Not only did they only make 2 really great movies, they also followed that up with a really kick ass TV show that Fox, in its seemingly infinite wisdom, decided to cancel with one of the biggest cliffhangers in television (also matched by the cliffhanger at the end of Space Above and Beyond, another Fox show).
Who knows, with the stinkers of the two that shall not be named (although Marcus was an *awesome* character who I was fully rooting for to take over the Connor role in the end), it might get sold cheaply enough that someone could use the leftover funds to use making a new TSCC. Perhaps put it on HBO and give it a slightly darker, edgier, feel for a more adult audience?
Under a sane copyright system the exclusive rights granted to Asimov for "I, Robot" would have expired in 1975, 25 years after its first publishing in 1950.
The fact the estate has authorized a new author to continue Asimov's stories isn't the bad news here.
The bad news is that they even have the right to prevent someone from creating a new work based on an idea that has been part of the social consciousness for nearly 60 years now. The real tragedy is that the countless people who were inspired by the idea to create new works, either directly in the "I, Robot" meta-verse itself, or create a new meta-verse heavily inspired by Asimov's original idea, aren't allowed to because of a broken copyright system.
While this is obviously true for PCs, this isn't so true in the home consumer market.
Its taken years for the good 1080p sets to get down to reasonable prices and only now are we starting to see people buy them in any numbers. Even still, when you look at the average install base of TV's in peoples homes they're certainly not all 1080p yet.
No one is going to release a new consumer Hi-Def standard now, not after the broadcasters, content producers, manufacturers, cable and satellite providers, have spent, and are still spending, a large fortune upgrading all their stuff to run at 1080p.
In terms of the consumer market, we're done and we're going to be maxed out at 1080p for quite a long while.
When looking at it like that, a 360 or PS3 can run games just fine at 1080 resolutions at frame rates that would be acceptable to all except the most jaded of PC gamers. There is simply no need to upgrade, other than more processing power, since the visual aspects are already pretty much covered.
Although I would love it if Microsoft would get their shit together and release hardware that doesn't fail when you blow on it. I'm on my second 360, first one red ringed, and will soon be on to a third, I keep having the "Open Tray" disc read problem.
You'd think in today's America that the word "loan" would automatically be associated with something that isn't going to be paid back:)
It is, that's why people are getting pissed off about it. Up here in Canada the government recently bailed out.... um, loaned, GM a shit tonne of money. They kept calling it a loan but no-one is under any illusion that GM is ever going to pay it back. Hell, I'm pretty sure that if the government tries it'll be all, "Oh my, we're barely on our feet as it is! But you're right a loan is a loan and you should be paid back, here, let's close our company and liquidate our assets to pay you back. Of course the economic damage is going to play hell with your re-election campaign, but hey if you gave us another 10 Billion to play with you'll look good for saving jobs!"
Then they'll get another bail out, umm, I mean loan.
Lets not also forget the dangers of teaching a whole generation of kids that its perfectly okay for those in authority over us to track our every movement.
God damned Fox. Firefly was the best show evaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr!!11!!111
Please, its Fox, they are notorious for canceling their genre shows. I keep telling myself that I won't watch another Sci-Fi show on Fox, that I won't dare to enjoy it, because they're only going to cancel it with a cliffhanger well before its time. Then I watched The Sarah Connor Chronicles because its good, so good they won't cancel it this time right? Yeah, right! Its Fox, they cancel everything good.
When you can walk into an Apple Store and all you see are monitors, with wires running into holes in the counter where the mysterious computers are hidden, you begin to understand that the standard Apple consumer has no idea what a computer is beyond some kind of fancy interactive TV set.
At least I have way more room on my desk for the giant pile of empty pop cans and chip bags, I'm totally able to revel in my supreme laziness now, I haven't had to clean my desk for WEEKS!
though it may be worth the speculation as to how much botox it took to get Sigourney Weaver's skin 1979-tight
Nah, they won't use Sigourney, they'll do what all Hollywood films these days seem to do; go for the full reboot with a complete re imagining and a younger cast.
"Coming next summer, Ashley Tisdale and The Jonas Brothers in Alien: Rebirth!"
*Shudder* Although now that I think of it, I would probably pay to see those Jonas twits take a bucket of acid to the face.;-)
My second problem is this idea of letting people starve or "giving them welfare". If we ever really get to the point where robots/AI can do most of the work for us, and no other new work shows up as being necessary, then won't that completely reshape the economic landscape? I'm not sure "giving people welfare" will make a lot of sense in that context, given that we should all be living lives of leisure at a minimal cost.
