It is sometimes legal to reverse engineer. It is not legal to reverse engineer any technology in order to defeat security (content protection) mechanisms. This is the result of the DMCA.
Good point. Reverse engineer to make a similiar product - legal; reverse engineer to make a product that gets around content protection - not legal.
It sounds like most folks here think that the plan is to have this guy make something that goes with the latter option.
As far as I know, it's legal to reverse engineer. Then you build something significantly different, but performing the same function, and sell it. I know people at P&G that do that with pratically every consumer product on the market. Is there a patent issue I'm missing? I though that was the whole point of patent laws and the like. You can reverse engineer if you like, but can't build something significantly similiar during the life of the patent. You can build something to perform the same function though.
All that aside, I'm curious what they're up to. I'm a fan of competition and innovation. Isn't that the reason we all attack Microsoft so much?
You heard that line in the movie Contact when they gave Jodi Foster's character the cyanide pill. Come on! That line doesn't really apply here, now does it?
My question is to everyone here, and excuse my ignorance. Why can't other countries setup their own internet with full control that just plugs into the US controlled one? Is there something technically prohibiting that? It seems to me if you don't like the US, why not just make your own; like when I buy a Honda instead of something from GM or Ford. This could be a bad analogy, like someone else warned of, but that's exactly what I'd like to know.
My motivations for not writing a word has nothing to do with fear of a lighning bolt, but something that I enjoy doing. My question to you is, why are you going off on a rant about it? Who cares? So what? What if my supreme being is a dead fly on my desk? Who cares? That was my point, although I was being kind to a person who seemed to care about religion. Not particularly religious applies to how one follows sald religion that they ascribe to. There's a difference between that and not believing in g-d at all. Let me ask you a question? Ever knock on wood? Ever have a good luck charm? It's the same thing and just as harmless and meaningless. Lighten up kid.
Since when did i say, "You apparently think there's a supreme being, maker and master of all creation, who for reasons we mortals cannot begin to fathom"?
That's a lot to assume from one single short post.
Also, if it depresses you about that, then don't go to the mid-west. You might want to kill yourself.
Well said. I'm not a Christian, and not a particularly religious person at that. Still, the fact that we can question means to me that we should; even to prove the negative. We're not talking about child porn or something like. Figuring out how the Universe works and what makes it work, sounds like a good idea. Besides, what's the worst thing, you die and G-d laughs at you for wasting your time?
I'm more impressed with a G-d that can make an increadibly complex and old universe with tons of neat things for us to figure out and explore, than the alternative creation story I learned as a child.
So, somehow in the vast hypocrisy mechanism of the American mind, it becomes perfectly sensible and acceptable to use grants, abatements and subsidies to centrally plan the economics of corporations?
since when does two wrongs make a right? I'm talking about economic theory, and you're talking about bastardizations of capitolist theory.
for the record, I'm a registered democrat.
Answer me this, why is that when someone wants discuss an opinion different than yours, you have to get personal instead of attacking the idea? You'd have a better chance of changing a mind if you did that, than resorting to name calling.
It's not bullshit, but it is an opinion. Socialism in and of itself is a bad idea. The concept of a planned economy does not work either in it's more true forms or in the bastardized forms as exhibited in the communist countries. The fact is that it's better to allow the market to adjust on it's own to both the needs and desires of the market and the resources available to it. These opions, and I am admittedly not an economist, are derivitaves of those ideas put forth by Adam Smith and economists like him. Ask anyone whose lived in a communist country verses living here, and you'll have support for my opinion. I happen to work with a lot of guys who grew up in Russia and places like that before the wall came down.
That being said, I mentioned that I am the son of a 40+ year union man. Socialist reforms of true Lasie-Faire capitolism are necessary. We need the EPA and it's regulations as much as OSHA and unions themselves. Each of these orginizations are a limitation of capitolism and socialist in effect. I'm not saying that some reforms aren't necessary, but I am saying that in places like France, and to a lesser degree Germany, they've gone too far. The very rollback that you talked about in your email only supports my argument, and the current backlash against the ruling German party is more evidence.
European poverty rates being below that of the US, well, I'll take your word for it. I've not looked into it, but I do know that our unemployment rates have beaten them through most of that time. You can make an argument for which is more important, but clearly poverty is less important to the average American than the average European.
