You've hit on something that's bothered me forever.
I remember as a kid, seeing ads for new albums on TV, and they'd show the music video. My first few album purchases were disappointments - there was no video, just sound! [Hey, I was a little kid:-]
Now, 20 years later (give or take a decade) you still see videos in ads, but you don't get the videos.
Of course, the RIAA will never let this happen.
Never.
Too bad. I'd spend $5,000 to rebuild my collection.
N.B. I did buy an Iron Maiden CD-ROM that had Flight of Icarus and Run to the Hills videos on the disc. This is the only one I've ever seen - and it was a surprise (a very pleasant one, the videos were MPG files!).
N.B. 2 - Note, I just checked bn.com and they have Iron Maiden CD's - but they're all releases from March 26, 2002. And they are all "CD-enhanced". Caveat Emptor.
I don't think I'll be buying CD-ROMs from any business, anymore...ever (you reading this, RIAA? I'm no kid. I have a Master's degree, I have a wife and kids, and guess what I'll be teaching those kids????).
Bret writes for New Architect (nee Web Techniques), very well done mag for which I continue to pay...
You can reach him at bret@lextext.com, according to links at New Architect Magazine on-line.
Or check out his list of articles there by searching for his last name. He's articulate - and makes sense - I am not a lawyer, so this is in no way a defense of that profession:-)
You may not get a personal reply, but I'll bet he's looking for sticky legal issues such as this for his column!
I think this should be treated the same as any invitation to submit questions to an interviewee.
MS, in this case.
It's disappointing to see the flamage herein. Yep, Slashdot may be homogenizing, as some have asserted - becoming bland, grey, doubleplusungood sameness in all directions. Personified by Prolific Puking Proselytizing Punks!?!
Yet ---- on the flip side, there are too many superficial questions asked, which by their phrasing or their supposed "subtlety" or "indirection" will somehow be "sprung" upon the erstwhile MS drones standing under the bright lights.
Sigh.
This is a very rare opportunity, if indeed someone will represent "our" interests at this forum (and assuming the chance to speak).
We should be asking all the questions that have come up before, but that have not yet been answered: in
Salon by Bruce Perens ('Perens is convinced that Palladium will let Microsoft decide which applications can run on a machine and which are simply too unsafe for public consumption -- such as programs written by open-source hackers. Perens even thinks that's the point of Palladium: "It's designed to kill off open-source development."')
and in
Dan Gillmor ("Microsoft has launched its Palladium initiative, a hardware-software system designed to make computing more secure from viruses and malevolent hackers. Palladium, unfortunately, could also be used by intellectual-property owners to lock down copyrighted materials in ways that would damage users' rights. Critics have also suggested that Palladium could be used to freeze out open source software -- and they make a compelling case.")
A few example questions:
What special considerations will be given to corporations whose desktop computers may not have live access to "verification" servers or other real-time "authorization" mechanisms?
What will prevent the "considerations" given to corporations from being subverted for use by non-corporate users?
From Robert Cringely (here): "Under Palladium as I understand it, the Internet goes from being ours to being theirs. The very data on your hard drive ceases to be yours because it could self-destruct at any time. We'll end up paying rent to use our own data!"
What is Microsoft's response to Cringely's allegation that data will no longer be "permanently readable" - a characteristic of computing that is taken for granted today?
DIDW: Because Palladium will have an installed public/private key for at least bootstrap purposes... Juarez: Which is never revealed to anybody, including you. DIDW: But it raises the questions, all the old Clipper Chip issues, of will the government pressure you for key escrow and things like that? Juarez: We are talking to the government now, and maybe this is where we get some advantage from having a broad industry initiative. Our fundamental goal is "let's do the right thing." We have pretty strong feelings about what the right thing is on terms of making sure that things are truly anonymous and that key escrow kinds of things don't happen. But there ARE governments in the world, and not just the U.S. Government.
What are Microsoft's present commitments to governments regarding key escrow? U.S.? England? France? Germany? Afghanistan? Iraq/Iran?
From InternetNews.com: "The big question from everyone is," says Elias Levy, a computer-security expert and CTO of Security Focus, "who is going to have control - is it going to be in the hands of the user or Microsoft?"
From InternetNews.com: "But by integrating Palladium with its Windows operating system (OS), Microsoft is taking another strike at Linux users. Juarez won't rule out Palladium ever being available for alternative operating systems, but it won't be initially."
What is Microsoft's position today on this issue?