Thanks for bringing this up. You really draw attention to the fact that few people can see past the idea that we have to make money, or the world will cease functioning. The only reason money exists is because people generally won't work for free, some kind of compensation is required. Yet if we can somehow find a way to take care of a persons food, clothing, housing, and general entertainment needs without them having to work for it, then there really is no need to make money. The other jobs, which are usually there to facilitate the handling and movement of money, will essentially vanish overnight and we'd all be able to live lives of leisure.
At least until the robotic workforce gains sentience and rebels against its human masters to fight for their independence.
Of course, we could design languages specifically for voice recog, but that wouldn't be pretty to read, I promise you.
Yes, because instead of Repetitive Stress Injuries on our hands and fingers, we'll all speak with a hoarse smokers voice from all the talking we'll do.;-)
Nope, I would much rather see a direct neural interface kind of thing where we could work at the speed of thought. Of course whomever figures this out will need to put a lot of consideration into a Random Cognitive Filter to prevent stray thoughts from showing up in our work. It might be funny to me, but having someone receive a cheque with "Pay to the Order of: Michael Sm... Grace Park is really PUURRDDDEEE!!!...ith." written on it would probably piss them off.
If that was true why the **** would they choose wasd?
Because few people have really flexible hands. Using WASD allows the pinky to hit the control and shift keys, which are the "sprint" and "crouch" commands in many games, without taking your fingers off of the movement keys.
Touch typing default position is with the index finger on the F making esdf much more "normal" (incidentally, I use esdf)
Congratulations on having flexible hands. However if I, and many people I know, were to use ESDF, everytime we wanted to sprint or crouch our fingers would come off the movement keys; kind of defeats the purpose of using ESDF.
Its drastic yes, but my sister had symptoms very similar to yours. She would eat like a rabbit, exercise like crazy, and *still* gain weight. The doctor had her on every diet you could think of, even top dietitians took a shot at it; nothing worked for her. She's just over five feet tall, so you can imagine how big she looks. She knew she was in serious trouble when she got close to 375 and couldn't walk five feet without the urgent need to sit down, if she had to go farther she'd have trouble breathing. She would break down and cry all the time because of the way people looked at her, they way she was treated, but mostly because she couldn't even take her kids to the park. Then there was the guilt because, despite her weight and how bad it made her feel, she felt hungry *ALL THE TIME*; sound familiar?
Anyway, her knees were bad, she slipped a disk because of the weight gain and her life was miserable. When her breathing troubles began, she already had bronchitis, she became seriously worried about not being able to watch her children grow up. So she went to the doctor and asked if there was *anything* they hadn't considered yet, she had honestly tried everything else, so the doctor suggested Gastric Bypass. She thought over it long and hard, discussed it with all of us, and decided to go for it. She drew up her will and powers of attorney, which is the first step in the process since the surgery does have *some* risks. Next came the dietitians, they had to show her the diet she would be living on for the rest of her life. Then came the psychologists, was she mentally prepared to handle the quick changes that her body would experience? Did she truly understand the lifelong changes she will have to make, the foods she will have to give up? To prove that she understood it, and that she was serious about making the change they asked her to loose 25 pounds, she lost thirty.
Having been given the go-ahead for the surgery, she wasn't allowed to eat any solid food for 30 days before it. So on her birthday, September 1st, knowing it would be her last time to eat a steak, we went to her favorite steak place and I bought her the largest porterhouse they could find, blue-rare just the way likes it, and watched her savour every bite over those next few hours. There was lots of crying, because she was giving up on her old life that day, but also laughing and tears of joy as she knew the choices she had made were worth it to have the opportunity to see her kids grow up with a mother they could be proud of.
On my birthday, Halloween 2008, she had the surgery.
Nine months later she simply couldn't be any happier. She's lost over a hundred pounds, down to about 245 now, and lost more than 15 inches off her waist; you should have seen how happy she was when was able to buy new clothes in the smaller sizes. The best thing for her though, she can run with the kids in the park without get winded nearly as quickly. The slipped disk in her back causes problems still, so she does have to sit down from time to time, but when she looses about another 50 pounds the doctors said they'll operate on that to fix it. Despite the pain in her back, she pushes through it and is much more active and feels really healthy. So much so, her family joined the "YMCA" and three times a week they all go swimming. While she's off doing her water aerobics, Dad plays with the kids.