Now you talk about the Cold War as if it wasn't real. It happened, and it was the American tax payers, and economy, that bore the brunt of the burden of it istead of Western Europe. The fact is that our mostly Democratic presidents and congress during the Cold War directed our spending to be much higher than theirs. Quite frankly, we couldn't afford it, but they could. You can argue why they spent as they did, but it is a fact.
As for being back at the same level as 1999, well so is France's unemployment. In the 90s it was as high as 12.1, and they got it down as low as 8.7. When they were at that low, we were below 4. The economy under Clinton was great. For the last several years, the wonderful European economy has had almost no growth where as we have continued to have between 2-4 growth in spite of some very tragic events that have happened; and I'm not talking about what happended downtown. The Enron garbage, oil prices, tech bubble burst, and countless other major economic events besides the terrorism troubles have all not stopped the US from having moderate growth.
It's funny but unlike what you suggest many of the former Communist states now free in Eastern Europe, I'm thinking about the Czech and Slovak republics in particular, have adoped laws that make us seem Socialist, and their economies have excelled. They chose not to err towards socialism, but away from it. Interesing isn't it?
My final point is about one of your first ones. The fact that their economy has gone down recently when ours hasn't, does mean that their form of socialism isn't working. If their way was better, then they'd have more growth.
There is no doubt that the poverty issue does need to be worked on here. That I do agree with you about.
according to the US State Department... about 10%
"Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. The Government of France successfully reduced an unemployment rate of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s but has seen unemployment increase to above 10.1% in early 2005."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm
but we're capitolists... aren't socialists the bad guys? certainly not in the let's get some rope sence, but in the hey that's a bad economic idea sence? while the mayor's responce is no different than that of an American mayor with a similiar bit of bad news, but the labor laws in France aren't all that conducive to business. For the record, I'm the son of a 40 year union man, but realistically, laying I've heard many folks more educated than myself on economic matters say that the economic conditions in france; unemployment more than double that of the US; has a lot to do with the socalist regualations that are great for employees, but seem to be having a hugely negative effect on their economy. Sure they're not evil, but just as certainly, they are wrong.
Besides, can't you see that a lot of the silly Freedom Fries stuff is really just people venting some fustration about a group of people who feel themselves wronged. It's not like they're pouring French wine into Boston harbor, although it is a shame that the French resturants here in NYC have suffered from it.
have you ever seen a radar used during WWII vs the ones we use now? I used to work on them when I was on active duty, and have seen the old ones in a museum. Trust me when I say that things have changed dramatically.
as a nerd who remembers taking lots of books to school, and grew up in a mountainous area of southern new york... i ask you... is biking to work really reasonable? Most places lack proper sidewalks / safe roads for all these extra kids to use to get there. I've lived in urban and rural places; even Manhattan, but this is not an option in most places. Well, the lawyers would love it when the accidents happen.
I disagree with you. I went to public school, and am doing fine. The same could be said for most everybody I know who went to one.
I don't understand your post or why you're so angry. I'm curious why, though.
I live in Manhattan(NYC), and we had the same problem here until earlier this summer. There was a big dust-up about it that made the papers, and now some Loews theartres have started posting the ACTUAL start time / and or removing the commercials. The previews I don't mind, and rather enjoy actually. Still, I'll only go to the movies if it's a movie I really want to see, and then only the ones with stadium seating since tickes cost like $11+ here. Crazy, it was like $9+ 2 years ago. A lot of movies are just as good on my setup as on the big screen.
You take my line out of context. Also, your points seem out of joint. I said that spying was a good thing, and that it can discourage war by convincing you not to attack. You just gave examples of times where intelligence underestimated a foe. While that occurs, that was not the point I was making. I was referring to the use of the U-2 during the Cold War. There were many in the US government who believed in a missile gap; that the Russians had many more nukes, ICBMs, and bombers than us. The U-2 overflight missions proved that not to be the case, and this clear apprasial (ie good intelligence) helped cool down the war hawks in our govenrnment.
In each of your examples, better inteligence like in the example I just quoted would have helped the problem.
Everybody collects unclassified material. If you put enough "unclassified" pieces together, you can deduce information that would be classified. That's intelligence work. It's not all James Bond.
