I gave up wearing a watch because I get the time from my cell phone. Convieniently, my cell phone(Nokia 3650) also has a screen that's bigger than this watch/TV, it has a 3GO video player built-in, and it has enough memory to hold an episode of The Simpsons. But it doesn't have a TV tuner.
I have a sneaking suspision these guys could make far more money selling their 'lego size tuners' to Nokia, et al. It would be a better viewing experience for me, I'd have to carry around one less thing and, heck, I get enough chick-repelant carrying my D&D books as it is.
When other MTAs can match Sendmail's flexibility, then maybe I'll consider switching.
I think you hit the nail on the head. These big, some would say bloated, systems end up getting used because they're flexible. Others are constantly writing 3rd party stuff that specifically use these systems.
Case in point: Microsoft ADS is very DNS dependant and the only DNS they support besides Microsoft DNS is BIND. BIND may, or may not be the best DNS out there, but because it's the standard people are building their systems to, it is almost certainly the most compatible and, by extension, the most flexible.
Certainly not. I didn't mean to imply that it was. But the article author asserts that the OSX is some sort of panacia when it's not. I've used some very good software that seems to anticpate what you're doing and helps you find solutions. Sadly, even though OSX is billed as this kind of software, in reallity it's little better than Windows for the novice user.
Furthermore, for the switcher OSX is jam packed with different ways of doing things that are not neccessarily easy to figure out. Figuring out Linux was actually easy by comparison and Linux is customizable enough that you can often make it behave like you want it to if it doesn't behave that way by default. OSX is kind of like your dad or your boss; it's their way or the highway.
Here are a couple examples of seemingly easy things that I still haven't figured out in OSX.
-resizing windows: can you really only resize them at that one corner?
-Maximizing windows: Where is the secret button to make them automatically go full screen instead of just reverting to "most of screen"?
Even if you have answers to these, and I hope you do, can you explain why this is isnt' easier to figure out for "the easy OS"?
I have broadband. I take the ethernet cable and plug it into the back of my computer and I'm done. Same proccess for both PC and Mac. Same speed. I've set up both and directed others in my houshold to set up both and I've seen no difference.
I've never set up a Mac on dial-up so maybe this is the problem. But I still find it hard to believe that the Mac could be much easier than using an AOL, AT&T or MSN CD.
Have you ever used bullets in MS Office? They're incredibly simple. If the guy is haveing a problem with bullets, MS Office is not to blame. Help is, well, helpful, but not at all necessary.
The author said some other stuff that was suspect too. Near the end of the article he says Outlook 2003 wasn't much of an improvement, but I shift back and forth between that version, the 2000 version and the 2002/XP version all the time and I can tell you that 2003 is the biggest leap forward in usability of them all. Search folders rock, they're intuitive and the most important ones are already set up for you so you can use them right away. There are dozens of other tiny, but significant to usability features that permiate the app.
The author did some not-quite-right Mac boosting as well. OSX is a very good OS, but there are all sorts of frustrations for the switcher that he conveniently left out. Did he really not notice that common tasks require a different workflow than in Windows? Did he not notice that the shortcuts to do these things efficiently are no more obvious than they are in Windows? Or did he gloss? As a relatively new Mac user (1-year. OSX 10.28), I assure you he glossed. Does anyone really believe it's faster for a new user to get on the internet with a Mac vs. a new PC in 2004? That's ridiculous.
The problem with aricles like this is that people that know better about the Windows jabs and the other OS boosting are forced to call into question his judgement on other things as well. If he were more honest about these little things, I'd have more incentive to believe him about the big stuff.
Consumers are getting the shaft any time they buy these crippled products. They shouldn't HAVE to hack something to unlock built-in features.
Exactly. I had to "hack" the crippled Windows Server 2003 to accept multiple connections by telling it I had 1000 licenses in the License Manager. The product is exactly the same, but with this one little tweak I got just as much functionality as I would have with the much higher priced, 1000-CAL product.
