She scans her students myspace pages all the time. It's pretty incredible what kind of information they put up.
She doesn't do it because she's out to get them, though. If she learned that a student was smoking weed at a weekend party, it's not like she'd call the cops on them. I think she does it just to get a better sense of who her students are as individuals, and can then better tailor her instructions to each individual.
Let's say Katie is really emotional, and loves to answer questions in class. However, Katie has just gone through a rough breakup with her longtime boyfriend (we learn over myspace)... My wife would be a bit more understanding about why Katie is acting so depressed.
Or, she may learn that a student routinely smokes pot in the bathroom every morning before class. She might pay extra attention to that student, and if she smells pot on the kid while he's in class, she can certainly get the administration involved.
When I was in high school, the leader of our competative programming team was also a hockey coach. I remember driving back from a programming competition where he casually told us about how the hockey team would get high before every game.
With more and more devices becoming data-aware, wouldn't it make sense to revise the household electrical outlets to have some kind of standardized data jack? This way, I can plug in my 60" HD-Youtube-compatible TV into the wall with ONE cord and have it work!
Imagine you MUST say "yes" 9 times before you are allowed to say "no" to a co-worker. This does many wonderful things. a) respects their opinions b) lets them do things their ways c) you are perceived as likable and non-critical d) when you do rarely say "no" folks stop and listen because you respected them and you only say "no" when it is really important.
I see right through that kind of stuff. I percieve such people as never making any commitment, because when they say "yes," I don't know if they really plan on following through or not.
I am a Comcast subscriber, and I really resent that they charge me 50+ BUX per month for "unlimited" internet, but when I want to download a linux installation DVD via BitTorrent, I can't.
I'm a Comcast subscriber... It turns out that the problems I had with BitTorrent were due to the official Mac client not working, and my router being borked. When I switched clients and routers, everything worked fine.
I think we're going to find that this isn't as clear-cut as a case as we think. My guess is that Comcast rightfully intends to throttle traffic as a means of keeping my neighbor's connection speedy when I'm downloading a large ISO; yet their algorithm is faulty. It's probably a case of finding better network management algorithms.
Then again, I think bandwidth should be metered like electricity.
When I read your posts, I get the impression that you think that interfaces were invented as a means of replacing multiple inheritance. This is completely false!
An interface defines the communication boundary between two entities, such as a piece of software, a hardware device, or a user. It generally refers to an abstraction that an entity provides of itself to the outside
Inheritance provides a default implementation. When publishing an interface, it's considered good style to provide a default class to inherit from. This is not required.
In short, your entire argument is bunk _outside_ of Java. Indeed Java "invented" the problem you claim they solved by making interfaces only workable as empty lists of functions, because they cannot multiply inherit code because they can only find functions by signature and to classes could implement distinct functions with the same signature....
One of COM's major contributions to the world of Windows development is the awareness of the concept of separation of interface from implementation. This awareness has no doubt influenced the way programmers build systems today. An extension of this fundamental concept is the notion of one interface, multiple implementations. This means that at runtime, an application can choose to instantiate an interface from one of many different concrete implementations.
In the COM world, Interfaces are a language-neutral way of one language being able to use objects from another language. I can instantiate a C++ COM object in C#, and (in theory) Java.
In a bound language, where symbols are bound at compile time to the symbols available in fixed scope visibility (like C++), the symbols are bound to either explicit entry points or vtable offsets, that is to known symbolic quantities, there is _NO_ possibility of _accidental_ cross-tree calling. That means that the danger you claim wouldn't be possible.
This really isn't as technical of an issue as it appears. It's all semantics. When I call an API that expects an object of a known behavior, I want interfaces because they don't establish any behavior in my classes. Likewise, when I publish an API that expects an object of known behavior, I don't want to force my users to have to use my implementation. It's semantics, but the meaning of "inheriting from a class" is very different from "implementing an interface."
I personally would argue that it's a weakness of C++ that I have to use multiple inheritance when I need interfaces without COM's overhead.
Since every implementer of an interface in Java must recreate predominantly identical code, the empty interface is more likely to induce mistakes born of repetition. Lucky you.
In such a scenario, Composition is a much better technique then interfaces. It's a common mistake to use multiple inheritance instead of composition.
I wouldn't blame Java, but I'd blame the following attitudes:
Object-Oriented programming is better / everything must be object-oriented: There are some kinds of programming that don't lend themselves well to object-oriented programming. Access to relational databases is a shining example. Making data access appear to be object-oriented can cause more problems then it's worth.
