I had the same problem with Voyager that I did with Enterprise - the characters I found interesting weren't the ones that were getting screen time. There were some very good episodes hidden in there, but too often it was another Archer/T'Pol or Janeway/Seven extravaganza...
DS9 was the proof of concept that you could have Trek without Ye Olde Starship. (I'm actually not fond of the Defiant, since it seemed like a copout on that front). Babylon 5 was proof of concept that you could have an overarching plot in place and tell a story over multiple seasons. Babylon 5 was also proof of concept that CGI would work in television (DS9 looks nicer because they're still using models until later in the series). Yeah, it looks dated, but so does original Trek and no-one complains about that.
In no way does copyright law force anyone to buy anything, thus it does not "guaranty" or guarantee any profits to anyone. This is made pretty obvious by the thousands of starving artists in the world
And don't you think there'd be a lot fewer starving artists (well, musicians anyway) if recorded music had been prohibited as an "infringing technology"? Every nightclub and restaurant would have to hire musicians instead of just piping music over the speakers. That's a lot of musicians you could be playing standards four nights a week.
This is right up there with the "let's require by law that all phones have FM radios" idea - maybe my new car should have a buggy whip and a sack of feed as well...
Actually, check out Net Zero Energy Home (our local building's site is here). The idea was to balance out over the course of the year - you'd be drawing power during the winter, but supplying during the summer (when we get those nice sixteen hour days).
The cost of building was coming down nicely as well - if/when I build a home, I'll be seriously looking at one done this way.
I disagree. Let's assume I can sell you a very very cheap solar cell that runs at 2% efficiency. The price is so low that the $ per kw/h is very low. However, this is not a viable option. In this case, you will quickly recoup your investment, but you aren't producing much power. Do you plan to make your roof 5 to 10 times as large?
$ per kw/h is important, but it is not the only important metric.
I do agree that there is no absolute need to be off the grid. However, it seems to me that a logical goal for the technology should be: a typical house should be able to cover its southern facing roof with solar panels and produce enough power to run lights, refrigerator, and A/C on a summer day at noon.
I'd say a more realistic goal is to be saving money.
Let's take another look at that 2% grid - if that solar power is cheaper than buying from the grid (after taking the infrastructure into account), then why wouldn't you use it? It's cheaper than the grid.
Well, considering they released it saying "Yeah, there are a mess of bugs and security holes here"... I suspect the point *was* to flush them out.
The releases I read were pretty clear that this code wasn't remotely ready for production, and that they knew it.
If I'm going to poke them for anything, it's that they had promised something by the end of the summer. But that's just over-optimistic young folks.
prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent
Pretty easy to get nice high poll numbers when you're asking people to think of the absolute worst example and ask if *that* should be banned
Also looking forward to seeing how they'd define "ultraviolent", or even "violent" for that matter - Mario's been torching and sitting on people's heads for 25 years now... could even call him a "repeat offender"...
Why not just take the figurative bullets out of the gun (no networked devices allowed) instead of building an expensive figurative bullet proof vest. If they don't need the networked device for the test, there is no reason to allow it in the room in the first place.
Except that the point is, they do - they don't need the networking, but the device is their calculator/dictionary/what-have you. So the problem is really: how do you let them use their device without giving them the functionality you don't want them to have?
It's not a new problem, actually - back in '95, my school finally allowed computers for final essay exams (for much the same logic: all year essays were required to be typed; why suddenly make everyone handwrite for 50% of their mark?) But they didn't like the built-in dictionary and thesaurus. So one of the computer labs had those functions removed from all the word processing software (I seem to remember they just deleted/moved the relevant files so an error popped up). Tada.
But these sorts of problems aren't going to go away, so we need to find solutions. (A sniffer strikes me as the simplest - gives a clear record of whomever is using naughty devices?)
Which still qualifies as Stupid Thing To Do, but does anyone actually think this kid is a credible threat to the President?
I'll buy that the Secret Service/FBI looks into it (if he managed to hit the right notes in the email). I'll even buy that local police will assist (because police do that sort of thing). But once you find the guy, unless there's something unmentioned going on... he's one drunk kid who isn't even in the same country.
Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.
What she was actually busted for: admitting that she'd already decided the person's fate.
Let's be realistic here - with today's "breaking news" culture, when the news says "Bob was arrested today on charge X" everyone hears "Bob is guilty of charge X". It's sad, but true.