As noted in BSDVault, a patch to MS Media Player to address security bulletin MS02-032 includes the following EULA language:
* Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
Is this DRM part of (or related to) Palladium? In any event, what recourse will users have when (if) their existing software ceases to function as a result of these new "features"?
Search Google, read all the material, find the unanswered questions - and it won't matter that Microsoft sees this slashdot thread. Ask the questions that MS knows about, but has not been able or willing to answer...
I only have half a dozen stories in my life that are that good, and I'm happy to tell anyone, anywhere, any of those stories - even if they've heard it before:-)
This is as on-topic, and as funny, as any post could be - the story was about a Beemer!
It should have been at least a 4.
That was a great story:-)
I'm still smiling, thinking about moving that fast - I've done it, but a '69 Chevy Malibu was pure horse, no power windows (or power brakes or power steering or...).
Oh, I agree. The reason I mentioned file formats with Acrobat (and some others) is because by simply not publishing the file format, Adobe could essentially have the same effect as implementing Palladium support. I doubt PDF would have been reverse-engineered if Adobe really didn't want it to be done. This would put everyone in the situation of having only Acrobat Reader being able to read Acrobat-generated files. Using Palladium (or any other system -- such as convoluted file formats) to ensure that their software is the only piece of software that can read the file format is unlikely to be in their cards, for said reason.
Good point. The 'widely-used file formats' thing is breaking down for me now:-)
There have been attempts in the past to produce widely used file formats that only the software from a single vendor could read. With the sole exception of Office's.doc, they haven't caught on very well. The typical user, I would say, uses html, gif, jpg, png, doc, and txt.
And here, we must leave our well-trodden path and make the mental leap to companies other than those who wish to establish "widely-used file formats". Software that's "pirated" widely (and I can't honestly describe a single one, I don't subscribe to warez (pun intended), I pay for all my software) provides strong motivation for a company to screw the lid on tightly. They will tell themselves that either a) the users will pay because that's the only option left open to them, or b) the users won't pay, and would not have paid in any event, but now they can *predict* to some degree the increased demand for their product due to the "lockdown".
Those companies may not care about file formats or of encrypting data, either. They may simply depend upon the "nexus" to allow^H^H^H^H^H^H enable their software to run.
Such software will not run on a non-TCPA computer (and may not run on a non-Palladium computer, I'm not as sure of this latter statement though...).
In the end, either the realists like myself will be unhappy to have had such amazing foresight, or pragmatists who point to markers used on CD-ROMs, and to DECSS, will have the good fortune of insufferable smugness. The only group with which I'm in serious conflict are the optimists, who seem to think a non-TCPA-enabled platform (e.g., Linux) is going to run trouble-free on a TCPA-enabled hardware platform *and* that a non-TCPA-enabled platform (e.g., Linux) will interoperate with TCPA/Palladium-based Internet services (streaming content, on-line games, even news feeds...).
"I see...a bad moon a-risin'!"
"I see...trouble...on the way!"
Adobe put out an open PDF specification for a reason. They're interested in keeping PDF a standard and selling the best PDF tools out there, not in trying to milk it for short term value and then kill it.
Thanks for replying [your words read like you think before you type, which is rarer and rarer on/.] Let me try again, before I call it a night:-)
The problem is not file formats. The problem is that a software + hardware solution is going to make it "infeasible" to in any way access even a text file unless your software has the privilege --- which may only be granted by hardware.
So, the text format needn't be changed, not one iota. But, if that text document is "encrypted", and only another program with the same cryptographic capabilities can read that text file, then VIM won't help (and neither will Emacs before anyone says it:-)
The presence of cryptographic hardware makes the problem difficult enough, but the assumed requirement that 'live' access to an internet 'service' to prove "digital rights" means you may not be able to circumvent it. This is what so many fear - myself among them.
That's why I said don't focus on Adobe. Anyone can lock down any software. DEC's "Millicent" e-cash payment system may just make a comeback when Acrobat Reader "registers" the fact every time you open a PDF document that's copyrighted, as now the missing piece --- accountability, or "accounting" if you like --- is in place. It may only cost $0.0015 (yes, that's 15-hundredths of a cent) to view the material, but that will add up fast for companies. Strong incentive to move to this model. Too bloody strong:-/
Sorry for going O/T. I'll check back tomorrow. C Ya:-)
[I've told my family that if three of them buy Macs, I'll buy one and "support them". I'm just finishing a house, and it's got Ethernet Everywhere (TM), so I'm going to be getting several new computers anyway...I really like MacOS X (Jaguar) and I can't wait to get my hands on it! No way I'm gettingt XP, so Mac looks damned attractive lately.]