The other thing is that everyone spy on everyone else. We all do it. Not much of a big deal; spying to a degree is good. Realistic impressions of other countries military capabilities can help discourage war. So, this is a good thing; don't attack them, they're too strong or don't worry about them; they're no threat.
Better to have a bit less information security than to close our society.
I agree. Also, look in the picture at the propeller. There is no way that thing could produce enough thrust to move that thing into the air. And, at the time, it was a HUGE thing. Unless this Kiwi was living under a rock, he knew about it.
There are a couple of problems with what you suggest. The biggest being the difference between what is possible; and what should be; and what is. The infrastructure for what you suggest is actually on the drawing board in the US; I've worked with Air Traffic Control systems for a few years. The problem is that it's very expencive to upgrade these systems, and the difficulty of integrating them is also not so easy. It's like switching from gasoline to hydrogen. Sure we can build it, and we'll ignore the hydrogen generation problems for a minute, but there's an awful lot of cars and gas stations for gasoline out there. It's going to take some time to build all of that.
Then there is the idea of getting people used to the idea. Most folks both inside and outside the airlines industry are quite conservative when it comes to safety, and like the idea of having a coulple of folks instead of PC's at the controls. I've seen a plane, NASA 727, do a few touch and goes (including flying the loop pattern back to the runway) on autopilot, and it takes some getting used to. It's a little wierd.
The final point is that I expect this to come over the next couple of decades; expecially with all the success the military is having with UAVs and UCAVs. Many times have Global Hawks flown from the US to bases overseas with only a "go" command from the operator. Quite impressive for at thing that big!
That's a good question, and I have a couple of points to address it. First of all, they use these things in on industrial size trucks and equipment, so they must have addressed that issue already. Secondly, we're talking about torque. Currently, most cars already have a limited slip differential. You know the saying, "moving power from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip." This would be the same thing, and the "dead" motor would simply coast. Certainly, they would not make the wires in question easily broken. Currently, there is a ton of wiring in cars that don't fail easily. Hydrolics have been replaced in aircraft since the late 70s with the F-16, and the success there has been folowed in other aircraft. Another point is that the power brakes on your car, all cars, use a fairly fragile hose that one leak will make useless. One nick in the hose, and no brakes in the whole system; hence the emergency break, which is a steel cable backup for the hydrolics. My last point is that the electric cars like the EV-1 by GM, I think, have used this exact design. The big three have already addressed this issue. Having all 4 wheels have the motor would prevent the failure of one to cause a catastrophy. Even then, the loss of the electric load that one dead motor would represent would be noticible by the system, and then a smart designer could design the system to react to it.
There's something else to consider here. Most cars, all mass market ones I'm aware of, use mechanical transmission. No, I'm not confusing manual vs automatic. The have been significant improvements in electrical drive systems. According to a few Discovery Channel shows, apparently a large percentage of the really big trucks us electrical generation by diesal generators, and then have independent electrical motors to drive the wheels. I believe the Navy is/was more or less proposing the same thing on the DD-21 class of destroyers. I also read recently that Bose, yes the same guys who make the speakers, are making an electrical(technically electro-mechanical) shock asorbers to replace the hydrolic ones we all use now.
Okay so what's my point? My point is that these mechanical transmission systems while effective are heavier than they need to be. We could replace them in cars with the electrical systems that the heavy equipment manufacturers have already done; as I believe the technology has matured enough to reach the smaller sizes that cars require. Even in the big ugly SUV that so many folks hate, it would be a significant improvment. I'm not sure here, but I think it would help.
I disagree. People have enjoyed being told a story since the birth of our species. I believe it's one of the core things we all share. Regardless, there will always be a large segment of the population who do not want to participate in their own stories; like you do with all those great games we enjoy. Even then, everyone I know; including the hardcore gamers, still like to read a book or watch a movie now and again.
You know there may be something to this money thing. Think about it. A bunch of people will buy hardware and software (movies, etc) of/in the losing format. Then they'll have to go and replace all of that with the winning format. The manufactures and content supliers get an extra chunk of cash. Granted, this might (I'm not in that world and have no real idea) be limited by the fact that they'll have to buy the equipment to support the winner; replacing the stuff they bought to support the loser. Still....
Slashdot Mirror
It is sometimes legal to reverse engineer. It is not legal to reverse engineer any technology in order to defeat security (content protection) mechanisms. This is the result of the DMCA.
