The guy is so pissed off at the likes of Intel he's driving the platform into a ditch. An ARM based client computer. May as well try and bring back the Amiga.
I'm going to throw it out there, but FireFox is in trouble unless another big corp comes to the rescue. Open source is fine for cobbling together systems made of tiny little programs all doing their own thing, but a web browser is a giant and monolithic application that requires an enormous investment in time and money to execute well. Without it, FireFox will sputter off and die.
The thing is, Google is now paying for two browsers. While right now, analysts might look at this and forgive them somewhat, if their earnings suffer, one of those browsers will have to go and its not going to be Chrome. Chrome is Google's ground up baby and its a strategic investment.
Who else has the kind of money it takes to fund FireFox? There's not that many players. You basically are looking at somebody like a Nokia, an IBM or, Yahoo. Of the three, only Nokia and IBM have the credibility to really pull off owning a web browser, and I could almost see IBM grabbing a browser because it leverages their service business and server offerings, and, just a smattering of good old fashioned revenge against Microsoft.
It should say "Look at this! you don't want the future to look like this do you? This is where we are headed!"
Everybody does that. Doomsayers are a dime a dozen. We are doomed if we don't stop global warming, doomed if we do. Doomed because of the economy, wars, economic meltdown. Doomed because of too much food and water and doomed because of not enough.
Sci-fi existing as a warning is just a writer's slogan to write depressing stuff, its easier to imagine how things could wrong more than it is to contemplate how things could be right.
Your criticisms are interesting but like so many people, you lack perspective.
The fact is, right now more people are wealthier than they ever have been. Many of our problems today, are problems of wealth. That is a good problem to have. Bad problems to have are rampant starvation. We're WELL on the way to making all of humanity less hungry than ever. China is lifted out of poverty, India is on its way out. Dude, that's 2 billion people that can eat, that couldn't. That have money, but didn't.
Our lifetime is a TRIUMPH of progress. Even this present recession is a minor calamity compared to what other people have gone through in the past.
We take it for granted any more that when we choose to have a child, that the child will live. This was not possible even 50 years ago.
We take it for granted that when we turn on the tap water, it will be safe. By and large it is safer water than it has ever been. 100 years ago, we had the likes of cholera to worry about. Today, it doesn't happen, and neither do many other diseases born of bad water.
We have more food than ever, of every kind, and if you want all natural food, you can get that too.
Landfills might be choked with trash, but landfills are only a tiny portion of the overall earth. In the northeastern United States, a great reforestation has taken place and within our lifetimes. And there are more birds than ever before. Just look up... there used to be few birds, and now there are great and enormous flocks of them migrating. I didn't see -that- when I was a kid.
Cars are definitely better than they have been. Today's econobox weighs less, goes farther, handles better on a tank of gas. You might rip computers, but where once people bought manufactured goods subject to the tolerances of the human eye and hand, now they get consistent and reliable products made perfectly by a machine. This allows consumers to have goods of a greater complexity than ever before.
I'm routinely critical of science because in the short term, it is politicized, and over-promises. But the thing is, all of those incremental advances do pile up in a way that works out good for humans. We may find, as we advance more problems to solve, but, there's no denying that that past we leave behind, at least in terms of technology and lifespan and the human condition, is nowhere near as bright as the future that lies ahead.
Either the USA or the Chinese are going back to th e moon. It looks Mars will finally survive a Democratic administration. We have better unmanned space probes heading out to newer places than ever before. I would have NEVER thought that we would see pictures of Pluto's surface in our lifetime and we're going to get that. We are getting counts and pixel sized images of planets in other solar systems.
And plus, hell, Microsoft is shipping a version of Windows that actually works, Linux can finally recognize my mouse in X without screwing everything up, and Intel CPUs can add.
Frankly the whole charm of the TOS was that it wasn't -that- far into the future, and the basic characters just worked.
By creating Kirk and Spock and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, Roddenberry gave us the modern equivalent of a Hercules myth. We can milk Kirk and Spock for two thousands years, and, if we are as good as the Greeks, we should.
And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.
Sick of all these moral halfwits running around in sci-fi these days. Poor Adam's crying again on Galactica. Big woosy. Poor Col Tigh's drinking again, and he's a fricking Cylon. That show had all sorts of promise and then they made Adam cry all the time and Tigh into a Cylon. What the frak is that. I'm sick of complexity in characters. I want -Gods-.
