Should I be allowed to stand on the street corner and hand out copies of Common Sense that I bought?
Yes. Definitely.
However you should not be allowed to stand in my living room and hand out copies of Common Sense that you bought.
Yes, it is very much true that if I don't want the copies of Common Sense I am free to ignore you. But I still don't really want you standing in my living room.
The XBox2 and Gamecube are both already known to be using POWER/PowerPC derivatives. Besides which, chip contracts for new consoles are the sort of thing that get worked out an amount of time in advance measured in years, and they're usually not bought from quite the same stock that PC OEMs are buying from. Intel's plans for their mass market "by late 2006" lineup really couldn't have any impact on the console world at all at this moment.
Since no plans have yet been announced to use the Cell in PCs-- so far it seems only PS3 game systems and very high-end IBM POWER business workstations will be taking advantage of it-- that wouldn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
October 13, 2005: Craigslist beams 10,000 ads into space October 14, 2005: Earth obliterated by the Intergalactic Anti-Spam Defense Force October 15, 2005: [Nothing]
Above I said that the study attempts to explain a surge of ozone depletion in 2003. This is not the case; I misunderstood the timeframe the article referred to. The study spoken of explains a surge of ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere in part of 2004.
The 2000 thyroid cancer cases are a minimal, confirmed estimate; actual numbers were certainly far higher, and that's just one health effect. Most of the thyroid cancer patients were not killed, though, since thyroid cancer is relatively easy to treat, for a cancer.
The interesting thing here however is not how many people were effected. The interesting thing is the degree to which the effected individuals were geographically widespread, even though it was a single, building-sized explosion and fire, and only put out a few hundred times as much radioactive material as the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Given this it is interesting to consider exactly what could be done with an event committed intentionally and with the goal of causing widespread effect.
Aside from this, if you think 2000 casualties does not constitute a major event, there are certain political leaders I hope you are making an effort to convince of that idea at this time.
iDownload claims that their C&D letters were a success. But all these links responding to the C&D letters look like rejections. Is there any evidence that any website anywhere actually responded to iDownload's cease and desist letters by ceasing or desisting anything at all?
Well, the general idea here is that large numbers of people download and run software specifically designed to find and remove software like iDownload/iSearch.
It doesn't matter really how it got on there or why, the idea is that the users didn't want it on there, and they don't want it on there badly enough they're running software like adaware to make it go away.
iDownload/iSearch is trying to stop such tools from working by abusing our legal system to prevent their software from being classified as what it is; spyware, or malware, or "trojan horse" software, or some other word designed to describe the concept of software which gets installed on your computer but you didn't want it there and you don't want it there now. Totally aside from the question of whether the users should have taken more steps to prevent the spyware from getting installed on their computer in the first place, this is a problem.
When it comes to the earth, it's climate and other unpredictable fluid dynamics-type universal (chaos theory, anyone?) issues, we have no power. Get used to it.
The 2000 confirmed cases of thyroid cancer across Europe resulting from a single incident in Chernobyl, Russia in which a certain quantity of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere wish to disagree with you, as does a very wide area still undergoing clear ecological side effects from a single event in Prince William Sound, Alaska in which some hydrocarbons were released into the ocean.
It is extremely easy to effect the earth on a wide scale, if you've got just a little bit of resources to do it with; volcanoes create planet-wide effects all the time by doing nothing other than creating very large explosions, and very large explosions are easy to make. All chaos theory claims is that it's hard to control what exactly that effect will be.
Earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it presently is.
However the data we have indicates that it has never increased this rapidly before for this long, as it has since the beginning of the industrial era. This is the entire problem. The surprise here is not the earth warming, the surprise is a rapid shift away from the climate human life has become accustomed to.
There is nothing to indicate that these warming and cooling trends won't continue and there's nothing to indicate that had we never evolved on this planet (and thus never 'polluted') that the Earth wouldn't still be the temperature it currently is.
I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say. If you are trying to say there is nothing to indicate humankind's existence has not directly effected the climate, this is flat out wrong. There is, in fact, a mountain of both evidence and theory saying not only has specific human action effected the behavior of the atmosphere, but describing an exact process by which it happened.
