Posts tagged ‘decisions’

December 16, 2008

To keep my CDs or to rip them: That is the question

Although I have bought only about 5 physical CDs in the past few years, I own a few hundred CDs, cassettes, vinyl records, etc. I’m a huge music lover, of course. And I also worked at record stores for a few years – which made me ultra-aware of all the new and good music coming out, so I was tempted to buy so much stuff. I got a nice discount. And back before the economy and recording industry went majorly down, the record companies were generous with giving away free stuff, so I used to have free promo CDs coming out my ears. I have shelves, racks, towers, zipper booklet things, parts of book shelves, plastic bins, etc. full of CDs and tapes.

Although it might look cool to view all the CDs, it no longer feels cool. First of all, it takes a few minutes to find what I’m looking for (if I can find it at all and don’t just give up). It’s somewhat organized, but not totally. It used to be in order by category and alphabet, but after moving several times over the past few years, it’s just like meh. (Besides, even when it was in order, people would always take them out and not put them back in the right spot). And moving them all is a pain and takes several trips back and forth in big, heavy boxes. It seems to take too much time and effort – and space – than what it should, especially with today’s technology.

So here is the question I am debating in my head: Should I import all my CDs on a large external hard drive and get rid of the physical copies… or should I just keep on doing what I’m doing?

I know what I need to do with the cassettes. I don’t own nearly as many cassettes as CDs and I need to just go on eMusic and download the songs I liked from them and donate the tapes to Goodwill/Salvation Army.
And as far as the vinyl is concerned, I’m keeping most of them.

Now I’m considering getting rid of most of my physical copies of CDs and only keeping the CDs that are special (my super favorite ones, albums that I played on, ones that are out of print/hard to find/imports, limited edition versions, etc.) The only time I even use a CD player is on my computer. And that, of course, is capable of playing the mp3 versions.

The geeky and practical side of me says:
Do it! Buy a 1 TB external hard drive and import them all there. You can sell the CDs to a record store and whatever they won’t take, just donate to Goodwill or the library. You will save so much space. Moving will be much easier the next time around. You will be much more likely to hear all your CDs because you can play them on shuffle and go through your library. If you’re looking for a song or album, you can just type what you’re looking for. So much easier! And aside from your beautiful vinyl records, you’re pretty much over the whole "but I have to hold the CD in my hands and own a physical copy of it" mentality. You’re trying to be more efficient, organized, practical, and less of a packrat. You’re doing a good job so far compared to how you used to be. So why haven’t you done this already, dummy?!

The paranoid side of me says:
Sure, it will be a lot easier to find anything in your collection and much easier when moving time comes along, but it’s even easier for someone to just steal your life’s collection! And you can’t afford to buy two hard drives (one of them for backup) so if something happens, you’re screwed. The hard drive could just crap out for an unknown reason, it could get damaged, and again – someone could steal it! Sure, people could still steal your CDs, but at least they’d only make off with a few. That’s better than losing years of music collecting. You could buy a safe to put it in, but those things aren’t cheap. And will you really feel like putting it in the safe every night before you go to bed or every time you leave the house? And even with the safe, it could still stop working due to a technical error.

Now some of you might be thinking: "Just rip them all on a hard drive but keep the original CDs somewhere just in case". But that would really be defeating the purpose.

So what should do? I’m leaning toward the geeky/practical logic. But I’m paranoid that I’d be making the wrong decision.

Advertisements
November 6, 2004

The end of Bi-partisanship

http://cherryteresa.greatestjournal.com/2004/11/06/

Subject: The end of Bi-partisanship
Mood : guilty
Music : The Music "Freedom Fighters"
The point of this entry isn’t telling you who you should have voted for. The point of this entry is that people should vote for who they agree with most – not who is the lesser of two evils. In this election however it was very important (in my opinion) to get Bush out period – whatever it takes. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans who voted did feel that Bush was the best candidate and now we are stuck with him for four more years. If I had voted for someone outside of the two-party system, it would not have effected Kerry’s chances of winning any more due to the electoral college system that is in place.

