He has another option, which corporations like to use. My wife works for a company that manufactures cheap chain saws, weed eaters, blowers and such stuff. Cheap power tools often break down, or cause accidents. They get sued for their crummy products from time to time. They offer little to no defense, sometimes settling, sometimes ignoring the issue, whatever seems right to them.

When they figure they've had enough heat, they change names, transfer ownership other members of the families, and other wierd crap. Working at the same plant with the same supervisors, the wife has signed paychecks from at least six different companies in the last 12 years.

So, this guy can just "give away" the rights to his script and/or software, and allow someone else to be the owner. He may or may not actually retain control, but he has "ceased and desisted" the distribution of that software. Facebook can't demand much more than that. He can change the name of the software, the name of the "owner", the place of business, and anything else he cares to change, as often as he likes, and thumb his nose at Facebook.

...the Netherlands. Oh, and Venice. We'll all end up as game addicts in a suburb of Sprawlopolis.

The disk drives weren't faster, it was the I/O interface to the computer that was faster. PET's used the IEEE-488 parallel bus, while the C64 used the IEEE-488-"C" serial bus. Obviously a parallel bus can move more bits at a time than a serial bus at the same operating frequency. When compared to the tape drives, the disk drive was blazing fast. :)

Modern construction techniques and materials are actually really good. Except for the occasional airliner or two crashing into them, our buildings are able to withstand tremendous strain. These days, most new buildings in the modern world are built with these techniques and materials. Flexible yet firm. Light yet strong. We've come a long way in this respect.

But we also have the money to build these things. Take a look at some recent tragedies caused by earthquakes. Bam, Chile, etc. These aren't places that have especially tall buildings. In fact, most of their buildings are slapped together walls with heavy roofs. When the ground starts shaking, these things are death traps.

So this new technology is great, but don't expect to see it saving lives in the Third World. Those places will continue to lose people by the thousands every time a 6+ magnitude earthquake hits. They just don't have the money to build correctly.

Think of anti-virus as a vaccination. When you receive a vaccination, it protects you against the specific threat that the vaccination is designed to protect you from. The same holds true for anti-virus software. There is no magical "this program will destroy your computer or steal your personal information" opcode in software, so anti-virus software is designed to detect things it knows to be suspicious. If something is unknown (either because it is new and there aren't virus definition files for it or if your virus definition files are out of date because your 30-day trial has expired or you're not connected to the Internet or the software fails to automatically update or your anti-virus software has been compromised or switched off), your anti-virus software has a very slim chance of picking something malicious.

That is why an anti-virus package wouldn't stop threats newer than its definition files.

The constitutional definition of treason is as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

It's rather difficult to get a conviction for treason, and there's a damn good reason - the Founders wanted the people to be able to criticize their government freely. That's why it's "levying war" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". That being said, the maximum penalty for treason is the death penalty. Judges sentencing have leeway in what they decide, and unless someone died, critical state secrets were passed along, or troop movements were disclosed, it's unlikely that any judge would sentence someone convicted of treason to death.

Thanks.

I love you too?

Yes, but who makes the APIs that do all of the hard work? Nerds! That's great that what they make can be easily used, but as long as humans want to do something new with the computer, there will always be the need for a nerd that knows more than the average person to implement it.

There are still many open questions in computer science (which is to computer programming as astronomy is to telescopes) which will both push the boundaries of what computers can do as well as make computers more usable for the average person to solve problems. If you're concerned about job availability as well as not being treated a cog in the machine by your co-workers, then work on the edges of the field, not in the well-defined center.

Genitals are not the same as gender identification. One can identify as female and still have male genitals, just as one can identify as male and have female genitals.

She's not saying that she regrets changing her name and assuming her gender identity. She's saying that she regrets changing her genitals.

That's not what I'm arguing for at all. In fact, I'm arguing for the opposite - that the market value of a work is a poor indicator as to whether the work is critically important or not. Indefinite copyright terms stifle the progress of the arts by not providing a larger pool to draw ideas and inspiration from.