I love how everyone loves to paint poor Elisha Gray as this hard working guy, but, he was actually by no means a poor man himself. He had a nice little business that he sold to Western Union for a healthy chunk of change. Viewed in that context, what we're really talking about here is the then giant Western Union, via Elisha Gray, versus the then tiny Bell, fighting over the telephone. If anyone was the "tiny" guy fighting the system at that time, it was in fact, Alexander Graham Bell!
What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence.
Please show me where taxes on the citizens hurt the economy
Well let's see. I can pay some money to the government to keep some homeless crackheads alive, or I can put useful people to work with my own money. Seems to me that useful people deserve money more.
They only way out of this is education, and education costs money.
No, the way out of this is to make stuff. Education helps you do that, but the real thing you need is individual initiative. Another way you could improve the American economy, and really only the American economy, is by getting rid of free trade.
Oh, and the 1950's called. They'd like their bigotry back.
Let's see, in the 1950s, the United States was the undisputed leader in manufacturing, our managerial processes were widely acknowledged to be second to none, government spending was low and the able participants were prosperous.
Since then, American manufacturing in particular and the economy in general has gone on a long and slow decline relative to the rest of the world.
Bottom line is this... at some point, some people will wonder if it was worth trading the economic dominance and optimism of white male dominated sexist and racist America of ages yor, for the utterly bankrupt nation and shiftless people that we have today. Those ancient white men may have been racist and sexist, but at least they knew how to win wars, build things and make money. Today's Americans can't do anything, and we're still racist and sexist.
The guy's central point is that corporate systems are bad, and open, federally funded systems are good, with the further implication that government is good, and corporations are bad.
Now, the reason, though, that he gives for this is that a private corporation owns his data in the present system, but if the government owned, then, somehow, he'd own it more.
That's the crazy thing. There's no such thing as "public ownership". You own as much of something that is public as you do a car by walking past a Ford factory. Ownership at its most practical is, who controls it, and you really don't have any control over the daily disposition of property managed by the government. In effect, when you argue for publicly owned health care, or publicly owned anything, what you are really arguing for is to pay your own taxes to buy something for some administrator either elected or appointed or a lifelong civil servant. In any case, its not you.
There's a lot of good reasons to adopt open source in health care. For one, the creation of a single standard document for representing a medical history would go a long way towards enabling applications across the medical spectrum to coexist.
This will be easier said than done.
A good example is that there were some efforts to do this in insuring property for catastrophic losses - a build is remarkably complex for insurance purposes, but that specification has essentially died by its own complexity. The industry largely and thankfully essentially resorted to using SQL Server copies of the leading vendor of property and casualty software for CAT. Is it proprietary? Yes. But, it allows all the insurers to exchange books in a way that is relatively practical and easy to use.
The moral here is that its not good enough to say that a standard is open for data interoperability. Ease of use and ease of transportability becomes paramount and if open source wants to drive health insurance, it stands to reason that there needs to be a pervasive application that goes along with it.
Re:All this stuff is just made up crap.
on
The Shadow Factory
·
· Score: 1
For most of their history they were the good guys. J Edgar Hoover misused them, but until bush came to power, they kept their ears pointed away from their fellow Americans. They worked for the American people, not against us.
You don't know that, that's my point. And NSA wasn't so much as spying on Americans as the foreigners they were talking to.
hat is what DRM is doing, it is attempting to enforce copyright through technical means, along with annoying side effects that is encouaging everybody to break it.
Well that argument is fine... but I think there is a double standard within some programming circles that expects people to live to the letter of the GPL while at the same time they steal artists work. All I'm saying is, give Bob Dylan his $1 for a song on iTunes, and don't violate the GPL, OR, screw Bob Dylan out of his $1, and accept that GPL software is essentially public domain. It's either or.
but we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
Well that's the point, isn't it. As a practical matter, the only use DRM really seeks to prohibit is duplication and perhaps alteration and duplication, and these two items are in fact the very same items that the GPL addresses through licensing.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
I have read the comments and I think the argument that says there is a distinction between DRM and the GPL is disingenuous. As I've said, your argument of "use" glosses over the simple fact that the most reasonable "use" of hacking DRM is, in fact, to distribute DRM'd works, thus violating the right of the copyright holder.