Computers are getting faster / Ram is getting cheaper / Programmer time is worth more then clock cycles: While the statements are true, I fear that such an attitude is used as an excuse for laziness and sloppy design.
We don't need to optimize our registers; but ignoring the realities of performance when trying to make everything look like pretty objects is just holding us back.
you have a grid of little onchip mirrors.. that tilt back and forth.. you have a color wheel that spins at high rpm and a blub shining throuhg it.. for a specific color to be shown the mirrors in sync with the wheel tilt to allow a certin amount of the light from the wheel through. if you have a color wheel going at say 10k rpm 3 colors in the wheel (more modern ones are using 6 and 12 color wheels to help prevent rainbow effect) each mirror has a color option 500 times a second wich means 2ms to switch from solid to solid with only a 3 color wheel.. but if you had say a green then it would be blue and yellow both and no for red. which means 2ms/3 mirror movements so.66ms responce time on the mirror.. now if you double the color wheel options you must increase the responce time.. by the same factor.. 6 color wheel =.33ms responce time 12 color wheel =.166ms response time..
The rainbow effect drives me nuts. I think it would be even worse with video games!
No, what really seems to have caused the announcement of the switch isn't the ratios at all, but that the raw numbers, and certainly raw profit numbers were far worse than expected. Loads of people sitting out the battle because they didn't want to back the loser, and loads of loss-leading promotion being run on both sides to ensure it wasn't them.
I think you hit the nail on the head. If there was a clear winner, or if there were decent combo drives for a HTPC, I would have spent a lot of money on this looooooong ago. Right now I'm just waiting for a Mac Mini with a BluRay drive.
Guess what? Even in Java, pointers still come to bite you in the arse when you least expect them. I see people every day who have trouble understanding the difference between "==" and "equals()" in Java, because they never learned the pointers behind them. They're essentially one abstraction level too far from understanding what their own code is doing.
I got into an argument with a senior developer about that... It made me realize that the problem with programming is that there's no formal certification! My peers in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering had to take very difficult certification exams to get a liscense to work.
Frankly, I've seen many experienced professionals make assinine errors because they've never had to prove that they know what they're doing.
Now the _dumbest_ thing about java is that they were so set against multiple inheritance that they never bothered to ask themselves why _every_ OO language starts out life without multiple inheritance only to have to add it later. By making everything a proper linear subclass of Object, they left themselves with having to graft on "interfaces" which is just multiple inheritance with the "bonus" of completely preventing default implementations. (Which lead to delegation etc.)
Interfaces are meant to accomplish something fundamentally different then multiple inheritance. Interfaces only describe behavior; which is desirable when an object of a known behavior is expected.
There are a few analogies that one can use to understand why an interface is different then multiple inheritance:
The Composite jack on the back of your TV is an interface. Anyone can make a device that works with it, as long as it conforms to the composite interface.
The electrical outlet is an interface. Anyone can make a device that uses household electricity as long as it comforms to the electrical outlet interface.
Interfaces allow me, (as a programmer) to allow you to pass me objects of any class heirarchy, as long as they implement known methods. Because interfaces bring no default implementation, you don't have to worry about my code screwing with your object, and I don't have to worry about your code screwing with mine. Yes, multiple inheritance and abstract base classes can accomplish something similar, but it brings along the uncertainy of a base class causing unpredictable behavior.
I've worked on micro display projects before --- and you don't want the pixel pitch getting too close to the wavelength of light -- which will be around 1/2 micron. Pixels smaller than a micron or so will result in dispersion of the light that is generated, limiting the quality of the image.
This is a problem in the semiconductor industry. Microchips are made using a lithography process. Because the features on a chip are smaller then the light's wavelength, the mask is actually designed so that the interfearence patterns generate the correct image.
I would think a similar technique could be employed for a high-resolution display; although that would require a lot of processing power.
Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all. This may be an attempt to bring a god into the classroom.
The concepts of god, gods, and religion are important and widely-spread social phenomenon. Ignoring them in public education is just as bad as a public school teaching that "Jesus actually walked in water" or "The Bhudda was born in a lotus leaf".
Why is this? The US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."; therefore stipulating that public schools can "not mention gods at all" is both censorship and establishing the absence of gods as the state religion.
Church of Wifi has a hacked firmware-based worm that runs around and replaces firmware on APs, and then looks for other AP's to attack, and propagates itself.
The key to this kind of attack, is that it could be potentially undetectable - how do you know if the linksys firmware was replaced or slightly modified or not?