Shouldn't I be able to buy one, non-crippled version without jumping through these hoops? It's unconsionable.
For HTML, my debuggers are Internet Explorer and Firefox. You're welcome to them (at least firefox you are:-)
I know, this is not real programming and looking at your output is not real debugging, but for newbies it's a powerful way of teaching them to do something with an alternate coding language and giving them instant feedback. Later, when they want to do something more interesting like working with script, this won't be as useful. But hopefully by that time they won't be as frightened about working with code.
None of them actually do ticket or piracy checks whilst a movie is being shown. Night-vision goggles aren't going to help much.
Especially if they're copying the movie themselves during late-night private screenings.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US movie ushers are teen-age kids. They're far more enamoured with getting steet-cred for getting a clean copy of a popular film then they would be with making their boss look good by catching pirates.
If the studios want security guards, they'd be better served by hiring security guards.
It used to take a lot of tech knowledge to even operate a personal computer so the people that used them were, by definition, tech savy.
But in order to sell more computers the hardware and software manufactureres have perpetuated the myth that "computers are easy." The truth: operating computers is very easy, but maintaining them is still very difficult. Now the average user is not tech savy, but they have a machine that only tech savy people can maintain.
And what about autonomy? I expect an apliance that is in the category of "robot" to be able to take a pile of clothes and end up with a bunch of shirts on hangers. After setup, Roomba needs little assistance to get the job done where this device needs an operator for every shirt.
If this is a robot, then so is my dishwasher, clothes washing machine and even my blender.
Plus it solves three of the biggest problems with teaching programming:
you get instant results.
debugging is very visual and very easy.
the results of your "programming" can look really cool thus making the "programming" itself seam cool. (big problem with most "hello world" type programs.)
As you go on to more advanced concepts these advantages go away to some extent, but hopefully by then the student will be in more of a position to not need these advantages.
I was in the US Army in West Germany in '85 guarding the East German border. Some German friends brought over Risk and we played a little. They explained to us that due to sensitivity about their Nazi past, in German Risk you don't 'conquer' the world, you 'liberate' it. My friends at the time indicated that this was a matter of German law, but I don't know if that was true or not. At the time I thought it was funny, but now I don't think I'd find such a law to be very funny anymore.
Actually, this kind of proves my point. Debbie Gibson and Tiffany were nearly twenty years ago. We hear pleny of music from that era, but not much of them. The same thing will happen to our era. The less good bands will sort of disapear, never to be heard from again, but the 'oldies' station will play the real cool tunes from our era and we'll longingly wish for 'the days when music was good.'
Remember, our era produced N'sync but it also produced Outkast and System of a Down. You may look back at the Doors and smile, but how many bands got to #20 on the charts in '67 that are the equivilant to Gibson? Just because you don't hear about them now doesn't mean they weren't there at the time.
But, and this is important, Debbie and Tiffany weren't that bad as far as pop is concerned. They weren't great or inovative, but people liked listening to their music. Groups and individuals just like them have appeared in every era playing reliable, dancable music that was fun if not particularly remarkable.
Pop, by definition, is mainstream music. Mainstream stuff usually includes some filet mingnon and some hamburger. Twenty years from now you'll remember those good meals you had and you'll have forgotten all of your trips to McDonalds. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking food was so much better 'back in the day' just because you can't remember how mediocre most of it really was.
No, the music doesn't have to be good, but that's not new. The reason most people think older music was so much better is because they don't reminise over the old stuff that happend to be crap. In 20 years, when people are playing 'oldies from the dawn of the 21st century' they'll only be playing the cream of this era and our musicians will look like geniuses too.
