>> Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?
Because they sucked. How much more precise can I be? You want me to list scene/chapter/verse? Why isn't the perception of overall suckiness enough for me to say that it was a horrible experience to watch the new "trilogy"?
When The Matrix sequels came out, I had a hard time arguing with at least one fan-boy at the office who kept telling me that if I didn't like them it was most likely because I just "didn't get them". As if there was some secret deeper meaning behind them of which only an enlighted selected few were aware. As if I am not smart enough or rational enough to be able to form a valid opinion on something by sheer perception and experience.
I liked the LotR movies a lot, but I accept the fact that there are people who found them slow, boring, and too distant from the original work to qualify as Tolkienesque. I can certainly see why, but more importantly, I respect their opinion.
Now respect mine (and all those others who have a negative view of SW movies): I believe that Episodes I, II, and III were horrible. I believe that Episode II was (slightly) better than the first, and that Episode III was still even better than the previous two, but in my eyes that still means that Lucas finally reached mere mediocrity from the depth of incompetency and horridness. On the other side of the token, I believe that the original Star Wars (what you would call Episode IV) was the best of the series, with a very good follow up in The Empire Strikes Back (that's Episode V for you kiddies). I don't really care much for Return Of The Jedi (Episode VI if you're not following).
>> but as everyone who communicates via a chat system knows, subtleties of communication are often lost when translated to line-by-line text
Right. That must be the reason why human interactions, relationships, and perhaps even the entire scope of civilization could never advance until emoticons were invented.
I have no such problems with iPhoto on my Macintosh OS X Panther... My wife was even setting up nice animated "albums" after a few hours of using her Mac for the first time.
-dZ.
-- War is peace. Equity is slavery. Credit is strength. For your convenience (TM).
You are correct, but I believe that the penalties suggested by Schnier and Schmidt are end-user lawsuits, which can be a very large expense on the corporations.
>> All that stuff is documented very well in the book undocumented windows, at least it was in its first incarnation.
So, if the undocumented features were documented in undocumented windows, are they now documented undocumented features of the undocumented windows document?
What a great piece of revisionist history, depicting early versions of Windows as major technological advancements in the industry. As I remember it, Microsoft was furiously trying to play catch up with other industry leaders of the time, while concentrating on acquiring a stranglehold of the PC market with its MS-DOS operating system. Windows was pure crap and barely functional -- certainly not up to par to other contemporaries, such as the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, and other GUI environments like VisiOn and DesQView -- until version 3.0 came along. And even that one was still behind with the times, but was finally a serious contender.
Bill Gates betting the company on Windows 1.0? Puhleez! It was a half-assed attempt just to be able to say "me too!" in the market place and steal the thunder being built up by Apple, while still focusing on DOS, which they view as their main cash-cow.
Instead of sending those gold disc with arbitrarily encoded data, we should just make one big post-card with one of those pictures. Of course, the caption should read "From the Big Blue Marble, 3rd rock from Sol -- Wish you were here!"
I'd bet we'll see an uptake in UFO sightings thereafter.
Because they are intrusive, obnoxious, and most of the time deceiving. Web ads in particular are very annoying.
2. And with what?
I use AdBlock/Flashblock in FireFox, what else?
3. Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
No. I view the advertising industry as a whole, not as a necessity as some people make it seem, but as a parasite, utilized as a cop-out when a business has no real way or reason to sustain itself by its own merits. Sure, sponsoring a product or service is not bad in itself, and I don't really mind an announcement or mention of a corporate sponsor here and there, such as PBS and NPR do. And you know what? it works: I tend to patronize those who support the shows I enjoy. But this is not what Advertising (tm) is in America anymore -- it is our culture of "Commercial Interruptions" and "Product Placements", designed to force-feed the consumer their stream of mindless drivel, in the guise of "content", that I feel so strongly against. For this, I primarily watch either DVDs or TV channels without commercial interruptions, especially those with old "classic" movies, such as TCM or Plex. Or, of course, read a book.