If you want to be against intellectual property, and say that there's no copyrights, that's fine, but be consistent, and accept that the open source movement is essentially public domain, and tolerate the commercialization of Linux just as much as you would expect the creator of a song, say, Metallica, to tolerate your copying of their works.
Remember it is a really slippery wall according to you.
What you don't understand is that people like to kill because it is fun, therefor, they rationalize their way into doing more of it, whenever possible.
All this stuff is just made up crap.
on
The Shadow Factory
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I mean, really, on either side of the aisle. WE have no idea what the NSA is doing and never will.
That's a distortion and a half. I cannot copy a song on iTunes, and I redistribute GPL code, unless I comply with either license. It's really simple actually. If you can invent for yourself a new kind of right that lets you make and distribute unlimited copies of a song, then certainly someone else can invent for themselves the right to redistribute GPL code in proprietary products. Either you agree that the copyright holder has a right to control distribution, that is, you believe in copyrights, or you don't.
It's really very simple, and what you are offering, instead, is that people must comply with YOUR copyrights, that is, the GPL, but you don't have to comply with THEIRS.
Ok, you could probably somebody an operating system that boots in 2 seconds and does nothing. But, I guarantee you that within a month the vast majority of people will load up their computers with a bunch of crap such that they will still take a minute to boot.
It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.
What if we go in the direction you want to go in....See how stupid i sound taking the same "bounds" of "logic" that you do?
The thing is, everything that you've proposed as far as that slippery slope goes, has been done before. We have had societies where women were punished for miscarrying. We have had societies where women were encouraged to be continually pregnant. In fact, in some parts of the world, we still do. Sounds to me like, slippery slopes aren't so stupid after all.
Well... one thing that's stupid.... is that this product focused on the sound and I'd bet you could get way more accuracy from building the technology around, well, the movie itself.
Why do you have to go to all the trouble of a watermarked sound track when you should have the position of the seat very simply by the angle of the screen on the wall in relation to what's on the camera?
In -fact-, you could make it really simple. Assume that your movie won't show in more than 16,000 theaters, that's what, 14 bits? So you have 14 things in the movie, in 14 scenes, that the director uses, say, pepsi as a prop rather than coke. In post production, assuming that all of these clips are in the computer, you could, for each film print, select the various combinations of each of the scenes such that each film is unique.
Send out each film to each theater, and then bam, when it shows up in some street, you know where it came from. Then you can send out the goons, shoot the movie theater owner, hang up all the patrons in cages with vultures pecking on their organs, and then, uh, nobody would go to that movie theater again.
Oh wait... what's REALLY stupid is that, no matter how much the movie companies can trace leaks back to a theater, there's not a damn thing they can do to that theater, lest they lose business. If you are a movie theater owner, why not let everyone bring in a camcorder... at least they all buy tickets!
I think the thing with Java is that it had to live to almost impossible hype. I was disappointed it when I first tried it out way back in the days of AWT. But, there's a lot of stuff out there written in Java and Java is a very popular language. If I had a language that failed as much as Java has, and just sold the book on it, I'd be pretty damned happy.
Sorry, but it's got a little bit of development to go through before it's a human in my eyes
That's an interesting way to count humans... do a rough cell count. I do counts too. I count the number of cells in a human that voted Republican... and buy American cars... if you buy a Japanese car, you actually have no human cells.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
In all -seriousness- mean, really, everyone knows that life doesn't begin at conception. Life begins when you vote Republican. Since Democrats are not alive, can we harvest them? How about prison convicts? I'd could argue that criminals aren't human.
My point is, unless you are willing to enfranchise nearly everything as human, then, you open up the door to disenfranchise those some might think of as human. It's just a terrible intellectual road to be on.... first embryonic stem cells and miracle cures.. then we'll have products made from cultured human parts like skin for jackets and bone for clothes, and then, after living in a world where everyone is just a walking bunch of parts, what's really, fundamentally wrong with getting rid of a bunch of them because they are not color coordinated? Why, we do that with babies all the time!
Slashdot Mirror
The guy is so pissed off at the likes of Intel he's driving the platform into a ditch. An ARM based client computer. May as well try and bring back the Amiga.
