...but then add in financials - AP/AR, treasury, billingcstatements (but that is likely outsourced).
I'm going to guess that payroll done by ADP is donre on mainframe...

Or the light has changed from green to yellow and you're in the zone of can I stop or not and you realize shit there is a cop (or red light cameras).
Or you're driving in downtown chicago.

Hmm... albertsons and safeway seemed to bring them out at the same time...so...

Or the lightjustturnedyellowcanistoporgunitandnotgetmypicturetaken moments? What about those?
I just wonder when USAA will "feature" this...

Well, if he can then afford only to go to a nursing home using medicare, he has to sell it anyways.
can't protect that asset (this is consideted fraudulent) ... I guess in that context I'm noy seeing the problem.

Kind of like low income/net worth person bitching about gas prices and insurance while acting as if he has some god-granted right, i tell ya, to keep driving that cadillac Escilade that uncle joe left him...

well, it can run Crysis at about 42 fps...

While the actual software may not deteriorate over time (in and of itself), it can and does go stale. We all wax nostalgic over our favorite games of yore. How many would you really like to play now on the hardware you have? Want to play CGA graphics games like Bard's Tale on your 240 fps Crysis machine? No, as that would be visually painful. It may not even be possible to play these old games on new hardware or operating systems.

I'm glad no one has tried to emulate the Atari 2600 in MAME (but maybe they have...)

I think back and maybe it would be fun to occasionally play Civ 2. But not really. Now if the game's UI elements were updated, but the actual game play and mechanics were the same, including the spearmen killing tanks, that would be OK. What would be cool is if for newer versions of games like this if they could somehow shoehorn the old game play (and, in the case of Civ 2, the wonders movies...) into the new game as a scenario or...downloadable content.

The odd effect of that, though, is...the censors win by default.

Sure, the defendant was trying to get out of paying for the original work. Just like my company might not want to pay Corbis or whatnot their fees to use their stock photos, so it hires a photographer to take similar pictures (even though it probably cost far less to use the stock pictures). Now, according to this judge, Corbis (or any other stock photography shop) could go through their picture archives and sue my company for copyright "infringement"? That sucks.

But would be OK if all the stock image companies started suing each other over whose stock images were "more original".

...and then the point of being a lawyer becomes arguing that the law doesn't actually apply to your defendant, or does apply to the entity you're suing despite what its attorney is arguing.