the more and more history i learn, the less i trust everyone. after hearing about The Technology Gap (the bleeding-heart term for computer haves/have nots), I stumbled across something called The Space Gap, which was the argument in the 60's for the Moon landing. If we don't land on the Moon first, the Russians will, and then they'll set up bases and a space army and take over the universe, etc.
special interest groups have been using 'Gap's and 'Hole's and assorted other capitalized terms as their rallying cry for all eternity and so far I have yet to hear of one that was 1/10th as important as they were made out to be.
i'm not telling anyone what to think, but I am personally very skeptical of this kind of argument
Once an artist releases a work, it becomes a much a property of the audience as of the artist. If he has the legal right to change it later (say, after it has become wildly popular?), and he does so, that is of course his business. But he shouldn't be surprised if the audience does not accept the revised work, nor if the audience villfies him for so doing.
Just look at Da Vinci's attempts at the hardcore-bondage-styled Mona Lisa 2.0... it was a hit with the younger crowd but the older folks didn't care much for it.
Slashdot Mirror
imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! :-P
the more and more history i learn, the less i trust everyone. after hearing about The Technology Gap (the bleeding-heart term for computer haves/have nots), I stumbled across something called The Space Gap, which was the argument in the 60's for the Moon landing. If we don't land on the Moon first, the Russians will, and then they'll set up bases and a space army and take over the universe, etc.
special interest groups have been using 'Gap's and 'Hole's and assorted other capitalized terms as their rallying cry for all eternity and so far I have yet to hear of one that was 1/10th as important as they were made out to be.
i'm not telling anyone what to think, but I am personally very skeptical of this kind of argument
there is no protection that can't be broken relatively easily
Once an artist releases a work, it becomes a much a property of the audience as of the artist. If he has the legal right to change it later (say, after it has become wildly popular?), and he does so, that is of course his business. But he shouldn't be surprised if the audience does not accept the revised work, nor if the audience villfies him for so doing. Just look at Da Vinci's attempts at the hardcore-bondage-styled Mona Lisa 2.0... it was a hit with the younger crowd but the older folks didn't care much for it.
the more lucas goes on the more he defiles star wars... i'm hanging onto my vhs copies of the original-originals... when will the insanity end?
n == nano, p == pico, look em up
if there is a market for them, someone will figure out how to produce alot of them.