Remember, you're helping them by saving them the loss N years from now when it breaks and they didn't buy an N + 1 year warranty.
I'm reminded of a certain really bad thriller starring Judd Nelson as a serial killer. He'd always inform his victims that he was there to "help" them.
Please. DS9 ran out of ideas after the first season. And Voyager never had any to begin with. I mean, when you hire writers who love to use the word "planetoid" but never bother to look it up...
As a faithful fanboy, I'll probably go the movie. I might even enjoy it, if I can get past their using the time travel gimmick yet again. But more TV shows? Please, no. The whole concept is just worn out. They might be able to squeeze out a few decent movies if they keep going outside the old Berman-fanboy writing clique for their stories. But coming up with a fresh story every week that covers anything that hasn't been covered? Not doable.
I wish we could make it illegal for movie and TV SF to be retreads of ancient franchises. I particularly felt this way when I was watching a recent ep of BSG. I'd long suspected that the whole thing was just getting made up as they went along. When they hurriedly began killing off minor characters and offering half-assed explanations of previous events, I became convinced of it. And then I saw an interview where he basically said as much!
Of course, he didn't say that in so many words. He just said that when he invented the 12 humanoid cylon "models" he had no idea who they were or what they were about.
So the real reason he invented them has nothing to do with telling a story. He just a mandate to tell a humans-versus-robots story, and he knew that he wasn't going to get the budget to make the robots CGI, and he knew a modern audience would never swallow the lame guys-in-robot-suits from the original.
And why did he need to tell a HVR story? Because he and Ron Moore hand been brought in to revive an existing project that was falling apart over money and a shortage of ideas. (Which Eick supplied mainly in the form of a "retro" universe he was never consistent about.)
And why did that project even exist? Because somebody thought it would be a good idea to revive the BSG franchise, even though the original got cancelled after about 20 eps.
And why was the original ever created? Because NBC wanted to cash in on "Star Wars" and commissioned what amounted to a Star Wars ripoff.
And why did "Star Wars" happen? Because George Lucas realized he could steal ideas from lots of old westerns, war movies, and even Nazi propaganda films, and recycle them for the benefit of audiences that hadn't seen them before.
Fox is NOTORIOUS for not sticking with their series (and have been for at least 15 years now).
True, but no more so than any other network. CBS spent a fortune producing and promoting "Smith", including hiring several big-name actors to star in it. Then they canceled it after three episodes. It was a serial story too, so not only did they lose the money they sunk into it, they put off the viewers who had gotten into the story and now will never find out how it comes out.
In TV land there seems to be an ongoing war between the Creators (people who want to try new, original stuff) and the Cowards (people who are allergic to risk, and would give us nothing but reality shows, game shows, and low-budget melodrama about cops and doctors). You kind of demonstrate this struggle when you mention
Oh, and a special R.I.P. to my beloved "Strange Luck," cancelled after just 17 episodes.
Yeah, that was a good show, one of the few "quirky" shows where the Q word isn't just a cliche. (I particularly liked the ep with all the pregnant women.) Now, that one came out in Fox's early days, when the Creators still seemed to be dominant, because Fox had to differentiate itself from the existing networks. But the Cowards were there from the beginning: when the suits saw the pilot for "Married With Children" they asked the producers to make the characters more sympathetic — never mind that an unsympathetic family was what the show was about.
And face it, the Cowards managed to kill "Dollhouse" before it even got on the air. It was supposed to be a sort of moral melodrama about people who give up their identities so they can work in a high-tech brothel. But that's not enough action, so the first pilot can scrapped. Now the prostitution angle gets pushed into the background and they keep inventing lame reasons for the "actives" to get imprinted with the personalities of action heroes instead of their supposedly-usual sexual artistes. Damn it Joss, you're notorious for your stubborness and bad temper, why can't you bring these attributes to bear when it really counts?
As for "Sara Conner", WTF cares? It's just lame formula. I was turned off in the first episode when they pulled a major cheat: Summer Glau doesn't start acting like a robot until after it's revealled that she is one.
he bookmarks if they're smart will be using the same data store between Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows, or at least will be managed with one of the online bookmark plugins.
How? Filesystem drivers in the BIOS? Creating an API for BIOS data in the OS? Ugly kludges both.
My main laptop actually does get booted and shut down rather than using suspend. I use Puppy Linux on it...
So you use a minimal OS, just so you can boot quickly. Hardly the use case these guys are targetting.
