...Why did they release those songs then? Obviously they had no problems with the length of the copyright back then, and they released their music with the knowledge that at certain point in time their music wont be protected anymore. And they have had decades of time to profit from their music. And now that the time is up, they feel that the rules should be changed since they obviously have not profited enough.
Well, fuck them. Seriously. They make it sound like they are getting screwed here. No, WE are getting screwed here. We were promised that after certain period of time, that music would be liberated (so to speak). And now we are being told by some multi-millionares that "wait, we could use a bit more profits, so we want to change the rules, mmmmkay?". No, it's not OK. You made a deal with the public when you release those songs. And that deal says that after certain period of time, we, the public, would get access to those songs. Don't like that deal? Maybe you should have thought about that back when you released those songs.
"Why Apple doesn't blog?", why not ask "Why should Apple blog?". Why is it that everyone takes corporate blogs for granted these days?
So what would be the answer? "Because everybody is doing it!". "because I want to know what they are up to!". "I love Apple and I want to get constant news and articles about Apple!". Well, none of those are a valid reason for blogs, really.
Errr... I'm 40+ had have had PS/PS2/Dreamcast/GameCube/XBox 360 and my Wii will arrive tomorrow. I remember playing Pong and having an Atari 2600 as a kid. Don't be so amazed when parents play games, remember that they were young once! The point is that there are loads of people who have not been interested in games, who seem to be genuinely interested in the Wii. they weren't interested in PS2, Xbox or GameCube, and there's nothing in PS3 or Xbox which would interest them either. If they weren't interested in PS2 or Xbox, why would they be interested in PS3 or 360? They are just the more stuff their predecessors were, there's just more of it.
I'm not saying that there are no 40+ year olds who are gamers. I'm saying that there are lots and lots of 40+ year old non-gamers who are not interested in PS3 or 360, but they ARE interested in the Wii. And not only that, there are also loads of those "typical gamers" who are also interested in the Wii.
It seems like Nintendo has a winner in their hands.
The reason Nintendo is succeeding is that they are making a console that everybody can enjoy. Those 40+ year-olds weren't interested in PS2 or Xbox (or GC for that matter). Why would they be interested in PS3 or 360? I mean, both PS3 and 360 are exactly same as their predecessors were, they just have more horsepower. Wii has more horsepower than it's predecessor had, but that's not the point. It's actually different. Not only is it different from it's competition (let's face it, PS3 and 360 are very, very similar. Controls are similar, games are similar, the experience of gaming is similar....), but it's also different from it's predecessors.
I have never been interested in consoles. But I AM interested in the Wii. And the reason for that is that it's DIFFERENT. It offers a whole new approach to gaming. I wasn't interested in PS2 or Xbox. And I'm not interested in 360 or PS3. They are practically indetical to their predecessors. Yes, they are more "powerful", but how much gigaflops or how many pixels the console could pump was not the reason why I wasn't interested in consoles. So increasing the power of the console by an order of magnitude does nothing to make me get interested in it. The power was not the problem, so making it more powerful does not help. Somy and Microsoft basically took their existing consoles, increased the amount of RAM, and put more powerful CPU and GPU in there, and that was it. Nintendo actually did something different. They are basically re-inventing gaming.
If I wanted a gaming-system with lots of RAM and CPU/GPU-power, why should I get a console, when I could get a PC that mops the floor with both PS3 and 360?
But the real question is why has Linux got so bloated? It didn't. "Back then" you had primitive apps running on primitive GUI, using crappy and ugly icons and graphics. Antialiasing? Hardware that just works when you plug it in? Hah, dream on! Today you have GUI's that are very, very beautiful. The apps are very advanced, the system indexes your hard-drive in the background for instant search, you have 16+ million colors and high resolution AND antialiased fonts. Everything is spell-checked as you type (including text-boxes in websites), Bittorrents are downloading in the background and we have composited shadows and fadeouts. And guess what? All that takes up RAM and CPU-cycles.