I'm going to throw it out there, but FireFox is in trouble unless another big corp comes to the rescue. Open source is fine for cobbling together systems made of tiny little programs all doing their own thing, but a web browser is a giant and monolithic application that requires an enormous investment in time and money to execute well. Without it, FireFox will sputter off and die.
The thing is, Google is now paying for two browsers. While right now, analysts might look at this and forgive them somewhat, if their earnings suffer, one of those browsers will have to go and its not going to be Chrome. Chrome is Google's ground up baby and its a strategic investment.
Who else has the kind of money it takes to fund FireFox? There's not that many players. You basically are looking at somebody like a Nokia, an IBM or, Yahoo. Of the three, only Nokia and IBM have the credibility to really pull off owning a web browser, and I could almost see IBM grabbing a browser because it leverages their service business and server offerings, and, just a smattering of good old fashioned revenge against Microsoft.
It should say "Look at this! you don't want the future to look like this do you? This is where we are headed!"
Everybody does that. Doomsayers are a dime a dozen. We are doomed if we don't stop global warming, doomed if we do. Doomed because of the economy, wars, economic meltdown. Doomed because of too much food and water and doomed because of not enough.
Sci-fi existing as a warning is just a writer's slogan to write depressing stuff, its easier to imagine how things could wrong more than it is to contemplate how things could be right.
Your criticisms are interesting but like so many people, you lack perspective.
The fact is, right now more people are wealthier than they ever have been. Many of our problems today, are problems of wealth. That is a good problem to have. Bad problems to have are rampant starvation. We're WELL on the way to making all of humanity less hungry than ever. China is lifted out of poverty, India is on its way out. Dude, that's 2 billion people that can eat, that couldn't. That have money, but didn't.
Our lifetime is a TRIUMPH of progress. Even this present recession is a minor calamity compared to what other people have gone through in the past.
We take it for granted any more that when we choose to have a child, that the child will live. This was not possible even 50 years ago.
We take it for granted that when we turn on the tap water, it will be safe. By and large it is safer water than it has ever been. 100 years ago, we had the likes of cholera to worry about. Today, it doesn't happen, and neither do many other diseases born of bad water.
We have more food than ever, of every kind, and if you want all natural food, you can get that too.
Landfills might be choked with trash, but landfills are only a tiny portion of the overall earth. In the northeastern United States, a great reforestation has taken place and within our lifetimes. And there are more birds than ever before. Just look up... there used to be few birds, and now there are great and enormous flocks of them migrating. I didn't see -that- when I was a kid.
Cars are definitely better than they have been. Today's econobox weighs less, goes farther, handles better on a tank of gas. You might rip computers, but where once people bought manufactured goods subject to the tolerances of the human eye and hand, now they get consistent and reliable products made perfectly by a machine. This allows consumers to have goods of a greater complexity than ever before.
I'm routinely critical of science because in the short term, it is politicized, and over-promises. But the thing is, all of those incremental advances do pile up in a way that works out good for humans. We may find, as we advance more problems to solve, but, there's no denying that that past we leave behind, at least in terms of technology and lifespan and the human condition, is nowhere near as bright as the future that lies ahead.
Either the USA or the Chinese are going back to th e moon. It looks Mars will finally survive a Democratic administration. We have better unmanned space probes heading out to newer places than ever before. I would have NEVER thought that we would see pictures of Pluto's surface in our lifetime and we're going to get that. We are getting counts and pixel sized images of planets in other solar systems.
And plus, hell, Microsoft is shipping a version of Windows that actually works, Linux can finally recognize my mouse in X without screwing everything up, and Intel CPUs can add.
Frankly the whole charm of the TOS was that it wasn't -that- far into the future, and the basic characters just worked.
By creating Kirk and Spock and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, Roddenberry gave us the modern equivalent of a Hercules myth. We can milk Kirk and Spock for two thousands years, and, if we are as good as the Greeks, we should.
And frankly, I'm sick of all the darkness in present science fiction. Science is advancing more all the time and if there was ever a time for optimism based on a scientific society, NOW is it. Humanity can improve, and will improve, and having a series that reminds us of what our future could be, if we chose to do it, and reminds us of our ongoing moral obligations, is a damned fine thing.