Furthermore, a lot of the musicians that are used as examples of how crappy this era is aren't really as crappy as people make them out to be. I think a lot of people confuse "I don't like it" with "it's crap". They're not the same thing. Pop music has never been about high art, it's about having catchy tunes that young people like to listen to and dance to. The BackStreet Boys actually deliver on that. I'm no great fan of them, but I know their music is catchy and a lot of 14 year-old girls genuinly liked the sound. That just make them "not my taste" rather than "the death of good music."
You are so right. You get to be in the exclusive club with the exclusive games. But that's all you get. The club. All the hardware and software is basically PC hardware and software.
How much are you willing to pay to be in that club? The answer is probably "a lot" but I, personally, can't help but feel ripped off. It feels too much like my girlfriend got a side job as a hooker and started charging me for sex. yep, I know I won't get it unless I pay, but wasn't I getting it for free just last week?
If it's a full PC, then how are you getting extra value by it being a "console" too?
Can you play high quality games on a PC? check
Can you use console-like controllers on a PC? check
The only value added is on Microsoft's side. They just got you to:
a. buy a PC from them b. buy a copy of Windows from them c. buy a "console" from them when their cost was close to zero after you already bought all the PC components. d. buy games that give them licensing fees instead of standard PC games that give them no licensing fees
and you get nothing extra except the "privelage" of being in their special club of games that use PC technology but are not legaly able to be released for PC purchase without MS signing off on it.
This is insane. I'd offer to sell you the Brooklyn bridge but it seems MS has beat me to it.
Like the Camera phone itself, this is a solution to a problem I never knew existed.
This kind of statement about the lack of a use for a camera phone tends to tell me something about the person that says it.
1. They're not very creative. I use a camera-phone all the time for stuff I'd never use a camera for. For example, I take pictures of sales displays to compare the product on the internet when I get home and I take pictures of the sign that reminds me where I parked my car at the airport. Instant notes with no effort. I also have a cool game that lets me move around by moving my phone around. If you were more creative, you would have thought of a few more uses too.
2. They're not very spontaneous. I take pictures of my friends, family and important events far more often than I ever would if I had to carry around a full-size camera all the time. If you were interested in this kind of spontaneity then I'm sure you would see the use of a camera phone.
3. They're self-centered. People who don't want a camera phone personally, and seem to be dumbfounded by those that do, tend to be some of the most self-centered people I know. Lots of people have camera phones and lots of people like them. You may not desire or need one, but are you able to learn from and empathize with those that do? If you were interested in the thoughts and feelings of the people around you, you might have asked one of them why they bought a camera phone and realize that not everyone has the same needs and desires that you do.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to slam you here. I'm just reporting my personal observations of people who've talked like you have about these devices. Camera phones are interesting because they're very popular, but there's a significant backlash. That backlash crowd, in my opinion, is really more alike than most people realize.
I don't know how big the first glass was, but I use a 15oz. tumbler these days. You can adjust the ratio to suit your taste. Some days I use more Coke and some days I use less. A lot of times I cheap out and just use regular coffee, but if you can remember to do the coffee ice cubes in advance it really makes a big difference. This is a fun drink to play with.
My only barter experience was in the early-mid nineties when people were just starting to talk abouut cyber-cafe's. A friend called me late one night saying the proprieter of the local coffee house was haveing a problem with his computer getting connected to AOL. I came by and fixed the problem and he said I could have anything on the menu.
This is were it got good. I asked him what he would recommend, not becaus I didn't understand what a latte was but because the proprieter always knows what he does best. He suggested I try a Turbo Cola. I said, "huh?"
Here's ther recipie:
3-4 ice cubes of frozen, high quality coffee. 2 shots of espresso Fill the rest with Coke.
This turned out to be my all time favorite coffee drink. The creamy head is equal or superior to Guiness, the flavor is perfect and I've never gotten a better rev.
The monetary value of this barter is nothing to get excited about, but the store went out of business a short time after this event and I know I'm one of only a select few that got a crack at one of these drinks. I make if for myself fairly often and know that this recipe is worth far more than the drink itself. If you've never tried a coffee-cola give this recipe a try. Every person who tries one of these and loves it just increases the value of that one, simple job I did.