But here's the thing: if you want to, you can turn all that crap off. Instead of GNOME or KDE, use something lighter. Since you are comparing Linux to the "old Linux", why not run FVWM? It's still maintained. Hell, why not run TWM? Also, turn off those antialiased fonts and all those other advanced features we have got over the course of the years. I bet that you will see that Linux runs well on slower hardware, just like it did years ago. The thing that has happened is that 10 years ago Linux-desktops... well, sucked. They ran fast because they were ugly and they didn't really do that much. What you saw was what you got. Today the dominant desktops (KDE & GNOME) are actually very, very good, and they have lots of advanced features and useful services running in the background. And those features need certain amount of horsepower. Don't have that horsepower? Fine, use something lightweight, or switch to CLI. But for some reason people these days seem to have fast enough machines, and they want to run advanced desktops and apps. But you are not REQUIRED to do so.
If you decide to run a system with all bells and whistles turned on, don't start complaining that "years ago Linux ran fast, today it doesn't! What happened?". What happened was that "years ago" Linux didn't have those "bells and whistles". It does today, but you are not forced to use them. If you do use them, stop your complaining because you are comparing apples and oranges.
How has Microsoft's shady buisness practices DIRECTLY affected Mac, or Linux, or OS/2, or any of the other OS choices out there? Few things of note:
- Be Inc. wanted to sell BeOS to OEM's for pre-installation. Microsoft stopped that. Hell, BeOS was being offered FOR FREE to OEM's!
- Microsoft embeds their proprietary technologies (like Windows Media) in their OS and apps, and using those technologies is very, very hard on other OS'es, making the lives of users of alternative OS'es difficult.
- Microsoft killed Netscape and made IE dominant. And that means that many webistes still do not work properly on other browsers than IE. Is IE available on Linux? Nope.
Those came to my mind after 10 seconds of thinking.
It's simple. People like windows. No, they don't. They are constantly cursing at it because of it's erratic behavior, popups, viruses, spyware etc. etc. They really are. So why don't they switch? Because Windows is what came with their computer. Because Windows was the OS they have used before. Because they know Windows. Because that one particular app they need only runs on Windows. Any of those reasons is enough for them to stick with Windows, and none of them implies that they "like" Windows. People are just afraid of change.
Are you going to blame microsoft because people are too lazy to learn how to switch? No, but I blame them for actively harming competitors, abusing their monopoly, stagnating the progress of technology etc. etc.
On a motorbike being tailgated is much more exciting as I have much less mass to decelerate so can brake harder and quicker than any cage can IIRC, the difference between a motorbike and a car is few meters at best. True, that few meters can be decisive, but it's not like "cages" are dramatically worse than motorbikes. And it's a lot easier to brake effectively on a car: just step on them. Motorbikes can be a lot harder. Compared to cars, ABS-brakes are not that common in motorbikes, and you need to balance between front-brakes and rear-brakes. In reality all that could mean that by the time car has stopped moving, the motorbike is still sliding forward, since the driver of the motorbike does not know how to brake properly.
But, all motorbike-drivers are good drivers, right?
Yes, it is true that there is little difference between full-sized sports/luxury sedan and moderately sized suvs. Why should it be a "full-sized luxury sedan"? VW Golf (for example) is big enough to house 4 adults comfortably. And lets face, usually there is just the driver in the car. Maybe there is someone else there besides him. 4 adults would be quite rare, but it would still be doable with a Golf-sized car. So where's the need for large sedans? Safety? Small cars are plenty safe these days. In fact, even Golf might be overkill for some uses. For the family grocery-getter, how about something like VW Polo?
For some reason, Americans seem to insist on big cars with big engines. And then they complain when they are stuck in traffic and can't find a parking-spot.
France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs.UK's nuclear-arsenal was already commented upon, so all that is left for you is to educate yourself about the French Nuclear Forces: click here.
The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment.What if those other navies simply hanged around close to the coastlines? When US Navy moved closer for the kill, they would be hit by the enemy navy AND ground-based airforce? Seriously: you make the whole scenario seem overtly simple ("worlds navy would be destroyed in a matter of days"), when in reality it would be anything but.
Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.How many air-superiority fighters does a carrier have? 40? Let's say that USA could have 500 such planes operating from the carriers. They would be flying over hostile terrain littered with AA-units, and they would be facing a modern airforce of superior numbers. Of course, this is assuming that USA suffered no casualties earlier, and all their carriers are still intact (which is not assured). So how exactly would this work?
