What was that sound? A paradigm shifting without a clutch.
Oh come on. It's easy really. Anyone can do it. All you have to do is blip your technology strategic outlook and ease the paradigm into the new gestalt when the synergies match.
You miss my point. It was the claim that "it had to be built" made it patentable. "Having to be built" does not make something an invention. Playgrounds in a business establishment are not an "invention", nor are they even novel.
I'll note, however, that you have Quicken installed on your machine and do some banking and stock trading online. These are traditional banking services.
I also note that you have thought about installing LED lighting in your workspace. That would have to be "built." I'm afraid I have a patent on LED lighting in working spaces.
I also have seperate patents on LED lighting in banks, toy stores, homes, fishtanks, restaurants, microwave ovens, green houses, automobiles, airplanes, submarines, sailboats, motor boats, house boats, shanty boats, canoes, RVs, lawn ornaments, book cases, kitchen cabinets, along with several thousand more unique places to employ LED lighting.
The are all physical objects. All "have to be built." Thus you will have no objection to paying me patent royalties on all of these "inventions."
I also have patents on banks with LED lighting and a coffee pot, toy stores with LED lighting and a coffee pot, homes with LED lighting and a coffee pot, etc. You will need a seperate license for those.
I've pretty well got the "with a potted plant" market covered too, so don't get your hopes up that I've left a loophole anywhere.
Yes, another reason why Amazon had every reason to know what they were getting into.
I'll give Amazon this though, they do seem to know how to run a store. I've ordered a number of back ordered items from them, and even a couple of "front ordered" items, and they properly tell me up front that the item is not currently in stock, when I might expect it if they know, and that they don't know if they don't.
And by relying on multiple vendors Amazon gives the appearance of being able to always keep toys in stock.
Here's the thing though, Target can't keep toys in stock either, nor can Wal-Mart. No single vendor can. Amazon had every reason to realize this up front. Amazon can't keep all of its own product in stock. The issue is that Amazon was payed for an exclusive relationship, which has nothing to do with keeping things in stock for Amazon's benefit. Amazon's benefit is in receiving the $50 mil a year without having to sell a damned thing from Toys (the symbol formerly knows as "R") Us.
Amazon has decided that it was a bad deal after the fact, they've learned the perils of vendor lock in, but they want to keep the money anyway and break the deal to deal with it, what's more, when their vendor objects to this they ask for even more money for "compensation" for themselves having violated the contract.
Having made a bad deal is not grounds for breaking a contract. Thousands of companies have been forced into bankruptcy by the courts enforcing bad deals. It happens to building contractors all the time. You submitted the bid Sparky. Now you have to live up to it. It isn't the contractee's fault that you cut your margins unrealisticly.
I deal with people like that by being "super competitive" (i.e., an asshole) right back at them.
If that sort of person knows you faint at the sight of blood and cuts himself to watch you pass out and you don't pass out, they get all agitated, foam at the mouth a bit, and then pass out.
Two can play at that game.
KFG
Re:Still misses the point about Linux
on
Wired on McBride
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There *is* very good documentation on where the code has come from -- despite what the article says.
I think what he's talking about here is the fact that Linus doesn't have super psychic powers to be able to descern that when code is submited it is really unique and not merely that he knows who submitted the code.
But that propriatary software makers do.
We can confirm this for ourselves by applying our own super psychic powers against propriatary code. If you do this you will find that you cannot detect any code that has been copied from some other source.
So who are you going to believe, Linus, or your own third eye?
The only real difference is that in the case of CD (well any phyiscal media), you're paying to actually purchase something tangible.
Who said anything about buying anything? I got the CD from the library or borrowed it from a friend. Same for the video. Or maybe I rented. Same diff.
Except that the experience is severely degraded from the source media.
Well, but see, there we've got a problem. All these draconian digital copying laws are because, so they tell us, the copies are of such high quality. That's the only reason they've had to be so firm.
