safe voting

As we move in to an age run by technology, we sometimes forget the usefulness of the good old fashioned. Palm pilots work for some, while others need the physical layout of a month on paper. The process of counting votes on an electronic voting machine is easier, just print out the paper and look. But the safety of these machines is a huge concern on all sides. If anyone can install this software it is dangerous for all parties involved. Another aspect is that these machines are made by private companies. These companies may be pulling for one candidate over the other for various reasons, making the machines insecure for a specific purpose. If ATMs are so secure, why can't voting machines be? The simple answer is: money. If an ATM messes up, people would instantly sue the company that created them, but if a voting machine messes up, it's much harder to prove, actually it's impossible to prove. So the lack of being able to be sued = lack of effort to be ethical.

- Downloading a song you don't own from a major label artist.
This is something that a major artist should be able to swallow by touring. In other words, if they got off their lazy butts (I'm talking to you, Metallica) and did a few concerts, they might not have anything to complain about. Plus, if the music is good enough, people will pay for it. Radiohead proved this by offering their CD "In Rainbows" online for free, and people payed for it. I know I did. Artists should be performing to spread their art, not to make money, and if they are only in it for money, they don't deserve it.
- Downloading a song you don't own from a struggling independent artist.
This I have more of a problem with, unless the artist specifically put their songs online for publicity. Struggling artists are working their butts off to earn a living doing what they love. Obviously if they are struggling they aren't in it for the money, so they deserve mine, but only if the music is good. If their music is bad, they should find a new line of work. Ooo, that was kind of harsh.
- Downloading another copy of a song you already own.
I see no problem with this at all. I already paid for the song, so I should be able to experience it through several types of media. If I lost the CD I should still be able to hear what I bought.
- Shoplifting a CD from a store.
This hurts the CD store, and the idea of closing a place like Amoeba because of theft saddens me. But I certainly don't feel bad for the artist at that point.
- Downloading a song to "try it out" - if you like it enough, you'll buy the CD.
I like this, it is a means of publicity for artists. Amoeba and other record stores have used this to their advantage by having "listening stations." I think one should be able to test the waters before dropping $10-$20 on a cd.
- Copying a CD from a friend.
Probably not the most moral thing, but there's no (reasonable) way to prevent this. Plus, making mixes for friends is a great past time and also can be a thoughtful gift.
- Making music you own available online to share with a couple of friends.
I certainly see nothing wrong with this. An artist should have the right to give away his/her music.
- Making music you own publicly available on the Internet, such as through KazAa or Limewire.
Once again, nothing wrong with this one. In fact my music taste greatly expanded when I discovered Limewire and Napster and the like. My middle school experience wouldn't have been the same without them.

E-waste

As technology advances, more plastics and dangerous metals are being thrown out. As per usual the victims of 1st world progression are third world countries. The same countries that have boat loads of food leaving starving homes to reach America and Europe are getting electronic waste imported to their shores. This waste contains metals that are worth at least some money, but the process of extracting these metals are incredibly dangerous for one's health. Inhaling toxic fumes is the only way to cook out the precious metal. Spending money on gas masks or even face masks is not in the price range of the people who are forced in to this line of work, and long term health is a distant second to earning money to feed one's family. These old computers are not going in to landfills, so an electronics recycling company could argue that shipping these old computers out to third world countries is recycling them. The human rights violations in this process are clear and undeniable. However, some people don't really mind the suffering of people in third world countries, so for these soulless people one must construct an argument that hits closer to home. The environmental tole of this process is almost as devastating as the human rights atrocities. These items are being shipped out, which uses fossil fuels that deplete the atmosphere. When the metals are cooked, it releases toxic fumes in to the atmosphere, once again harming it. We don't need anything else hurting the atmosphere than we already have. All of this crime-- and yes, the environmental and human rights violations are worse to me than most of the crime we have here-- is all done in an effort to save money. Money and the pursuit of saving it and earning it has caused more bad than good. Some say money makes the world go around, I say money will stop the earth in her tracks and ultimately end all of our lives. But that's just my opinion.

binary math

1.
1011= 1+2+0+8=11
101010= 0+2+0+8+0+32=42
11111= 1+2+4+8+16=31
10010= 0+2+0+0+16=18
2.
31-16=15-8=7-4=3-2=1-1=0 31=11111
51-32=19-16=3-2=1-1=0 51=110011
7-4=3-2=1-1=0 7=111
103-64=39-32=7-4=3-2=1-1=0 103=1100111
3.
56 kbs= 3.472 hours
5 megabits/sec= 2.33 minutes
10 megabits/sec= 1.167
4.
25 (and 3/4 of the next mp3)

cybersquatting (i know, it's out of order)

Cybersquatting is a shifty practice, no matter who does it. The article that was "in favor" of allowing cybersquatting in fact was nothing of the sort. Cybersquatting is normally thought of as individuals trying to make a quick buck off of corporations or famous people by getting to a domain name first. The type of cybersqatting talked about in the aformentioned article is much more sinister to me: corporations trying to stifle free speech and criticism. The fact that Verizonreallysucks.com is a website for verizon is absolutely ridiculous. Also the febreeze websites were apphauling. Febreeze should be as heavily attacked as the poor fellow who owns nissan.com, rather more attacked. The fact that they even took measures to procure febreezekillpets/dogs/cats/birds.com is scary. People should have the right to tell others that this product is killing animals so the consumer can make the decision to buy or not to buy with all applicable information. I am much less disturbed by an individual purchasing a domain name specifically to sell for a high price than a corporation trying to stifle criticism from dissatisfied consumers. Both are shifty, and neither should happen, but the latter is much much worse. In short, cybersquatting should not be illegal per se, because when illegal wealthy people and corporate hounds will use the illegality to harass people. After all, isn't cybersquatting entrepreneurship? And isn't making money at the expense of others the American dream?