The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their bordersUm, they do have that capability. Last time I checked, there were European fighter-units operating in the Balkans, and they were (obviously) operating outside their borders. Hell, even Argentina had fighters operating beyond their borders in Falkalands-war!
The US would be able to easily overrun the conventional militaries of the major European nations.I don't see how you could say that it would be "easy". European militaries have quite a bit of manpower. They have good training, and they have good equipment. If you are using the Gulf War (in Iraq War the Iraqi army was not a potent fighting-force) as a point of reference, you need to take in to account the fact that Iraqis simply did not have the needed equipment. Their Air Force chose not to fight. Their tanks were obsolete and they used sub-standard ammo (Iraqi-made tungsten penetrators. When the Republican Guard stood their ground in Medina Ridge, the shortcomings of the ammo became apparent) when fighting US Armor. In a hypothetical war against Europe, USA would not be facing T-55's, T-62's and T-72's (like they did in the Gulf), they would be facing Challenger 2's, Leclercs and Leopard 2's (in fact, Leopards are considered to be superior to M1 Abrams, while Challenger 2 and Leclerc are more or less equal), and there would be a lot of them (almost 2.600 Leopard 2's, 355 Leclercs and 390 Challenger 2's, not to mention large number of older tanks. That is a potent fighting-force by any stretch of the imagination). Instead of facing few old fighters that are busy running away, they would be facing Typhoons, Jas Gripens, F-16's, F-18's and Rafale's. And there would be quite a few of them. And on the ground would be advanced and quite lethal AA-systems. And those militaries would be backed with advanced C&C and intelligence.
So how exactly would it be "easy"? Anyone who claims that USA (or anyone else for that matter) could "easily" overrun military of the major European nations is deluding themselves. It really is as simple as that. No, this isn't about dick-waving and no-one is disputing the overall superiority of US Military over any single adversary. What we are talking about is basic military facts. I bet that if you asked a US General about how easy it would be to overrun the militaries of Europe in a conventional fight, I bet that they would say that it would be very, very hard.
And still Germany was dominating them until the US got involved.Yeah, it's not like Russian did anything. No sirree, it was the Americans that saved the day. Seriously: Germany's fate was sealed in Stalingrad, and that was long before USA really got involved in the war. When D-Day took place, Germany had already lost the war. They were getting massacred in the east. Fact remains that Eastern Front was BY FAR the most lethal battleground in the entire war, and it was the Eastern Front that drained Germany of their power. Compared to the magniture of the Eastern Front, Italy and Western Fronts were quite minor.
The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.What you say is true, but it's not all of the truth. USA spends 466 billion on weapons. How much do the Iraqi insurgents spend? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction, when compared to USA. Yet USA has their hands full trying to control the situation in Iraq.
You've never used Exchange, have you? Exchange is more like email, calendar, mailing lists, newsgroups, project planning, address book, and collaboration software integrated into one fairly solid package. It's an excellent product, and there is nothing out there that even comes close to being able to replace it.
Lotus Notes/Domino comes to mind. In fact, we are using Notes, and from our standpoint, Exchange doesn't even come close to replacing Notes.
A smartphone is a phone with some PDA features, as opposed to a PDA with some phone features.
So you are saying that 9000 is not a smartphone because it's PDA-functionality is too good? Had Nokia released a crappier product, then they could claim the title of "first smartphone"? I don't think that definition would fly. And as it happens, the original Communicator was a 2110 with some PDA-functionality added to it, so it was every bit as good phone as 2110 was (which was and is considered by many to be the best phone ever made), although bigger (naturally).
was not Ericsson R380. It was Nokia 9000 Communicator (which they do mention in the article), which was released in 1996. And that's about 4 YEARS before Ericsson released R380! since they do list both, they must have some arbitary definition for "smartphone" so that R380 fits the description, whereas 9000 does not. And the last Communicator is not the 9500, 9300i is the latest model.
And where on Earth is the Nokia 2110 on their list? That was like THE phone for several years!
"Future colonization of any planet besides our own is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard of."