Computer life: Virus - Reproduces and propogates. It's illegal to infect others knowingly, but legal to become infected.
Agraculterual life: GM food - Reproduces and propogates. It's legal to infect others and illegale to become infected.
Big problem here. If the same rules applied to computer life as GM food then I could copywrite a virus and charge my victims... er, customers who become infected. I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams. This needs to be fixed.
EpI title: cryptic and misleading. I was initially thrilled by the combination of horror and Sci-Fi genres, but was ultimately disappointed when no ghost appeared.
EpII tile: just plain misleading. Who's side were those clones on anyway? And who did they attack? Did they really attack or defend? Maybe "Mystery of the Clones" would have been more accurate and then I could have gotten excited about the combination of Sci-Fi and thriller genres. But I kept waiting for the evil clones to attack and was ultimately disappointed when they were on our side (or were they!).
Ep III: even more misleading. Is this a documentary about racists in a galaxy far, far away? I am as excited as ever about the combination of Sci-Fi and racist documentary genre's but I ultimately feel I will be disappointed when there are no thrilling chases with KKK people on horses. Why, oh, why does Lucas taunt me like this.
What does it take to get common carrier status? I sure ain't no lawyer (ISANL) but I'd have a hard time believing that the size of your "customer" base makes a difference.
If he's responsible for the conduct of the people using his traffic then every free community wireless access service should be very afraid. Yet they appear to be thriving.
...but if I supplied the gun I suspect I would serve some time.
When an internet pipe is considered a dangerous weapon we will all morn. This is exactly the same argument the RIAA is using to try to ban P2P services, but saner minds have so far prevailed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is surreal. I write about chick-repellant and get my first slasdot reply ever from.... Amber? :-)
I gave up wearing a watch because I get the time from my cell phone. Convieniently, my cell phone(Nokia 3650) also has a screen that's bigger than this watch/TV, it has a 3GO video player built-in, and it has enough memory to hold an episode of The Simpsons. But it doesn't have a TV tuner.
I have a sneaking suspision these guys could make far more money selling their 'lego size tuners' to Nokia, et al. It would be a better viewing experience for me, I'd have to carry around one less thing and, heck, I get enough chick-repelant carrying my D&D books as it is.
TW
When other MTAs can match Sendmail's flexibility, then maybe I'll consider switching.
I think you hit the nail on the head. These big, some would say bloated, systems end up getting used because they're flexible. Others are constantly writing 3rd party stuff that specifically use these systems.
Case in point: Microsoft ADS is very DNS dependant and the only DNS they support besides Microsoft DNS is BIND. BIND may, or may not be the best DNS out there, but because it's the standard people are building their systems to, it is almost certainly the most compatible and, by extension, the most flexible.
TW
Certainly not. I didn't mean to imply that it was. But the article author asserts that the OSX is some sort of panacia when it's not. I've used some very good software that seems to anticpate what you're doing and helps you find solutions. Sadly, even though OSX is billed as this kind of software, in reallity it's little better than Windows for the novice user.
Furthermore, for the switcher OSX is jam packed with different ways of doing things that are not neccessarily easy to figure out. Figuring out Linux was actually easy by comparison and Linux is customizable enough that you can often make it behave like you want it to if it doesn't behave that way by default. OSX is kind of like your dad or your boss; it's their way or the highway.
Here are a couple examples of seemingly easy things that I still haven't figured out in OSX.
-resizing windows: can you really only resize them at that one corner?
-Maximizing windows: Where is the secret button to make them automatically go full screen instead of just reverting to "most of screen"?
Even if you have answers to these, and I hope you do, can you explain why this is isnt' easier to figure out for "the easy OS"?
TW
I have broadband. I take the ethernet cable and plug it into the back of my computer and I'm done. Same proccess for both PC and Mac. Same speed. I've set up both and directed others in my houshold to set up both and I've seen no difference.
I've never set up a Mac on dial-up so maybe this is the problem. But I still find it hard to believe that the Mac could be much easier than using an AOL, AT&T or MSN CD.
TW
Have you ever used bullets in MS Office? They're incredibly simple. If the guy is haveing a problem with bullets, MS Office is not to blame. Help is, well, helpful, but not at all necessary.
The author said some other stuff that was suspect too. Near the end of the article he says Outlook 2003 wasn't much of an improvement, but I shift back and forth between that version, the 2000 version and the 2002/XP version all the time and I can tell you that 2003 is the biggest leap forward in usability of them all. Search folders rock, they're intuitive and the most important ones are already set up for you so you can use them right away. There are dozens of other tiny, but significant to usability features that permiate the app.
The author did some not-quite-right Mac boosting as well. OSX is a very good OS, but there are all sorts of frustrations for the switcher that he conveniently left out. Did he really not notice that common tasks require a different workflow than in Windows? Did he not notice that the shortcuts to do these things efficiently are no more obvious than they are in Windows? Or did he gloss? As a relatively new Mac user (1-year. OSX 10.28), I assure you he glossed. Does anyone really believe it's faster for a new user to get on the internet with a Mac vs. a new PC in 2004? That's ridiculous.
The problem with aricles like this is that people that know better about the Windows jabs and the other OS boosting are forced to call into question his judgement on other things as well. If he were more honest about these little things, I'd have more incentive to believe him about the big stuff.
TW
Consumers are getting the shaft any time they buy these crippled products. They shouldn't HAVE to hack something to unlock built-in features.
Exactly. I had to "hack" the crippled Windows Server 2003 to accept multiple connections by telling it I had 1000 licenses in the License Manager. The product is exactly the same, but with this one little tweak I got just as much functionality as I would have with the much higher priced, 1000-CAL product.
Shouldn't I be able to buy one, non-crippled version without jumping through these hoops? It's unconsionable.
TW
For HTML, my debuggers are Internet Explorer and Firefox. You're welcome to them (at least firefox you are :-)
I know, this is not real programming and looking at your output is not real debugging, but for newbies it's a powerful way of teaching them to do something with an alternate coding language and giving them instant feedback. Later, when they want to do something more interesting like working with script, this won't be as useful. But hopefully by that time they won't be as frightened about working with code.
TW
None of them actually do ticket or piracy checks whilst a movie is being shown. Night-vision goggles aren't going to help much.
Especially if they're copying the movie themselves during late-night private screenings.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US movie ushers are teen-age kids. They're far more enamoured with getting steet-cred for getting a clean copy of a popular film then they would be with making their boss look good by catching pirates.
If the studios want security guards, they'd be better served by hiring security guards.
TW
It used to take a lot of tech knowledge to even operate a personal computer so the people that used them were, by definition, tech savy.
But in order to sell more computers the hardware and software manufactureres have perpetuated the myth that "computers are easy." The truth: operating computers is very easy, but maintaining them is still very difficult. Now the average user is not tech savy, but they have a machine that only tech savy people can maintain.
TW
And what about autonomy? I expect an apliance that is in the category of "robot" to be able to take a pile of clothes and end up with a bunch of shirts on hangers. After setup, Roomba needs little assistance to get the job done where this device needs an operator for every shirt.
If this is a robot, then so is my dishwasher, clothes washing machine and even my blender.
TW
Plus it solves three of the biggest problems with teaching programming:
you get instant results.
debugging is very visual and very easy.
the results of your "programming" can look really cool thus making the "programming" itself seam cool. (big problem with most "hello world" type programs.)
As you go on to more advanced concepts these advantages go away to some extent, but hopefully by then the student will be in more of a position to not need these advantages.