This evidence has to be satisfied somehow. If not the hypothesis reached by scientific consensus, then how? Are you claiming you can explain the climate shifts if the human-produced increase in carbon dioxide levels that have accompanied them are just a coincidence? Are you claiming you can explain how, if our basic understanding of how carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere and what it does and is so fundamentally wrong that everything we know about climate models is false, jpw these things happen in truth? If your answer is that these things are unknowable, this isn't a good answer. Science is based on the assumption that we can, in fact, find some plausible explanation for natural phenomena if we only look. So far this assumption has held extremely well.
You can claim the evidence is insufficient but to claim the evidence doesn't exist...? This seems to say you aren't interested in whether the evidence is sufficient or not, but rather you simply desire to wish modern science away.
To attribute global temperature change to humans is egoism on our part.
A poor example since a hurricane's strength is directly linked to the ocean temperature underneath it.
Surprised are we that the sun can have such a dramatic affect on our ozone layer?
I do not see anyone reacting with surprise to this except you, and the effect described here doesn't appear to be dramatic enough except on small timescales to even begin to explain the behavior of the ozone layer over the last century.
It appears large amounts of discussion here are happening with people not understanding anything at hand. I will attempt to clarify some things to the best of my ability. Please excuse me if this is not as great as it could be, as my source here is my memory augmented by google.
The atmosphere is a very complex thing in both composition and behavior. For purposes of this slashdot discussion, though, about the only important thing about its behavior is that different gases exist in different compositions in different parts of the atmosphere, and these different gases block and reflect different frequencies of radiation. (Most of these gases exist in a cycle, where they are emitted out of the earth, usually by volcanic sources, then slowly fall out of the atmosphere, and are subducted back into the earth, where they're eventually re-emitted.) There are two specific important aspects to this. The first is a layer of ozone which blocks certain higher frequencies of incoming radiation from the sun. The second is a layer of "greenhouse gases" which block a lower frequency. This lower frequency of radiation is not so much important coming from the sun; however, it is important because when radiation hits the earth, it is absorbed and re-emitted as "longwave radiation"-- and this radiation has a frequency such that it is partially blocked by the greenhouse gases, keeping it inside the earth. All of this is very convenient for the forms of life currently common on earth, since the higher frequencies the ozone keeps out are harmful to this life and the lower frequencies the greenhouse gases keep in provide useful heat, keeping the earth from just being a big ball of ice like mars is. Perhaps if the atmosphere were different, life would have evolved differently and less or more heat, or more high-frequency radiation, would not be a bother. But it is the forms of life that live on earth right now we care about, specifically humans.
The ozone layer is the important thing as far as this article goes. The problem is that the ozone layer has been depleting in recent years, starting around World War II, and accelerating in the 60s and 70s. In recent decades the problem has become so bad that the ozone layer actually is developing holes in it, around the north and south poles, mainly the south. This depletion has corresponded with increased levels of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, come from a number of sources. For example volcanoes put out CFCs in great quantity every time they erupt. When placed in the vicinity of certain gases-- specifically the gases found in the ozone layer of the atmosphere-- these CFCs catalyze chemical reactions which destroy ozone, converting it to oxygen. An individual CFC molecule, when it gets into the ozone layer, will thus cause this process pretty much continuously, until like all gases it falls out of the atmosphere. There isn't particularly any question about this, as these processes are easily experimentally reproduced. The other thing that isn't particularly a question is that the increased CFC levels from WWII on were a result of human industrial processes. CFC outputs by human industry after its first uses dwarfed the natural sources of same, leading to a continuous and steady increase in cfc levels far beyond what atmospheric processes are accustomed to. By 1987 it became clear that this human CFC output was having a negative impact on the ozone layer, leading to the adopting of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty which drastically reduced human CFC output with the goal of eliminating human CFC production entirely worldwide by 2010. The impact on CFC levels of the montreal protocol was dramatic and immediate; you can see here yourself that as soon as the significant human CFC sources stopped at the end of the 80s, the steady increase in CFC levels flattened out and became constant. (I am afraid this graph comes from a
This has been a very poorly adopted and somewhat unpopular feature of the GBA; in fact one of Nintendo's big pitches with the DS is along the lines of "connectivity without all that hassle". The GBA2/Revolution offers Nintendo a great chance to salvage the connectivity concept so that it is no longer a source of active complaint, but I doubt it could become a selling point of the system...