If we don't spread humanity to other planets, humanity is doomed, period. It's as simple as that. Currently we have all our eggs in one basket, and we are kicking that basket around for shit 'n giggles. And if we don't manage to wipe us out by ourselves, we will eventually get hit by a planet-busting asteroid.
"How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc?"
Quite a few of them do, many do not. I do not. And why should I? I don't like partying. I fail to see the attraction in getting drunk and making an ass of myself. I hate people who are drunk, since they are offten aggressive and erratic. I hate it when my clothes smell like tobacco-smoke afterwards. I also dislike big and noisy crowds. Does all that make me an "antisocial misfit"? IMO, no. I grew out of partying when I was around 20.
And let's talk "disconnecting from reality" for a moment. Is it "reality" if I go see a movie? If I sit down and read a book? Sit on my ass and watch Bill O'reilly on TV? Or latest episode of "Lost"? All those are means to "disconnect from reality". But apparently they are acceptable. And, in many ways partying is also "escape from reality".
And let's face it: in many ways, reality sucks. Right now, the weather sucks. It's cold, dark and wet. And most people are morons, in one way or the other. We have incompetent rulers (regardless of the country you are in) and unjust laws. And there's practically nothing we could do about it. And in many ways, reality is boring. It's boring because it's familiar. Is it REALLY that bad if some people want to spice up their life with a little bit of escapism? And fact is that those methods of escapism are still part of this reality that we live in. In a way, if I did my best to steer clear of games, and moves and books, I would be divorcing myself from the reaility even more, as opposed to if I embraced the things modern society has to offer. And those "things" include things like games.
"Coding around a patent is almost always, pretty easy."
No, it isn't. It's easy to code around copyright-infringment. But how do you write around a patent? Suppose MS has a patent that covers writing files to a disk. How do you code around that? That's the difference between copyright and patent. Copyright covers the actual code, and it's easy to fix: just re-write the offending part. But patents are a whole different ball of wax. To use the file-writing example: MS could say that code in Linux that is responsible for writing files to a disk, infringes on their copyright. MS would then show the infringing code, and then they would show their code. At this point, hackers would re-write the offending part, and that problem is solved. But if MS said "We have patented writing files to a disk, and Linux infringes on that patent", what do you do? Remove the relevant functionality from Linux? That's one option. The other is to pay Microsoft for a license to use their patent. that is, if they were willing to take your money. they could just demand that you remove the feature.
So there are some movies that you don't like on that list, and it somehow proves that it's meaningless, since your movie-taste is the absolute authority the world has? Gotcha.
That's your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions? And opinions are not facts. Besides, the three movies are currently placed in 4th, 14th and 20th place in IMDB's top250 movies of all time. How could that be if they are such a bad movies?
"it went on FAR too long and contained ridiculously unphysical stunts."
You are complaining about physics in a movie with ancient talking trees, flaming eyeball and magic?
"What makes this unforgiveble though is that he had to cut out serious parts of the story to accomodate it - no return to the shire and final battle with Saruman"
Having those in the movie would have sucked. the climax of the movie was the destruction of the ring. Had they put the scouring in the movie, the audience would be about to leave the theater, when they noticed that it just keep on going. After the climatic battle and the destuction of the ring, we would spend another 20 minutes watching a minor battle between hobbits and gang of thugs? Again: while the scouring works in the book, it would NOT work in a movie. Hell, it would be same if in Return of the Jedi we would have the celebration after the Death Star has been destroyed, but as Luke is heading to bed, he's ambushed by the last surviving stormtrooper and they would then have 10-minute fistfight between the two. THEN the movie would end. The scouring would completely ruin the pacing of the movie.
"Just because I am not a film director does not mean that I cannot spot a bad one."
Let's just say that most critics and moviegoers disagree with you on this matter.
"It is a matter of taste."
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to make a movie that EVERYONE would like. Most people do like the LOTR-trilogy, but of course there are exceptions.
"that it no way makes my opinion that the last one was awful invalid."
It's your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. And your personal opinion does not mean that those people who liked the last movie are wrong.
"I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision."
I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.
And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".
"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"
maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.
After that, Slashdot will quiet down for a few hours while the hardcore *nix geeks re-write those sections.
