That version of the analogy doesn't really work either since a stolen widget is a stolen widget, where content piracy doesn't directly deprive anyone of anything material, or correlate predictably with lost sales.

But anyway, my point wasn't that content piracy is the new model. It's that piracy will force them to evolve. There will be money involved, just as there is with music now. Piracy is just a big ass lever that can help move industries.

If I had to guess, it would be that we'll head towards the Netflix model. Not specifically their core content now (older stuff), but what they're trying to do with programming like House of Cards. The Hulu model is a dead-end, in my opinion. It's some tiny fraction of TV content, with many of the downsides we hate in the traditional system, only made worse.

On the details I can only guess, though. On the fact that the existing model is totally untenable in the face of what's coming, I'm dead certain.

Right, and perhaps just as important, that people didn't want a $16 CD of shitty filler to get the one song they heard on the radio. But the industry didn't learn those things. Instead they were dragged, kicked and screaming, into the iTunes model. Meanwhile file-sharing never died... it got better, and legitimate music purchasing has had to get better to compete with it. Everything has gotten easier, cheaper, more organized, with better quality and consistency. In every way, people won.

Now it's TV's turn. That industry refuses to look five years in the future, so they'll be forced, just as it was with music. People don't want all the garbage that comes with the one thing they like, and they won't tolerate the obscene bill and mandatory advertising.

Today you can spend $35 on a computer, add a free software plugin, and immediately call up any television show you want in HD, no commercials, on demand, for free. It's only going to get better and that industry is going to have to compete or die.

Buggy whip manufacturers have to evolve and it's seldom voluntary.

I guess the nice part of that is that you give them a few grand, they buy the app, and you make back most of the money they spent on your app.

With these book campaigns you've preordered 3,000 books made of actual plant matter, that costs serious money, and you don't make the majority of that back in a sales check. You have to count on making it back with the, "New York Times Bestseller" moniker, over the rest of your professional life.

Amen. And we really do need Google to do this, if even on behalf of (and with written permission of), the actual rights holders. Every system needs checks, and just dumping countless notices on a service provider and letting them be the arbiter, with no repercussions for bogus requests, is absolutely insane. There needs to be counterweight.

Republican *say* they want to return to a slightly more reasonable tax regime, too. The problem is that neither actually do. One is "kill tax loopholes and reduce spending", both of which are legitimate ideas depending on where they're implemented, the other is "spend more to promote economic growth and increase taxes", which, depending on how it's implemented, also makes sense.

If it weren't all bullshit political posturing, where two enemies were trying to preserve their voting records for reference in future elections, we'd get some arrangement that involves all of the above and be in pretty good shape in short order.

But they bicker, we bicker, and nobody comes to a legitimate solution.

You could have just said CM is the best software patch for any android device that isn't a platform reference.

Do any of them actually support their devices? I know Samsung doesn't, either.

Yes... feeeel the hate. Let it flow through you, consume you, make you stronger. Know the power of the slashdot.

I'll stick with the following interpretation, courtesy of the Supreme Court, thanks...

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

I don't know if you saw, but they completely gutted and redid the UI a while back. It's just my opinion, but I think it's fantastic now. One of the few cases where a project listened and made a good, major change.

Of course you might disagree.

I lived in France for a little while, and I really enjoyed it, but everything about this seems perfectly obvious (and old) to me. The thing is, I'm not sure why anyone is bent out of shape over his having said it... it's exactly what you'd expect an american ceo to say on the subject.

In other news, asian cultures can be more group-oriented than individualistic, don't count on that 3pm call from eastern europe actually coming in at 3pm, and don't set your schedule so tight that you have to fly in to Italy on Tuesday, since there's a good chance they'll be on strike.

Shit in different places is different.

That's a hard case to make nowadays, whether we like it or not. Not having heard of Python is ridiculous though.

I absolutely believe you've had that experience. I'm a pretty conservative guy that isn't religious. I don't care if gay people want to get married and I really don't care about pot. My politics are framed pretty tightly around a smallish set of things I do think are important. So you can imagine the dust-ups I've had with friends and family.

Honestly, I look at most of those forums as if they're slashdot, but the other way 'round. There are things I know you can't say here. Not because I'm wrong or afraid someone will challenge my perspective, but because Slashdot is usually an echo chamber, reinforced by the karma system. It's similar with some of the gun forums. You've got goofs that live there, trying to make sure nobody challenges their opinions on anything. And they've definitely got more time to spend being stupid and angry than you do.

They had multiple working hardware prototypes. Here's an early, early prototype from long before you saw that video. It should look familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=049_U-0C9qU

I have a Kindle Fire around here somewhere that runs aftermarket android roms. I see no reason why I should turn my nose up at a linux distro, if it works well. That part, of course, remains to be seen.

As I discussed earlier, they're not, and that's a problem. This is politics fueled by fear.

My apologies. By "this", I meant this exact kind of showboating in gun legislation that does no good for society, plays fast and loose with constitutional rights, and makes political hay.