Good point. Reverse engineer to make a similiar product - legal; reverse engineer to make a product that gets around content protection - not legal.
It sounds like most folks here think that the plan is to have this guy make something that goes with the latter option.
As far as I know, it's legal to reverse engineer. Then you build something significantly different, but performing the same function, and sell it. I know people at P&G that do that with pratically every consumer product on the market. Is there a patent issue I'm missing? I though that was the whole point of patent laws and the like. You can reverse engineer if you like, but can't build something significantly similiar during the life of the patent. You can build something to perform the same function though.
All that aside, I'm curious what they're up to. I'm a fan of competition and innovation. Isn't that the reason we all attack Microsoft so much?
You heard that line in the movie Contact when they gave Jodi Foster's character the cyanide pill. Come on! That line doesn't really apply here, now does it? My question is to everyone here, and excuse my ignorance. Why can't other countries setup their own internet with full control that just plugs into the US controlled one? Is there something technically prohibiting that? It seems to me if you don't like the US, why not just make your own; like when I buy a Honda instead of something from GM or Ford. This could be a bad analogy, like someone else warned of, but that's exactly what I'd like to know.
Goser? Is that you? The last time I saw you, you were tearing up a Midtown highrise in the form of a giant StayPuff marshmellow man!
My motivations for not writing a word has nothing to do with fear of a lighning bolt, but something that I enjoy doing. My question to you is, why are you going off on a rant about it? Who cares? So what? What if my supreme being is a dead fly on my desk? Who cares? That was my point, although I was being kind to a person who seemed to care about religion. Not particularly religious applies to how one follows sald religion that they ascribe to. There's a difference between that and not believing in g-d at all. Let me ask you a question? Ever knock on wood? Ever have a good luck charm? It's the same thing and just as harmless and meaningless. Lighten up kid. Since when did i say, "You apparently think there's a supreme being, maker and master of all creation, who for reasons we mortals cannot begin to fathom"? That's a lot to assume from one single short post. Also, if it depresses you about that, then don't go to the mid-west. You might want to kill yourself.
Well said. I'm not a Christian, and not a particularly religious person at that. Still, the fact that we can question means to me that we should; even to prove the negative. We're not talking about child porn or something like. Figuring out how the Universe works and what makes it work, sounds like a good idea. Besides, what's the worst thing, you die and G-d laughs at you for wasting your time?
I'm more impressed with a G-d that can make an increadibly complex and old universe with tons of neat things for us to figure out and explore, than the alternative creation story I learned as a child.
Why not, right?
So, somehow in the vast hypocrisy mechanism of the American mind, it becomes perfectly sensible and acceptable to use grants, abatements and subsidies to centrally plan the economics of corporations?
since when does two wrongs make a right? I'm talking about economic theory, and you're talking about bastardizations of capitolist theory.
for the record, I'm a registered democrat.
Answer me this, why is that when someone wants discuss an opinion different than yours, you have to get personal instead of attacking the idea? You'd have a better chance of changing a mind if you did that, than resorting to name calling.
You got me, I don't spell well. Ug is an engineer, and not good at spellin dem werds.
It's not bullshit, but it is an opinion. Socialism in and of itself is a bad idea. The concept of a planned economy does not work either in it's more true forms or in the bastardized forms as exhibited in the communist countries. The fact is that it's better to allow the market to adjust on it's own to both the needs and desires of the market and the resources available to it. These opions, and I am admittedly not an economist, are derivitaves of those ideas put forth by Adam Smith and economists like him. Ask anyone whose lived in a communist country verses living here, and you'll have support for my opinion. I happen to work with a lot of guys who grew up in Russia and places like that before the wall came down.
That being said, I mentioned that I am the son of a 40+ year union man. Socialist reforms of true Lasie-Faire capitolism are necessary. We need the EPA and it's regulations as much as OSHA and unions themselves. Each of these orginizations are a limitation of capitolism and socialist in effect. I'm not saying that some reforms aren't necessary, but I am saying that in places like France, and to a lesser degree Germany, they've gone too far. The very rollback that you talked about in your email only supports my argument, and the current backlash against the ruling German party is more evidence.
European poverty rates being below that of the US, well, I'll take your word for it. I've not looked into it, but I do know that our unemployment rates have beaten them through most of that time. You can make an argument for which is more important, but clearly poverty is less important to the average American than the average European.
