"Is that cloning or theft? Should clones be welcomed or abhorred?"

Easy. Clones should be welcomed.

1) They put innovation pressure on the original, benefiting everybody.
2) They put price pressure on the original, benefiting everybody.
3) They may create a better platform, a better product than the original, benefiting everybody.

Everybody wins. Except when you look at the motivation to create original products in the first place. Will the clones lower the reward and make it less beneficial to be original?

Hardly.

1) A truly original and inovative product will take some time to clone -- there will be a lead, in which user base/fan base/multiplayer communities should create critical mass.
2) Playing it right, the original *will* have goodwill. In other words, all things being fairly equal, people will likely stay with the original.
3) Originality is a scale, not a binary concept. Games are more or less original. Per (2) above, clones will need to compete in originality just like their inspiration did. When each clone out of many tries to be a little more original than the next, they may arrive at a quite original game, per Darwin. This could happen even though they started off at a lower plateau of originality than the concept originator. Think StarCraft.
4) In this sense, everyone is (or must be) original to be relevant. Originality is not at risk.

I hope that didn't sound too confusing :-)

> It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones.

No, I don't think you got the point. The point is that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to wait to watch the new release in their most preferred format.

I propose the following:
(1) People have only one chance to have a first impression of a movie.
(2) They can chose what that first impression is.
(3) They will chose the one that best satisfies them, within their cost/convenience/quality/social mix (for the occasion).

Therefore, they will pass the chance to watch a movie in a format that robs them the full experience it can give. You know what I am talking about. Any /. reader knows very well how to DL a free copy of a movie, right now, at this moment. He/she can pick between a quick download that will be trasfered to (an can be watched on) their cellphone screen. Or they can get the PSP version. Or the VCD version. Or the DVD version. Or the HD version. Yet... how many /.ers have stopped going to movie theaters because of that?

Myself, I don't have time to watch every movie. And the limited time I have, I will use to watch the best movies in the grandest way (at a movie theater, or at least in HD). I will not be wasting time with bad movies, nor wasting great movies with a tiny screen...

Seems to me you are not working from a definition of a cult, and trying to see if it differentiates Judaico-Christian mainstream religious groups from Scientology. Rather, you are going in the oppostite direction: looking at scientology, trying to find how it is different, and then creating a definition of "cult" based on that.

If you are going to procede like that, might as well say that "Scientology is based on the works of contemporary writer L. Ron Hubbard, while Judaico Christian religions are based on texts which are over 1,000 years old". Or any of several trivial observations like that. But you will be missing the point. Go look at the definition of cult in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with how popular/widespread a religion is, or how old the texts are, or how possessive they are with said texts/revelations.

"Your coach wasn't telling you that some of you stretchers were good, some of you were bad, and little Timmy in the back is the anti-Pele because he can't half-volley from 18."

LOL

Wish I could mod you up as funny.

All these stupid animal names that people are adopting.
Karmic Koala? Are you serious?

Then I guess it should be called a Karma-Killer Koala, nickname KKK...

Exactly my thoughts. And exactly paralell to the fact that, being in Brazil, I cannot download movies/TV programs through my Xbox 360 (which I would gladly pay to do) but I can find pirated DVDs in any street corner. When there is not a paved, accessible road between supply and demand, people will step on the grass.

International is important, but if you notice lots of kindle versions are not available for international regions (why, oh why???). So I'd much rather have WiFi (which can go through proxys, if need be) and *all* texts available for download than to have wireless (which tags me in an international location).

Then again B&N will likely not have as many ebooks as Amazon, though.

Yeah, 'cause in real life, people really do get sucked into their computers all of the time...

You are right they do! Plus, why else would the Onion be making news out of it?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard. This is ZX8200-C, your capitain, speaking. Let me congratulate you for being here. This flight marks the beginning of new era in the history of aviation. For the first time, a commercial airplane has no human pilots. This plane will take off, travel to its destination, and land entirelly guided by me, an advanced computer completely free from human error. We are just about to begin our trip. All the doors are sealed, and we are positioning the plane for take off. Drinks will be served shorthly after reaching cruise speed. So please make sure your seats are in the upright position, fasten your seatbelts, relax and enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight..."

> The Aztecs were completely outclassed. Four hundred Spaniards defeated over 40,000 Aztecs and other assorted allies in a single battle. That happened before various imported plagues decimated them.

Not four hundred Spaniards. It was 400 hundred spaniards and thousands of local indian allies. The Aztec were a conquering nation, and had several "foreign nations" under their control when the Spaniards came and made a civil war (rebellion of controlled provinces) possible.

The reason why 400 hundred spaniards made such an impact is that they were able to break through aztec lines and open the way for they allies to come through and surround the aztec armies. That, plus the shock impact (obviously) of facing horses, dogs, gunpowder and swords for the first time ever.

>Capitalism can't produce common goods.

Yes it can. Capitalism is the most efficient producer of common and uncommon goods mankind has ever devised. It is also the system most compatible with free choice and democracy. Do you want to move to Cuba? Go ahead...

>Internet would've never had existed if it weren't for the US government.

As surely as the airplane would've never had existed if it weren't for the wright brothers.

>It was created in an academic environment, by passionate people that cared about the advance of technolog (indirectly: of mankind).

It was, in fact, created in a military-sponsored environment, by passionate people who cared about the advance of the soviets and the threat of nuclear weapons (indirectly: nationalists).

>Internet advanced quickly, different protocols appeared, once replacing the other (Gopher, SMTP, HTTP, POP, IMAP, NNTP, etc.). Then the companies came. Those set of protocols froze, some began to fade.

Gopher was text-only and superseded by the Web. All of the other protocols you mentioned (SMTP, HTTP, POP, IMAP, NNTP) are still aroud, still relevant, still ported to new systems and kept current. But, even if they werent, are you trying to say that between POP and IMAP we must have both forever?

>Companies didn't care about "what's right".

What is "What's right"? What you think is right? What I think is right? What they think is right?

>They didn't care about advance the network.

Unless it would make them money. Or differentiate their products. Or make them look good to prospective customers. Thinking about it, they did care.

>The HTTP/1.0 -> 1.1 transition took years, and still hasn't finished (e.g. http pipelining). IMAP mail stalled, and got replaced by webmail. Multicast was never deployed at large. Newsgroups got replaced by phpbb.

Water-fueled cars were kept away from the market by big oil companies. HIV virus was created to sell vaccines. Amiga OS was sabotaged by IBM. OS/2 was replaced by Windows. Sinclair computers went out of business. But not all is lost! Blue Mountain Arts is still around!

> Mandatory reading for the guy you responded to and for anyone interested to know why North America and Europe became the most developed societies (...)

I subscribe to your recommendation: the book is excellent.

But I must clarify that the book explains why Europe and Asia (not North America) became home to the most developed societies. The text was inspired by a question from a Borneo (or was it New Guinea) native who asked, essentially: Why did the british arrive, full of technological goods, and found natives walking naked and paddling wooden canoes -- instead of it being the other way around? The same question could have been posed by a Massachussets indian. The author's quest for an answer brought out his great thesis.

North America is advanced, today. But it all happened after trans-oceanic sea travel (that means, post-1500). Once ships started to extend trade lines in all directions, east-west, north and south, above and below the sahara, east and west of the andes, to and from Australia, etc -- geography ceased being the factor it once was.

It was about a year ago that in an unfortunate event a 5-year old brazilian girl called "Isabella" was thrown off a building to her death. The perpetrator, police found out, was either her biological father or his new wife (perhaps both). Isabella became a national celebrity, and was for months the #1 news story in every media. Of course even a few young kids heard about her.

Why did no one think of doing a "Isabella falling off the building" coloring book? Perhaps a "Isabella being pushed through the window by evil step-mother" coloring book would help the young ones deal with it? Genius!