If this was about copyright that would do it. But we are talking about PATENTS. A hypothetical example: Microsoft claims that the part in Linux that is responsible for writing files to a disk has been stolen from Windows. MS then shows the offending lines of code, and shows their code, and they are indeed similar. In that case we would have copyright-infringment, and that could be resolved by re-writing the code. But what is MS had patented writing files to a disk? They could say that Linux infringes on their patent. How would you go about "re-writing" that code? You couldn't, because if you did, you would still be writing files to the disk, and you would still be infringing. Only way to resolve the issue would be to license the patent from MS ($$$$$) or remove that feature from Linux.
That's just it. With copyright it would be about the code. MS would need to show the lines of code in Linux, and show to the judge that it has been nicked from their code. With patents, it's different. They could say that certain FEATURE in Linux infringes on their patents. They would not have to show any code, they would have to show the feature. Suppose if MS had somehow managed to patent GUI. They could sue X.org and Linux'es that use X.org, even though the codebase is wildly different.
I believe it was some MySQL-dude giving a speech on software-patent to the Finnish parliament who said: "software-patents are the same thing if someone patented the idea of murdering someone with a knife in a murder-mystery. And if someone else wrote a book where someone is killed with a knife, that would be a patent-infringment".
Slashdot Mirror
...Why did they release those songs then? Obviously they had no problems with the length of the copyright back then, and they released their music with the knowledge that at certain point in time their music wont be protected anymore. And they have had decades of time to profit from their music. And now that the time is up, they feel that the rules should be changed since they obviously have not profited enough.
Well, fuck them. Seriously. They make it sound like they are getting screwed here. No, WE are getting screwed here. We were promised that after certain period of time, that music would be liberated (so to speak). And now we are being told by some multi-millionares that "wait, we could use a bit more profits, so we want to change the rules, mmmmkay?". No, it's not OK. You made a deal with the public when you release those songs. And that deal says that after certain period of time, we, the public, would get access to those songs. Don't like that deal? Maybe you should have thought about that back when you released those songs.
Fuck you, you fucking dinosaurs.
"Why Apple doesn't blog?", why not ask "Why should Apple blog?". Why is it that everyone takes corporate blogs for granted these days?
So what would be the answer? "Because everybody is doing it!". "because I want to know what they are up to!". "I love Apple and I want to get constant news and articles about Apple!". Well, none of those are a valid reason for blogs, really.
I'm not saying that there are no 40+ year olds who are gamers. I'm saying that there are lots and lots of 40+ year old non-gamers who are not interested in PS3 or 360, but they ARE interested in the Wii. And not only that, there are also loads of those "typical gamers" who are also interested in the Wii.
It seems like Nintendo has a winner in their hands.
The reason Nintendo is succeeding is that they are making a console that everybody can enjoy. Those 40+ year-olds weren't interested in PS2 or Xbox (or GC for that matter). Why would they be interested in PS3 or 360? I mean, both PS3 and 360 are exactly same as their predecessors were, they just have more horsepower. Wii has more horsepower than it's predecessor had, but that's not the point. It's actually different. Not only is it different from it's competition (let's face it, PS3 and 360 are very, very similar. Controls are similar, games are similar, the experience of gaming is similar....), but it's also different from it's predecessors.
I have never been interested in consoles. But I AM interested in the Wii. And the reason for that is that it's DIFFERENT. It offers a whole new approach to gaming. I wasn't interested in PS2 or Xbox. And I'm not interested in 360 or PS3. They are practically indetical to their predecessors. Yes, they are more "powerful", but how much gigaflops or how many pixels the console could pump was not the reason why I wasn't interested in consoles. So increasing the power of the console by an order of magnitude does nothing to make me get interested in it. The power was not the problem, so making it more powerful does not help. Somy and Microsoft basically took their existing consoles, increased the amount of RAM, and put more powerful CPU and GPU in there, and that was it. Nintendo actually did something different. They are basically re-inventing gaming.
If I wanted a gaming-system with lots of RAM and CPU/GPU-power, why should I get a console, when I could get a PC that mops the floor with both PS3 and 360?
