If they do, not all is lost!
(My kids range from soon 11 to soon 2 y.o. And they have the same whitish un-tan I had myself when I was the same age.)
I have discovered that siblings get back at you when you get kids of your own.
All my kids will think of is LEGO, that's what they spend all their money on. Myself, I'm thinking of giving them an Arduino, a couple of motors, sensors and diodes and install Processing/Wiring on their computer - just to see what they'll come up with.
I was with you all the way to "remove". If it's a one way ticket, chances are there are only psychopaths and narcissists left!
Does that imply that it would be permissible för 8 y.o. kids to get behind the wheel of a Marsian rover? I'd say that would make my kids enthusiastic emigrants...
My 20 month old girl likes her OLPC very much (inherited from her siblings, they now have a normal computer with Ubuntu on it). She usually gets stuck in the search mode after a while though, so some supervision is needed.
Oh, we also have a spare 80's keyboard which we place in front of our laptops when she wants to join me or the wife while 'putering. Gives her something to do, and us a barrier between the real keyboard and her. This is needed, as she has well deserved her nickname "Godzylvia".
That would have been Bill Gates cheating Paul Allen, actually. But that's even further off topic...
You also need to consider that every piece of software and every table of elevations and distances that engineers use when building such systems are not in metric. It is not just a matter of using a few conversions here and there; it's a matter rewriting software, referring to old designs, and many other factors. When my government is over $12,300,000,000,000 in debt, "getting on with the times" is the last thing on which I'd want it to waste more money.
Bullshit. That software is already sold outside the US, and thus it already supports SI units (unless it's written by the boss' nephew, which is one more reason to throw it out).
And really, do you think the conversion snafus don't cost anything?
In the civil cases it is not a question of guilt and crime in the formal sense - you're not a criminal because someone sued you (and the epithet 'criminal' sparked this thread, remember?).
In the cases of the speed tickets the ruling does still not come into effect until the appeal period has lapsed. Furthermore, there have been successful appeals to speed tickets too...
Noveau is included in staging (which means that it comes with the kernel, but is not considered stable). Nv isn't a kernel driver at all, but merely an X.org driver from nvidia. Though the noveau kernel and X.org drivers are more fully featured than the nv offering, they still don't support 3D-acceleration very well.
especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies.
Hang on a minute. I never argued for the extension of copyright. And where did I make a logical fallacy? Me pointing out what the current situation is, is not the same as me arguing for the current situation.
This was the general 'you' of people arguing for extension of copyright, and not the personal you to whom I respond. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
Still, the general argument made for copyright extension is that it encourages creativity. While making it retroactive only encourages people to live on old accomplishments, instead of making new creations. Indeed, the current copyright terms are so generous that prolonging them even longer will under no circumstances benefit the creator. Thus, any argument for a copyright extension made on the basis of encouraging creativity contains a logical fallacy.
Retroactively prolonging ownership is even worse. Think for a minute about artists who sold the copyright of their works when the copyright period was shorter. What they sold was a lease on their works for a limited time, knowing that their works would enter the Public Domain afterwards - and that they and their descendants would have free access to their works from then on. When government retroactively changes the terms of copyright, they also change the basis for all these agreements - without further compensation to the original artists. That's when a discussion of ethics become interesting.
Wouldn't stifling reuse actually stimulate creativity? After all, it means people have to actually come up with new ideas, rather than simply recycling the old.
You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else? It is with art as it is with science, you build upon that which has come before you. Sometimes you are inspired, and borrow (such as both Beatles and Disney did a lot of), and sometimes you react. But indifference is never the source of great art.
From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Right. So this is just your opinion, with nothing based on the actual laws.
You know that I'm not the person you originally responded to, right?
Anyway, SydShamino used the word 'should' which say nothing about law, but does say something about what feels right. It is thus a question of ethics. And from an ethical standpoint, it is questionable to use the law to make retroactive changes to ownership - especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies. The fact that the laws in question are the result of heavy lobbying from an industry which does not represent the original creators does add insult to injury.
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn