Do you mean the factory jobs in China where people find it more beneficial to commit suicide than earn the wages? I don't think I'll miss them.

Or do you mean the jobs in China where people pull apart old motherboards and burn the pieces in the open air to extract the precious metal? I guess you need those jobs for environment.

If they truly have the stomach of a Klingon, I'll expect them to enjoy Vegemite crumpets.

Well, "gay rights" encompasses a lot of things. When this gets narrowed down to just one issue, say for example, "gay marriage," you might find that the majority does not agree with you. For example, an article today about Hawaii's governor vetoing "gay civil unions," while it sort of supports your point about politicians being in the way, also reports, "Nationwide, voters have consistently rejected same-sex marriage. Five states -- Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, through judicial or legislative actions."(See, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100707/pl_nm/us_hawaii_gaymarriage )

So, in a state where the population has voted against gay marriage, but the judiciary has permitted it, is it the majority or the minority who is establishing the law over the objections of the other? How would the virtual representative have voted? I don't think that the "majority" is always as "progressive" as people imagine.

An earlier poster wrote:

The funny thing is that the vuvuzelas are a recent introduction into South African culture. They are not only post-Colonial, they are post-Apartheid.

The maker of the horns admits that the prototype came from the USA... http://www.boogieblast.co.za/vuvuzela.htm

and this has been known in wider soccer circles for at least a year... http://www.footballiscominghome.net/the-hosts/the-vuvuzela/

and while the plastic horns have been around since the late 90s in South Africa... http://www.southafrica.info/2010/vuvuzela.htm

the current mass-producer only started up in 2001... http://www.vuvuzelas.com/about.html

Additionally, there's the blaringly obvious notion that the vuvuzela looks nothing like the kudu horn it allegedly comes from and looks everything like a cheap rip-off of the sort of long thin horns you see draped with flags playing fanfares when kings enter in films set in the middle ages, but I suppose it's expecting a lot for everyone to think critically. Last time I checked, kudu horns didn't have embouchures, either, which is what allows the plastic horn blowers to last all game.

You think you have problems? What if this becomes a trend? How will I stand out anymore?

I request that you take steps to distinguish yourself from my prior art!

Perhaps it is complex to implement all these controls. That seems like a red herring when people are complaining about previously working privacy settings being removed or changed. It wasn't too difficult to have those settings in 2005.

The problem for many people is that Facebook keeps removing controls that were previously implemented. The history of Facebook is not one of saying, "Gee, we wish we could implement all these privacy settings you'd like"; it is one of saying, "Gee, you're not really going to miss those privacy settings we are removing, are you?"

According to Ambrosia Software's website, Captain Hector still shows up in Escape Velocity Nova.

See: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/support/faqs/products/ev-nova/Why-should-I-register-EV-Nova
or: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/support/faqs/products/escape-velocity/Does-Captain-Hector-serve-any-real-purpose

Ambrosia's FAQ says: "Hector is there to remind you that Escape Velocity is a shareware product. You have 30 days to try Escape Velocity before registering. Hector keeps track of the days and can become a nuisance when the trial period expires."

It sounds a lot like a simpler form of what Sony patented, as the previous poster wrote. I guess Sony does not look at Mac (and some Windows) shareware authors when it does searches for prior art. It's a shame, because shareware can innovate, too.

I think that if you'd bother to read about his life you'll find that PKD kids were not "silver spoons." In his lifetime, Dick won awards but was plagued by financial difficulties. Only one film based on a work of his was ever greenlighted during his lifetime, and he died four months before it was released. The financial success of PKD works is all post-mortem, and is largely the result of his estate successfully licensing his works as his works have become marketable later on.

In other words, the heirs you criticize were not born with silver spoons in their mouths; they were born to a writer who was unknown outside of the science fiction community, who hadn't had mainstream success, and took loans from other writers just to get by. His children did not grow up in wealth, living off a successful, creative father who sent them to boarding school, etc. It is because there have been films since Blade Runner, that the works of PKD have enjoyed success outside of the pages of science fiction magazines.

This doesn't make the PKD heirs' lawsuit right in this case, but you can't put them in the same boat as say the heirs of the Walt and Roy O. Disney, both of whom were ridiculously financially successful within their own lifetime and were able to pass on that fortune to their children, such as the late Roy E. Disney.