Now you talk about the Cold War as if it wasn't real. It happened, and it was the American tax payers, and economy, that bore the brunt of the burden of it istead of Western Europe. The fact is that our mostly Democratic presidents and congress during the Cold War directed our spending to be much higher than theirs. Quite frankly, we couldn't afford it, but they could. You can argue why they spent as they did, but it is a fact.
As for being back at the same level as 1999, well so is France's unemployment. In the 90s it was as high as 12.1, and they got it down as low as 8.7. When they were at that low, we were below 4. The economy under Clinton was great. For the last several years, the wonderful European economy has had almost no growth where as we have continued to have between 2-4 growth in spite of some very tragic events that have happened; and I'm not talking about what happended downtown. The Enron garbage, oil prices, tech bubble burst, and countless other major economic events besides the terrorism troubles have all not stopped the US from having moderate growth.
It's funny but unlike what you suggest many of the former Communist states now free in Eastern Europe, I'm thinking about the Czech and Slovak republics in particular, have adoped laws that make us seem Socialist, and their economies have excelled. They chose not to err towards socialism, but away from it. Interesing isn't it?
My final point is about one of your first ones. The fact that their economy has gone down recently when ours hasn't, does mean that their form of socialism isn't working. If their way was better, then they'd have more growth.
There is no doubt that the poverty issue does need to be worked on here. That I do agree with you about.
according to the US State Department... about 10% "Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. The Government of France successfully reduced an unemployment rate of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s but has seen unemployment increase to above 10.1% in early 2005." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm
but we're capitolists... aren't socialists the bad guys? certainly not in the let's get some rope sence, but in the hey that's a bad economic idea sence? while the mayor's responce is no different than that of an American mayor with a similiar bit of bad news, but the labor laws in France aren't all that conducive to business. For the record, I'm the son of a 40 year union man, but realistically, laying I've heard many folks more educated than myself on economic matters say that the economic conditions in france; unemployment more than double that of the US; has a lot to do with the socalist regualations that are great for employees, but seem to be having a hugely negative effect on their economy. Sure they're not evil, but just as certainly, they are wrong. Besides, can't you see that a lot of the silly Freedom Fries stuff is really just people venting some fustration about a group of people who feel themselves wronged. It's not like they're pouring French wine into Boston harbor, although it is a shame that the French resturants here in NYC have suffered from it.
have you ever seen a radar used during WWII vs the ones we use now? I used to work on them when I was on active duty, and have seen the old ones in a museum. Trust me when I say that things have changed dramatically.
as a nerd who remembers taking lots of books to school, and grew up in a mountainous area of southern new york... i ask you ... is biking to work really reasonable? Most places lack proper sidewalks / safe roads for all these extra kids to use to get there. I've lived in urban and rural places; even Manhattan, but this is not an option in most places. Well, the lawyers would love it when the accidents happen.
I disagree with you. I went to public school, and am doing fine. The same could be said for most everybody I know who went to one. I don't understand your post or why you're so angry. I'm curious why, though.
I live in Manhattan(NYC), and we had the same problem here until earlier this summer. There was a big dust-up about it that made the papers, and now some Loews theartres have started posting the ACTUAL start time / and or removing the commercials. The previews I don't mind, and rather enjoy actually. Still, I'll only go to the movies if it's a movie I really want to see, and then only the ones with stadium seating since tickes cost like $11+ here. Crazy, it was like $9+ 2 years ago. A lot of movies are just as good on my setup as on the big screen.
You take my line out of context. Also, your points seem out of joint. I said that spying was a good thing, and that it can discourage war by convincing you not to attack. You just gave examples of times where intelligence underestimated a foe. While that occurs, that was not the point I was making. I was referring to the use of the U-2 during the Cold War. There were many in the US government who believed in a missile gap; that the Russians had many more nukes, ICBMs, and bombers than us. The U-2 overflight missions proved that not to be the case, and this clear apprasial (ie good intelligence) helped cool down the war hawks in our govenrnment.
In each of your examples, better inteligence like in the example I just quoted would have helped the problem.