But here's the thing: if you want to, you can turn all that crap off. Instead of GNOME or KDE, use something lighter. Since you are comparing Linux to the "old Linux", why not run FVWM? It's still maintained. Hell, why not run TWM? Also, turn off those antialiased fonts and all those other advanced features we have got over the course of the years. I bet that you will see that Linux runs well on slower hardware, just like it did years ago. The thing that has happened is that 10 years ago Linux-desktops... well, sucked. They ran fast because they were ugly and they didn't really do that much. What you saw was what you got. Today the dominant desktops (KDE & GNOME) are actually very, very good, and they have lots of advanced features and useful services running in the background. And those features need certain amount of horsepower. Don't have that horsepower? Fine, use something lightweight, or switch to CLI. But for some reason people these days seem to have fast enough machines, and they want to run advanced desktops and apps. But you are not REQUIRED to do so.
If you decide to run a system with all bells and whistles turned on, don't start complaining that "years ago Linux ran fast, today it doesn't! What happened?". What happened was that "years ago" Linux didn't have those "bells and whistles". It does today, but you are not forced to use them. If you do use them, stop your complaining because you are comparing apples and oranges.
- Be Inc. wanted to sell BeOS to OEM's for pre-installation. Microsoft stopped that. Hell, BeOS was being offered FOR FREE to OEM's!
- Microsoft embeds their proprietary technologies (like Windows Media) in their OS and apps, and using those technologies is very, very hard on other OS'es, making the lives of users of alternative OS'es difficult.
- Microsoft killed Netscape and made IE dominant. And that means that many webistes still do not work properly on other browsers than IE. Is IE available on Linux? Nope.
Those came to my mind after 10 seconds of thinking. It's simple. People like windows. No, they don't. They are constantly cursing at it because of it's erratic behavior, popups, viruses, spyware etc. etc. They really are. So why don't they switch? Because Windows is what came with their computer. Because Windows was the OS they have used before. Because they know Windows. Because that one particular app they need only runs on Windows. Any of those reasons is enough for them to stick with Windows, and none of them implies that they "like" Windows. People are just afraid of change. Are you going to blame microsoft because people are too lazy to learn how to switch? No, but I blame them for actively harming competitors, abusing their monopoly, stagnating the progress of technology etc. etc.
But, all motorbike-drivers are good drivers, right?
For some reason, Americans seem to insist on big cars with big engines. And then they complain when they are stuck in traffic and can't find a parking-spot.
France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs.UK's nuclear-arsenal was already commented upon, so all that is left for you is to educate yourself about the French Nuclear Forces: click here. The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment.What if those other navies simply hanged around close to the coastlines? When US Navy moved closer for the kill, they would be hit by the enemy navy AND ground-based airforce? Seriously: you make the whole scenario seem overtly simple ("worlds navy would be destroyed in a matter of days"), when in reality it would be anything but. Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.How many air-superiority fighters does a carrier have? 40? Let's say that USA could have 500 such planes operating from the carriers. They would be flying over hostile terrain littered with AA-units, and they would be facing a modern airforce of superior numbers. Of course, this is assuming that USA suffered no casualties earlier, and all their carriers are still intact (which is not assured). So how exactly would this work? The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their bordersUm, they do have that capability. Last time I checked, there were European fighter-units operating in the Balkans, and they were (obviously) operating outside their borders. Hell, even Argentina had fighters operating beyond their borders in Falkalands-war!
The US would be able to easily overrun the conventional militaries of the major European nations.I don't see how you could say that it would be "easy". European militaries have quite a bit of manpower. They have good training, and they have good equipment. If you are using the Gulf War (in Iraq War the Iraqi army was not a potent fighting-force) as a point of reference, you need to take in to account the fact that Iraqis simply did not have the needed equipment. Their Air Force chose not to fight. Their tanks were obsolete and they used sub-standard ammo (Iraqi-made tungsten penetrators. When the Republican Guard stood their ground in Medina Ridge, the shortcomings of the ammo became apparent) when fighting US Armor. In a hypothetical war against Europe, USA would not be facing T-55's, T-62's and T-72's (like they did in the Gulf), they would be facing Challenger 2's, Leclercs and Leopard 2's (in fact, Leopards are considered to be superior to M1 Abrams, while Challenger 2 and Leclerc are more or less equal), and there would be a lot of them (almost 2.600 Leopard 2's, 355 Leclercs and 390 Challenger 2's, not to mention large number of older tanks. That is a potent fighting-force by any stretch of the imagination). Instead of facing few old fighters that are busy running away, they would be facing Typhoons, Jas Gripens, F-16's, F-18's and Rafale's. And there would be quite a few of them. And on the ground would be advanced and quite lethal AA-systems. And those militaries would be backed with advanced C&C and intelligence.