So if the camcorder copies really, really suck. ..
I think that this is totally a legitimate thing to get people in trouble for... but I mean, 3 years if you didn't profit from it?
Just wait until they make the logical extension. Filming a movie with a camcorder is no different than copying a CD or video. No different at all.
3 years federal time, buddy.
Distributing it will get you, oh, two more.
Oh, by the way, Federal laws already have redefined "profit" as possession, since you "profited" by not having to buy the item in question, so it's impossible not to profit from it by those laws. They just need to notice that they've already done that elsewhere and move it over.
Your original (modded "insightful") comment, to which I objected as being classic slashdot group think, was just trollisms along the lines of "seeing the actual code is just like seeing MS in its underwear, fun to point and giggle for a little while"
Fair enough, I don't think the body was trollism and it certainly wasn't group think. It may have been modded up as insightful this time but I've been "reamed" many times before for making the same argument by "Linux people", so I was a bit, shall we say, terse, this time around, however, my closing joke was definately toward the crude end of the spectrum.
People around here at least get those.
Let me take another stab at it:
Governments intent on forcing Microsoft to "play nice" tend to focus on bundled software, like the EU making them take out Media Player, or the US getting all worked up about IE.
Open Source zealots get all worked up about Microsoft releasing code to the public.
My contention is that both of these approaches miss the point entirely. It is not the closed nature of the code or the fact that Microsoft has a competitive advantage over others by being able to bundle apps with the OS that is the issue at all.
Microsoft controls the market by keeping a tight rein on it's file formats, codecs and APIs. They're perfectly happy to "share" bits of Money or Office code with Microsoft developers. This isn't actually giving anything away but the ability for said developers to write better Windows apps without actually giving up much of the advantage they have by controling the OS.
The "store" for Microsoft, that which they will be very loath to give away is really said file formats, codecs and APIs. If the WMA codec were open than anyone could write a media player. Then it would be up to them to get people to adopt it. The whole bundling thing is a red herring. If the APIs were open than Linux could run Windows apps natively. If the file formats were open than anyone could write an MS Office competitor that didn't lock you out of sharing Office files with your friends.
I can write a direct competitor to vi or emacs if I wish, and God knows hundreds have, and it wouldn't make any difference if vi and emacs were completely closed source and propriatary because their output is to ASCII, an open standard. I don't need to see the code at all.
So that's where I'm coming from when I say "we'll write our own damned code." I neither expect nor want Microsoft to give me the code to Media Player because I'm not interested in Media Player. I'm interested in interoperability with the media player I write. I'm interested in a Windows API native to Linux and don't ask, or even desire, that Microsoft give me their OS code. That's theirs. I'm perfectly happy with its remaining theirs. Its "being free" means nothing to me.
What I want is documentation. Free standards. From there I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.
It's first on the list after all. Then there's the obligitory M31 and then. . . Sterilize! Sterilize!
KFG
Re:What's he going to swing on?
on
Spider-Man in India
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However, the success of the Spiderman movie in India could itself be interpreted as there being no need of localization.
I'm intrigued at the idea of an "exotic" Spiderman and might want to have a look at one of the books, but then, to an Indian, NYC is an exotic, far away place of strange excitment.
If you're swinging from the Taj Mahal, where on earth are you swinging too?
"Hey, look at me. I'm on the Taj Mahal. But now. . . I'm on the Taj Mahal.
Now, for my next magical trick, I have to change into my Batgirl outfit and fire up the Royal Enfield, because I'm really getting sick and tired of going in circles."
Well, perhaps "shawl" would be more accurate, it's not that hooded thing you'll see the SCA people wearing, but most people refer to it as a cloak, or robe, or even toga (which it isn't even vaguely like). I usually wear it pinned in the classical Greek style making it a chlamys, but when I wear the bright red one I suddenly become Masai.