Everybody collects unclassified material. If you put enough "unclassified" pieces together, you can deduce information that would be classified. That's intelligence work. It's not all James Bond. The other thing is that everyone spy on everyone else. We all do it. Not much of a big deal; spying to a degree is good. Realistic impressions of other countries military capabilities can help discourage war. So, this is a good thing; don't attack them, they're too strong or don't worry about them; they're no threat. Better to have a bit less information security than to close our society.
I agree. Also, look in the picture at the propeller. There is no way that thing could produce enough thrust to move that thing into the air. And, at the time, it was a HUGE thing. Unless this Kiwi was living under a rock, he knew about it.
There are a couple of problems with what you suggest. The biggest being the difference between what is possible; and what should be; and what is. The infrastructure for what you suggest is actually on the drawing board in the US; I've worked with Air Traffic Control systems for a few years. The problem is that it's very expencive to upgrade these systems, and the difficulty of integrating them is also not so easy. It's like switching from gasoline to hydrogen. Sure we can build it, and we'll ignore the hydrogen generation problems for a minute, but there's an awful lot of cars and gas stations for gasoline out there. It's going to take some time to build all of that. Then there is the idea of getting people used to the idea. Most folks both inside and outside the airlines industry are quite conservative when it comes to safety, and like the idea of having a coulple of folks instead of PC's at the controls. I've seen a plane, NASA 727, do a few touch and goes (including flying the loop pattern back to the runway) on autopilot, and it takes some getting used to. It's a little wierd. The final point is that I expect this to come over the next couple of decades; expecially with all the success the military is having with UAVs and UCAVs. Many times have Global Hawks flown from the US to bases overseas with only a "go" command from the operator. Quite impressive for at thing that big!
That's a good question, and I have a couple of points to address it. First of all, they use these things in on industrial size trucks and equipment, so they must have addressed that issue already. Secondly, we're talking about torque. Currently, most cars already have a limited slip differential. You know the saying, "moving power from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip." This would be the same thing, and the "dead" motor would simply coast. Certainly, they would not make the wires in question easily broken. Currently, there is a ton of wiring in cars that don't fail easily. Hydrolics have been replaced in aircraft since the late 70s with the F-16, and the success there has been folowed in other aircraft. Another point is that the power brakes on your car, all cars, use a fairly fragile hose that one leak will make useless. One nick in the hose, and no brakes in the whole system; hence the emergency break, which is a steel cable backup for the hydrolics. My last point is that the electric cars like the EV-1 by GM, I think, have used this exact design. The big three have already addressed this issue. Having all 4 wheels have the motor would prevent the failure of one to cause a catastrophy. Even then, the loss of the electric load that one dead motor would represent would be noticible by the system, and then a smart designer could design the system to react to it.
There's something else to consider here. Most cars, all mass market ones I'm aware of, use mechanical transmission. No, I'm not confusing manual vs automatic. The have been significant improvements in electrical drive systems. According to a few Discovery Channel shows, apparently a large percentage of the really big trucks us electrical generation by diesal generators, and then have independent electrical motors to drive the wheels. I believe the Navy is/was more or less proposing the same thing on the DD-21 class of destroyers. I also read recently that Bose, yes the same guys who make the speakers, are making an electrical(technically electro-mechanical) shock asorbers to replace the hydrolic ones we all use now. Okay so what's my point? My point is that these mechanical transmission systems while effective are heavier than they need to be. We could replace them in cars with the electrical systems that the heavy equipment manufacturers have already done; as I believe the technology has matured enough to reach the smaller sizes that cars require. Even in the big ugly SUV that so many folks hate, it would be a significant improvment. I'm not sure here, but I think it would help.
I disagree. People have enjoyed being told a story since the birth of our species. I believe it's one of the core things we all share. Regardless, there will always be a large segment of the population who do not want to participate in their own stories; like you do with all those great games we enjoy. Even then, everyone I know; including the hardcore gamers, still like to read a book or watch a movie now and again.
You know you can see that engine over at Huntville along with mock-ups of a bunch of other rockets. They have a shuttle mockup, but not a Saturn 5.
You know there may be something to this money thing. Think about it. A bunch of people will buy hardware and software (movies, etc) of/in the losing format. Then they'll have to go and replace all of that with the winning format. The manufactures and content supliers get an extra chunk of cash. Granted, this might (I'm not in that world and have no real idea) be limited by the fact that they'll have to buy the equipment to support the winner; replacing the stuff they bought to support the loser. Still....