TW
I was in the US Army in West Germany in '85 guarding the East German border. Some German friends brought over Risk and we played a little. They explained to us that due to sensitivity about their Nazi past, in German Risk you don't 'conquer' the world, you 'liberate' it. My friends at the time indicated that this was a matter of German law, but I don't know if that was true or not. At the time I thought it was funny, but now I don't think I'd find such a law to be very funny anymore.
TW
Actually, this kind of proves my point. Debbie Gibson and Tiffany were nearly twenty years ago. We hear pleny of music from that era, but not much of them. The same thing will happen to our era. The less good bands will sort of disapear, never to be heard from again, but the 'oldies' station will play the real cool tunes from our era and we'll longingly wish for 'the days when music was good.'
Remember, our era produced N'sync but it also produced Outkast and System of a Down. You may look back at the Doors and smile, but how many bands got to #20 on the charts in '67 that are the equivilant to Gibson? Just because you don't hear about them now doesn't mean they weren't there at the time.
But, and this is important, Debbie and Tiffany weren't that bad as far as pop is concerned. They weren't great or inovative, but people liked listening to their music. Groups and individuals just like them have appeared in every era playing reliable, dancable music that was fun if not particularly remarkable.
Pop, by definition, is mainstream music. Mainstream stuff usually includes some filet mingnon and some hamburger. Twenty years from now you'll remember those good meals you had and you'll have forgotten all of your trips to McDonalds. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking food was so much better 'back in the day' just because you can't remember how mediocre most of it really was.
TW
No, the music doesn't have to be good, but that's not new. The reason most people think older music was so much better is because they don't reminise over the old stuff that happend to be crap. In 20 years, when people are playing 'oldies from the dawn of the 21st century' they'll only be playing the cream of this era and our musicians will look like geniuses too.
Furthermore, a lot of the musicians that are used as examples of how crappy this era is aren't really as crappy as people make them out to be. I think a lot of people confuse "I don't like it" with "it's crap". They're not the same thing. Pop music has never been about high art, it's about having catchy tunes that young people like to listen to and dance to. The BackStreet Boys actually deliver on that. I'm no great fan of them, but I know their music is catchy and a lot of 14 year-old girls genuinly liked the sound. That just make them "not my taste" rather than "the death of good music."
TW
You are so right. You get to be in the exclusive club with the exclusive games. But that's all you get. The club. All the hardware and software is basically PC hardware and software.
How much are you willing to pay to be in that club? The answer is probably "a lot" but I, personally, can't help but feel ripped off. It feels too much like my girlfriend got a side job as a hooker and started charging me for sex. yep, I know I won't get it unless I pay, but wasn't I getting it for free just last week?
TW
If it's a full PC, then how are you getting extra value by it being a "console" too?
Can you play high quality games on a PC? check
Can you use console-like controllers on a PC? check
The only value added is on Microsoft's side. They just got you to:
a. buy a PC from them
b. buy a copy of Windows from them
c. buy a "console" from them when their cost was close to zero after you already bought all the PC components.
d. buy games that give them licensing fees instead of standard PC games that give them no licensing fees
and you get nothing extra except the "privelage" of being in their special club of games that use PC technology but are not legaly able to be released for PC purchase without MS signing off on it.
This is insane. I'd offer to sell you the Brooklyn bridge but it seems MS has beat me to it.
TW
Like the Camera phone itself, this is a solution to a problem I never knew existed.
This kind of statement about the lack of a use for a camera phone tends to tell me something about the person that says it.
1. They're not very creative. I use a camera-phone all the time for stuff I'd never use a camera for. For example, I take pictures of sales displays to compare the product on the internet when I get home and I take pictures of the sign that reminds me where I parked my car at the airport. Instant notes with no effort. I also have a cool game that lets me move around by moving my phone around. If you were more creative, you would have thought of a few more uses too.