Around the house I generally wear it over a shenti/veshti/kikoy/sarong. All those words (as well as shawl and chlamys) simply mean "A rectangular piece of cloth as it comes from the loom, about 4 feet wide and six feet long." Perhaps with a modifier to denote a particular style for wearing it. I have a particular fondness for the Vietnamese/Cambodian/Late period Egyptian style (which can also be seen at times among the Masai). English manages things much the same. Clothes is simply the plural of cloth, but if we throw the cloth over our shoulder it can be refered to as a shawl and if we wrap it around our waist we can call it a skirt, or a kilt if you feel the need to defend your masculinity.
It's a very fine way to dress, rich, in the nonmonetary sense, yet inexpensive, causes no damage to the cloth, allowing it to be used in many ways and for a very long time, and it's damed elegant.
No, I'm not particularly shy about going out in public that way, although more often than not I'm dressed "conventionally", although that's a relative term. In "shawl and skirt" I'm not dressed weird in the sense that a Goth might be said to be dressed weird. If I were simply someplace else I'd be dressed in a manner that the average guy would consider perfectly conventional, except, perhaps, for being white.
You are weird.
Yes, I suppose I am both preternatural and of unusual character, even to the point of being considered strange at times.
And I suppose the strangest thing about me is not being overly concerned about that and in some professions that's a positive virtue. The performing arts, for instance. Much of acting training is just learning how to get over feeling strange no matter what you're doing/wearing.
"Ok, now lie on your back and make 'blue' noises at the ceiling."
"I feel silly."
"Yes, exactly, and you'll lie there making 'blue' noises at the ceiling until you don't."
Actors have always been social outcasts.
Back ontopic:
I think part of what makes friends "valuable" is the fact that we've invested time and effort into adjusting ourselves to fit their peculiarities.
It goes both ways though. Friends is a mutual relationship. A recursive feedback loop. I put up with you because you put up with me and vice versa.
Men then build robots (using our superior intellect) and can happily cast the lecherous whore out onto the street where she belongs. ..
What? You think that women aren't going to be lining up for the Tom Cruise-O-Matic 3500 Type-R with Overdrive?
We don't need the men We don't need the men We don't need to have 'em 'round Except for now and then They can come to see us When we need to move the piano Otherwise they can just stay home And holler at the Yankees
-Malvina Reynolds
Besides, if she really were a lecherous whore why would you be getting rid of her in the first place? Seems like it would make more sense to take her shopping at Frederick's of Hollywood.
However, gasoline powered rockets would be much more dangerous for amateurs to work with than the hobby rockets they use now.
Exactly, the suggestion was ironic. The fact that it could be done practically is necessary to the irony.
Just as for the gasoline powered machine gun. I have "constructed" one as a thought model. Not because I have any innate interest in such, I consider firearms nasty, smelly, crude things, but I do have an innate interest in constructing models showing the innate silliness of certain laws and other social constructions/biases.
I dare anyone to put onerous restrictions on the purchase and posession of gasoline, there would be rioting in the streets, and yet, without those, many of our other restrictive laws are just so much pointless, hypocritical bunk.
I've got 10 gallons of highly volatile explosives sitting in my car right now, and no one gives it a thought. I've got 250 gallons of "jet fuel" in a tank in my basement to go along with it. I've got a nozzle that spits out out natural gas on demand.
I could also have a thirty ought six sitting my closet if I wanted.
A firecracker or a wrist braced slingshot could get me arrested on a felony charge.
Joke about it all you want, but when you can pick up a Stepford Wife for the cost of an economy car you'll probably have your credit card out so fast it'll set your wallet on fire.
There are going to be Huuuuuuuuge. ..markets for these things.
Sure, the first few people will take them home in brown paper bags, but after a while it'll just be another consumer item that you can't wait to show to your friends.
Oh, Hi! Where's the other guy? (the "3" was a typo)
Sorry, I couldn't resist the setup.
How many people in the world have a very strong attachment to their pet?
Myself for one. I don't forsee a robot replacing her. I also have a strong attachment to my guitar. I might even speak of it colloquially as my "friend," but it's just a tool. I'll be heartbroken when it "dies," it's been my "friend" for more than 20 years now.
I'm not sure you get the point I'm driving at. I'm not speaking of the odd attachments that people get for various things, even inanimate things.
I'm speaking of the way things are treated because "friend" is about behavior, not simply attachment.
I went out without my cloak last night, even though it was chilly enough to be uncomfortable without it.
Phoebe was sleeping on it.
My Fluffy 3000 would have been ordered off or manhandled off without a qualm. It's a machine. It won't scratch my furniture either, because I won't allow it too. I'll program it to behave as I wish. If it does not behave as I with it will be considered "broken."
My Barberella 3000XL Platinum Blonde Edition with Turbo Boost and Bluing for extra Whiteness will never get a headache, not because she couldn't be programed to, but because I wouldn't accept that programming. She will do the dishes when I ask her to, cheerfully, as my "friend" every time I ask her to.
That's not a friend. That's a tool.
Sure, I'll be, ummmmmmmm, "attached" to her, who wouldn't be? I'll probably even call her, and even think of her, as my "friend" to some extent.
It's a very warm and fuzzy feeling illusion, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
What was that sound? A paradigm shifting without a clutch.
Oh come on. It's easy really. Anyone can do it. All you have to do is blip your technology strategic outlook and ease the paradigm into the new gestalt when the synergies match.
KFG
I think paradigms should be outlawed.
I'm not sure that outlawing them is the answer, but I do believe we should be working hard at advancing trinadigm technology.
KFG
No, Amazon was paid
- Protecting language from idiots since 1984
From dictionary.com:
payed v. A past tense and a past participle of pay.
KFG
Dear Sir,
You miss my point. It was the claim that "it had to be built" made it patentable. "Having to be built" does not make something an invention. Playgrounds in a business establishment are not an "invention", nor are they even novel.
I'll note, however, that you have Quicken installed on your machine and do some banking and stock trading online. These are traditional banking services.
I also note that you have thought about installing LED lighting in your workspace. That would have to be "built." I'm afraid I have a patent on LED lighting in working spaces.
I also have seperate patents on LED lighting in banks, toy stores, homes, fishtanks, restaurants, microwave ovens, green houses, automobiles, airplanes, submarines, sailboats, motor boats, house boats, shanty boats, canoes, RVs, lawn ornaments, book cases, kitchen cabinets, along with several thousand more unique places to employ LED lighting.
The are all physical objects. All "have to be built." Thus you will have no objection to paying me patent royalties on all of these "inventions."
I also have patents on banks with LED lighting and a coffee pot, toy stores with LED lighting and a coffee pot, homes with LED lighting and a coffee pot, etc. You will need a seperate license for those.
I've pretty well got the "with a potted plant" market covered too, so don't get your hopes up that I've left a loophole anywhere.
KFG
I'm actually okay with this one. At least this is a patent on something physical, something that can be built.
Dear Sir,
I note that the way you have laid out your work area including a play area for your child is my idea, as is the coffepot in the corner.
This is my intellectual property. If you do not remove the playpen and coffee pot you will be hearing from my laywers.
Good day.
KFG
with an ATM machine.
KFG
Yes, another reason why Amazon had every reason to know what they were getting into.
I'll give Amazon this though, they do seem to know how to run a store. I've ordered a number of back ordered items from them, and even a couple of "front ordered" items, and they properly tell me up front that the item is not currently in stock, when I might expect it if they know, and that they don't know if they don't.
I wish they were a hair less legally repulsive.
KFG
And by relying on multiple vendors Amazon gives the appearance of being able to always keep toys in stock.