Note that this is primarily an American product. The rest of the world might be catching up, but they are still at a far enough distance. (I hear my German and Belgium friends complain of the 2 or 3 minute commercial breaks they get in the middle of their shows -- a single commercial break! and one that is "built-into" the show, i.e. the show was produced with a midway intermission -- we should be so lucky in America!).
Web ads, by interrupting the flow of text of an article -- and sometimes even interrupting your browsing experience -- and competing against the article itself for your attention, are moving towards the same end: Ads as content, where the latter is made to fit the former and not the other way around.
4. What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Exactly. I don't buy magazines any more because of the ads. I find the signal-to-noise ratio disturbing. I recently took a trip and forgot to bring a book, so I decided to buy a couple of magazines at the newstand in the airport. I barely could get through them -- I felt exhausted just trying to avoid so many ads! (On such occassions, I have a very vivid picture in my mind of my Grandfather, when I was 8 or 9 years old, perusing a Time Magazine, and annoyed, ripping out each ad-only page, cursing all the way. At the end, he was left with only a handful of pages to read. That day he called and cancelled his subscription. I must say that I understand exactly the frustration he felt.)
5. I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
I block pop-ups, banners, google-ads, superfluous flash ads, and all manners of advertising from web pages, wholesale. I have accrued a very comprehensive list of regular expressions that will block almost everything out there. When I first arrive at a strange site, its not uncommon for me to spend upwards to 15 minutes checking out the page source and attempting to train AdBlock to get rid of most of its extraneous content, particularly any javascript file that generates the banners, tracking cookies, etc. After I am comfortable with my surroundings, I will start concentrating on the content.
I want to point out that I have no qualms about paying for content. I pay for my software (even open source and free software!), and I pay to access certain sites which I deem worthy of my money. I am also subscribed to newspapers, postal newsletters, and magazines. But the biggest problem I have with paying for content online is the active tracking of your reading habits and the lack of anonymity. You see, once I pay for a newspaper, the company has no idea that I throw away the sports section, read the comics first, check out the finance se
I believe it was Frederick P. Brooks in his Mythical Man Month essay that says something about computer code being one of the very few human creations that, being governed by mathematics and other universal truths, can achieve perfection. However, he points out that humans themselves are not accustomed to perfection, since so few other activities require it. And so he compares the programmer to a poet, more than an artisan, whom creates real physical things (words or code on a medium) out of pure thought, and can be disciplined to attain this perfection by talent, skills, training, and experience.
Now, I grant that all this is a bit too idealistic for any commercial endeavor, but so did Brooks. He later points out in his essay that although this perfection is atteinable, it might not be practical or cost-effective, from a commercial standpoint, and so the commercial programmer must compromise between time-to-market pressures and error-free code by making sure the design itself is bullet-proof first, and utilizing his tools and skills, as well as those of his entire team, effectively.
I tend to agree with Mr. Brooks, and this is why I agree with the author of the BBC article. Perfect computer code is possible, perhaps not commercially practical, but certainly there is a much, much higher and closer standard that can be achieved than what we have right now, when every would-be computer scientist in college is brain-washed with mantras such as "bug-free code is _IMPOSSIBLE_", "there will _ALWAYS_ be bugs, so why bother", "just code it, we'll deal with defects after release". Many problems of current software are due not only to incompentence on the part of the programmers, but by lethargy or ineptitude on the part of the architects. But mostly by the drive to keep production costs low and profits high, in a disproportionate way.
I suppose this is human nature: the commoditization of art and technology. This is the same reason why we have wonderous works of engineering, that stand tall thousands of years after being built, along side with ready-made houses that crumble after a decade or two. Humans want cheap goods, and they are getting what they asked for. But nobody claims that a building or bridge that can survive at least a few centuries is "impossible" -- expensive, unsavory to stockholders, and challenging, perhaps; but very much possible. And this is the spirit of the article: that software is buggy because publishers are _cheap_; that we should endeavor to make software _better_, even if this means cost will be a bit higher; that we should stop spreading the myth that software, by its nature, is imperfect.
Although you make pretty good point (and in a very amusing way, too!), I think that the idea of the manufacturer is not to prevent piracy by disallowing multiple viewings, but by a two-pronged approach:
1. The introduction of a new format with a hook (i.e. "Disposable, For Your Convenience(tm)!"), which requires a change in player technology.
Thus enabling...
2. The introduction of a non-standard, more "secure" (read: restricted) DRM-enabled player.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft is patting itself in the back for coming up with this. You see, everybody before them (DIVX, EZ-DVD, etc.) was pre-occupied with making the discs work with existing technology. Not Microsoft!
"We convince people that they need this, and replace all those dartard, godless DVD players people currently own, which allow them to play their movies as they wish, at the same time. Brilliant!" -- says Mr. Ballmer, as a chair flies over the conference table.
Experience has shown that there is not much to like. And by experience, I'm not talking about some lab test or public poll, but actual market deployment of actual products. You see, this exact thing has been done before -- perhaps with different technologies, but the product was the same: Self-destructing DVDs -- and don't forget -- For Your Convenience (tm). Circuit City's DIVX, and the recent EZ-DVD (sp) products attest to the failure of self-destructing discs to capture interest. In the case of EZ-DVD, many convenience stores and small shops had to return their stock to the vendor because they just weren't being sold. And those were sold at about 2 to 5 US Dollars.
Another problem with self-destructing, limited-viewing video discs is the price. There is just not enough value to warrant a 1/3 of the actual purchase price, or the rough equivalent of a single rental. The technology itself has merit, and might eventually find a market, but I suspect that people will not pay more than a few cents for the discs, if at all. Perhaps they should be included in cereal boxes, or as promotional material (e.g. sent by post as a free incentive, along with your regular mortgage broker junk mail; distributed en masse a la AOL; or given away for "free" with your purchase of the Super-Duper-Extra-Mega-Uber-Large Pop-Corn Tub at the multiplex.)
Why do you think that regular video rental companies mention as an ad gimmick "no late fees" or "longer rental periods"? Hint: Its probably because people do not watch the video only once, or they like to have it around for a bit longer than its expected. Thus, companies like Netflix, whom have virtually abolished late fees and rental periods, attract lots of customers; offering customers the ability to watch the movies as many times as they want to, for as long as they want to, with no actual deadline or limit. Now that's real convenience.
I believe that any attempt to market this technology as a replacement of standard DVD discs will fall flat -- as it has done before.
If you read the article (pardon me, I meant TFA), you'll realize that that is precisely the notion which has been debunked. The reason is that, while it is true that there are other forms of entertainment out there, "going to the movies" is a sort of cultural tradition, which can't (and hasn't) been replaced so easily. The proof is that once in a while, along comes a movie which calls the attention of the public, and people *flock* to see it en masse. Case in point, the March Of The Penguins, and other recent best sellers at the box office, which have little to do with the Hollywood Move Machine (tm). Furthermore, this does not only occur with Good Movies, as you suggest; Hollywood has shown -- and this is part of the problem -- that with sufficient marketing *ANY* movie (be it good or bad or aweful!) will attract audiences in drones.
Thus, its not that movies are any worse than before, its that (most) people are finally getting tired of watching crappy movies, and yes, are looking at other forms of entertainment. But notice that most of those other forms of entertainment have always been there -- at least there has *always* been alternatives. The fact is that people have always preferred watching movies in the theater over many other forms of entertainment; and they still do (because its about more than just the movie; its a social activity, a family outing, etc.). So they are always looking out for the chance to come back. A constant stream of Bad Movies, and high ticket prices, makes this increasingly harder every year.
Sadly, once again, the outcome of this "confession" and new-found insight will be Bigger and Better Marketing, not better movies. As someone posted in another thread, its actually cheaper to convince people that things have changed, than to actually change them. And people *will* go to the theaters again, thus vindicating the Hollywood Studios (tm).
"Come this summer and watch 'New Movie'! Its not the same tired old trite as 'Old Movie'... Its Better Now (tm). We Promise."