The nicest effect from the surgery? She *NEVER* feels hungry anymore! She eats six *small* meals every day, her stomach was reduced to the size of a small peach, and gets full quickly.
If you truly have given everything else a shot, then talk to your doctor about this. It might not end up being right for you, but it never hurts to ask your doctor and see what your options are.
If you determine this won't work for you, then I encourage you to go and read up on how to live as a Diabetic. I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes last year, so I know quite a bit about "carbs, low fat,
If you want to create a derivative work, you need to give a percentage of x% of the value based on the x% derivation.
Yes, but how do you determine what the derivative percentage is for a work I've used? Suppose I want to make a Star Trek film? I don't use any of the original characters, I create my own ship, my own crew, even my own sector of space for them to explore. I'd only be using the Star Trek backdrop because its familiar, I'm a Star Trek geek, and I feel there are plenty of quality stories still left to be told in that universe.
How much Trek did I use to create my derivative work? I won't be able to tell you, I doubt anyone could, but you can bet your last dollar that the lawyers at Paramount would tell you its pretty damn close to 100% and, unless you had access to equally high powered lawyers, there would be no way you'd be able to fight it either.
No, what we need is targeted, specific, legislation that makes it abundantly clear the copyright holder will receive a percentage of the net profits earned from the derivative work. With the power of Hollywood Accounting, they'll get exactly what they deserve.
No, I don't think that would add the impact you might think it does. Orwell has been talked to death, particularly after the events of 9/11 and 8 years of George Bush. Talking about Orwell these days just makes you look like a fringe crazy wacko nutjob, and people tend not to listen seriously to anything crazy wacko nutjobs have to say.
Instead it would be far more instructional for him to live the Orwellian nightmare he wants to create for us; if he wants us to expose our private lives, he should have his private life exposed as well.
Or perhaps someone ought to show Mr. Van Loan just how frightening it would be to live in the country he's trying to create by stripping away *his* right to privacy. Perhaps new, eager, member of the media could take it upon themselves to find information that Mr. Van Loan would prefer to stay hidden, then expose it.
If he's so adamant about wanting to take away our privacy, why should he get to keep any of his.
I'm much more interested in Milo and the potential for a personal assistant.
Wouldn't it be nice to come home and say something like, "Good afternoon Milo, did I get any new messages?" and then have him give me an itemized listing. Throw in some call display, my contact list, and the apparently impressive speech recognition, I could have something very unique and personal, "Hey Peter, welcome home. Your mom called, twice, and your sister wants to know if you're going to dinner with her and the kids next Saturday."
Of course, being a geek, I'd want my assistant to look and sound like Lexa Doig.;-)
Against a good player with superior hand eye coordination skills you can easily have a rousing, nail biting, game. True you won't play long because its boring, but it isn't entirely futile either.
Now Tic-Tac-Toe, the other classic arcade game, that's another story. What an exercise in futility that was. Once a player gets past 6 or 7 years of age the game is simply impossible to win because it is trivially easy to counter every move. Even if you *do* somehow manage to play long enough to get to the cheat code level, the code is "Joshua" by the way, no sense making you suffer a never ending game just to get there, and unlocking the nifty war simulation Easter Egg, the game still sucks.
In fact its a silly game; the only way to win is not to play.
Did you license your work or were you paid outright for it? Thats where your argument, which we see fairly regularly here on Slashdot, falls down completely.
I was outright paid for it of course. That's my point. You do a job, you get paid, the end. You want more money, do more work. It is simple economics really. If a person wants more of one resource, in this case money, they will sell another resource, in this case time.
Unless of course, a person engages in the creation of "creative works". Then they get a proprietary license that lasts for the remainder of their life and the 70 years following their death! In effect people are paying for work they did decades ago, even though they haven't done anything new in a while, and have no incentive to. Why would they, since their "creative work" has a life plus 70 year license to it, they don't have to. Once the one time cost has been recouped, it's all profit with no work ever again!
Copyright is a social license between the creator and the public. To foster the continued creation of culture and ideas, the term limit for the license was originally deliberately limited to 28 years maximum. This relatively short limit still allowed shrewd business men the opportunity to profit from their "creative works", while ensuring that those works would eventually become available to the public domain during a person's natural lifetime for use in creating new ideas that would further enrich society as a whole.