Minor typo: When I say "Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds" above I meant "Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds and its consoles". Meh.
This is based on nothing but an analyst making stuff up. This should be given as much credence as "some guy on the internet thinks there will be a next-gen game boy this year". Only less, because at this point, given the previous track records of video game industry analysts, when they say something I for one consider it automatically less likely. If analysts were to be taken seriously, Nintendo by now would have gone bankrupt, become a third party publisher, began selling internet-playable games, and been selling VoIP software for the Nintendo DS.
But anyhow. Even by itself this is incredibly unlikely. Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds, both functionally-- the Gamecube was practically a peripheral for the GBA-- and from a marketing perspective. The Gamecube and GBA were released at nearly the same time, were they not? I am told developers got the dev kits for both at about the same time. But jumping the GBA2 way ahead of the Revolution, as this analyst predicts, would make it hard to establish "synergy" between the two, or whatever. Nintendo will probably be pushing the Revolution (their new console, which will be unveiled at E3 and probably ship sometime next year) and the GBA2 at the same time.
The prediction then becomes even less likely because Nintendo is still right now smack dab in the middle of a major promotional push for the DS, and will be continuing this push for most of the year. They've still barely begun building that brand, and the games they originally promised would be out by the end of Q1 won't be all out until like the end of the summer. Developers still aren't all the way on board, and I don't think consumers will consider the DS fully "here" until all that originally-promised stuff, plus Mario Kart are out. So putting out a new GBA before this process is done would totally undermine any attempt for the DS to truly take root. "Pillars" or no, Nintendo doesn't have the PR resources to sell the public on two new handhelds at the same time. They'll need to get the DS established before they can start pitching the GBA2.
Finally the specific plan this article is speculating on is way, way less likely than even the idea itself, since they claim the GBA will remain in stores after the GBA2 hits. Selling the GBA and GBA2 simultaneously would make no sense whatsoever. Among other things that would mean totally abandoning the "three pillars" whatsit they keep babbling about; they'd have four pillars.
What would not surprise me is Nintendo announcing the GBA2 at E3 this year. But I think we'll see it at earliest simultaneous with the Revolution, and probably a little afterward.
I think we might see it a little later than the Revolution for two reasons: first off, there's been vague and shadowy rumors about developers being shown the Revolution. Nothing about the GBA2. Second off, the GBA2 has a problem the DS doesn't. It has to justify itself. It's obvious why people with a GBA would buy a DS; it's got all this stuff, it's got the touchscreen and the 3D and it's just generally fucked up. It's obvious why someone buying a new handheld might choose a GBA rather than a DS; it's smaller and cheaper. What isn't obvious why anyone with a GBA or a DS would buy a GBA2. Nintendo is going to have to pull out a serious graphical update, something at least better than the PSP, while retaining both the small size and the position of best battery life, in order for the GBA2 to really make any sense (unless Nintendo's satisfied with just it being the GBA 1.1 and it almost entirely appealing to new purchasers rather than upgraders). I don't know how long it will take the technology to get where it needs to be for that to be possible.
What this tells me is that people are unwilling to vote with their money except for, in general, tripe. People will not provide material or spiritual support to change the status quo of the entertainment industry, but will provide both in great quantity to preserve the fact that status quo contains somewhere the name "Star Trek"-- though absolutely no preference whatsoever is expressed as to what is done with that name. We're doomed.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I be allowed to stand on the street corner and hand out copies of Common Sense that I bought?
Yes. Definitely.
However you should not be allowed to stand in my living room and hand out copies of Common Sense that you bought.
Yes, it is very much true that if I don't want the copies of Common Sense I am free to ignore you. But I still don't really want you standing in my living room.
The XBox2 and Gamecube are both already known to be using POWER/PowerPC derivatives. Besides which, chip contracts for new consoles are the sort of thing that get worked out an amount of time in advance measured in years, and they're usually not bought from quite the same stock that PC OEMs are buying from. Intel's plans for their mass market "by late 2006" lineup really couldn't have any impact on the console world at all at this moment.