Another great use, would be to drop TOR endpoints on every single box infected:)
Maybe that's why my Linksys router stopped working?
A couple of weeks ago, my network started acting very strange. My computers couldn't see each other through the LAN, and my wireless network disappeared. I figured out that the router was doing some kind of a soft reset every second; it ended up getting one of my DynDNS domains disabled due to abusively updating my domain. I couldn't reset the router with the physical button, so I replaced it with an Apple router that supports WPA2.
I changed my mind about religion, ironically it was because I started going back to church that I realized I didn't believe any of it.
I realized that a large group of people like getting up on Sunday mornings to sing songs and look at each other's fancy clothes. I realized that religion is more of a social thing then a belief.
I realized that people fear things like the earth being round, or the earth orbiting the sun, or evolution, because they're afraid that such knowledge will destroy their ability to get up on Sunday mornings and sing songs.
I realized that far too many people let emotion get in the way of logic.
Agree on the quality of standard DVD's with a good HD set and player... But there is another issue too. I won't buy an HD player until I can be sure I can make media backups 100% of the time like I can with standard DVD's. THAT, more than anything else, is what is holding me back.
...And with things like Netflix working over an internet connection, and Vudu, and rumors of iTunes movie rentals, by the time that we'll be able to do that with HD-DVD or BluRay, we'll already be renting HD movies over the internet.
I frankly think that the only people who spend any REAL money on HD-DVD or BluRay are people who like looking at large shelves of movies. I recently visited a friend of mine who must have about 4-500 DVDs. He has about 20 HD-DVDs and 30 BluRay disks, and doesn't understand why it's not catching on. The general public just doesn't buy lots of movies, and BluRay / HD-DVD are marketed with the assumption that people will buy bookshelf's full of them.
At least with internet movie rentals, there's no real risk of having shelves of worthless plastic.
Instead, why don't you learn to treat your employees as not only cogs in a machine, but individual people with cares and concerns of their own who are also important parts of your company? Your company's long-term health will show you the value of that. Profit will follow.
I've worked for three companies that take that approach. Once tough times hit, everyone is just a "very valuable" cog in a machine.
Granted, it's always a good idea to treat employees as well as possible, but as businesses grow, there's a requirement to remain impersonal. Large businesses have lots of boring "grunt" work. Eventually, competitive pressure takes a toll on a business, and then some bean counter decides to buy cheaper chairs, rougher toilet paper, slower computers, cheaper coffee, less heat/AC, ect, ect. At this point, the "individual people with cares and concerns of their own" switch from "important parts of your company" to interchangeable cogs.
The fact is that all of my employers wanted me to perform a very specific task; and no amount of sugar coating will avoid the reality of business.
Any company that cares what their low-level employees do on their own time is just wasting money.
I think it's a rhetorical question...
What if one employee is a raging alcoholic, yet manages to stumble into work hung over, and does a decent job. Could the alcoholism eventually effect the job?
Are single nerds more likely to be more productive because they don't have to take time off to deal with children?
What happens when the employee who's growing pot in his closet gets arrested?
Choosing good employees is difficult, and I think that sometimes employers start to peek into personal lives as a means of figuring out who will be the best employees.
But can they explain why knots form in your hair after laying still for as little as an hour? My wife blames gnomes, and I'm inclined to agree with her.
It's because you need a hair cut, damn hippie! (joke)
the guy apparently was using KazAa and had the files into the shared directory. Now I am not making any judgement on the legality or morality of doing this; it's simply worth noting that this is not a simple case of "now it's illegal to even rip your own CDs (SHOCK! HORROR!)". This is more a case of the same-old, same-old RIAA going after someone who seemed to be sharing the files over a peer-to-peer network.
So this is a case where the RIAA figured out who was the person that uploaded music to the internet. They aren't going after someone who downloaded music; they're going after someone who had a physical CD that said, "(C)... UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION ILLEGAL".
Basically, the guy knew he was uploading his CDs. His CDs explicitly stated that he could not reproduce them.
I'm surprised it took the RIAA so long to figure out that they need to sue the people who rip & upload instead of grandmothers. It's why I don't rip & upload, even when I digitize vinyl records that have no CD/download equivalent available.
OTOH, I have also some other CDs of those same pieces, same orchestra, same conductor, same recording company, done entirely in digital formats. I think they aren't as good as the old ones. The reason? Not because they are digital, but because of the difference between a Karajan in his 30s compared to the same man 20+ years later. Or it could also show the difference between the criteria used by Deutsche Gramophon in the 1960s and the 1980s.
