyright infringement. That could just be me--going from a few small examples. Namely Metallica--who, in all their bios claim heavy metal didn't get record play so their true fans had to swap bootleg tapes outside their concerts. Um, when you owe your entire fortune and success to bootleggers don't be such an asshole about downloading. It's hypocritcal. Don't climb the ladder of success and then try to pull it up behind you. Some poor schmucks busting their asses out in small bars and clubs across the world will NEVER even speak to an A&R guy. The internet is sometimes their only option to get their music out there.