Since no plans have yet been announced to use the Cell in PCs-- so far it seems only PS3 game systems and very high-end IBM POWER business workstations will be taking advantage of it-- that wouldn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
What?
Did you read the story links?
(1) Arbitrarily assign to your opponent an easily defeated argument.
(2) Defeat this argument.
Quick, and easy!
October 13, 2005: Craigslist beams 10,000 ads into space
October 14, 2005: Earth obliterated by the Intergalactic Anti-Spam Defense Force
October 15, 2005: [Nothing]
it's called a JOKE... you know, HUMOR
You mean the original parent? No, that is not the case. Humor is funny.
Above I said that the study attempts to explain a surge of ozone depletion in 2003. This is not the case; I misunderstood the timeframe the article referred to. The study spoken of explains a surge of ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere in part of 2004.
But the theory is not trying to explain ozone trends of the last few decades, it is trying to explain ozone trends in early 2004.
but does not appear to send personal information to a third party without notice
Symantec seems to think it does.
The 2000 thyroid cancer cases are a minimal, confirmed estimate; actual numbers were certainly far higher, and that's just one health effect. Most of the thyroid cancer patients were not killed, though, since thyroid cancer is relatively easy to treat, for a cancer.
The interesting thing here however is not how many people were effected. The interesting thing is the degree to which the effected individuals were geographically widespread, even though it was a single, building-sized explosion and fire, and only put out a few hundred times as much radioactive material as the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Given this it is interesting to consider exactly what could be done with an event committed intentionally and with the goal of causing widespread effect.
Aside from this, if you think 2000 casualties does not constitute a major event, there are certain political leaders I hope you are making an effort to convince of that idea at this time.
iDownload claims that their C&D letters were a success. But all these links responding to the C&D letters look like rejections. Is there any evidence that any website anywhere actually responded to iDownload's cease and desist letters by ceasing or desisting anything at all?
Well, the general idea here is that large numbers of people download and run software specifically designed to find and remove software like iDownload/iSearch.
It doesn't matter really how it got on there or why, the idea is that the users didn't want it on there, and they don't want it on there badly enough they're running software like adaware to make it go away.
iDownload/iSearch is trying to stop such tools from working by abusing our legal system to prevent their software from being classified as what it is; spyware, or malware, or "trojan horse" software, or some other word designed to describe the concept of software which gets installed on your computer but you didn't want it there and you don't want it there now. Totally aside from the question of whether the users should have taken more steps to prevent the spyware from getting installed on their computer in the first place, this is a problem.
When it comes to the earth, it's climate and other unpredictable fluid dynamics-type universal (chaos theory, anyone?) issues, we have no power. Get used to it.
The 2000 confirmed cases of thyroid cancer across Europe resulting from a single incident in Chernobyl, Russia in which a certain quantity of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere wish to disagree with you, as does a very wide area still undergoing clear ecological side effects from a single event in Prince William Sound, Alaska in which some hydrocarbons were released into the ocean.
It is extremely easy to effect the earth on a wide scale, if you've got just a little bit of resources to do it with; volcanoes create planet-wide effects all the time by doing nothing other than creating very large explosions, and very large explosions are easy to make. All chaos theory claims is that it's hard to control what exactly that effect will be.
Earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it presently is.
However the data we have indicates that it has never increased this rapidly before for this long, as it has since the beginning of the industrial era. This is the entire problem. The surprise here is not the earth warming, the surprise is a rapid shift away from the climate human life has become accustomed to.
There is nothing to indicate that these warming and cooling trends won't continue and there's nothing to indicate that had we never evolved on this planet (and thus never 'polluted') that the Earth wouldn't still be the temperature it currently is.
I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say. If you are trying to say there is nothing to indicate humankind's existence has not directly effected the climate, this is flat out wrong. There is, in fact, a mountain of both evidence and theory saying not only has specific human action effected the behavior of the atmosphere, but describing an exact process by which it happened.
