But do you expect Adobe to keep bringing out patches for 8 year old versions of Photoshop?
This is one of the reasons why copyright [on software] should last no longer than five years. Typical software is too complex for all known faults to be addressed between the time a program is released and the time it's successive version hits the market. This introduces a situation where customers are *forced* to upgrade or suffer the consequences.
What *should* happen is that the copyright should expire and the source code be released for commercial software that companies refuse to fully support. The computer world is so interconnected that it is simply irresponsible to allow serious software defects to go unpatched for the sake of forcing customers to buy the next version. This has given rise to a new and harmful situation that was not considered at the time original copyright laws were dreamed up: vendor lock-in.
Would you expect a car manufacturer to offer a 10 year warranty on all of their cars?
I wouldn't expect it, given how it's 'the almighty dollar über alles' in the West, but they definitely *should*. We can't afford to be a throw-away society forever.
Microsoft are perfectly within their rights to "force" obsolescence onto users by concentrating on more recent versions of their software.
Perhaps, but I believe there is a solid argument that this is terribly socially irresponsible.
Denying a thinking machine of free will is basically a rather insidious form of torture.
Why would you create a thinking machine that would care about being abused? That's like building a car that felt pain as it burned gasoline (oblig car analogy).
If you have the know-how to give a machine free will, you could probably give it the ability to not care that it's a slave.
My grandfather commented on the "wings" of ships that seemed to spend all their time in space.
I think by "wings" you mean "s-foils" (they were called the latter in the films). It's pretty clear that the purpose of these were as weapon platforms (would you want some high-energy plasma mounted right beside the cockpit?).
If by "very little competition" you mean "no competition", then you are correct. Microsoft has a monopoly on systems that can play XBox 360 games, thanks to IP laws.
the hero (Van De Merwe) I had a hard time rooting for instead of rooting that we would just get shot. He was weak and pathetic, and only had courage while in the exo-suit, and even then, he was wishy-washy.
It is precisely the main human protagonist's flaws that make him interesting and give meaning to his redemptive acts near the end of the movie.
I just couldn't believe the government would allow the Nigerians to become so powerful inside the district, especially when they knew how dangerous they were.
Dangerous to whom? District-9 was completely sealed off and by well-armed corporate mercenaries, so the Nigerians were not much of a threat to the citizen of Johannesburg. And as for being dangerous to the "prawns", well, it's pretty clear the powers-that-be didn't really give a shit about them.
The father in law was evil for no apparent reason,
Just because a facet of someone's personality (which one would likely normally keep a secret) comes to the surface later in a story does not mean there's no apparent reason for it. Besides, the reason for the father-in-law's action was apparent: greed (and the fact that he didn't much care for his son-in-law).
why weren't the aliens using the weanpos to revolt instead of selling them to the Nigerians?
The aliens did not stage a revolt using their superior technology because they were stupid drones who lacked initiative. This was all explicitly stated near the beginning of the movie, and repeatedly demonstrated throughout it (e.g. trading the mech-suit for a hundred cans of cat food).
I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness."
Yeah, but that would be tantamount to living up to their end of the copyright bargain (i.e. limited monopoly on distribution in exchange for eventually expanding the public domain with their creation).
We can't have media companies doing that, now can we?
"It takes over two hours to receive the entire text of the newspaper over the phone, and with an hourly use charge of five dollars, the new 'telepaper' won't be much competition for the twenty cent street edition"
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't hate the player, hate the game.
This is one of the reasons why copyright [on software] should last no longer than five years. Typical software is too complex for all known faults to be addressed between the time a program is released and the time it's successive version hits the market. This introduces a situation where customers are *forced* to upgrade or suffer the consequences.
What *should* happen is that the copyright should expire and the source code be released for commercial software that companies refuse to fully support. The computer world is so interconnected that it is simply irresponsible to allow serious software defects to go unpatched for the sake of forcing customers to buy the next version. This has given rise to a new and harmful situation that was not considered at the time original copyright laws were dreamed up: vendor lock-in.
I wouldn't expect it, given how it's 'the almighty dollar über alles' in the West, but they definitely *should*. We can't afford to be a throw-away society forever.
Perhaps, but I believe there is a solid argument that this is terribly socially irresponsible.
I'm just sad that so many people seem to think public proclamations, however banal, could possibly be "owned"
"I took a poop today." (c)2009 Digital Vomit
Absolutely. The air is just one big tube.
However, I wonder if it would be faster to just dump a bunch of carrier pigeons on a truck instead and transfer the data that way?
Sure. Why not? Not everyone has the same drives, ambitions, or dreams. Some people are perfectly content just feeling useful.
I'm sure some people wouldn't mind giving up freedom for one reason or another. In fact, it seems rather in vogue in some countries today. :-P
Why would you create a thinking machine that would care about being abused? That's like building a car that felt pain as it burned gasoline (oblig car analogy).
If you have the know-how to give a machine free will, you could probably give it the ability to not care that it's a slave.
But, if we stop being afraid of each other, then the terrorists win.
Or something...
Your puns are all terrible!
<ducks>
You mean the movie that's coming out next year? Sounds like a fresh new concept!
I think by "wings" you mean "s-foils" (they were called the latter in the films). It's pretty clear that the purpose of these were as weapon platforms (would you want some high-energy plasma mounted right beside the cockpit?).
If by "very little competition" you mean "no competition", then you are correct. Microsoft has a monopoly on systems that can play XBox 360 games, thanks to IP laws.
Alternatives? Really? What other, non-Microsoft OSes can I get that will run my existing Windows software?
It is precisely the main human protagonist's flaws that make him interesting and give meaning to his redemptive acts near the end of the movie.
Dangerous to whom? District-9 was completely sealed off and by well-armed corporate mercenaries, so the Nigerians were not much of a threat to the citizen of Johannesburg. And as for being dangerous to the "prawns", well, it's pretty clear the powers-that-be didn't really give a shit about them.
Just because a facet of someone's personality (which one would likely normally keep a secret) comes to the surface later in a story does not mean there's no apparent reason for it. Besides, the reason for the father-in-law's action was apparent: greed (and the fact that he didn't much care for his son-in-law).
The aliens did not stage a revolt using their superior technology because they were stupid drones who lacked initiative. This was all explicitly stated near the beginning of the movie, and repeatedly demonstrated throughout it (e.g. trading the mech-suit for a hundred cans of cat food).
Shhh! Nobody tell this guy where honey comes from!
Foci of Earth's Elliptical Orbit
Please be gentle, mods. I'm just trying to help someone out. :)
I think this is because of the anonimity a vehicle provides. You see the same thing with online forums and such.
I believe the official scientific theory regarding this behavior is called the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Ummm...yeah...me, too...
Yeah, but that would be tantamount to living up to their end of the copyright bargain (i.e. limited monopoly on distribution in exchange for eventually expanding the public domain with their creation).
We can't have media companies doing that, now can we?
I'd settle for one consistent way of spelling.
:)
(my apologies if English is not your first language
Agreed. What self-respecting person would use words like "Iâ(TM)ve" and "itâ(TM)s"?
Remember, this is a president who gave a foreign dignitary a pile of DVDs as a gift -- as if they were something of value.
I think that gift was really more of a message from the president to the media industry.
Upon making the discover, one Professor Hans Singleton was noted to have made the following remark:
"And I thought they smelled bad on the outside!"
That reminds me of another joke...
Q: What has eight legs and would kill you if it fell on you from out of a tree?
A: A billiard table.
That sounds like reasonable advi-- hey, wait a minute. How do we know you're not one of them?