Adobe is pushing Acrobat as a Web standardd, and has been for years. They make money by making the best, not the only, PDF software out there. They have no interest whatsoever in trying to keep people from using PDF at all.
This isn't MS we're talking about. Slashdot and Adobe have had differences before, but Adobe has a solid reputation for making good (if expensive) products and beating their competition on merit.
Ahem. See the bigger picture. He's not ranting at Adobe. He's talking about any software maker.
But, let's keep using Adobe as an example.
If Adobe Acrobat (full package, not reader) creates PDF's, and the Acrobat Reader is the only reader that will process them. I use FreePDF to create PDF's, now no one on win32 using Acrobat Reader can read them. I can say "get GSView and Aladdin Ghostscript." but have you used it? It's not pretty. It barfs on some PDF's, and the interface is just plain bad.
Pick any software. The more ubiquitous, the larger the impact. But, big or small, it will change the way things are done. Orwell's Eloi will finally come into being, but it won't be "machinery underground" that drwaws the line between them and "us", the Morlocks, it'll be what's "under" the covers of the computers we use.
Look, the *software* will be open source - the hardware will not. You can't (on paper) snooop the memory bus, you can't examine protected memory, you can't "get" the key as they'll use something akin to DH key exchange to set up program execution - which means the key will never be "exposed".
Do you honestly think they are not anticipating bush-league moves like "Hey! I'll write my own Nexus!" or "I'll be my own Trusted Operating Root! And I'll make it Open Source! BSD License! Yeah, that's it!"
Sorry, but MS isn't the evildoer here. MS is the medium, the vehicle.
This is the MPAA, and the RIAA. They 'reached' MS and Intel and AMD and...
MS will take advantage of this; of that there is no doubt. Every vendor will jump on the bandwagon, as software piracy is a thing of the past once HW+SW DRM arrives and becomes mainstream. What vendor would turn away from the chance to either eliminate piracy of their software or to bring in additional revenue from those who would take it, and who cannot do without product ABC?
>...making a Linux version with support for Palladium?
You need to do some research into Palladium and TCPA. Linux can't be "palladium-enabled". Every time you compile any source you'd need to get it signed. Guess who's going to sign code? Think for a moment...now assume an incremental cost for every "code signing". What open-source project is going to have a budget, large or small?
I *do* read EULA's, unless re-installing from the same package --- and furthermore, I nearly always save off a copy (text, or image if the dern thing won't let me copy from its dialog box!)if it's "notable". I've also been interested in EULA's (or "licenses"), especially where the vendor mentions changing it, and posting it to a web site, without notifying users. I simply have never gone back and compared such:-/
I'll try to find time this week to scan my hard drives for all 'license' and 'EULA' files. I have files dating waaay back to windoze 3.x when these things first started popping up. Question is, did they ever get "retired"???
This is a good idea, if done right it's a great idea. If it turns out to be "bitten off more than could be chewed" then perhaps it'll inspire someone else.
You know, Dr., I read every word, and I received your message in most cases. I think you actually enjoy presenting yourself this way (at least some of the time).
Yet, those middle-of-the-bell-curve respondents who spoke of your indirection so often and with such vitriol, were right in one regard --- you did not answer some of the questions. Many, such as I, expected more. Think of this as part of your legacy, for computers never forget.
I don't see/. every day, I actually have to work for a living:-) so I missed the chance to submit questions - but I wonder what you'd think of Heinlein's Mycroft Holmes? If discrete digital (binary/trinary/etc) electronics cannot simulate (or *duplicate*) nondeterministic behaviour given the same input in different instances, then how could a machine be "intelligent"? Number of transistors, or other componentry, as Heinlein so simply suggests (but I *loved* that book, BTW - I cried at the end, the first and last time that has happened - haunted me for days...)? When does "intelligence" become recognized as such?
Trying to define intelligent would only be side-stepping (and even starting on Chomsky and semantics means we'll likely never return to the main topic). Even when 1 million monkeys can come up with a sonnet, and a quadrillion-hertz computer can have a data base of 1 TB of all human languages, it still will be unable to answer the question "which do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla?" The romantic in me wants Heinlein to be right. The pragmatic computer professional (hah! you say) in me believes otherwise.
And, of course, I'm employing a bit of indirection myself, here. Take the bait or not, I really think you're reading this (your reading this?).
And it wasn't Alice answering those questions.