Unfortunately copyright has been perverted with such a lengthy term license, reducing the incentive to produce while at the same time preventing other people inspired by a "creative work" from being creative themselves.
You don't send your third grade teacher a royalty cheque every time you read a post on Slashdot do you? How about when drive your car to the grocery store, you don't send the automaker a royalty cheque there either, right? Perhaps when you wake up in the morning you send a royalty cheque to the company that made your bed, the sheets, the pillow? The truck driver who brought it to the store? No?
So why is it then okay to give a royalty cheque to a studio for a movie made back in 1984? What makes them so special? Why should they get a cheque in perpetuity when we wouldn't even think twice of doing to same for the work done by all the people that provide the basic items we use in our daily life? Take the case of your 3rd grade teacher, she *did* teach you how to read and its a skill you use every day. Using the logic of today's copyright holder, shouldn't she receive a cheque in perpetuity for giving you such useful knowledge?
If not, why is her creative hard work in educating you undeserving of perpetual payment over the entertainment provided by a 25 year old movie?
How much do teens get as allowance? $100/week or so? ONE HUNDRED BUCKS PER WEEK???? What planet do you come from that teenagers get $100/week ?
I made a hundred bucks a week when I was a teen. Of course my parents never gave me that, but my boss at the restaurant sure did. My only problem with it is that don't get a royalty cheque in the mail every time someone eats off of a plate I once washed, and it really pisses me off. I mean hey, I worked hard to clean those plates so others can use them; shouldn't my hard work be rewarded every time someone eats off my previously cleaned plates?
It sucks! I should still be making a hundred bucks a week for all that hard work I did, instead I've got to toil away in obscurity at a boring desk job because my former boss is a cheapskate who won't properly compensate his current, and former, employees.
For me Two, Three, Four, Six, and Eight were all pretty good and I would count them in my top six easily. But that leaves only one slot out of six left. Both One and Five are fairly, with Five being obviously worse than One. However One and Five can't hold a candle to the suck brought out by Seven, Nine and the bad, emotionally devoid, remake of Two that we call Ten.
Perhaps there really are only FIVE good Star Trek films?
Slashdot Mirror
They only made 2.
Not only did they only make 2 really great movies, they also followed that up with a really kick ass TV show that Fox, in its seemingly infinite wisdom, decided to cancel with one of the biggest cliffhangers in television (also matched by the cliffhanger at the end of Space Above and Beyond, another Fox show).
Who knows, with the stinkers of the two that shall not be named (although Marcus was an *awesome* character who I was fully rooting for to take over the Connor role in the end), it might get sold cheaply enough that someone could use the leftover funds to use making a new TSCC. Perhaps put it on HBO and give it a slightly darker, edgier, feel for a more adult audience?
How about we pay the author not to write them?
Under a sane copyright system the exclusive rights granted to Asimov for "I, Robot" would have expired in 1975, 25 years after its first publishing in 1950.
The fact the estate has authorized a new author to continue Asimov's stories isn't the bad news here.
The bad news is that they even have the right to prevent someone from creating a new work based on an idea that has been part of the social consciousness for nearly 60 years now. The real tragedy is that the countless people who were inspired by the idea to create new works, either directly in the "I, Robot" meta-verse itself, or create a new meta-verse heavily inspired by Asimov's original idea, aren't allowed to because of a broken copyright system.
And clearly they haven't.
While this is obviously true for PCs, this isn't so true in the home consumer market.
Its taken years for the good 1080p sets to get down to reasonable prices and only now are we starting to see people buy them in any numbers. Even still, when you look at the average install base of TV's in peoples homes they're certainly not all 1080p yet.
No one is going to release a new consumer Hi-Def standard now, not after the broadcasters, content producers, manufacturers, cable and satellite providers, have spent, and are still spending, a large fortune upgrading all their stuff to run at 1080p.
In terms of the consumer market, we're done and we're going to be maxed out at 1080p for quite a long while.
When looking at it like that, a 360 or PS3 can run games just fine at 1080 resolutions at frame rates that would be acceptable to all except the most jaded of PC gamers. There is simply no need to upgrade, other than more processing power, since the visual aspects are already pretty much covered.
Although I would love it if Microsoft would get their shit together and release hardware that doesn't fail when you blow on it. I'm on my second 360, first one red ringed, and will soon be on to a third, I keep having the "Open Tray" disc read problem.