This evidence has to be satisfied somehow. If not the hypothesis reached by scientific consensus, then how? Are you claiming you can explain the climate shifts if the human-produced increase in carbon dioxide levels that have accompanied them are just a coincidence? Are you claiming you can explain how, if our basic understanding of how carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere and what it does and is so fundamentally wrong that everything we know about climate models is false, jpw these things happen in truth? If your answer is that these things are unknowable, this isn't a good answer. Science is based on the assumption that we can, in fact, find some plausible explanation for natural phenomena if we only look. So far this assumption has held extremely well.
You can claim the evidence is insufficient but to claim the evidence doesn't exist...? This seems to say you aren't interested in whether the evidence is sufficient or not, but rather you simply desire to wish modern science away.
To attribute global temperature change to humans is egoism on our part.
Single species can, and have, drastically changed the earth's atmosphere before. Humans are still not history's biggest polluters, what the blue-green algae did is still worse.
Terraforming is not really that hard.
hurricanes
A poor example since a hurricane's strength is directly linked to the ocean temperature underneath it.
Surprised are we that the sun can have such a dramatic affect on our ozone layer?
I do not see anyone reacting with surprise to this except you, and the effect described here doesn't appear to be dramatic enough except on small timescales to even begin to explain the behavior of the ozone layer over the last century.
Greenhouse gases (linked to global warming) and CFCs (linked to ozone depletion) are not related. Please see my other post in this thread.
It appears large amounts of discussion here are happening with people not understanding anything at hand. I will attempt to clarify some things to the best of my ability. Please excuse me if this is not as great as it could be, as my source here is my memory augmented by google.
The atmosphere is a very complex thing in both composition and behavior. For purposes of this slashdot discussion, though, about the only important thing about its behavior is that different gases exist in different compositions in different parts of the atmosphere, and these different gases block and reflect different frequencies of radiation. (Most of these gases exist in a cycle, where they are emitted out of the earth, usually by volcanic sources, then slowly fall out of the atmosphere, and are subducted back into the earth, where they're eventually re-emitted.) There are two specific important aspects to this. The first is a layer of ozone which blocks certain higher frequencies of incoming radiation from the sun. The second is a layer of "greenhouse gases" which block a lower frequency. This lower frequency of radiation is not so much important coming from the sun; however, it is important because when radiation hits the earth, it is absorbed and re-emitted as "longwave radiation"-- and this radiation has a frequency such that it is partially blocked by the greenhouse gases, keeping it inside the earth. All of this is very convenient for the forms of life currently common on earth, since the higher frequencies the ozone keeps out are harmful to this life and the lower frequencies the greenhouse gases keep in provide useful heat, keeping the earth from just being a big ball of ice like mars is. Perhaps if the atmosphere were different, life would have evolved differently and less or more heat, or more high-frequency radiation, would not be a bother. But it is the forms of life that live on earth right now we care about, specifically humans.
The ozone layer is the important thing as far as this article goes. The problem is that the ozone layer has been depleting in recent years, starting around World War II, and accelerating in the 60s and 70s. In recent decades the problem has become so bad that the ozone layer actually is developing holes in it, around the north and south poles, mainly the south. This depletion has corresponded with increased levels of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, come from a number of sources. For example volcanoes put out CFCs in great quantity every time they erupt. When placed in the vicinity of certain gases-- specifically the gases found in the ozone layer of the atmosphere-- these CFCs catalyze chemical reactions which destroy ozone, converting it to oxygen. An individual CFC molecule, when it gets into the ozone layer, will thus cause this process pretty much continuously, until like all gases it falls out of the atmosphere. There isn't particularly any question about this, as these processes are easily experimentally reproduced. The other thing that isn't particularly a question is that the increased CFC levels from WWII on were a result of human industrial processes. CFC outputs by human industry after its first uses dwarfed the natural sources of same, leading to a continuous and steady increase in cfc levels far beyond what atmospheric processes are accustomed to. By 1987 it became clear that this human CFC output was having a negative impact on the ozone layer, leading to the adopting of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty which drastically reduced human CFC output with the goal of eliminating human CFC production entirely worldwide by 2010. The impact on CFC levels of the montreal protocol was dramatic and immediate; you can see here yourself that as soon as the significant human CFC sources stopped at the end of the 80s, the steady increase in CFC levels flattened out and became constant. (I am afraid this graph comes from a
Chlorofluorocarbons are not covered or regulated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Best! April! Fools! Joke! Ever!