Or to have a list of emergency numbers, say the fire department, police department, 911, suicide hotline, etc. They already have to keep track of what number you call for billing purposes (and to actually route the call)
That will work for determining the "important calls" (and I'd be shocked if that wasn't already in place, at least for 911). But there was talk of dropping the "unimportant" calls - and there's no cheatsheet for that. I suppose we could just drop random calls...
If someone's trying to call 911, I'd think the phone company should drop someone's chat with their girlfriend if there otherwise wouldn't be capacity for that 911 call.
Obvious Problem: the only way for the phone company to know if a call is "unimportant" is to monitor all calls. And it'll be a matter of minutes before various agencies ask to listen as well...
So, I write some software widget. I release it GPL, all free and dandy.
Now, you can use it to your heart's desire. The license only comes into play if you take my widget and build it into yours. Then my GPL says:
1) If you're giving your widget away for free (like my widget), then go ahead and have fun - we've made the world a bit better.
2) If you're planning on making money from your widget, then if my widget is so important to your project, it's only fair that I get something too. If that bugs you, then feel free to write your own version of my widget - then you don't have to pay me anything.
I've never understood how this makes it at all evil.
(This is based on my personal understanding of GPL; I'm not a lawyer, and I don't want to be one.)
Of course, a future problem will be when MapQuest figures out that they're effectively paying for their competition's upgrades as well. Could be this discussion is trying to get Bing on board before MapQuest pulls out (citing quite valid competitive reasons).
Which means as long as Microsoft is crediting OpenStreetMap, they're in compliance.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should put the "NonCommerical" part in your CC license - so that Big Company doesn't take your little community project and make all the cash.
Considering that both US parties will sell you down the river, unless you didn't vote at all, you voted for it.
Never understood why Americans prefer the two-party system; sure, we get minority governments up here in Canada, but that's a good thing, because it forces compromise.
Agreed. Although it is a bit disturbing that he doesn't feel the need to give any lip-service at all to the electorate, at least he's honest. (Maybe that's why he gets in - you know exactly how he's going to screw you.)
Happened in Canada as well. I'm not sure what's scarier: that the CIA is getting so inept at this that we're finding out about it more often, or that the CIA is doing it so much that we're hitting those statistical outliers that they can't properly hide or cover up.
I'm not implying that our current scenario is as cut and dried as World War II but how would you react if Wikileaks had been broadcasting over a magical radio station that blanketed the Earth the location of allied forces in 1942? Would you so callously respond that "maybe the Allies shouldn't be doing that in the first place?"
Except, of course, Wikileaks isn't reporting on the current state of *anything*, as far as I'm aware - all this stuff is months and years old.
Also, don't you think the world of 1942 would have liked to seen the footage of death camps sooner rather than later? (Read: if this leak was full of Iraqi torture footage, I suspect the US wouldn't be wringing it's hands nearly as much.)
Meaning, if at some point Assange doesn't get his way, he threatens to blackmail the war efforts? I mean, the data Wikileaks already gave shows current military failures and could be construed as dangerous to a wide, faceless entity and effort, but as an act of vengeance, he's willing to knowingly and directly put named individuals in mortal danger and ruin trust built up by putting up data which had a very fair assumption that it would be kept secret?
So what you're saying is Assange isn't some hero. He's not some revolutionary or the new messiah or something. He's not even a troll, aiming to get a rise out of the government. He's an immature, blackmailing asshole who's willing to send people to death to prove whatever point he's trying to make.
Or, he's making a simple demonstration of an important point - even if the US manages to arrest, disappear, or just have him accidentally shot in the head, that information is still available. Blackmail requires a threat - none has been made. This is him simply saying "yeah, you can probably twist enough arms to get me; but you won't get anything out of it."
On a side note, question to the Americans who think the OpEd is a good idea - would you support foreign governments coming into the US and arresting/detaining/disappearing people they've accused of wrong-doing?
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same problem with Voyager that I did with Enterprise - the characters I found interesting weren't the ones that were getting screen time. There were some very good episodes hidden in there, but too often it was another Archer/T'Pol or Janeway/Seven extravaganza...
I love both shows, for different reasons.