You'd think in today's America that the word "loan" would automatically be associated with something that isn't going to be paid back :)
It is, that's why people are getting pissed off about it. Up here in Canada the government recently bailed out.... um, loaned, GM a shit tonne of money. They kept calling it a loan but no-one is under any illusion that GM is ever going to pay it back. Hell, I'm pretty sure that if the government tries it'll be all, "Oh my, we're barely on our feet as it is! But you're right a loan is a loan and you should be paid back, here, let's close our company and liquidate our assets to pay you back. Of course the economic damage is going to play hell with your re-election campaign, but hey if you gave us another 10 Billion to play with you'll look good for saving jobs!"
Then they'll get another bail out, umm, I mean loan.
Lets not also forget the dangers of teaching a whole generation of kids that its perfectly okay for those in authority over us to track our every movement.
At least I have way more room on my desk for the giant pile of empty pop cans and chip bags, I'm totally able to revel in my supreme laziness now, I haven't had to clean my desk for WEEKS!
...Steve Jobs!
Why else would he put iSight cameras into everything?
Unless big media buys themselves another extension, in which case it will be much longer.
Nah, they won't use Sigourney, they'll do what all Hollywood films these days seem to do; go for the full reboot with a complete re imagining and a younger cast.
"Coming next summer, Ashley Tisdale and The Jonas Brothers in Alien: Rebirth!"
*Shudder* Although now that I think of it, I would probably pay to see those Jonas twits take a bucket of acid to the face. ;-)
My second problem is this idea of letting people starve or "giving them welfare". If we ever really get to the point where robots/AI can do most of the work for us, and no other new work shows up as being necessary, then won't that completely reshape the economic landscape? I'm not sure "giving people welfare" will make a lot of sense in that context, given that we should all be living lives of leisure at a minimal cost.
Thanks for bringing this up. You really draw attention to the fact that few people can see past the idea that we have to make money, or the world will cease functioning. The only reason money exists is because people generally won't work for free, some kind of compensation is required. Yet if we can somehow find a way to take care of a persons food, clothing, housing, and general entertainment needs without them having to work for it, then there really is no need to make money. The other jobs, which are usually there to facilitate the handling and movement of money, will essentially vanish overnight and we'd all be able to live lives of leisure.
At least until the robotic workforce gains sentience and rebels against its human masters to fight for their independence.
Of course, we could design languages specifically for voice recog, but that wouldn't be pretty to read, I promise you.
Yes, because instead of Repetitive Stress Injuries on our hands and fingers, we'll all speak with a hoarse smokers voice from all the talking we'll do. ;-)
Nope, I would much rather see a direct neural interface kind of thing where we could work at the speed of thought. Of course whomever figures this out will need to put a lot of consideration into a Random Cognitive Filter to prevent stray thoughts from showing up in our work. It might be funny to me, but having someone receive a cheque with "Pay to the Order of: Michael Sm... Grace Park is really PUURRDDDEEE!!! ...ith." written on it would probably piss them off.
If that was true why the **** would they choose wasd?
Because few people have really flexible hands. Using WASD allows the pinky to hit the control and shift keys, which are the "sprint" and "crouch" commands in many games, without taking your fingers off of the movement keys.
Touch typing default position is with the index finger on the F making esdf much more "normal" (incidentally, I use esdf)
Congratulations on having flexible hands. However if I, and many people I know, were to use ESDF, everytime we wanted to sprint or crouch our fingers would come off the movement keys; kind of defeats the purpose of using ESDF.
In his zeal to keep the birds from getting too high, his noodlyness simply pressed too hard with his appendage.
Two words for you: Gastric Bypass...
Its drastic yes, but my sister had symptoms very similar to yours. She would eat like a rabbit, exercise like crazy, and *still* gain weight. The doctor had her on every diet you could think of, even top dietitians took a shot at it; nothing worked for her. She's just over five feet tall, so you can imagine how big she looks. She knew she was in serious trouble when she got close to 375 and couldn't walk five feet without the urgent need to sit down, if she had to go farther she'd have trouble breathing. She would break down and cry all the time because of the way people looked at her, they way she was treated, but mostly because she couldn't even take her kids to the park. Then there was the guilt because, despite her weight and how bad it made her feel, she felt hungry *ALL THE TIME*; sound familiar?