However, one thing I'm sure of is that if a CD copy of an analog recording is better than an analog copy of the same recording you cannot say digital sound is inferior. And if an mp3 copy of a CD containing music originally recorded in analog format sounds better than an LP of exactly the same recording, you cannot say mp3 has intrinsic fidelity problems.
I remember reading somewhere that some of the primitive digital equipment in the 70s and 80s had limitations that often left analog versions sounding better. It wasn't until we perfected the digital process that digital recordings really sounded good. Part of the problem was that digital audio was seen as a way to eliminate hiss, when we didn't understand that our ears work best when quiet sounds fade gracefully into hiss.
When you rent, you're throwing away some of the cash every month - when you buy, you're keeping a fraction of the money in equity. The only problem is that some people overreach and get mortgages larger than they can afford instead of something with monthly payments that are roughly equivalent to rent minus a maintenance budget and insurance. People do get into trouble and forget to budget for maintenance and such, but that's not a problem inherent to buying
In some places, people get so hung up on the "buying is better then renting" mentality that they pay waaaaaay too much for homes, and end up spending more then if they had just rented an apartment in the first place.
Once again repeat after me... the benefit of digital is not that it LASTS FOREVER or is EASIER TO PRESERVE. It is that it is EASY TO COPY.
Who gives a rats ass if a given copy of a film will degrade in 10 years. I can make a 100% perfect copy of the thing in minutes. Copy the data every year. Hell copy it 100 times. Copying also makes the obsolescence of formats meaningless.
I still have emails and RTF documents written in 1994. These are 100% perfect copies of the original data. Is that somehow to be interpreted by brain-dead fear-mongers that any day now my data will be "obsolete" since the obviously 15-year old media is almost degraded beyond recognition? Or are people a bit more intelligent and realize I have already copied this from hard drive to disc and back about 30 different times?
Part of the problem is that digital video formats change quickly. 35mm film has changed very little since it was invented. The biggest difference between old film and new film is that old film is highly flammable, and thus must be handled in environments that are flameproof. About every 4-5 years, a new video file format comes out on PC. I've used MPEG, ASF, AVI (XviD), WMV, MKV, M4V, ect, ect. Digital video isn't like film; a projector from the 1940s can essentially work with today's film stock*.
I think there's a fear that, even if a film was copied to a new drive every year, it would be stored in a weirdo file format that's impossible to decode in the future.
*Ok... A 1940's projector will probably need an anamorphic lense, but I hope you can understand my point.
Meh. I imagine they also teach you to use your signal, not speed, not tailgate, not run red lights, not drink and drive, stop at stop signs, and a million other rules and good driving practices that people ignore.
I'm not kidding when I say this: When I took driver's ed, it was discussed as a matter-of-fact that driving after trying the "whacky tobaccy" at a party is a bad idea. One of the students proudly described his "buzz-check" system where he would shake his head as a way to tell if he was sober enough to drive.
Call me when the middle class can get a fuel effiecient car. If I have to decide between that and a $15,000 Corolla which gets 30 mpg. I would have to choose the Corolla becuase the extra $15,000 is the current equivilant of 5,000 gallons of gas or about 150,000 miles of driving. If I drove my Corolla 100,000 miles I would pay $25,000 (car + gas) if I drove the Typ-1 e 100,000 miles I would have paid $32,500. If I got the Typ-1 h I would pay 31,000 to go the same distance (assuming it costs $30,000).
I think the initial market for these will be enviromentalist-minded people with a good deal of disposable income. Frankly, at $30K, it's about as affordable as a Mustang or an "entry-level" luxury car.
This car is very tempting once my $20K hybrid is paid off.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in high school, the leader of our competative programming team was also a hockey coach. I remember driving back from a programming competition where he casually told us about how the hockey team would get high before every game.
There are very few secrets kept from teachers.
With more and more devices becoming data-aware, wouldn't it make sense to revise the household electrical outlets to have some kind of standardized data jack? This way, I can plug in my 60" HD-Youtube-compatible TV into the wall with ONE cord and have it work!
I see right through that kind of stuff. I percieve such people as never making any commitment, because when they say "yes," I don't know if they really plan on following through or not.
I'm a Comcast subscriber... It turns out that the problems I had with BitTorrent were due to the official Mac client not working, and my router being borked. When I switched clients and routers, everything worked fine.