DS9 was the proof of concept that you could have Trek without Ye Olde Starship. (I'm actually not fond of the Defiant, since it seemed like a copout on that front). Babylon 5 was proof of concept that you could have an overarching plot in place and tell a story over multiple seasons. Babylon 5 was also proof of concept that CGI would work in television (DS9 looks nicer because they're still using models until later in the series). Yeah, it looks dated, but so does original Trek and no-one complains about that.
make people snap a whip to get the car to turn.. anything to get them off their damn phone.
Oh, you don't get a cell phone either - that's infringing on telegraphs.
Which is infringing on Pony Express.
Which is infringing on smoke signals.
Which is infringing on The Burning Bush.
.. which would be followed by an additional 'regulation' that a 'Decade' is now equal to 100 years...
In no way does copyright law force anyone to buy anything, thus it does not "guaranty" or guarantee any profits to anyone. This is made pretty obvious by the thousands of starving artists in the world
And don't you think there'd be a lot fewer starving artists (well, musicians anyway) if recorded music had been prohibited as an "infringing technology"? Every nightclub and restaurant would have to hire musicians instead of just piping music over the speakers. That's a lot of musicians you could be playing standards four nights a week.
This is right up there with the "let's require by law that all phones have FM radios" idea - maybe my new car should have a buggy whip and a sack of feed as well...
Won't anyone think of the children?!?
Actually, check out Net Zero Energy Home (our local building's site is here). The idea was to balance out over the course of the year - you'd be drawing power during the winter, but supplying during the summer (when we get those nice sixteen hour days).
The cost of building was coming down nicely as well - if/when I build a home, I'll be seriously looking at one done this way.
I disagree. Let's assume I can sell you a very very cheap solar cell that runs at 2% efficiency. The price is so low that the $ per kw/h is very low. However, this is not a viable option. In this case, you will quickly recoup your investment, but you aren't producing much power. Do you plan to make your roof 5 to 10 times as large?
$ per kw/h is important, but it is not the only important metric.
I do agree that there is no absolute need to be off the grid. However, it seems to me that a logical goal for the technology should be: a typical house should be able to cover its southern facing roof with solar panels and produce enough power to run lights, refrigerator, and A/C on a summer day at noon.
I'd say a more realistic goal is to be saving money.
Let's take another look at that 2% grid - if that solar power is cheaper than buying from the grid (after taking the infrastructure into account), then why wouldn't you use it? It's cheaper than the grid.
Well, considering they released it saying "Yeah, there are a mess of bugs and security holes here"... I suspect the point *was* to flush them out. The releases I read were pretty clear that this code wasn't remotely ready for production, and that they knew it. If I'm going to poke them for anything, it's that they had promised something by the end of the summer. But that's just over-optimistic young folks.
But what do you use when the Democrats are in power?
Obviously the smaller Congressional Hearings per Donkey. (The conversion is left as an exercise for the reader).
prohibits minors from purchasing ultraviolent or sexually violent video games without parental consent
Pretty easy to get nice high poll numbers when you're asking people to think of the absolute worst example and ask if *that* should be banned
Also looking forward to seeing how they'd define "ultraviolent", or even "violent" for that matter - Mario's been torching and sitting on people's heads for 25 years now... could even call him a "repeat offender"...
Why not just take the figurative bullets out of the gun (no networked devices allowed) instead of building an expensive figurative bullet proof vest. If they don't need the networked device for the test, there is no reason to allow it in the room in the first place.
Except that the point is, they do - they don't need the networking, but the device is their calculator/dictionary/what-have you. So the problem is really: how do you let them use their device without giving them the functionality you don't want them to have?
It's not a new problem, actually - back in '95, my school finally allowed computers for final essay exams (for much the same logic: all year essays were required to be typed; why suddenly make everyone handwrite for 50% of their mark?) But they didn't like the built-in dictionary and thesaurus. So one of the computer labs had those functions removed from all the word processing software (I seem to remember they just deleted/moved the relevant files so an error popped up). Tada.
But these sorts of problems aren't going to go away, so we need to find solutions. (A sniffer strikes me as the simplest - gives a clear record of whomever is using naughty devices?)
Which still qualifies as Stupid Thing To Do, but does anyone actually think this kid is a credible threat to the President?
I'll buy that the Secret Service/FBI looks into it (if he managed to hit the right notes in the email). I'll even buy that local police will assist (because police do that sort of thing). But once you find the guy, unless there's something unmentioned going on... he's one drunk kid who isn't even in the same country.
Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.
What she was actually busted for: admitting that she'd already decided the person's fate.
Let's be realistic here - with today's "breaking news" culture, when the news says "Bob was arrested today on charge X" everyone hears "Bob is guilty of charge X". It's sad, but true.
Or to have a list of emergency numbers, say the fire department, police department, 911, suicide hotline, etc. They already have to keep track of what number you call for billing purposes (and to actually route the call)
That will work for determining the "important calls" (and I'd be shocked if that wasn't already in place, at least for 911). But there was talk of dropping the "unimportant" calls - and there's no cheatsheet for that. I suppose we could just drop random calls...
If someone's trying to call 911, I'd think the phone company should drop someone's chat with their girlfriend if there otherwise wouldn't be capacity for that 911 call.
Obvious Problem: the only way for the phone company to know if a call is "unimportant" is to monitor all calls. And it'll be a matter of minutes before various agencies ask to listen as well...
then why make any net neutrality rules in the first place?
For the same reason there's building codes and labor standards - to enforce a basic equalization between large companies and individuals.
OK, gotta call FUD on this one.
So, I write some software widget. I release it GPL, all free and dandy.
Now, you can use it to your heart's desire. The license only comes into play if you take my widget and build it into yours. Then my GPL says:
1) If you're giving your widget away for free (like my widget), then go ahead and have fun - we've made the world a bit better.
2) If you're planning on making money from your widget, then if my widget is so important to your project, it's only fair that I get something too. If that bugs you, then feel free to write your own version of my widget - then you don't have to pay me anything.
I've never understood how this makes it at all evil.
(This is based on my personal understanding of GPL; I'm not a lawyer, and I don't want to be one.)
Of course, a future problem will be when MapQuest figures out that they're effectively paying for their competition's upgrades as well. Could be this discussion is trying to get Bing on board before MapQuest pulls out (citing quite valid competitive reasons).
Which means as long as Microsoft is crediting OpenStreetMap, they're in compliance.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should put the "NonCommerical" part in your CC license - so that Big Company doesn't take your little community project and make all the cash.
Considering that both US parties will sell you down the river, unless you didn't vote at all, you voted for it.
Never understood why Americans prefer the two-party system; sure, we get minority governments up here in Canada, but that's a good thing, because it forces compromise.
Agreed. Although it is a bit disturbing that he doesn't feel the need to give any lip-service at all to the electorate, at least he's honest. (Maybe that's why he gets in - you know exactly how he's going to screw you.)
Happened in Canada as well. I'm not sure what's scarier: that the CIA is getting so inept at this that we're finding out about it more often, or that the CIA is doing it so much that we're hitting those statistical outliers that they can't properly hide or cover up.
I'm not implying that our current scenario is as cut and dried as World War II but how would you react if Wikileaks had been broadcasting over a magical radio station that blanketed the Earth the location of allied forces in 1942? Would you so callously respond that "maybe the Allies shouldn't be doing that in the first place?"
Except, of course, Wikileaks isn't reporting on the current state of *anything*, as far as I'm aware - all this stuff is months and years old.
Also, don't you think the world of 1942 would have liked to seen the footage of death camps sooner rather than later? (Read: if this leak was full of Iraqi torture footage, I suspect the US wouldn't be wringing it's hands nearly as much.)
Meaning, if at some point Assange doesn't get his way, he threatens to blackmail the war efforts? I mean, the data Wikileaks already gave shows current military failures and could be construed as dangerous to a wide, faceless entity and effort, but as an act of vengeance, he's willing to knowingly and directly put named individuals in mortal danger and ruin trust built up by putting up data which had a very fair assumption that it would be kept secret?
So what you're saying is Assange isn't some hero. He's not some revolutionary or the new messiah or something. He's not even a troll, aiming to get a rise out of the government. He's an immature, blackmailing asshole who's willing to send people to death to prove whatever point he's trying to make.
Or, he's making a simple demonstration of an important point - even if the US manages to arrest, disappear, or just have him accidentally shot in the head, that information is still available. Blackmail requires a threat - none has been made. This is him simply saying "yeah, you can probably twist enough arms to get me; but you won't get anything out of it."
On a side note, question to the Americans who think the OpEd is a good idea - would you support foreign governments coming into the US and arresting/detaining/disappearing people they've accused of wrong-doing?