There is probably no scientific evidence relied upon unquestionably, that has such serious issues regarding accuracy as fingerprinting. Check this out.
That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.
And let's just ignore the fact that some of the most profitable corporations on the planet have made their money from selling proprietary software, while the vast majority of companies founded to develop open source have failed?
Most companies, very logically, would rather make money than develop software "for the good of all."
See, now that episode was an extremely good one; my objection isn't to fake science, it's to fake science being the central plot hole. Now if All Good Things had been mostly about Geordi and Data trying to figure out how to stop the time shifting, it would have been a very bad one. That is the point I've been trying to make.
Huh?? I've never heard that. Frequently, in a federal trial, you have a trial judge but also a magistrate judge who handles low-level disputes and keeps the case moving on; sort of a subordinate judge. Obviously the trial judge has ultimate authority. There is no third judge involved, though.
Or are you thinking of three judge panels that make rulings at the appellate level?
star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human. the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever. they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society. they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.
I wish they did a better job on that meditation. Watching BSG made me dislike a lot of what happened in ST:TNG; I mean, it wasn't Shakespeare but when philosophical problems cropped up they were layered and complicated, and more importantly were frequently never solved. Meanwhile ST had simple moralizing, which only worked because (unrealistically) the idealistic choice always turned out to be the right one and the problem's solved.
However, how contrived the plot is isn't really the point; the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).
Exactly, and that's why the episodes where that took prominence didn't make good TV.
The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.
Part of the problem is being precise enough. "Molecular nanotechnology" does exist in the form of every enzyme which catalyzes a reaction in biochemistry.
That is an incorrect use of language. "Technology" is, by definition, artificially constructed.
One can understand the vision and understand the path toward achieving it without knowing all of the details. Your argument is nothing more than another way of saying "Everything is easy once you know how to do it."
Nice try, but you weren't talking about some grand "vision," you were making a concrete claim about how certain kinds of nanotechnology could cleanse the atmosphere of CO2. The researchers on the leading edge of nanotechnology research couldn't make that statement authoritatively, so I don't think you could.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").
Ummm...he was right, wasn't he?
And let's be honest here, in Sousa's time, and the century before, copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers.
Like the fact that an acceptance of an offer need only be sent, not necessarily recieved, to make the contract binding. I.e. as soon as the acceptor mails off the acceptance the contract has been accepted and the offerer is bound by it.
In theory, yes, but in real life the "mailbox rule" is usually contracted around--the offering party will expressly state the method in which the offer can be accepted.
I worked at a Wall St. law firm for nearly 20 years (administration, not legal), and most of our lawyers lacked any identifiable skill, and definitely even a trace of analytical or verbal skills.
That's kind of sad. Curious as to which firm, every law firm I've worked at those skills were prized.
Disclaimer, if you really understand molecular nanotechnology
If you really understand molecular nanotechnology, then you're from the FUTURE. Nobody alive "really understand[s]" it. Otherwise they would know how to make it.
I might be able to answer that question if I knew what "LP" meant in this context; come on people, enough with the obscure acronyms, put what it means in the story summary.
I would like to see all the types of distracted driving placed into a single law, with amendments to the law as they are needed. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine it would make the court system much more efficient, if each 'type of law' had its own specific place, and amendments were added instead of new laws being written.
Generally that's what happens. I think if everyone would actually look at their state statutes they'd find the laws really aren't as complicated as some people tend to think.
Politics (ewww!)? Diplomacy (a bit hopeful...)? Anything else nontechnical that e.g. Ben Franklin did?
In other words, things that people will also complain about being useless...Ben Franklin wrote, but society can't even support everyone who wants to be a writer now.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd also be entitled to clean air and access to medical treatment.
Who does she think she is, the Pope?!
There is probably no scientific evidence relied upon unquestionably, that has such serious issues regarding accuracy as fingerprinting. Check this out.
That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.
And let's just ignore the fact that some of the most profitable corporations on the planet have made their money from selling proprietary software, while the vast majority of companies founded to develop open source have failed?
Most companies, very logically, would rather make money than develop software "for the good of all."
Because this is slashdot, where it's NEVER the engineer's fault...
the EFF ready to fight for a legal precedent that might finally put a stop to this nonsense.