Perspective: $300 over four years is $6.25/month. If that's too much money for you, I can only suggest one thing: Get a friggin' job.
An alternate suggestion would be to simply not buy an XBox 2, thus saving $300.
That would be easier than getting a job.
This has been a very poorly adopted and somewhat unpopular feature of the GBA; in fact one of Nintendo's big pitches with the DS is along the lines of "connectivity without all that hassle". The GBA2/Revolution offers Nintendo a great chance to salvage the connectivity concept so that it is no longer a source of active complaint, but I doubt it could become a selling point of the system...
Minor typo: When I say "Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds" above I meant "Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds and its consoles". Meh.
It's an analyst.
This is based on nothing but an analyst making stuff up. This should be given as much credence as "some guy on the internet thinks there will be a next-gen game boy this year". Only less, because at this point, given the previous track records of video game industry analysts, when they say something I for one consider it automatically less likely. If analysts were to be taken seriously, Nintendo by now would have gone bankrupt, become a third party publisher, began selling internet-playable games, and been selling VoIP software for the Nintendo DS.
But anyhow. Even by itself this is incredibly unlikely. Nintendo tends to have a really really strong bond between its handhelds, both functionally-- the Gamecube was practically a peripheral for the GBA-- and from a marketing perspective. The Gamecube and GBA were released at nearly the same time, were they not? I am told developers got the dev kits for both at about the same time. But jumping the GBA2 way ahead of the Revolution, as this analyst predicts, would make it hard to establish "synergy" between the two, or whatever. Nintendo will probably be pushing the Revolution (their new console, which will be unveiled at E3 and probably ship sometime next year) and the GBA2 at the same time.
The prediction then becomes even less likely because Nintendo is still right now smack dab in the middle of a major promotional push for the DS, and will be continuing this push for most of the year. They've still barely begun building that brand, and the games they originally promised would be out by the end of Q1 won't be all out until like the end of the summer. Developers still aren't all the way on board, and I don't think consumers will consider the DS fully "here" until all that originally-promised stuff, plus Mario Kart are out. So putting out a new GBA before this process is done would totally undermine any attempt for the DS to truly take root. "Pillars" or no, Nintendo doesn't have the PR resources to sell the public on two new handhelds at the same time. They'll need to get the DS established before they can start pitching the GBA2.
Finally the specific plan this article is speculating on is way, way less likely than even the idea itself, since they claim the GBA will remain in stores after the GBA2 hits. Selling the GBA and GBA2 simultaneously would make no sense whatsoever. Among other things that would mean totally abandoning the "three pillars" whatsit they keep babbling about; they'd have four pillars.
What would not surprise me is Nintendo announcing the GBA2 at E3 this year. But I think we'll see it at earliest simultaneous with the Revolution, and probably a little afterward.
I think we might see it a little later than the Revolution for two reasons: first off, there's been vague and shadowy rumors about developers being shown the Revolution. Nothing about the GBA2. Second off, the GBA2 has a problem the DS doesn't. It has to justify itself. It's obvious why people with a GBA would buy a DS; it's got all this stuff, it's got the touchscreen and the 3D and it's just generally fucked up. It's obvious why someone buying a new handheld might choose a GBA rather than a DS; it's smaller and cheaper. What isn't obvious why anyone with a GBA or a DS would buy a GBA2. Nintendo is going to have to pull out a serious graphical update, something at least better than the PSP, while retaining both the small size and the position of best battery life, in order for the GBA2 to really make any sense (unless Nintendo's satisfied with just it being the GBA 1.1 and it almost entirely appealing to new purchasers rather than upgraders). I don't know how long it will take the technology to get where it needs to be for that to be possible.
So what about those of us flying out of airports other than San Francisco International Airport?
Do we even know?
It seems to me the level of uncertainty over exactly what you can or will be forced to do and why upon entering an airport is the exact problem here.
What this tells me is that people are unwilling to vote with their money except for, in general, tripe. People will not provide material or spiritual support to change the status quo of the entertainment industry, but will provide both in great quantity to preserve the fact that status quo contains somewhere the name "Star Trek"-- though absolutely no preference whatsoever is expressed as to what is done with that name. We're doomed.