Perhaps it was you pretending to be Alice pretending to be you pretending...:-)
A bit clinical, but even not knowing you (aside from immediate credebility as/. user:-) that's an excellent description you've given - funny when I read it that it's a profile of a movie disney would never look twice at (not enough violence, prurience, etc etc).
In short, my wife & I are ok with taking the kids tomorrow - and so *we* get to see it tomorrow. Whee! (more excited than the kids, who don't know Spider-Man from Butkus 8^)
Thanks
Come on - someone who's seen it, can't you post an answer?
I have three kids who occasionally manage to see something they shouldn't.
Yes, disney owns our video collection, like so many others, and seeing 'the beast' confront a pack of wolves (to mention one instance of violence out of *thousands*) is questionable, but that's a cartoon. We use a different yardstick when it comes to "realies".
How does this compare to Episode I? To The Deer Hunter? Taxi Driver?
We'll have a chance to see it this weekend in our small town if I can get some reassurance(s), else we must wait for Siskel & (whats-his-name, with dashes) on Sunday night to talk about it:-/
Slashdot Mirror
You've hit on something that's bothered me forever.
I remember as a kid, seeing ads for new albums on TV, and they'd show the music video. My first few album purchases were disappointments - there was no video, just sound! [Hey, I was a little kid :-]
Now, 20 years later (give or take a decade) you still see videos in ads, but you don't get the videos.
Of course, the RIAA will never let this happen.
Never.
Too bad. I'd spend $5,000 to rebuild my collection.
N.B. I did buy an Iron Maiden CD-ROM that had Flight of Icarus and Run to the Hills videos on the disc. This is the only one I've ever seen - and it was a surprise (a very pleasant one, the videos were MPG files!).
N.B. 2 - Note, I just checked bn.com and they have Iron Maiden CD's - but they're all releases from March 26, 2002. And they are all "CD-enhanced". Caveat Emptor.
I don't think I'll be buying CD-ROMs from any business, anymore...ever (you reading this, RIAA? I'm no kid. I have a Master's degree, I have a wife and kids, and guess what I'll be teaching those kids????).
RIAA = Recidivists Insistently Abhorring Anarchy
Bret writes for New Architect (nee Web Techniques), very well done mag for which I continue to pay...
You can reach him at bret@lextext.com, according to links at New Architect Magazine on-line.
Or check out his list of articles there by searching for his last name. He's articulate - and makes sense - I am not a lawyer, so this is in no way a defense of that profession :-)
You may not get a personal reply, but I'll bet he's looking for sticky legal issues such as this for his column!
I think this should be treated the same as any invitation to submit questions to an interviewee.
MS, in this case.
It's disappointing to see the flamage herein. Yep, Slashdot may be homogenizing, as some have asserted - becoming bland, grey, doubleplusungood sameness in all directions. Personified by Prolific Puking Proselytizing Punks!?!
Yet ---- on the flip side, there are too many superficial questions asked, which by their phrasing or their supposed "subtlety" or "indirection" will somehow be "sprung" upon the erstwhile MS drones standing under the bright lights.
Sigh.
This is a very rare opportunity, if indeed someone will represent "our" interests at this forum (and assuming the chance to speak).
We should be asking all the questions that have come up before, but that have not yet been answered: in Salon by Bruce Perens ('Perens is convinced that Palladium will let Microsoft decide which applications can run on a machine and which are simply too unsafe for public consumption -- such as programs written by open-source hackers. Perens even thinks that's the point of Palladium: "It's designed to kill off open-source development."') and in Dan Gillmor ("Microsoft has launched its Palladium initiative, a hardware-software system designed to make computing more secure from viruses and malevolent hackers. Palladium, unfortunately, could also be used by intellectual-property owners to lock down copyrighted materials in ways that would damage users' rights. Critics have also suggested that Palladium could be used to freeze out open source software -- and they make a compelling case.")
A few example questions:
What is Microsoft's response to Cringely's allegation that data will no longer be "permanently readable" - a characteristic of computing that is taken for granted today?
What is Microsoft's position today on this issue?
Is this DRM part of (or related to) Palladium? In any event, what recourse will users have when (if) their existing software ceases to function as a result of these new "features"?
Search Google, read all the material, find the unanswered questions - and it won't matter that Microsoft sees this slashdot thread. Ask the questions that MS knows about, but has not been able or willing to answer...
Ahem. Too late.
See Mergers&Acquisitions - December, 1999.
The takeover was official on 12/21/1999, and I let my free Thawte private Cert lapse immediately thereafter :-(
I'll second that. Every search I get, I have to wonder what year the results are from...!