Sick of all these moral halfwits running around in sci-fi these days. Poor Adam's crying again on Galactica. Big woosy. Poor Col Tigh's drinking again, and he's a fricking Cylon. That show had all sorts of promise and then they made Adam cry all the time and Tigh into a Cylon. What the frak is that. I'm sick of complexity in characters. I want -Gods-.
I love how everyone loves to paint poor Elisha Gray as this hard working guy, but, he was actually by no means a poor man himself. He had a nice little business that he sold to Western Union for a healthy chunk of change. Viewed in that context, what we're really talking about here is the then giant Western Union, via Elisha Gray, versus the then tiny Bell, fighting over the telephone. If anyone was the "tiny" guy fighting the system at that time, it was in fact, Alexander Graham Bell!
What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence.
Because energy is a useless fiat commodity, while you can eat cold, hard dollar bills.
You can burn dollar bills though. And, if we switched to coal pennies, we could burn those too!
Please show me where taxes on the citizens hurt the economy
Well let's see. I can pay some money to the government to keep some homeless crackheads alive, or I can put useful people to work with my own money. Seems to me that useful people deserve money more.
They only way out of this is education, and education costs money.
No, the way out of this is to make stuff. Education helps you do that, but the real thing you need is individual initiative. Another way you could improve the American economy, and really only the American economy, is by getting rid of free trade.
Oh, and the 1950's called. They'd like their bigotry back.
Let's see, in the 1950s, the United States was the undisputed leader in manufacturing, our managerial processes were widely acknowledged to be second to none, government spending was low and the able participants were prosperous.
Since then, American manufacturing in particular and the economy in general has gone on a long and slow decline relative to the rest of the world.
Bottom line is this... at some point, some people will wonder if it was worth trading the economic dominance and optimism of white male dominated sexist and racist America of ages yor, for the utterly bankrupt nation and shiftless people that we have today. Those ancient white men may have been racist and sexist, but at least they knew how to win wars, build things and make money. Today's Americans can't do anything, and we're still racist and sexist.
I read the article.
The guy's central point is that corporate systems are bad, and open, federally funded systems are good, with the further implication that government is good, and corporations are bad.
Now, the reason, though, that he gives for this is that a private corporation owns his data in the present system, but if the government owned, then, somehow, he'd own it more.
That's the crazy thing. There's no such thing as "public ownership". You own as much of something that is public as you do a car by walking past a Ford factory. Ownership at its most practical is, who controls it, and you really don't have any control over the daily disposition of property managed by the government. In effect, when you argue for publicly owned health care, or publicly owned anything, what you are really arguing for is to pay your own taxes to buy something for some administrator either elected or appointed or a lifelong civil servant. In any case, its not you.
There's a lot of good reasons to adopt open source in health care. For one, the creation of a single standard document for representing a medical history would go a long way towards enabling applications across the medical spectrum to coexist.
This will be easier said than done.
A good example is that there were some efforts to do this in insuring property for catastrophic losses - a build is remarkably complex for insurance purposes, but that specification has essentially died by its own complexity. The industry largely and thankfully essentially resorted to using SQL Server copies of the leading vendor of property and casualty software for CAT. Is it proprietary? Yes. But, it allows all the insurers to exchange books in a way that is relatively practical and easy to use.
The moral here is that its not good enough to say that a standard is open for data interoperability. Ease of use and ease of transportability becomes paramount and if open source wants to drive health insurance, it stands to reason that there needs to be a pervasive application that goes along with it.
For most of their history they were the good guys. J Edgar Hoover misused them, but until bush came to power, they kept their ears pointed away from their fellow Americans. They worked for the American people, not against us.
You don't know that, that's my point. And NSA wasn't so much as spying on Americans as the foreigners they were talking to.
hat is what DRM is doing, it is attempting to enforce copyright through technical means, along with annoying side effects that is encouaging everybody to break it.
Well that argument is fine... but I think there is a double standard within some programming circles that expects people to live to the letter of the GPL while at the same time they steal artists work. All I'm saying is, give Bob Dylan his $1 for a song on iTunes, and don't violate the GPL, OR, screw Bob Dylan out of his $1, and accept that GPL software is essentially public domain. It's either or.
but we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
Well that's the point, isn't it. As a practical matter, the only use DRM really seeks to prohibit is duplication and perhaps alteration and duplication, and these two items are in fact the very same items that the GPL addresses through licensing.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
I have read the comments and I think the argument that says there is a distinction between DRM and the GPL is disingenuous. As I've said, your argument of "use" glosses over the simple fact that the most reasonable "use" of hacking DRM is, in fact, to distribute DRM'd works, thus violating the right of the copyright holder.