I think we're going to find that this isn't as clear-cut as a case as we think. My guess is that Comcast rightfully intends to throttle traffic as a means of keeping my neighbor's connection speedy when I'm downloading a large ISO; yet their algorithm is faulty. It's probably a case of finding better network management algorithms.
Then again, I think bandwidth should be metered like electricity.
When I read your posts, I get the impression that you think that interfaces were invented as a means of replacing multiple inheritance. This is completely false!
I don't think you understand the purpose of interfaces. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(computer_science)/
An interface defines the communication boundary between two entities, such as a piece of software, a hardware device, or a user. It generally refers to an abstraction that an entity provides of itself to the outsideInheritance provides a default implementation. When publishing an interface, it's considered good style to provide a default class to inherit from. This is not required.
In short, your entire argument is bunk _outside_ of Java. Indeed Java "invented" the problem you claim they solved by making interfaces only workable as empty lists of functions, because they cannot multiply inherit code because they can only find functions by signature and to classes could implement distinct functions with the same signature....I really don't think you understand what interfaces are for. Actually, this is how COM, a fundamental part of Windows, works: From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_object_model#Interfaces/
One of COM's major contributions to the world of Windows development is the awareness of the concept of separation of interface from implementation. This awareness has no doubt influenced the way programmers build systems today. An extension of this fundamental concept is the notion of one interface, multiple implementations. This means that at runtime, an application can choose to instantiate an interface from one of many different concrete implementations.In the COM world, Interfaces are a language-neutral way of one language being able to use objects from another language. I can instantiate a C++ COM object in C#, and (in theory) Java.
In a bound language, where symbols are bound at compile time to the symbols available in fixed scope visibility (like C++), the symbols are bound to either explicit entry points or vtable offsets, that is to known symbolic quantities, there is _NO_ possibility of _accidental_ cross-tree calling. That means that the danger you claim wouldn't be possible.This really isn't as technical of an issue as it appears. It's all semantics. When I call an API that expects an object of a known behavior, I want interfaces because they don't establish any behavior in my classes. Likewise, when I publish an API that expects an object of known behavior, I don't want to force my users to have to use my implementation. It's semantics, but the meaning of "inheriting from a class" is very different from "implementing an interface."
I personally would argue that it's a weakness of C++ that I have to use multiple inheritance when I need interfaces without COM's overhead.
Since every implementer of an interface in Java must recreate predominantly identical code, the empty interface is more likely to induce mistakes born of repetition. Lucky you.In such a scenario, Composition is a much better technique then interfaces. It's a common mistake to use multiple inheritance instead of composition.
I wouldn't blame Java, but I'd blame the following attitudes:
We don't need to optimize our registers; but ignoring the realities of performance when trying to make everything look like pretty objects is just holding us back.
The rainbow effect drives me nuts. I think it would be even worse with video games!
I think you hit the nail on the head. If there was a clear winner, or if there were decent combo drives for a HTPC, I would have spent a lot of money on this looooooong ago. Right now I'm just waiting for a Mac Mini with a BluRay drive.
I got into an argument with a senior developer about that... It made me realize that the problem with programming is that there's no formal certification! My peers in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering had to take very difficult certification exams to get a liscense to work.
Frankly, I've seen many experienced professionals make assinine errors because they've never had to prove that they know what they're doing.
Interfaces are meant to accomplish something fundamentally different then multiple inheritance. Interfaces only describe behavior; which is desirable when an object of a known behavior is expected.
There are a few analogies that one can use to understand why an interface is different then multiple inheritance:
Interfaces allow me, (as a programmer) to allow you to pass me objects of any class heirarchy, as long as they implement known methods. Because interfaces bring no default implementation, you don't have to worry about my code screwing with your object, and I don't have to worry about your code screwing with mine. Yes, multiple inheritance and abstract base classes can accomplish something similar, but it brings along the uncertainy of a base class causing unpredictable behavior.
This is a problem in the semiconductor industry. Microchips are made using a lithography process. Because the features on a chip are smaller then the light's wavelength, the mask is actually designed so that the interfearence patterns generate the correct image.
I would think a similar technique could be employed for a high-resolution display; although that would require a lot of processing power.
Isn't that happening with some forms of DRM?
I have to admit that I'm holding off on buying stuff because I just don't think it'll work well enough. I'm sick of things almost-working.
The concepts of god, gods, and religion are important and widely-spread social phenomenon. Ignoring them in public education is just as bad as a public school teaching that "Jesus actually walked in water" or "The Bhudda was born in a lotus leaf".