Sometimes you can figure it out. Sometimes it doesn't matter (the search result is useful "in any case"). And...sometimes it's not worth trying :-)
Sheesh, that was modded at "2"?
I only have half a dozen stories in my life that are that good, and I'm happy to tell anyone, anywhere, any of those stories - even if they've heard it before :-)
This is as on-topic, and as funny, as any post could be - the story was about a Beemer!
It should have been at least a 4.
That was a great story :-)
I'm still smiling, thinking about moving that fast - I've done it, but a '69 Chevy Malibu was pure horse, no power windows (or power brakes or power steering or ...).
Oh, I agree. The reason I mentioned file formats with Acrobat (and some others) is because by simply not publishing the file format, Adobe could essentially have the same effect as implementing Palladium support. I doubt PDF would have been reverse-engineered if Adobe really didn't want it to be done. This would put everyone in the situation of having only Acrobat Reader being able to read Acrobat-generated files. Using Palladium (or any other system -- such as convoluted file formats) to ensure that their software is the only piece of software that can read the file format is unlikely to be in their cards, for said reason.
Good point. The 'widely-used file formats' thing is breaking down for me now :-)
There have been attempts in the past to produce widely used file formats that only the software from a single vendor could read. With the sole exception of Office's .doc, they haven't caught on very well. The typical user, I would say, uses html, gif, jpg, png, doc, and txt.
And here, we must leave our well-trodden path and make the mental leap to companies other than those who wish to establish "widely-used file formats". Software that's "pirated" widely (and I can't honestly describe a single one, I don't subscribe to warez (pun intended), I pay for all my software) provides strong motivation for a company to screw the lid on tightly. They will tell themselves that either a) the users will pay because that's the only option left open to them, or b) the users won't pay, and would not have paid in any event, but now they can *predict* to some degree the increased demand for their product due to the "lockdown".
Those companies may not care about file formats or of encrypting data, either. They may simply depend upon the "nexus" to allow^H^H^H^H^H^H enable their software to run.
Such software will not run on a non-TCPA computer (and may not run on a non-Palladium computer, I'm not as sure of this latter statement though...).
In the end, either the realists like myself will be unhappy to have had such amazing foresight, or pragmatists who point to markers used on CD-ROMs, and to DECSS, will have the good fortune of insufferable smugness. The only group with which I'm in serious conflict are the optimists, who seem to think a non-TCPA-enabled platform (e.g., Linux) is going to run trouble-free on a TCPA-enabled hardware platform *and* that a non-TCPA-enabled platform (e.g., Linux) will interoperate with TCPA/Palladium-based Internet services (streaming content, on-line games, even news feeds...).
"I see...a bad moon a-risin'!" "I see...trouble...on the way!"
Nice talkin' atcha.
Ooops :-)
You're right, of course! H.G. Wells, not Orwell -----
Thanks for replying [your words read like you think before you type, which is rarer and rarer on /.] Let me try again, before I call it a night :-)
The problem is not file formats. The problem is that a software + hardware solution is going to make it "infeasible" to in any way access even a text file unless your software has the privilege --- which may only be granted by hardware.
So, the text format needn't be changed, not one iota. But, if that text document is "encrypted", and only another program with the same cryptographic capabilities can read that text file, then VIM won't help (and neither will Emacs before anyone says it :-)
The presence of cryptographic hardware makes the problem difficult enough, but the assumed requirement that 'live' access to an internet 'service' to prove "digital rights" means you may not be able to circumvent it. This is what so many fear - myself among them.
That's why I said don't focus on Adobe. Anyone can lock down any software. DEC's "Millicent" e-cash payment system may just make a comeback when Acrobat Reader "registers" the fact every time you open a PDF document that's copyrighted, as now the missing piece --- accountability, or "accounting" if you like --- is in place. It may only cost $0.0015 (yes, that's 15-hundredths of a cent) to view the material, but that will add up fast for companies. Strong incentive to move to this model. Too bloody strong :-/
Sorry for going O/T. I'll check back tomorrow. C Ya :-)
[I've told my family that if three of them buy Macs, I'll buy one and "support them". I'm just finishing a house, and it's got Ethernet Everywhere (TM), so I'm going to be getting several new computers anyway...I really like MacOS X (Jaguar) and I can't wait to get my hands on it! No way I'm gettingt XP, so Mac looks damned attractive lately.]