Also, this post isn’t necessarily to convince you of either Nader or Kerry’s views and plans. If you want to find out more, visit http://www.votenader.org and http://www.johnkerry.com. (Whether you agree with them or not, it’s good to be educated on what the different candidates stand for. A lot of people who are against Nader don’t even know what he’s about, they just don’t like that he’s not Democrat or Republican or because they blame him for Gore losing in 2000. If you agree or disagree with Nader or Kerry, that’s fine and that’s your opinion. The point is people should be educated. And that I should have voted who I felt was best.

We need to get rid of the bi-partisanship. People should vote for what candidate they believe is the right candidate. Not just the lesser of two evils. Or just because they are part of a certain party. In 2000, that is why I voted for Nader. And even know that he is not a Green but is now independent, I still believe he would make an amazing President. It’s about him and his beliefs – not political party nonsense. That whole bullshit with people saying Gore lost due to Nader is false. Gore lost because people didn’t want to vote for HIM. It’s not supposed to be the about the lesser of two evils, (Even though technically Gore did win but that’s a whole other topic).

This year I did vote for Kerry – a decision that I kept changing my mind on , even at the last second. I actually feel that Kerry is a very good candidate (much better than Gore was) but not the Best candidate. My mind kept switching between him and Nader. I was very scared at the thought of Bush winning that at the last minute I decided to vote for Kerry. I am not sure if I did the right thing. Especially since Bush won anyways. And with knowing that Maryland is a Democratic state anyways I should have realized my voting for Nader wouldn’t give Bush anymore of a chance. But I was scared at the possibility that Bush could still win Maryland. I think I should have voted Nader. Nader was the one I was for. Not who was the lesser of any evils.

There are so many reasons why getting rid of Bi-partisanship is important. The one obvious reason is that the more competition there is, the more the candidates are going to have to work harder. Another reason is because there are more than just two ways of thinking! Politics is so complex that I don’t how if you believe one thing you automatically support everything else that fits into the category of that political party. Just like with religion. Could you imagine if there were only two religions and you had to choose one? How can your beliefs fit into one of two categories? And what’s really important is that we grow and evolve. Our political party was not always Democrat/Republican. Many years ago it was the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After that it was Federalists and Democratic-Republican Party. After that it was National Republican, Anti-Masonic Party and the Whigs. I could go on and on and on about the different parties and how they changed. It was because of the "oddball" candidates running that knew they weren’t going to win this time around… fighting and having a grass-roots campaign that things changed and eventually turned into a "major" party. If it weren’t for them, we’d still be fighting over decisions should be made by the state or the federal government. This is why it’s so important right now to vote for who you think the right candidate is regardless of political party. We must evolve.

A co-worker of mine told me she is a Republican. But she still voted for Kerry this election because she said based on his plan and his history, she felt he was the best candidate and that’s why. It didn’t matter his party. She is appalled at Bush. She did the right thing. She voted for the candidate and not the party.

People don’t realize there are the Green, Democratic Socialists of America, Libertarian, Natural Law Party, The New Party, The Communist Party, Reform, Socialist, The U.S. Taxpayers Party, and even more. It’s not just Republicans and Democrats. And of course there are the independents.

Another reason why I voted Kerry is because I felt that change should be gradual. In 2000, we had a Democrat in office. Believing that another Democrat would win anyways I felt people would eventually change and Nader in several years would have a good chance of winning or if not winning getting a lot higher up in the polls. Well right now we have Bush in office and he won. Most of America sadly supports him. Getting Nader to get up in the polls is going to take a lot more work and a lot more time. But I do believe it’s worth it and he did do the right thing by still running this year. However the reason I voted Kerry was because I felt like you can’t convince someone who’s drinking and smoking to quit both at the same time and expect it to work. You try to eventually get them to quit one first. Then they can quit the other one. I felt voting for Nader who is way on the opposite spectrum of Bush… when the majority of people are in favor of someone completely opposite of Nader would be pushing too hard and asking too much. And that Kerry was somewhere between that and that was more of a realistic goal – to get Kerry to win. (In 2000, I felt Bush and Gore were almost the same. And in some ways, so are Bush and Kerry. But that’s a whole other topic). I knew no matter what – in 2000 or this year that Nader wouldn’t win. That’s not the point. Gradual grass-roots change and voting for who you believe is the best – not the lesser of two evils.

But the bottom line is I should have voted for Nader. And I didn’t. And I SUCK.

THE END.