Then there are devices like the iControlPad. Have your phone when you want it to be just a phone, strap on gaming controls when you want something more than Angry Birds or driving games.

Even in XP, you've installed several commercial games, each with it's own DRM stuff. You get tired of Norton or just choose not to upgrade it - the one that came pre-installed on your computer. You install a browser, and for some obscure reason it had "Install toolbar X or anti-virus Y" pre-clicked on it. You or one of your friends or kids hits a few iffy websites. Often the trouble to "clean" all that cruft is more time consuming that putting your data on a USB stick - scanning the documents on that on a clean computer - and re-installing your OS of choice on the "bad" computer.

One of the sad bits of computing in the modern age is the sheer amount of malicious software out there. Leave your computer unpatched for a couple weeks while you're on vacation or otherwise busy, have some critical 0 day flaw, get on the web, and some bot infected computer / website / whatever infects your computer. And that's a fairly experienced guy just neglecting to download that security patch onto a USB thumb drive and apply it to his computer before exposing it to the world. It's a worst case scenario, and MOST faults come from browsing sights and downloading stuff that's clearly marginal, but the sophistication and vector of attacks are on the rise, the virus scanning and malware software isn't keeping up, and one ill-considered click can install some nasty cruft on one's computer.

It's Google. Think search - much the way Gmail works now.

Aaaaannnndddd, what, not accept cell service, phone service, cable service, not go to any live shows of any sort, not have power, or any other service because we don't like the contract, the company won't change it for you - though they'll happily change it on a regular basis to make it more restrictive and/or more difficult to read?

I don't think there's a single EULA out there that I agree with, and I'd argue they shouldn't be binding as a rule since you can't even read them in many cases until AFTER you've opened the product you purchased. (At least where computers, phones, consoles, etc. are concerned. Good luck with returning the thing if you don't like the terms of service after you've opened it.)

Even in the cases where you can read the contract before you get the service, you're in a position where "bargaining" won't do you any good. It's either service their way, or no service at all for many things - power, broadband, cable, etc. If you don't want it, one customer protesting on principles is no skin off of their nose. Heck, I'd argue the sheer number of times the legalese changes is abusive. Who actually has the time / money to go through and see how line item 5 in paragraph 15 of page 20 in their service agreement is reaming them?

A LITTLE bit of leverage in the way of class action law suits, and a government that tells companies they CAN'T put certain things in these "one way" contracts isn't unwarranted. Way back when, when book publishers tried to put in EULAs in physical books to prevent the used book market, we ruled that they couldn't Now we seem to be sliding back to the "you've bought it, but we own it and get to tell you what you can do with it." model.

And, maybe, because it's not our country?

I mean a lot of the world hates the way we bully them into accepting laws that are favorable to us - ACTA for instance - woe be it for us to enforce our ideas of sexuality on countries with entirely different backgrounds and social norms.

As a reference guide to newer and fast changing languages, maybe.

For more in depth studies on theory, language fundamentals, algorithms, and more complex topics and / or well written primers? Not so much.

I also find that it's still easier to browse a reference tome - much the way one browses a dictionary - than it is an electronic reference. It's not quicker to get to a specific topic, but it's easier to find new topics.

Nevada, I believe.

Making "reaction drive" space travel exciting is an interesting challenge. It takes a lot of time and money to get anywhere, even in this solar system.

But it's not impossible. Asteroid miners, long haul shippers, isolated colonies, a "new wild west" in space where piracy may very well be the way to keep one's marginal operation going - and if it don't go, you end up breathing vacuum.

Some people will pirate regardless, sure.

For some it's price. It *IS* difficult to compete with free, or in the case of the mass DVD pirating that happens in some regions, the price to produce the dvd plus just a little for slim profit margins. (It would help if they'd get their act together and partner with as many streaming providers as possible...)

For many who have the money to purchase it does feel like we're being gouged. $40-$60 for the game, $15-$25 for the dvd/blue ray. But it'd be nice, if I'm purchasing a game, not to feel like I'm assumed to be pirating it.

Then there's the bother. Maybe the game or movie player requires you to have an internet connection to play, even if it's a single player only game. With movies, maybe you're required to sit through previews, or the "You wouldn't steal a" commercials that are ironically removed on the pirated content. It's sad when the pirated content is unarguably the better content. You want to watch the movie? Just watch it. You want to play that game and can't find your original CD case, box, or manual with the CD-Key, or don't have an internet connection handy? Just play it.

1 - People don't know how. It's not unusual to run into somebody who once had a decent speaker system, couldn't set it up properly so it sounded like crap, so just went with the crap speakers the next time around. 2 - While you can have as big and expensive a screen as you want, you often can't DRIVE a nice set of speakers without ticking off roomies, or neighbors - assuming you live with roommies or in an apartment complex. 3 - You HAVE to spend the money on a decent system to run the game anyway. You probably have to spend the money on a decent monitor for the game and anything else you're going to do on the system. That my not leave much left over for a decent audio solution. 4 - Space and configuration. Where to put the amplifier, sub woofer, and 3 - 7 "decent" speakers in an office that's already made out of an over-cramped guest room with mini-desk just about pushing the chair into the guest bed. 5 - You often end up running with headset and mic anyway so any online games can be played without the rest of the team hearing your sound effects when you're talking - assuming you do online gaming.

And yet, even the traditional PBXs are going towards SIP and/or other VOIP based phones...where all the challenges that Skype addresses abound, and may not have found a solution nearly as elegant. Would you rather have a call that's a bit cruddy in quality, or have your employee, who knows jack about networking, working in an office that may or may not have an IT staff, try to debug the problems with his PBX based IP phone? (And probably still run into call quality issues.)

Joking or not, many ISPs restrict "business" ports like port 25 with their residential accounts.

I think most artists have a bit of the Don Quixote in them, but probably also listen to the mighty $$. If art X makes money, and art Y doesn't...well, they're probably doing less of Y because they want to continue to pay their bills, or continue enjoying a successful career.

I think that having a counter specifically for the counter's sake can be bad. The evils of Greed are one of the hallmarks of Greek tragedies. I agree that an artist should be looking to his art first, rather than what will simply earn the most money, damn the quality of work.

I don't think it's bad for an artist to have expectations of where they want their art to take them, the same as the rest of us. From "I want to make enough on my art so I can scrape by." to "I want to be acknowledged as one of the BEST ACTORS/SCULPTORS/What Have Yous."

I don't think it's unreasonable to want the monetary success as well as the critical accolades success brings one, and even the Shakespeares of old were aware of where their bread was buttered.

'Course, it's not just artistic skill that gets one there. An artist has all the challenges of an entrepreneur, and a much higher quotient of luck to become successful than most professionals. I don't think it's unreasonable to want the monetary rewards if one "makes it." I think most successful people, artists included, are driven personalities, wanting everything that success offers. I know some artists who are happy to create just for creations sake, but most of the more successful I've been exposed to are very aware of the monetary potential of various undertakings. They'll do other things because they care about them, but they'll tend to do more of what makes money. If what makes money is also what they want to do, even better!

The exception to this rule that I can think of is the artist who make so much money that they can from that moment on "write their own bill". Clint Eastwood, for instance, is in a position to put out whatever movies he wants now, where I doubt he'd be able to interest most studios in "Million Dollar Baby" back when he was doing spaghetti westerns.

When I say even in Greek and Roman times, the implication is this was one of the first "golden ages" for western society. The dark ages that followed were much harder on the general citizenry than the relative luxury the Greeks and Romans enjoyed.