I'd rather give to the ACLU, they have better appellate lawyers and do a much better job of getting legal precedent.
not to mention the human labor and time spent typing those two keystrokes countless millions of times in browser address boxes.'
Has anyone had to do that since NINETEEN NINETY FOUR? Is Berners-Lee still using Mosaic or something?
"Injunctified."
See, now that episode was an extremely good one; my objection isn't to fake science, it's to fake science being the central plot hole. Now if All Good Things had been mostly about Geordi and Data trying to figure out how to stop the time shifting, it would have been a very bad one. That is the point I've been trying to make.
Huh?? I've never heard that. Frequently, in a federal trial, you have a trial judge but also a magistrate judge who handles low-level disputes and keeps the case moving on; sort of a subordinate judge. Obviously the trial judge has ultimate authority. There is no third judge involved, though.
Or are you thinking of three judge panels that make rulings at the appellate level?
star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human. the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever. they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society. they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.
I wish they did a better job on that meditation. Watching BSG made me dislike a lot of what happened in ST:TNG; I mean, it wasn't Shakespeare but when philosophical problems cropped up they were layered and complicated, and more importantly were frequently never solved. Meanwhile ST had simple moralizing, which only worked because (unrealistically) the idealistic choice always turned out to be the right one and the problem's solved.
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.
Yes, yes they do. By an order of magnitude. Have you even seen these shows?
However, how contrived the plot is isn't really the point; the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).
Exactly, and that's why the episodes where that took prominence didn't make good TV.
What did he ruin? I hope you're not talking about the old time BSG.
The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.
Being a GOOD writer is always valued.
Of course it's not, how many of history great writers died poor and ignored?
Part of the problem is being precise enough. "Molecular nanotechnology" does exist in the form of every enzyme which catalyzes a reaction in biochemistry.
That is an incorrect use of language. "Technology" is, by definition, artificially constructed.
One can understand the vision and understand the path toward achieving it without knowing all of the details. Your argument is nothing more than another way of saying "Everything is easy once you know how to do it."
Nice try, but you weren't talking about some grand "vision," you were making a concrete claim about how certain kinds of nanotechnology could cleanse the atmosphere of CO2. The researchers on the leading edge of nanotechnology research couldn't make that statement authoritatively, so I don't think you could.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").
Ummm...he was right, wasn't he?
And let's be honest here, in Sousa's time, and the century before, copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers.
Like the fact that an acceptance of an offer need only be sent, not necessarily recieved, to make the contract binding. I.e. as soon as the acceptor mails off the acceptance the contract has been accepted and the offerer is bound by it.
In theory, yes, but in real life the "mailbox rule" is usually contracted around--the offering party will expressly state the method in which the offer can be accepted.
I worked at a Wall St. law firm for nearly 20 years (administration, not legal), and most of our lawyers lacked any identifiable skill, and definitely even a trace of analytical or verbal skills.
That's kind of sad. Curious as to which firm, every law firm I've worked at those skills were prized.
It refers to iTunes songs with bonus content like pictures, lyrics, stories, video clips, etc attached instead of just bare music.
And that's "synonymous" with the large black old timey records?
Disclaimer, if you really understand molecular nanotechnology
If you really understand molecular nanotechnology, then you're from the FUTURE. Nobody alive "really understand[s]" it. Otherwise they would know how to make it.
These are the "it's my property and I can do whatever I want to it, even if it causes cancer for 10,000 years" people.
They have a shorter name: liberatarians.
I might be able to answer that question if I knew what "LP" meant in this context; come on people, enough with the obscure acronyms, put what it means in the story summary.
I would like to see all the types of distracted driving placed into a single law, with amendments to the law as they are needed. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine it would make the court system much more efficient, if each 'type of law' had its own specific place, and amendments were added instead of new laws being written.
Generally that's what happens. I think if everyone would actually look at their state statutes they'd find the laws really aren't as complicated as some people tend to think.
Politics (ewww!)? Diplomacy (a bit hopeful...)? Anything else nontechnical that e.g. Ben Franklin did?
In other words, things that people will also complain about being useless...Ben Franklin wrote, but society can't even support everyone who wants to be a writer now.