You are correct, I have interpreted "release" as "actively publish". But I am not alone in this interpretation. Notice that the word "release" does not appear in the sections of the GPL that I quoted in my reply, but on the answer taken from the GPL FAQ.
In the sentence "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way", the use of "release" there implies "actively publish", not "free from confinement".
Also, the sentence "an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization", the term "releasing it outside the organization" means to "actively publish".
>>"The answer to that is obvious, and is not what's being asked. The question here is "If you DO distribute the software, do you have a right to prohibit further redistribution?". And as GPL part 6 says pretty clearly, you cannot place additional restrictions after an authorized distribution."
My reply was to your following comment:
>>"The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes."
"No, the GPL never said that. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this."
I thought otherwise, and I went ahead and pasted where the GPL said this. I'm not prepared to argue at this moment whether this constitutes a loophole in the GPL or whether the GPL inherently contains other loopholes pertaining distribution, as I admit I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject. But that specific comment from you struck me as inaccurate and that is why I replied.
Slashdot Mirror
>> http://frayspace.com/toomuchtv/isntthatgood/merryf unday.html
Simple reason:
C/C++ programmers: It works, dammit! We don't need no stinkin' testing.
C# programmers: The compiler would warn or fail if it didn't work; if anything goes wrong in production, we'll patch it in the next release.
Visual Basic programmers: Uh... testing? wuzzat?
-dZ.
>> Everyone knows that organisms don't change from one form to another
Except when The Flying Spaghetti Monster commands them to.
Arrr, matey!
-dZ.
>> Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?
Because they sucked. How much more precise can I be? You want me to list scene/chapter/verse? Why isn't the perception of overall suckiness enough for me to say that it was a horrible experience to watch the new "trilogy"?
When The Matrix sequels came out, I had a hard time arguing with at least one fan-boy at the office who kept telling me that if I didn't like them it was most likely because I just "didn't get them". As if there was some secret deeper meaning behind them of which only an enlighted selected few were aware. As if I am not smart enough or rational enough to be able to form a valid opinion on something by sheer perception and experience.
I liked the LotR movies a lot, but I accept the fact that there are people who found them slow, boring, and too distant from the original work to qualify as Tolkienesque. I can certainly see why, but more importantly, I respect their opinion.
Now respect mine (and all those others who have a negative view of SW movies): I believe that Episodes I, II, and III were horrible. I believe that Episode II was (slightly) better than the first, and that Episode III was still even better than the previous two, but in my eyes that still means that Lucas finally reached mere mediocrity from the depth of incompetency and horridness. On the other side of the token, I believe that the original Star Wars (what you would call Episode IV) was the best of the series, with a very good follow up in The Empire Strikes Back (that's Episode V for you kiddies). I don't really care much for Return Of The Jedi (Episode VI if you're not following).
-dZ.
>> but as everyone who communicates via a chat system knows, subtleties of communication are often lost when translated to line-by-line text
Right. That must be the reason why human interactions, relationships, and perhaps even the entire scope of civilization could never advance until emoticons were invented.
-dZ.
>> Consist of any title prefix attached to a character's name be it fantasy-based or not.
Technically, it doesn't matter if its a "real" title or not.
-dZ.
And they do it in, let me guess, FORTRAN?
-dZ.
I have no such problems with iPhoto on my Macintosh OS X Panther... My wife was even setting up nice animated "albums" after a few hours of using her Mac for the first time.
-dZ.
--
War is peace. Equity is slavery. Credit is strength. For your convenience (TM).
- The Ministry of Truth and Visa
You are correct, but I believe that the penalties suggested by Schnier and Schmidt are end-user lawsuits, which can be a very large expense on the corporations.
-dZ.
The real article by Bruce Schnier is in Wired:
. html
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,69247,00
Its more interesting than the sound-bite-full ZD-Net summary.
-dZ.
Whoa! I love Plan 9! I put it on at least once a year with my friends, just for laughs.
But I didn't Ed Wood was that renown in the software industry.
-dZ.
>> All that stuff is documented very well in the book undocumented windows, at least it was in its first incarnation.
So, if the undocumented features were documented in undocumented windows, are they now documented undocumented features of the undocumented windows document?
*phew!*
-dZ.
>> Do not reward the monipoly.
So apt...
Brilliant! Though, you mistyped "money". Har, Har, Har!
-dZ.
What a great piece of revisionist history, depicting early versions of Windows as major technological advancements in the industry. As I remember it, Microsoft was furiously trying to play catch up with other industry leaders of the time, while concentrating on acquiring a stranglehold of the PC market with its MS-DOS operating system. Windows was pure crap and barely functional -- certainly not up to par to other contemporaries, such as the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, and other GUI environments like VisiOn and DesQView -- until version 3.0 came along. And even that one was still behind with the times, but was finally a serious contender.
Bill Gates betting the company on Windows 1.0? Puhleez! It was a half-assed attempt just to be able to say "me too!" in the market place and steal the thunder being built up by Apple, while still focusing on DOS, which they view as their main cash-cow.
-dZ.
Breathtaking...
Instead of sending those gold disc with arbitrarily encoded data, we should just make one big post-card with one of those pictures. Of course, the caption should read "From the Big Blue Marble, 3rd rock from Sol -- Wish you were here!"
I'd bet we'll see an uptake in UFO sightings thereafter.
-dZ.
I posted this comment on another article, but it is also relevant to this one.
The comment:
Perfection is atteinable -- abeit difficult.
-dZ.
1. why do you block ads?
Because they are intrusive, obnoxious, and most of the time deceiving. Web ads in particular are very annoying.
2. And with what?
I use AdBlock/Flashblock in FireFox, what else?
3. Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
No. I view the advertising industry as a whole, not as a necessity as some people make it seem, but as a parasite, utilized as a cop-out when a business has no real way or reason to sustain itself by its own merits. Sure, sponsoring a product or service is not bad in itself, and I don't really mind an announcement or mention of a corporate sponsor here and there, such as PBS and NPR do. And you know what? it works: I tend to patronize those who support the shows I enjoy. But this is not what Advertising (tm) is in America anymore -- it is our culture of "Commercial Interruptions" and "Product Placements", designed to force-feed the consumer their stream of mindless drivel, in the guise of "content", that I feel so strongly against. For this, I primarily watch either DVDs or TV channels without commercial interruptions, especially those with old "classic" movies, such as TCM or Plex. Or, of course, read a book.
Note that this is primarily an American product. The rest of the world might be catching up, but they are still at a far enough distance. (I hear my German and Belgium friends complain of the 2 or 3 minute commercial breaks they get in the middle of their shows -- a single commercial break! and one that is "built-into" the show, i.e. the show was produced with a midway intermission -- we should be so lucky in America!).
Web ads, by interrupting the flow of text of an article -- and sometimes even interrupting your browsing experience -- and competing against the article itself for your attention, are moving towards the same end: Ads as content, where the latter is made to fit the former and not the other way around.
4. What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Exactly. I don't buy magazines any more because of the ads. I find the signal-to-noise ratio disturbing. I recently took a trip and forgot to bring a book, so I decided to buy a couple of magazines at the newstand in the airport. I barely could get through them -- I felt exhausted just trying to avoid so many ads! (On such occassions, I have a very vivid picture in my mind of my Grandfather, when I was 8 or 9 years old, perusing a Time Magazine, and annoyed, ripping out each ad-only page, cursing all the way. At the end, he was left with only a handful of pages to read. That day he called and cancelled his subscription. I must say that I understand exactly the frustration he felt.)
5. I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
I block pop-ups, banners, google-ads, superfluous flash ads, and all manners of advertising from web pages, wholesale. I have accrued a very comprehensive list of regular expressions that will block almost everything out there. When I first arrive at a strange site, its not uncommon for me to spend upwards to 15 minutes checking out the page source and attempting to train AdBlock to get rid of most of its extraneous content, particularly any javascript file that generates the banners, tracking cookies, etc. After I am comfortable with my surroundings, I will start concentrating on the content.
I want to point out that I have no qualms about paying for content. I pay for my software (even open source and free software!), and I pay to access certain sites which I deem worthy of my money. I am also subscribed to newspapers, postal newsletters, and magazines. But the biggest problem I have with paying for content online is the active tracking of your reading habits and the lack of anonymity. You see, once I pay for a newspaper, the company has no idea that I throw away the sports section, read the comics first, check out the finance se
...yet they grind exceeding small.
What can I say, the gods of Mt Hollywoolympus were not amused by Wallace and Gromit.
-dZ.
I believe it was Frederick P. Brooks in his Mythical Man Month essay that says something about computer code being one of the very few human creations that, being governed by mathematics and other universal truths, can achieve perfection. However, he points out that humans themselves are not accustomed to perfection, since so few other activities require it. And so he compares the programmer to a poet, more than an artisan, whom creates real physical things (words or code on a medium) out of pure thought, and can be disciplined to attain this perfection by talent, skills, training, and experience.
Now, I grant that all this is a bit too idealistic for any commercial endeavor, but so did Brooks. He later points out in his essay that although this perfection is atteinable, it might not be practical or cost-effective, from a commercial standpoint, and so the commercial programmer must compromise between time-to-market pressures and error-free code by making sure the design itself is bullet-proof first, and utilizing his tools and skills, as well as those of his entire team, effectively.
I tend to agree with Mr. Brooks, and this is why I agree with the author of the BBC article. Perfect computer code is possible, perhaps not commercially practical, but certainly there is a much, much higher and closer standard that can be achieved than what we have right now, when every would-be computer scientist in college is brain-washed with mantras such as "bug-free code is _IMPOSSIBLE_", "there will _ALWAYS_ be bugs, so why bother", "just code it, we'll deal with defects after release". Many problems of current software are due not only to incompentence on the part of the programmers, but by lethargy or ineptitude on the part of the architects. But mostly by the drive to keep production costs low and profits high, in a disproportionate way.
I suppose this is human nature: the commoditization of art and technology. This is the same reason why we have wonderous works of engineering, that stand tall thousands of years after being built, along side with ready-made houses that crumble after a decade or two. Humans want cheap goods, and they are getting what they asked for. But nobody claims that a building or bridge that can survive at least a few centuries is "impossible" -- expensive, unsavory to stockholders, and challenging, perhaps; but very much possible. And this is the spirit of the article: that software is buggy because publishers are _cheap_; that we should endeavor to make software _better_, even if this means cost will be a bit higher; that we should stop spreading the myth that software, by its nature, is imperfect.
-dZ.
>> "4) Mentioning Brian Michael Bendis (the writer of Ultimate Spider-Man) without mentioning Mark Bagley (the peniciller of Ultimate Spider-Man..."
I thought Alexander Fleming was *the* peniciller. Perhaps Ultimate Spidey had Ultimate Syphilis?
-dZ.
Although you make pretty good point (and in a very amusing way, too!), I think that the idea of the manufacturer is not to prevent piracy by disallowing multiple viewings, but by a two-pronged approach:
1. The introduction of a new format with a hook (i.e. "Disposable, For Your Convenience(tm)!"), which requires a change in player technology.
Thus enabling...
2. The introduction of a non-standard, more "secure" (read: restricted) DRM-enabled player.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft is patting itself in the back for coming up with this. You see, everybody before them (DIVX, EZ-DVD, etc.) was pre-occupied with making the discs work with existing technology. Not Microsoft!
"We convince people that they need this, and replace all those dartard, godless DVD players people currently own, which allow them to play their movies as they wish, at the same time. Brilliant!" -- says Mr. Ballmer, as a chair flies over the conference table.
Right. Except, it might not work.
-dZ.
>>What's not to like?
Experience has shown that there is not much to like. And by experience, I'm not talking about some lab test or public poll, but actual market deployment of actual products. You see, this exact thing has been done before -- perhaps with different technologies, but the product was the same: Self-destructing DVDs -- and don't forget -- For Your Convenience (tm). Circuit City's DIVX, and the recent EZ-DVD (sp) products attest to the failure of self-destructing discs to capture interest. In the case of EZ-DVD, many convenience stores and small shops had to return their stock to the vendor because they just weren't being sold. And those were sold at about 2 to 5 US Dollars.
Another problem with self-destructing, limited-viewing video discs is the price. There is just not enough value to warrant a 1/3 of the actual purchase price, or the rough equivalent of a single rental. The technology itself has merit, and might eventually find a market, but I suspect that people will not pay more than a few cents for the discs, if at all. Perhaps they should be included in cereal boxes, or as promotional material (e.g. sent by post as a free incentive, along with your regular mortgage broker junk mail; distributed en masse a la AOL; or given away for "free" with your purchase of the Super-Duper-Extra-Mega-Uber-Large Pop-Corn Tub at the multiplex.)
Why do you think that regular video rental companies mention as an ad gimmick "no late fees" or "longer rental periods"? Hint: Its probably because people do not watch the video only once, or they like to have it around for a bit longer than its expected. Thus, companies like Netflix, whom have virtually abolished late fees and rental periods, attract lots of customers; offering customers the ability to watch the movies as many times as they want to, for as long as they want to, with no actual deadline or limit. Now that's real convenience.
I believe that any attempt to market this technology as a replacement of standard DVD discs will fall flat -- as it has done before.
-dZ.
Man didn't create God... Guns created people.
er... wait!
-dZ.
If you read the article (pardon me, I meant TFA), you'll realize that that is precisely the notion which has been debunked. The reason is that, while it is true that there are other forms of entertainment out there, "going to the movies" is a sort of cultural tradition, which can't (and hasn't) been replaced so easily. The proof is that once in a while, along comes a movie which calls the attention of the public, and people *flock* to see it en masse. Case in point, the March Of The Penguins, and other recent best sellers at the box office, which have little to do with the Hollywood Move Machine (tm). Furthermore, this does not only occur with Good Movies, as you suggest; Hollywood has shown -- and this is part of the problem -- that with sufficient marketing *ANY* movie (be it good or bad or aweful!) will attract audiences in drones.
Thus, its not that movies are any worse than before, its that (most) people are finally getting tired of watching crappy movies, and yes, are looking at other forms of entertainment. But notice that most of those other forms of entertainment have always been there -- at least there has *always* been alternatives. The fact is that people have always preferred watching movies in the theater over many other forms of entertainment; and they still do (because its about more than just the movie; its a social activity, a family outing, etc.). So they are always looking out for the chance to come back. A constant stream of Bad Movies, and high ticket prices, makes this increasingly harder every year.
Sadly, once again, the outcome of this "confession" and new-found insight will be Bigger and Better Marketing, not better movies. As someone posted in another thread, its actually cheaper to convince people that things have changed, than to actually change them. And people *will* go to the theaters again, thus vindicating the Hollywood Studios (tm).
"Come this summer and watch 'New Movie'! Its not the same tired old trite as 'Old Movie'... Its Better Now (tm). We Promise."
-dZ.
You are correct, I have interpreted "release" as "actively publish". But I am not alone in this interpretation. Notice that the word "release" does not appear in the sections of the GPL that I quoted in my reply, but on the answer taken from the GPL FAQ.
In the sentence "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way", the use of "release" there implies "actively publish", not "free from confinement".
Also, the sentence "an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization", the term "releasing it outside the organization" means to "actively publish".
-dZ.
>>"The answer to that is obvious, and is not what's being asked. The question here is "If you DO distribute the software, do you have a right to prohibit further redistribution?". And as GPL part 6 says pretty clearly, you cannot place additional restrictions after an authorized distribution."
My reply was to your following comment:
>>"The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes."
"No, the GPL never said that. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this."
I thought otherwise, and I went ahead and pasted where the GPL said this. I'm not prepared to argue at this moment whether this constitutes a loophole in the GPL or whether the GPL inherently contains other loopholes pertaining distribution, as I admit I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject. But that specific comment from you struck me as inaccurate and that is why I replied.
-dZ.