Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
A. The people posting the pictures don't care (at least at the time they are posting them)
B. Facebook doesn't want it to work and they have the power to stop it by not allowing encrypted pictures. (If they wanted this feature, they would just provide it themselves by removing the content on a given date.)
C. Even if posters cared enough to use this system, no one would be able to see their pictures because
most people are to stupid to be able to install a plugin
and posters want people to see their pictures (which is why they are posting them online)
D. It is too easy to circumvent
Damn pedantics =)
I believe you mean "damn pedants". Pedantic is an adjective.
I'm harping on that movie because from what I've seen, it bases itself on lots of blue and orange colors intermixed with blowing shit up. The story is hackneyed, the little bit of acting I've seen is flat, and any similarity to the original Tron is based solely on the fluorescent colors and that it takes place in a computer.
When was the last time you saw the original? The similarities extend much further then the colors and the setting: the original story was also hackneyed and the original acting quite flat. At least this one has Daft Punk.
I see no technological barrier to building this family of devices today. Is anyone building it?
Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy but not true SF, they have too many impossible things to qualify as true Science Fiction.
Have you ever seen a Rambo movie? It typically contains a great many impossible things. I'm not comfortable with classifying it as Science Fiction.
His definition would not classify Rambo as science fiction. He clearly emphasizes that in SF there is only one impossible thing (which seems a little arbitrary) and that the story focuses on what would happen if that thing were possible. His definition might classify Rambo as fantasy, but it isn't clear.
Of course, you ALSO HAVE TO ACTUALLY CHECK IN on a mobile device for any of this to be relevant, as well.
Apparently that isn't quite true. The link he provided implies that people can check on behalf of their friends. See items 9 and 10.
You've missed his point rather badly. He isn't saying he wants background processes that never sleep. He's saying he wants process that are allowed to do some work, some of the time, when they aren't the actual task in front of the user on the screen. Sure, they might sleep most of the time, but they might, say, wake up for 10 milliseconds out of every 300 milliseconds to process a data stream, decide not to bother the user, and then go back to sleep.
That said, I don't think you deserved the troll mod. Maybe, "+1 Incorrect Point About A Interesting Topic".
Frankly, what I really want would be a micro-transaction sort of system. I would be happy to pay 5 cents per article I read on NY times. Sounds tiny right? I'd say I read at least 5 articles on a week day. That's a quarter a day, $5 a month. More than the $50 they ask for.
Why would you prefer a model where you pay $60 per year and you have a decide on a click-by-click basis if you want to spend the money over a model where you pay $50 per year and can read whatever you want on a whim?
On days when I visit the NYT I probably click on twenty articles. Most of them I "read" for about 5 seconds. A few merit more attention and a I read them more completely. I like this freedom to skim. A pay-per-click system would make that cost prohibitive.
I think the future model is going to be a small number of iTunes-style markets for media content that are (somewhat) independent from the media providers. You go to one place to spend your money and manage your purchases (eBooks, mp3s) and your subscriptions (NYT, Pandora, Hulu) and you get one account that lets you access multiple sources from your eReader, your browser, your phone, etc. This system has already begun and will mature quite a bit at the end of this month when Apple announces their iPad. Within a few years several such markets will spring up and then consolidate down to 3-5 major "networks". This model will be both better and worse for consumers, but publishers will get paid so it will stick around.
They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be".
On the other hand, they have this rule.