Here's the thing though, Target can't keep toys in stock either, nor can Wal-Mart. No single vendor can. Amazon had every reason to realize this up front. Amazon can't keep all of its own product in stock. The issue is that Amazon was payed for an exclusive relationship, which has nothing to do with keeping things in stock for Amazon's benefit. Amazon's benefit is in receiving the $50 mil a year without having to sell a damned thing from Toys (the symbol formerly knows as "R") Us.
Amazon has decided that it was a bad deal after the fact, they've learned the perils of vendor lock in, but they want to keep the money anyway and break the deal to deal with it, what's more, when their vendor objects to this they ask for even more money for "compensation" for themselves having violated the contract.
Having made a bad deal is not grounds for breaking a contract. Thousands of companies have been forced into bankruptcy by the courts enforcing bad deals. It happens to building contractors all the time. You submitted the bid Sparky. Now you have to live up to it. It isn't the contractee's fault that you cut your margins unrealisticly.
SCO obviously has enough legal crack to share.
BAD Amazon. No cassava meal donut.
KFG
I deal with people like that by being "super competitive" (i.e., an asshole) right back at them.
If that sort of person knows you faint at the sight of blood and cuts himself to watch you pass out and you don't pass out, they get all agitated, foam at the mouth a bit, and then pass out.
Two can play at that game.
KFG
There *is* very good documentation on where the code has come from -- despite what the article says.
I think what he's talking about here is the fact that Linus doesn't have super psychic powers to be able to descern that when code is submited it is really unique and not merely that he knows who submitted the code.
But that propriatary software makers do.
We can confirm this for ourselves by applying our own super psychic powers against propriatary code. If you do this you will find that you cannot detect any code that has been copied from some other source.
So who are you going to believe, Linus, or your own third eye?
KFG
The only real difference is that in the case of CD (well any phyiscal media), you're paying to actually purchase something tangible.
.
Who said anything about buying anything? I got the CD from the library or borrowed it from a friend. Same for the video. Or maybe I rented. Same diff.
Except that the experience is severely degraded from the source media.
Well, but see, there we've got a problem. All these draconian digital copying laws are because, so they tell us, the copies are of such high quality. That's the only reason they've had to be so firm.
So if the camcorder copies really, really suck. .
KFG
I think that this is totally a legitimate thing to get people in trouble for... but I mean, 3 years if you didn't profit from it?
Just wait until they make the logical extension. Filming a movie with a camcorder is no different than copying a CD or video. No different at all.
3 years federal time, buddy.
Distributing it will get you, oh, two more.
Oh, by the way, Federal laws already have redefined "profit" as possession, since you "profited" by not having to buy the item in question, so it's impossible not to profit from it by those laws. They just need to notice that they've already done that elsewhere and move it over.
KFG
Your original (modded "insightful") comment, to which I objected as being classic slashdot group think, was just trollisms along the lines of "seeing the actual code is just like seeing MS in its underwear, fun to point and giggle for a little while"
Fair enough, I don't think the body was trollism and it certainly wasn't group think. It may have been modded up as insightful this time but I've been "reamed" many times before for making the same argument by "Linux people", so I was a bit, shall we say, terse, this time around, however, my closing joke was definately toward the crude end of the spectrum.
People around here at least get those.
Let me take another stab at it:
Governments intent on forcing Microsoft to "play nice" tend to focus on bundled software, like the EU making them take out Media Player, or the US getting all worked up about IE.
Open Source zealots get all worked up about Microsoft releasing code to the public.
My contention is that both of these approaches miss the point entirely. It is not the closed nature of the code or the fact that Microsoft has a competitive advantage over others by being able to bundle apps with the OS that is the issue at all.
Microsoft controls the market by keeping a tight rein on it's file formats, codecs and APIs. They're perfectly happy to "share" bits of Money or Office code with Microsoft developers. This isn't actually giving anything away but the ability for said developers to write better Windows apps without actually giving up much of the advantage they have by controling the OS.