If you want to be against intellectual property, and say that there's no copyrights, that's fine, but be consistent, and accept that the open source movement is essentially public domain, and tolerate the commercialization of Linux just as much as you would expect the creator of a song, say, Metallica, to tolerate your copying of their works.
Remember it is a really slippery wall according to you.
What you don't understand is that people like to kill because it is fun, therefor, they rationalize their way into doing more of it, whenever possible.
I mean, really, on either side of the aisle. WE have no idea what the NSA is doing and never will.
Making money is not a right.
Well then, can we kick all the people off of welfare and knock off all this national health care crap.
That's a distortion and a half. I cannot copy a song on iTunes, and I redistribute GPL code, unless I comply with either license. It's really simple actually. If you can invent for yourself a new kind of right that lets you make and distribute unlimited copies of a song, then certainly someone else can invent for themselves the right to redistribute GPL code in proprietary products. Either you agree that the copyright holder has a right to control distribution, that is, you believe in copyrights, or you don't.
It's really very simple, and what you are offering, instead, is that people must comply with YOUR copyrights, that is, the GPL, but you don't have to comply with THEIRS.
That's bullshit.
Ok, you could probably somebody an operating system that boots in 2 seconds and does nothing. But, I guarantee you that within a month the vast majority of people will load up their computers with a bunch of crap such that they will still take a minute to boot.
It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.
What if we go in the direction you want to go in....See how stupid i sound taking the same "bounds" of "logic" that you do?
The thing is, everything that you've proposed as far as that slippery slope goes, has been done before. We have had societies where women were punished for miscarrying. We have had societies where women were encouraged to be continually pregnant. In fact, in some parts of the world, we still do. Sounds to me like, slippery slopes aren't so stupid after all.
Well... one thing that's stupid.... is that this product focused on the sound and I'd bet you could get way more accuracy from building the technology around, well, the movie itself.
Why do you have to go to all the trouble of a watermarked sound track when you should have the position of the seat very simply by the angle of the screen on the wall in relation to what's on the camera?
In -fact-, you could make it really simple. Assume that your movie won't show in more than 16,000 theaters, that's what, 14 bits? So you have 14 things in the movie, in 14 scenes, that the director uses, say, pepsi as a prop rather than coke. In post production, assuming that all of these clips are in the computer, you could, for each film print, select the various combinations of each of the scenes such that each film is unique.
Send out each film to each theater, and then bam, when it shows up in some street, you know where it came from. Then you can send out the goons, shoot the movie theater owner, hang up all the patrons in cages with vultures pecking on their organs, and then, uh, nobody would go to that movie theater again.
Oh wait... what's REALLY stupid is that, no matter how much the movie companies can trace leaks back to a theater, there's not a damn thing they can do to that theater, lest they lose business. If you are a movie theater owner, why not let everyone bring in a camcorder... at least they all buy tickets!
I think the thing with Java is that it had to live to almost impossible hype. I was disappointed it when I first tried it out way back in the days of AWT. But, there's a lot of stuff out there written in Java and Java is a very popular language. If I had a language that failed as much as Java has, and just sold the book on it, I'd be pretty damned happy.
Sorry, but it's got a little bit of development to go through before it's a human in my eyes
That's an interesting way to count humans... do a rough cell count. I do counts too. I count the number of cells in a human that voted Republican... and buy American cars... if you buy a Japanese car, you actually have no human cells.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
In all -seriousness- mean, really, everyone knows that life doesn't begin at conception. Life begins when you vote Republican. Since Democrats are not alive, can we harvest them? How about prison convicts? I'd could argue that criminals aren't human.
My point is, unless you are willing to enfranchise nearly everything as human, then, you open up the door to disenfranchise those some might think of as human. It's just a terrible intellectual road to be on.... first embryonic stem cells and miracle cures.. then we'll have products made from cultured human parts like skin for jackets and bone for clothes, and then, after living in a world where everyone is just a walking bunch of parts, what's really, fundamentally wrong with getting rid of a bunch of them because they are not color coordinated? Why, we do that with babies all the time!