There have been arguments that artists shouldn't be professionals - that first, they should make a living and then produce art, and further, that there should be minimal funding of the arts as they produce little of economic value. Many of the people that advance this argument also complain that there's not enough funding for basic science. They continue by saying basic science advances our fundamental understanding of the universe and that funding should be provided for basic science even if it does not produce much of economic value in the short term, and that basic science shouldn't be relegated to a part time endeavor by scientists who have to first make a living by doing more commercially viable research.

What I am saying is that art can have just as large of an impact of our understanding of the world - not in increasing our understanding of how the universe fundamentally works, but by increasing our understanding of the human condition. Art can be just as thought provoking as science. They're similar but not the same.

In my view, anybody complaining about the slashing of science and not the slashing of art is a short sighted hypocrite. Nobody should make a living for doing nothing. Nobody should be guaranteed their position at the table or guaranteed a living. Both the artist and the scientist should work hard, and we should be rewarding those that turn out the best critical work, even if that work is not economically profitable in the short term because not doing so relegates art and basic science to side projects.

Some art is both commercially and critically successful. Some basic science is commercially profitable and beneficial. But always tying profitability to success in art and science misses the times when unprofitable things are beneficial.

And I, am of course, an idiot. Yes, an advance has plenty to do with production and distribution costs - namely, that an advance is part of production costs. However, if you lower production costs and distribution costs and the gross amount that the book makes, then an advance could be the major part of the production cost, and be what the publishing houses trim next.

Only if you believe that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual citizen.

I used that example only because it was convenient. Let's take the corporations out of it and see if it still holds, and if it does, then you are right.

then any person with your credit card number could freely share it with anybody else. Your local grocer or your friends could share your history of purchases with your local insurance agent so they can set rates based upon your diet, your recreation habits, and the power tools you own.

It sounds like that would be an invasion of privacy (and speech restricted on the basis thereof) regardless of whether a corporation was involved.

I'm not saying that they should be guaranteed an income or a living. What I am saying is that it's hard to be an artist. Those that are truly motivated because art is a calling will be fine no matter what happens. Those who have talent but would like to make a living are either going to have to produce what society wants (as society's judgment of the market value of their work is what feeds, clothes, and shelters them) or do something else for a living, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.

However, without incentives, only those that are truly devoted to their calling or who have a knack for producing what society wants will be able to create. Some of the most radical, thought-provoking, and critically acclaimed art is not popular or profitable, much like basic science research is rarely profitable, but they both advance mankind.

What I see on Slashdot is hypocrisy. On one hand, people complain that science, basic, fundamental science, is not being funded enough, and that governments or large organizations should be giving more grants to researchers to keep science from being a strictly commercial venture, as commercial ventures, as a rule, focus on what brings in more profit in the near and medium terms. Some organizations (for example, back when Bell Labs was active) focus on the long term, but most focus on the short term.

On the other hand, people are complaining that artists shouldn't expect funding in the form of grants (advances, for example) from governments or large organizations even though artistic contributions can have similar effects on society. They feel that artists should produce what is profitable. Ideas are powerful and insight into how we perceive this world, either scientific or artistic, has real meaning, regardless of if they bring in the most profit.

You'd have less crappy books out there from young authors who want a simple "cash in" solution to paying the bills by throwing any garbage out there and having it published.

It seems rather silly to think that large publishing companies won't sponsor people, regardless of the distribution medium, if they think they're going to get large return on investment. That's good economics, regardless of the medium.

Only those truly dedicated to the craft would succeed. You would of course have fewer books, but of better calibre.

Self publishing might open the market to persistent authors, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be of higher quality.

It's a bootstrapping problem. You're not likely going to be able to find a large enough audience to pay in advance for a book unless you've already written something already popular. Some of the most critically acclaimed works are not popular, and some of the most popular works are not critically acclaimed.