When I ask you these questions, I'm trying to get you to see the implications of your own opinions. But you don't seem to know how to answer questions. You interpret every question as a proposal.
Who said anything about unilateral disarmament? Lately, we haven't even looked at a negotiated drawdown.
Besides, we have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate any enemy (and probably the rest of civilization) even without Trident. The official justification for Trident is the so-called Triad Theory, which says that we need three different ways (land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and bombers) to play So Long Mom, just in case two of them don't work.
The real reason is the same reason we still have a Marine Corps over a century after boarding actions ceased to be a common naval tactic: people need to justify their jobs.
All of which makes us look a lot less convincing when we tell people that Iran is threat to world peace because they might have just one or two bombs.
You're right, but it's still kind of pointless. The product seems to be somebody who regularly boots up their computer to do one thing, then shuts it down again. Plus when they fire up the computer to run Word, they don't need to access any of the bookmarks they created when they booted it just to check a web site. Not a common use case!
This is kind of similar to those initiatives to allow you to run some apps from the BIOS without booting the OS. Those didn't catch on either.
So, if an employer decides that no Libertarians can work for him, that's OK, but if be refuses to do business with anybody who employs Libertarians, that's wrong?
Every nation has its brainless labels. The difference with the U.S. is that socialism has never been at all popular here. So you can label somebody a socialist without anyone quibbling with your definitions, or saying "what's wrong with that?"
Please. Don't stereotype us. Ron Paul fanboys like plnix0 consider anything short of disbanding the government "socialism". Right-wing politicians, having rendered the word "liberal" meaningless by applying it to any idea left of Ghengis Kahn, are now trying to do the same with "socialism". But Americans are getting clued into this semantic abuse. Note that we just elected a President who is now immensely popular, despite endless cries of "socialist".
Boy are you dense. Do you know what the words "implication" and "irony" mean? Guess not.
Let me spell it out for you. I was not arguing that the President has the right to fire private employees. I was trying to demonstrate that if we accept your "logic" (people don't have a right to a job, therefore it's not a violation of your rights to have you fired) then by implication,there's nothing wrong with the government enforcing its views by depriving people of their jobs.
But that's a stupid idea. Of course the government should not be allowed to suppress dissent that way. I wasn't arguing that absurdity. I was demonstrating that your argument implies that absurdity.
I read that the US Military was actually considering procuring and deploying these to combat the "battery problem."
I've been watching "Generation Kill" on DVD. These poor guys are always scrounging for batteries for their night vision gear. The silly thing is that they spend half their time charging around in HUMVs — that presumably have huge alternators. Funny that nobody thought to equip them with a supply of NiCads and a changing station.
But out on a mission, away from such sources of power, I can't see grunts finding the time to lay solar cells in the sun or to wind up a charger.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, you're helping them by saving them the loss N years from now when it breaks and they didn't buy an N + 1 year warranty.
I'm reminded of a certain really bad thriller starring Judd Nelson as a serial killer. He'd always inform his victims that he was there to "help" them.
This is the first scrub of STS-119 since the T-44 countdown start. Colour me pedantic and all but... *shrug*
What? Delays don't count if they happen before you start the countdown clock? What is this, a tennis game?
Please. DS9 ran out of ideas after the first season. And Voyager never had any to begin with. I mean, when you hire writers who love to use the word "planetoid" but never bother to look it up...
As a faithful fanboy, I'll probably go the movie. I might even enjoy it, if I can get past their using the time travel gimmick yet again. But more TV shows? Please, no. The whole concept is just worn out. They might be able to squeeze out a few decent movies if they keep going outside the old Berman-fanboy writing clique for their stories. But coming up with a fresh story every week that covers anything that hasn't been covered? Not doable.
I wish we could make it illegal for movie and TV SF to be retreads of ancient franchises. I particularly felt this way when I was watching a recent ep of BSG. I'd long suspected that the whole thing was just getting made up as they went along. When they hurriedly began killing off minor characters and offering half-assed explanations of previous events, I became convinced of it. And then I saw an interview where he basically said as much!
Of course, he didn't say that in so many words. He just said that when he invented the 12 humanoid cylon "models" he had no idea who they were or what they were about.
So the real reason he invented them has nothing to do with telling a story. He just a mandate to tell a humans-versus-robots story, and he knew that he wasn't going to get the budget to make the robots CGI, and he knew a modern audience would never swallow the lame guys-in-robot-suits from the original.