So how exactly would it be "easy"? Anyone who claims that USA (or anyone else for that matter) could "easily" overrun military of the major European nations is deluding themselves. It really is as simple as that. No, this isn't about dick-waving and no-one is disputing the overall superiority of US Military over any single adversary. What we are talking about is basic military facts. I bet that if you asked a US General about how easy it would be to overrun the militaries of Europe in a conventional fight, I bet that they would say that it would be very, very hard.
And still Germany was dominating them until the US got involved.Yeah, it's not like Russian did anything. No sirree, it was the Americans that saved the day. Seriously: Germany's fate was sealed in Stalingrad, and that was long before USA really got involved in the war. When D-Day took place, Germany had already lost the war. They were getting massacred in the east. Fact remains that Eastern Front was BY FAR the most lethal battleground in the entire war, and it was the Eastern Front that drained Germany of their power. Compared to the magniture of the Eastern Front, Italy and Western Fronts were quite minor.
The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.What you say is true, but it's not all of the truth. USA spends 466 billion on weapons. How much do the Iraqi insurgents spend? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction, when compared to USA. Yet USA has their hands full trying to control the situation in Iraq.
Money is not everything.
Before: "Linux infringes on our IP, and we COULD sue them."
After: "Linux infringes on our IP, and we COULD sue them. And Novell agrees with us".
You've never used Exchange, have you? Exchange is more like email, calendar, mailing lists, newsgroups, project planning, address book, and collaboration software integrated into one fairly solid package. It's an excellent product, and there is nothing out there that even comes close to being able to replace it.
Lotus Notes/Domino comes to mind. In fact, we are using Notes, and from our standpoint, Exchange doesn't even come close to replacing Notes.
So you are saying that 9000 is not a smartphone because it's PDA-functionality is too good? Had Nokia released a crappier product, then they could claim the title of "first smartphone"? I don't think that definition would fly. And as it happens, the original Communicator was a 2110 with some PDA-functionality added to it, so it was every bit as good phone as 2110 was (which was and is considered by many to be the best phone ever made), although bigger (naturally).
was not Ericsson R380. It was Nokia 9000 Communicator (which they do mention in the article), which was released in 1996. And that's about 4 YEARS before Ericsson released R380! since they do list both, they must have some arbitary definition for "smartphone" so that R380 fits the description, whereas 9000 does not. And the last Communicator is not the 9500, 9300i is the latest model.
And where on Earth is the Nokia 2110 on their list? That was like THE phone for several years!
And now that it's finished, I bet it's quite attractive as well!
"Future colonization of any planet besides our own is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard of."
If we don't spread humanity to other planets, humanity is doomed, period. It's as simple as that. Currently we have all our eggs in one basket, and we are kicking that basket around for shit 'n giggles. And if we don't manage to wipe us out by ourselves, we will eventually get hit by a planet-busting asteroid.
"How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc?"
Quite a few of them do, many do not. I do not. And why should I? I don't like partying. I fail to see the attraction in getting drunk and making an ass of myself. I hate people who are drunk, since they are offten aggressive and erratic. I hate it when my clothes smell like tobacco-smoke afterwards. I also dislike big and noisy crowds. Does all that make me an "antisocial misfit"? IMO, no. I grew out of partying when I was around 20.
And let's talk "disconnecting from reality" for a moment. Is it "reality" if I go see a movie? If I sit down and read a book? Sit on my ass and watch Bill O'reilly on TV? Or latest episode of "Lost"? All those are means to "disconnect from reality". But apparently they are acceptable. And, in many ways partying is also "escape from reality".