Why is this? The US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."; therefore stipulating that public schools can "not mention gods at all" is both censorship and establishing the absence of gods as the state religion.
Maybe that's why my Linksys router stopped working?
A couple of weeks ago, my network started acting very strange. My computers couldn't see each other through the LAN, and my wireless network disappeared. I figured out that the router was doing some kind of a soft reset every second; it ended up getting one of my DynDNS domains disabled due to abusively updating my domain. I couldn't reset the router with the physical button, so I replaced it with an Apple router that supports WPA2.
I realized that a large group of people like getting up on Sunday mornings to sing songs and look at each other's fancy clothes. I realized that religion is more of a social thing then a belief.
I realized that people fear things like the earth being round, or the earth orbiting the sun, or evolution, because they're afraid that such knowledge will destroy their ability to get up on Sunday mornings and sing songs.
I realized that far too many people let emotion get in the way of logic.
...And with things like Netflix working over an internet connection, and Vudu, and rumors of iTunes movie rentals, by the time that we'll be able to do that with HD-DVD or BluRay, we'll already be renting HD movies over the internet.
I frankly think that the only people who spend any REAL money on HD-DVD or BluRay are people who like looking at large shelves of movies. I recently visited a friend of mine who must have about 4-500 DVDs. He has about 20 HD-DVDs and 30 BluRay disks, and doesn't understand why it's not catching on. The general public just doesn't buy lots of movies, and BluRay / HD-DVD are marketed with the assumption that people will buy bookshelf's full of them.
At least with internet movie rentals, there's no real risk of having shelves of worthless plastic.
I've worked for three companies that take that approach. Once tough times hit, everyone is just a "very valuable" cog in a machine.
Granted, it's always a good idea to treat employees as well as possible, but as businesses grow, there's a requirement to remain impersonal. Large businesses have lots of boring "grunt" work. Eventually, competitive pressure takes a toll on a business, and then some bean counter decides to buy cheaper chairs, rougher toilet paper, slower computers, cheaper coffee, less heat/AC, ect, ect. At this point, the "individual people with cares and concerns of their own" switch from "important parts of your company" to interchangeable cogs.
The fact is that all of my employers wanted me to perform a very specific task; and no amount of sugar coating will avoid the reality of business.
I think it's a rhetorical question...
Choosing good employees is difficult, and I think that sometimes employers start to peek into personal lives as a means of figuring out who will be the best employees.
It's because you need a hair cut, damn hippie! (joke)
So this is a case where the RIAA figured out who was the person that uploaded music to the internet. They aren't going after someone who downloaded music; they're going after someone who had a physical CD that said, "(C)... UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION ILLEGAL".
Basically, the guy knew he was uploading his CDs. His CDs explicitly stated that he could not reproduce them.
I'm surprised it took the RIAA so long to figure out that they need to sue the people who rip & upload instead of grandmothers. It's why I don't rip & upload, even when I digitize vinyl records that have no CD/download equivalent available.
I remember reading somewhere that some of the primitive digital equipment in the 70s and 80s had limitations that often left analog versions sounding better. It wasn't until we perfected the digital process that digital recordings really sounded good. Part of the problem was that digital audio was seen as a way to eliminate hiss, when we didn't understand that our ears work best when quiet sounds fade gracefully into hiss.
In some places, people get so hung up on the "buying is better then renting" mentality that they pay waaaaaay too much for homes, and end up spending more then if they had just rented an apartment in the first place.
Part of the problem is that digital video formats change quickly. 35mm film has changed very little since it was invented. The biggest difference between old film and new film is that old film is highly flammable, and thus must be handled in environments that are flameproof. About every 4-5 years, a new video file format comes out on PC. I've used MPEG, ASF, AVI (XviD), WMV, MKV, M4V, ect, ect. Digital video isn't like film; a projector from the 1940s can essentially work with today's film stock*.
I think there's a fear that, even if a film was copied to a new drive every year, it would be stored in a weirdo file format that's impossible to decode in the future.
*Ok... A 1940's projector will probably need an anamorphic lense, but I hope you can understand my point.
I'm not kidding when I say this: When I took driver's ed, it was discussed as a matter-of-fact that driving after trying the "whacky tobaccy" at a party is a bad idea. One of the students proudly described his "buzz-check" system where he would shake his head as a way to tell if he was sober enough to drive.
I think the initial market for these will be enviromentalist-minded people with a good deal of disposable income. Frankly, at $30K, it's about as affordable as a Mustang or an "entry-level" luxury car.
This car is very tempting once my $20K hybrid is paid off.