The "store" for Microsoft, that which they will be very loath to give away is really said file formats, codecs and APIs. If the WMA codec were open than anyone could write a media player. Then it would be up to them to get people to adopt it. The whole bundling thing is a red herring. If the APIs were open than Linux could run Windows apps natively. If the file formats were open than anyone could write an MS Office competitor that didn't lock you out of sharing Office files with your friends.
I can write a direct competitor to vi or emacs if I wish, and God knows hundreds have, and it wouldn't make any difference if vi and emacs were completely closed source and propriatary because their output is to ASCII, an open standard. I don't need to see the code at all.
So that's where I'm coming from when I say "we'll write our own damned code." I neither expect nor want Microsoft to give me the code to Media Player because I'm not interested in Media Player. I'm interested in interoperability with the media player I write. I'm interested in a Windows API native to Linux and don't ask, or even desire, that Microsoft give me their OS code. That's theirs. I'm perfectly happy with its remaining theirs. Its "being free" means nothing to me.
What I want is documentation. Free standards. From there I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.
KFG
After all, you can communicate around the world with technology developed before the Internet!
Even after -- all the lights go out.
KFG
I didn't hear apples mentioned?
We polish 'em up and give 'em to teacher.
KFG
When a car starts, the radio goes silent while the engine cranks over.
Maybe you should try kick starting your car.
KFG
Nothing in the article mentions the feasability of getting a decently sized counterweight at the top of the elevator.
Reports are that engineers have been seen stalking Rosie O'Donnel and Anna Nicole Smith.
KFG
It's first on the list after all. Then there's the obligitory M31 and then. . . Sterilize! Sterilize!
KFG
However, the success of the Spiderman movie in India could itself be interpreted as there being no need of localization.
I'm intrigued at the idea of an "exotic" Spiderman and might want to have a look at one of the books, but then, to an Indian, NYC is an exotic, far away place of strange excitment.
So localization fails there too.
KFG
If you're swinging from the Taj Mahal, where on earth are you swinging too?
"Hey, look at me. I'm on the Taj Mahal. But now. . . I'm on the Taj Mahal.
Now, for my next magical trick, I have to change into my Batgirl outfit and fire up the Royal Enfield, because I'm really getting sick and tired of going in circles."
KFG
You wear a cloak?
Well, perhaps "shawl" would be more accurate, it's not that hooded thing you'll see the SCA people wearing, but most people refer to it as a cloak, or robe, or even toga (which it isn't even vaguely like). I usually wear it pinned in the classical Greek style making it a chlamys, but when I wear the bright red one I suddenly become Masai.
Around the house I generally wear it over a shenti/veshti/kikoy/sarong. All those words (as well as shawl and chlamys) simply mean "A rectangular piece of cloth as it comes from the loom, about 4 feet wide and six feet long." Perhaps with a modifier to denote a particular style for wearing it. I have a particular fondness for the Vietnamese/Cambodian/Late period Egyptian style (which can also be seen at times among the Masai). English manages things much the same. Clothes is simply the plural of cloth, but if we throw the cloth over our shoulder it can be refered to as a shawl and if we wrap it around our waist we can call it a skirt, or a kilt if you feel the need to defend your masculinity.
It's a very fine way to dress, rich, in the nonmonetary sense, yet inexpensive, causes no damage to the cloth, allowing it to be used in many ways and for a very long time, and it's damed elegant.
No, I'm not particularly shy about going out in public that way, although more often than not I'm dressed "conventionally", although that's a relative term. In "shawl and skirt" I'm not dressed weird in the sense that a Goth might be said to be dressed weird. If I were simply someplace else I'd be dressed in a manner that the average guy would consider perfectly conventional, except, perhaps, for being white.
You are weird.
Yes, I suppose I am both preternatural and of unusual character, even to the point of being considered strange at times.
And I suppose the strangest thing about me is not being overly concerned about that and in some professions that's a positive virtue. The performing arts, for instance. Much of acting training is just learning how to get over feeling strange no matter what you're doing/wearing.
"Ok, now lie on your back and make 'blue' noises at the ceiling."
"I feel silly."
"Yes, exactly, and you'll lie there making 'blue' noises at the ceiling until you don't."
Actors have always been social outcasts.
Back ontopic:
I think part of what makes friends "valuable" is the fact that we've invested time and effort into adjusting ourselves to fit their peculiarities.
It goes both ways though. Friends is a mutual relationship. A recursive feedback loop. I put up with you because you put up with me and vice versa.
KFG
Men then build robots (using our superior intellect) and can happily cast the lecherous whore out onto the street where she belongs. . .
What? You think that women aren't going to be lining up for the Tom Cruise-O-Matic 3500 Type-R with Overdrive?
We don't need the men
We don't need the men
We don't need to have 'em 'round
Except for now and then
They can come to see us
When we need to move the piano
Otherwise they can just stay home
And holler at the Yankees
-Malvina Reynolds
Besides, if she really were a lecherous whore why would you be getting rid of her in the first place? Seems like it would make more sense to take her shopping at Frederick's of Hollywood.
KFG
However, gasoline powered rockets would be much more dangerous for amateurs to work with than the hobby rockets they use now.
Exactly, the suggestion was ironic. The fact that it could be done practically is necessary to the irony.
Just as for the gasoline powered machine gun. I have "constructed" one as a thought model. Not because I have any innate interest in such, I consider firearms nasty, smelly, crude things, but I do have an innate interest in constructing models showing the innate silliness of certain laws and other social constructions/biases.
I dare anyone to put onerous restrictions on the purchase and posession of gasoline, there would be rioting in the streets, and yet, without those, many of our other restrictive laws are just so much pointless, hypocritical bunk.
I've got 10 gallons of highly volatile explosives sitting in my car right now, and no one gives it a thought. I've got 250 gallons of "jet fuel" in a tank in my basement to go along with it. I've got a nozzle that spits out out natural gas on demand.
I could also have a thirty ought six sitting my closet if I wanted.
A firecracker or a wrist braced slingshot could get me arrested on a felony charge.
It's silly.
KFG
Joke about it all you want, but when you can pick up a Stepford Wife for the cost of an economy car you'll probably have your credit card out so fast it'll set your wallet on fire.
.markets for these things.
There are going to be Huuuuuuuuge. .
Sure, the first few people will take them home in brown paper bags, but after a while it'll just be another consumer item that you can't wait to show to your friends.
Technology has always had an effect on mores.
KFG
Oh, Hi! Where's the other guy? (the "3" was a typo)
Sorry, I couldn't resist the setup.
How many people in the world have a very strong attachment to their pet?
Myself for one. I don't forsee a robot replacing her. I also have a strong attachment to my guitar. I might even speak of it colloquially as my "friend," but it's just a tool. I'll be heartbroken when it "dies," it's been my "friend" for more than 20 years now.
I'm not sure you get the point I'm driving at. I'm not speaking of the odd attachments that people get for various things, even inanimate things.
I'm speaking of the way things are treated because "friend" is about behavior, not simply attachment.
I went out without my cloak last night, even though it was chilly enough to be uncomfortable without it.
Phoebe was sleeping on it.
My Fluffy 3000 would have been ordered off or manhandled off without a qualm. It's a machine. It won't scratch my furniture either, because I won't allow it too. I'll program it to behave as I wish. If it does not behave as I with it will be considered "broken."
My Barberella 3000XL Platinum Blonde Edition with Turbo Boost and Bluing for extra Whiteness will never get a headache, not because she couldn't be programed to, but because I wouldn't accept that programming. She will do the dishes when I ask her to, cheerfully, as my "friend" every time I ask her to.
That's not a friend. That's a tool.
Sure, I'll be, ummmmmmmm, "attached" to her, who wouldn't be? I'll probably even call her, and even think of her, as my "friend" to some extent.
It's a very warm and fuzzy feeling illusion, isn't it?
KFG