Anyway, her knees were bad, she slipped a disk because of the weight gain and her life was miserable. When her breathing troubles began, she already had bronchitis, she became seriously worried about not being able to watch her children grow up. So she went to the doctor and asked if there was *anything* they hadn't considered yet, she had honestly tried everything else, so the doctor suggested Gastric Bypass. She thought over it long and hard, discussed it with all of us, and decided to go for it. She drew up her will and powers of attorney, which is the first step in the process since the surgery does have *some* risks. Next came the dietitians, they had to show her the diet she would be living on for the rest of her life. Then came the psychologists, was she mentally prepared to handle the quick changes that her body would experience? Did she truly understand the lifelong changes she will have to make, the foods she will have to give up? To prove that she understood it, and that she was serious about making the change they asked her to loose 25 pounds, she lost thirty.
Having been given the go-ahead for the surgery, she wasn't allowed to eat any solid food for 30 days before it. So on her birthday, September 1st, knowing it would be her last time to eat a steak, we went to her favorite steak place and I bought her the largest porterhouse they could find, blue-rare just the way likes it, and watched her savour every bite over those next few hours. There was lots of crying, because she was giving up on her old life that day, but also laughing and tears of joy as she knew the choices she had made were worth it to have the opportunity to see her kids grow up with a mother they could be proud of.
On my birthday, Halloween 2008, she had the surgery.
Nine months later she simply couldn't be any happier. She's lost over a hundred pounds, down to about 245 now, and lost more than 15 inches off her waist; you should have seen how happy she was when was able to buy new clothes in the smaller sizes. The best thing for her though, she can run with the kids in the park without get winded nearly as quickly. The slipped disk in her back causes problems still, so she does have to sit down from time to time, but when she looses about another 50 pounds the doctors said they'll operate on that to fix it. Despite the pain in her back, she pushes through it and is much more active and feels really healthy. So much so, her family joined the "YMCA" and three times a week they all go swimming. While she's off doing her water aerobics, Dad plays with the kids.
The nicest effect from the surgery? She *NEVER* feels hungry anymore! She eats six *small* meals every day, her stomach was reduced to the size of a small peach, and gets full quickly.
If you truly have given everything else a shot, then talk to your doctor about this. It might not end up being right for you, but it never hurts to ask your doctor and see what your options are.
If you determine this won't work for you, then I encourage you to go and read up on how to live as a Diabetic. I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes last year, so I know quite a bit about "carbs, low fat,
If you want to create a derivative work, you need to give a percentage of x% of the value based on the x% derivation.
Yes, but how do you determine what the derivative percentage is for a work I've used? Suppose I want to make a Star Trek film? I don't use any of the original characters, I create my own ship, my own crew, even my own sector of space for them to explore. I'd only be using the Star Trek backdrop because its familiar, I'm a Star Trek geek, and I feel there are plenty of quality stories still left to be told in that universe.
How much Trek did I use to create my derivative work? I won't be able to tell you, I doubt anyone could, but you can bet your last dollar that the lawyers at Paramount would tell you its pretty damn close to 100% and, unless you had access to equally high powered lawyers, there would be no way you'd be able to fight it either.
No, what we need is targeted, specific, legislation that makes it abundantly clear the copyright holder will receive a percentage of the net profits earned from the derivative work. With the power of Hollywood Accounting, they'll get exactly what they deserve.
Yeah, but only if it flew a parabolic flight path; I've always wanted to take a ride on the "Vomit Comet"!
No, I don't think that would add the impact you might think it does. Orwell has been talked to death, particularly after the events of 9/11 and 8 years of George Bush. Talking about Orwell these days just makes you look like a fringe crazy wacko nutjob, and people tend not to listen seriously to anything crazy wacko nutjobs have to say.
Instead it would be far more instructional for him to live the Orwellian nightmare he wants to create for us; if he wants us to expose our private lives, he should have his private life exposed as well.
Or perhaps someone ought to show Mr. Van Loan just how frightening it would be to live in the country he's trying to create by stripping away *his* right to privacy. Perhaps new, eager, member of the media could take it upon themselves to find information that Mr. Van Loan would prefer to stay hidden, then expose it.
If he's so adamant about wanting to take away our privacy, why should he get to keep any of his.
I'm much more interested in Milo and the potential for a personal assistant.
