Ebert commented in his review that the film was unique in that it just showed OSX and standard programs like mail.app and iphoto instead of having everything be obviously faked. I like that approach but for whatever reason it is pretty rare in films.
I've always wondered why films and TV series (with limited budgets) don't just use off-the-shelf screens from Windows, OS X, or Linux distros. Are there some copyright/trademark issues that get in the way? It seems like a lot of work to develop your own UI that will only be on the screen for a few seconds.
I did notice that in an episode of Homeland that Saul was runing Media Player Classic on Windows to watch a video from an SD card, with the titlebar blurred out (so the name of the app wasn't visible). Later, another character watches the same video but there's a total custom UI used to bring up the video. In the same episode.
Personally I get annoyed whenever I see product placements, like Macbooks, or iPhones, or Windows screens in movies, not to mention Google/Bing searches or Xbox/Playstations in futuristic settings.
Especially when I go to a movie theater, I go there to watch a movie that I pay for. I'm not paying between $7 and $20 to watch a commercial.
Actually, it's highly unrealistic to see everyone using the exact same platform or exact same software. Especially the Apple products, as their perception of ubiquity is highly inflated by their advertising.
In The Matrix Reloaded, Trinity uses nmap and then an OpenSSH exploit that was published a couple months before the film officially opened in theaters. Contrast this with Swordfish, where you get lines like (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "We have a DS3, allowing you to access eight systems simultaneously." Ugh, just hit stop and go outside.
Back on topic, Tron: Legacy to me feels like a highly technological father/son movie, in the same way that Google is a highly technological advertising company. So it seems we're already living in the future. "The Matrix has you..."
You're only meant to use the downloads if you already own CS2, but as CS2 is seven years old at this point, this is just enforced with an honesty system.
People really like to dismiss that by calling it transgressive humor, but it's really not? You never truly get made fun of for being part of the majority.
you don't have to be dishonest, a ripoff, "evil/mean/douchey", someone selling themselves and their principles out for a dime, or morally bankrupt to become successful
Arguably the bigger problem is that interesting content is determined by popular consensus, which rewards ingroup signifiers and pandering to the majority.
The FBI might target them, but most likely for their laissez-faire moderation where deleting a subsection literally dedicated to child pornography caused a major uproar.
I think calling r/jailbait pornography could be debatable. Technically speaking there wasn't anything illegal with the sub-reddit, which is why it upset a lot of people - even those who wouldn't go close to r/jailbait (such as myself).
I take issue with your description of /r/jailbait. None of the images in that subreddit qualified as child pornography under the definition of child pornography on the Wikipedia page.
Even in light of US vs Knox, which I had not know about, the material on r/jailbait was not child pornography. The courts opinion list some criteria for something to be considered child pornography. The material on r/jailbait does not fit these criteria.
1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
Which is why currencies are customarily tied to entities that can do things like fight wars and build roads and enforce taxation, and not pseudonymous cryptography researchers on the internet.
It is possible to base the currency in commodity. Not the gold standard, but, say, 1 coin is worth the average of a predetermined amount of the top 20 or 30 traded commodities in the market. Banks guarantee to exchange your coins for commodities at any time - bank chooses the exact commodity, but the amount is determined by the value of your coins. It would cost you more money than now to hold an account with the bank, as the bank needs to be able to guarantee to exchange coins for commodities at any time, and thus must store or otherwise arrange access to those commodities. This means you will be paid less interest. On the flip side, the value of your coins is always guaranteed and not based on reputation. That latter property may make it suitable for decentralisation in a way that a fiat currency is not.
And the banks are insured by the FDIC and rely on the stability of the US bond market. It's a viscous cycle. Lol. It doesn't mean that the bitcoin can't be viable. I just don't think it can be as grandiose a currency as some people are envisioning