2. They're not very spontaneous. I take pictures of my friends, family and important events far more often than I ever would if I had to carry around a full-size camera all the time. If you were interested in this kind of spontaneity then I'm sure you would see the use of a camera phone.
3. They're self-centered. People who don't want a camera phone personally, and seem to be dumbfounded by those that do, tend to be some of the most self-centered people I know. Lots of people have camera phones and lots of people like them. You may not desire or need one, but are you able to learn from and empathize with those that do? If you were interested in the thoughts and feelings of the people around you, you might have asked one of them why they bought a camera phone and realize that not everyone has the same needs and desires that you do.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to slam you here. I'm just reporting my personal observations of people who've talked like you have about these devices. Camera phones are interesting because they're very popular, but there's a significant backlash. That backlash crowd, in my opinion, is really more alike than most people realize.
TW
Your sig link is cool. I hope you get some Classic Coke in the house soon and I'll look out for the Brain Wash.
TW
I don't know how big the first glass was, but I use a 15oz. tumbler these days. You can adjust the ratio to suit your taste. Some days I use more Coke and some days I use less. A lot of times I cheap out and just use regular coffee, but if you can remember to do the coffee ice cubes in advance it really makes a big difference. This is a fun drink to play with.
Cheers,
TW
My only barter experience was in the early-mid nineties when people were just starting to talk abouut cyber-cafe's. A friend called me late one night saying the proprieter of the local coffee house was haveing a problem with his computer getting connected to AOL. I came by and fixed the problem and he said I could have anything on the menu.
This is were it got good. I asked him what he would recommend, not becaus I didn't understand what a latte was but because the proprieter always knows what he does best. He suggested I try a Turbo Cola. I said, "huh?"
Here's ther recipie:
3-4 ice cubes of frozen, high quality coffee.
2 shots of espresso
Fill the rest with Coke.
This turned out to be my all time favorite coffee drink. The creamy head is equal or superior to Guiness, the flavor is perfect and I've never gotten a better rev.
The monetary value of this barter is nothing to get excited about, but the store went out of business a short time after this event and I know I'm one of only a select few that got a crack at one of these drinks. I make if for myself fairly often and know that this recipe is worth far more than the drink itself. If you've never tried a coffee-cola give this recipe a try. Every person who tries one of these and loves it just increases the value of that one, simple job I did.
TW
Computer life: Virus - Reproduces and propogates. It's illegal to infect others knowingly, but legal to become infected.
Agraculterual life: GM food - Reproduces and propogates. It's legal to infect others and illegale to become infected.
Big problem here. If the same rules applied to computer life as GM food then I could copywrite a virus and charge my victims... er, customers who become infected. I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams. This needs to be fixed.
TW
EpI title: cryptic and misleading. I was initially thrilled by the combination of horror and Sci-Fi genres, but was ultimately disappointed when no ghost appeared.
EpII tile: just plain misleading. Who's side were those clones on anyway? And who did they attack? Did they really attack or defend? Maybe "Mystery of the Clones" would have been more accurate and then I could have gotten excited about the combination of Sci-Fi and thriller genres. But I kept waiting for the evil clones to attack and was ultimately disappointed when they were on our side (or were they!).
Ep III: even more misleading. Is this a documentary about racists in a galaxy far, far away? I am as excited as ever about the combination of Sci-Fi and racist documentary genre's but I ultimately feel I will be disappointed when there are no thrilling chases with KKK people on horses. Why, oh, why does Lucas taunt me like this.
What does it take to get common carrier status? I sure ain't no lawyer (ISANL) but I'd have a hard time believing that the size of your "customer" base makes a difference.
If he's responsible for the conduct of the people using his traffic then every free community wireless access service should be very afraid. Yet they appear to be thriving.
TW
...but if I supplied the gun I suspect I would serve some time.
When an internet pipe is considered a dangerous weapon we will all morn. This is exactly the same argument the RIAA is using to try to ban P2P services, but saner minds have so far prevailed.
TW