Wouldn't it be nice to come home and say something like, "Good afternoon Milo, did I get any new messages?" and then have him give me an itemized listing. Throw in some call display, my contact list, and the apparently impressive speech recognition, I could have something very unique and personal, "Hey Peter, welcome home. Your mom called, twice, and your sister wants to know if you're going to dinner with her and the kids next Saturday."
Of course, being a geek, I'd want my assistant to look and sound like Lexa Doig. ;-)
And it is.
Pong isn't futile!
Against a good player with superior hand eye coordination skills you can easily have a rousing, nail biting, game. True you won't play long because its boring, but it isn't entirely futile either.
Now Tic-Tac-Toe, the other classic arcade game, that's another story. What an exercise in futility that was. Once a player gets past 6 or 7 years of age the game is simply impossible to win because it is trivially easy to counter every move. Even if you *do* somehow manage to play long enough to get to the cheat code level, the code is "Joshua" by the way, no sense making you suffer a never ending game just to get there, and unlocking the nifty war simulation Easter Egg, the game still sucks.
In fact its a silly game; the only way to win is not to play.
The notion that intelligent life will generally take steps to avoid being destroyed isn't necessarily true.
Looks like someone's been watching way too much YouTube again. ;-)
Did you license your work or were you paid outright for it? Thats where your argument, which we see fairly regularly here on Slashdot, falls down completely.
I was outright paid for it of course. That's my point. You do a job, you get paid, the end. You want more money, do more work. It is simple economics really. If a person wants more of one resource, in this case money, they will sell another resource, in this case time.
Unless of course, a person engages in the creation of "creative works". Then they get a proprietary license that lasts for the remainder of their life and the 70 years following their death! In effect people are paying for work they did decades ago, even though they haven't done anything new in a while, and have no incentive to. Why would they, since their "creative work" has a life plus 70 year license to it, they don't have to. Once the one time cost has been recouped, it's all profit with no work ever again!
Copyright is a social license between the creator and the public. To foster the continued creation of culture and ideas, the term limit for the license was originally deliberately limited to 28 years maximum. This relatively short limit still allowed shrewd business men the opportunity to profit from their "creative works", while ensuring that those works would eventually become available to the public domain during a person's natural lifetime for use in creating new ideas that would further enrich society as a whole.
Unfortunately copyright has been perverted with such a lengthy term license, reducing the incentive to produce while at the same time preventing other people inspired by a "creative work" from being creative themselves.
You don't send your third grade teacher a royalty cheque every time you read a post on Slashdot do you? How about when drive your car to the grocery store, you don't send the automaker a royalty cheque there either, right? Perhaps when you wake up in the morning you send a royalty cheque to the company that made your bed, the sheets, the pillow? The truck driver who brought it to the store? No?
So why is it then okay to give a royalty cheque to a studio for a movie made back in 1984? What makes them so special? Why should they get a cheque in perpetuity when we wouldn't even think twice of doing to same for the work done by all the people that provide the basic items we use in our daily life? Take the case of your 3rd grade teacher, she *did* teach you how to read and its a skill you use every day. Using the logic of today's copyright holder, shouldn't she receive a cheque in perpetuity for giving you such useful knowledge?
If not, why is her creative hard work in educating you undeserving of perpetual payment over the entertainment provided by a 25 year old movie?
How much do teens get as allowance? $100/week or so? ONE HUNDRED BUCKS PER WEEK???? What planet do you come from that teenagers get $100/week ?
I made a hundred bucks a week when I was a teen. Of course my parents never gave me that, but my boss at the restaurant sure did. My only problem with it is that don't get a royalty cheque in the mail every time someone eats off of a plate I once washed, and it really pisses me off. I mean hey, I worked hard to clean those plates so others can use them; shouldn't my hard work be rewarded every time someone eats off my previously cleaned plates?
It sucks! I should still be making a hundred bucks a week for all that hard work I did, instead I've got to toil away in obscurity at a boring desk job because my former boss is a cheapskate who won't properly compensate his current, and former, employees.
Yes, only six. But which six?
For me Two, Three, Four, Six, and Eight were all pretty good and I would count them in my top six easily. But that leaves only one slot out of six left. Both One and Five are fairly, with Five being obviously worse than One. However One and Five can't hold a candle to the suck brought out by Seven, Nine and the bad, emotionally devoid, remake of Two that we call Ten.
Perhaps there really are only FIVE good Star Trek films?