And let's face it: in many ways, reality sucks. Right now, the weather sucks. It's cold, dark and wet. And most people are morons, in one way or the other. We have incompetent rulers (regardless of the country you are in) and unjust laws. And there's practically nothing we could do about it. And in many ways, reality is boring. It's boring because it's familiar. Is it REALLY that bad if some people want to spice up their life with a little bit of escapism? And fact is that those methods of escapism are still part of this reality that we live in. In a way, if I did my best to steer clear of games, and moves and books, I would be divorcing myself from the reaility even more, as opposed to if I embraced the things modern society has to offer. And those "things" include things like games.
"Coding around a patent is almost always, pretty easy."
No, it isn't. It's easy to code around copyright-infringment. But how do you write around a patent? Suppose MS has a patent that covers writing files to a disk. How do you code around that? That's the difference between copyright and patent. Copyright covers the actual code, and it's easy to fix: just re-write the offending part. But patents are a whole different ball of wax. To use the file-writing example: MS could say that code in Linux that is responsible for writing files to a disk, infringes on their copyright. MS would then show the infringing code, and then they would show their code. At this point, hackers would re-write the offending part, and that problem is solved. But if MS said "We have patented writing files to a disk, and Linux infringes on that patent", what do you do? Remove the relevant functionality from Linux? That's one option. The other is to pay Microsoft for a license to use their patent. that is, if they were willing to take your money. they could just demand that you remove the feature.
So there are some movies that you don't like on that list, and it somehow proves that it's meaningless, since your movie-taste is the absolute authority the world has? Gotcha.
"Unfortunately he did not achieve this."
That's your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions? And opinions are not facts. Besides, the three movies are currently placed in 4th, 14th and 20th place in IMDB's top250 movies of all time. How could that be if they are such a bad movies?
"it went on FAR too long and contained ridiculously unphysical stunts."
You are complaining about physics in a movie with ancient talking trees, flaming eyeball and magic?
"What makes this unforgiveble though is that he had to cut out serious parts of the story to accomodate it - no return to the shire and final battle with Saruman"
Having those in the movie would have sucked. the climax of the movie was the destruction of the ring. Had they put the scouring in the movie, the audience would be about to leave the theater, when they noticed that it just keep on going. After the climatic battle and the destuction of the ring, we would spend another 20 minutes watching a minor battle between hobbits and gang of thugs? Again: while the scouring works in the book, it would NOT work in a movie. Hell, it would be same if in Return of the Jedi we would have the celebration after the Death Star has been destroyed, but as Luke is heading to bed, he's ambushed by the last surviving stormtrooper and they would then have 10-minute fistfight between the two. THEN the movie would end. The scouring would completely ruin the pacing of the movie.
"Just because I am not a film director does not mean that I cannot spot a bad one."
Let's just say that most critics and moviegoers disagree with you on this matter.
"It is a matter of taste."
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to make a movie that EVERYONE would like. Most people do like the LOTR-trilogy, but of course there are exceptions.
"that it no way makes my opinion that the last one was awful invalid."
It's your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. And your personal opinion does not mean that those people who liked the last movie are wrong.
"I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision."
I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.
And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".
"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"
maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.
If this was about copyright that would do it. But we are talking about PATENTS. A hypothetical example: Microsoft claims that the part in Linux that is responsible for writing files to a disk has been stolen from Windows. MS then shows the offending lines of code, and shows their code, and they are indeed similar. In that case we would have copyright-infringment, and that could be resolved by re-writing the code. But what is MS had patented writing files to a disk? They could say that Linux infringes on their patent. How would you go about "re-writing" that code? You couldn't, because if you did, you would still be writing files to the disk, and you would still be infringing. Only way to resolve the issue would be to license the patent from MS ($$$$$) or remove that feature from Linux.
That's just it. With copyright it would be about the code. MS would need to show the lines of code in Linux, and show to the judge that it has been nicked from their code. With patents, it's different. They could say that certain FEATURE in Linux infringes on their patents. They would not have to show any code, they would have to show the feature. Suppose if MS had somehow managed to patent GUI. They could sue X.org and Linux'es that use X.org, even though the codebase is wildly different.
I believe it was some MySQL-dude giving a speech on software-patent to the Finnish parliament who said: "software-patents are the same thing if someone patented the idea of murdering someone with a knife in a murder-mystery. And if someone else wrote a book where someone is killed with a knife, that would be a patent-infringment".