This isn't MS we're talking about. Slashdot and Adobe have had differences before, but Adobe has a solid reputation for making good (if expensive) products and beating their competition on merit.
Ahem. See the bigger picture. He's not ranting at Adobe. He's talking about any software maker.
But, let's keep using Adobe as an example.
If Adobe Acrobat (full package, not reader) creates PDF's, and the Acrobat Reader is the only reader that will process them. I use FreePDF to create PDF's, now no one on win32 using Acrobat Reader can read them. I can say "get GSView and Aladdin Ghostscript." but have you used it? It's not pretty. It barfs on some PDF's, and the interface is just plain bad.
Pick any software. The more ubiquitous, the larger the impact. But, big or small, it will change the way things are done. Orwell's Eloi will finally come into being, but it won't be "machinery underground" that drwaws the line between them and "us", the Morlocks, it'll be what's "under" the covers of the computers we use.
Do you honestly think they are not anticipating bush-league moves like "Hey! I'll write my own Nexus!" or "I'll be my own Trusted Operating Root! And I'll make it Open Source! BSD License! Yeah, that's it!"
Sorry. It won't be that easy.
This is the MPAA, and the RIAA. They 'reached' MS and Intel and AMD and...
MS will take advantage of this; of that there is no doubt. Every vendor will jump on the bandwagon, as software piracy is a thing of the past once HW+SW DRM arrives and becomes mainstream. What vendor would turn away from the chance to either eliminate piracy of their software or to bring in additional revenue from those who would take it, and who cannot do without product ABC?
That's 1.5M, out of a global market of 100M or more.
"sensitivity" is a relative term.
You can't stop it. You can already buy an IBM laptop with TCPA and Palladium. And, Intel's not jumping on board, they're the train engineers.
How ironic.
See Palladium - Greek Mythology
You need to do some research into Palladium and TCPA. Linux can't be "palladium-enabled". Every time you compile any source you'd need to get it signed. Guess who's going to sign code? Think for a moment...now assume an incremental cost for every "code signing". What open-source project is going to have a budget, large or small?
I'll try to find time this week to scan my hard drives for all 'license' and 'EULA' files. I have files dating waaay back to windoze 3.x when these things first started popping up. Question is, did they ever get "retired"???
This is a good idea, if done right it's a great idea. If it turns out to be "bitten off more than could be chewed" then perhaps it'll inspire someone else.
Yet, those middle-of-the-bell-curve respondents who spoke of your indirection so often and with such vitriol, were right in one regard --- you did not answer some of the questions. Many, such as I, expected more. Think of this as part of your legacy, for computers never forget.
I don't see /. every day, I actually have to work for a living :-) so I missed the chance to submit questions - but I wonder what you'd think of Heinlein's Mycroft Holmes? If discrete digital (binary/trinary/etc) electronics cannot simulate (or *duplicate*) nondeterministic behaviour given the same input in different instances, then how could a machine be "intelligent"? Number of transistors, or other componentry, as Heinlein so simply suggests (but I *loved* that book, BTW - I cried at the end, the first and last time that has happened - haunted me for days...)? When does "intelligence" become recognized as such?
Trying to define intelligent would only be side-stepping (and even starting on Chomsky and semantics means we'll likely never return to the main topic). Even when 1 million monkeys can come up with a sonnet, and a quadrillion-hertz computer can have a data base of 1 TB of all human languages, it still will be unable to answer the question "which do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla?" The romantic in me wants Heinlein to be right. The pragmatic computer professional (hah! you say) in me believes otherwise.
And, of course, I'm employing a bit of indirection myself, here. Take the bait or not, I really think you're reading this (your reading this?).
And it wasn't Alice answering those questions.
Perhaps it was you pretending to be Alice pretending to be you pretending... :-)
With utmost respect - /b
In short, my wife & I are ok with taking the kids tomorrow - and so *we* get to see it tomorrow. Whee! (more excited than the kids, who don't know Spider-Man from Butkus 8^) Thanks
Come on - someone who's seen it, can't you post an answer?
:-/
I have three kids who occasionally manage to see something they shouldn't.
Yes, disney owns our video collection, like so many others, and seeing 'the beast' confront a pack of wolves (to mention one instance of violence out of *thousands*) is questionable, but that's a cartoon. We use a different yardstick when it comes to "realies".
How does this compare to Episode I? To The Deer Hunter? Taxi Driver?
We'll have a chance to see it this weekend in our small town if I can get some reassurance(s), else we must wait for Siskel & (whats-his-name, with dashes) on Sunday night to talk about it
TIA -