And why did he need to tell a HVR story? Because he and Ron Moore hand been brought in to revive an existing project that was falling apart over money and a shortage of ideas. (Which Eick supplied mainly in the form of a "retro" universe he was never consistent about.)
And why did that project even exist? Because somebody thought it would be a good idea to revive the BSG franchise, even though the original got cancelled after about 20 eps.
And why was the original ever created? Because NBC wanted to cash in on "Star Wars" and commissioned what amounted to a Star Wars ripoff.
And why did "Star Wars" happen? Because George Lucas realized he could steal ideas from lots of old westerns, war movies, and even Nazi propaganda films, and recycle them for the benefit of audiences that hadn't seen them before.
Hollywood is the opposite of creative.
Fox is NOTORIOUS for not sticking with their series (and have been for at least 15 years now).
True, but no more so than any other network. CBS spent a fortune producing and promoting "Smith", including hiring several big-name actors to star in it. Then they canceled it after three episodes. It was a serial story too, so not only did they lose the money they sunk into it, they put off the viewers who had gotten into the story and now will never find out how it comes out.
In TV land there seems to be an ongoing war between the Creators (people who want to try new, original stuff) and the Cowards (people who are allergic to risk, and would give us nothing but reality shows, game shows, and low-budget melodrama about cops and doctors). You kind of demonstrate this struggle when you mention
Oh, and a special R.I.P. to my beloved "Strange Luck," cancelled after just 17 episodes.
Yeah, that was a good show, one of the few "quirky" shows where the Q word isn't just a cliche. (I particularly liked the ep with all the pregnant women.) Now, that one came out in Fox's early days, when the Creators still seemed to be dominant, because Fox had to differentiate itself from the existing networks. But the Cowards were there from the beginning: when the suits saw the pilot for "Married With Children" they asked the producers to make the characters more sympathetic — never mind that an unsympathetic family was what the show was about.
And face it, the Cowards managed to kill "Dollhouse" before it even got on the air. It was supposed to be a sort of moral melodrama about people who give up their identities so they can work in a high-tech brothel. But that's not enough action, so the first pilot can scrapped. Now the prostitution angle gets pushed into the background and they keep inventing lame reasons for the "actives" to get imprinted with the personalities of action heroes instead of their supposedly-usual sexual artistes. Damn it Joss, you're notorious for your stubborness and bad temper, why can't you bring these attributes to bear when it really counts?
As for "Sara Conner", WTF cares? It's just lame formula. I was turned off in the first episode when they pulled a major cheat: Summer Glau doesn't start acting like a robot until after it's revealled that she is one.
My paragraphs were refuting the assumptions you actually made.
Right, you know my assumptions better than me.
For sheer uselessness, that hack is light years ahead of any I can think of.
Truely, you are a geek among geeks!
I like this version better: No system is foolproof, because fools are fiendishly clever.
Pudge, is that you?
On what basis?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? If not, then you shouldn't assume a legal theory doesn't exist just because you don't know about it.
You write whole paragraphs refuting stuff I didn't say, and you accuse me of making assumptions?
Bored now.
How? Filesystem drivers in the BIOS? Creating an API for BIOS data in the OS? Ugly kludges both.
My main laptop actually does get booted and shut down rather than using suspend. I use Puppy Linux on it...
So you use a minimal OS, just so you can boot quickly. Hardly the use case these guys are targetting.
I don't think the GP was that serious, you know..
Neither was I!
(Thinks of several insults and bites tongue.)
When I ask you these questions, I'm trying to get you to see the implications of your own opinions. But you don't seem to know how to answer questions. You interpret every question as a proposal.
I give up.
Who said anything about unilateral disarmament? Lately, we haven't even looked at a negotiated drawdown.
Besides, we have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate any enemy (and probably the rest of civilization) even without Trident. The official justification for Trident is the so-called Triad Theory, which says that we need three different ways (land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and bombers) to play So Long Mom, just in case two of them don't work.
The real reason is the same reason we still have a Marine Corps over a century after boarding actions ceased to be a common naval tactic: people need to justify their jobs.
All of which makes us look a lot less convincing when we tell people that Iran is threat to world peace because they might have just one or two bombs.
They are "deeply concerned". Not much, but more than the Chinese government wants to hear.
"Fine. We'll help you refurbish your missiles if you'll just shut up about Tibet."
You're right, but it's still kind of pointless. The product seems to be somebody who regularly boots up their computer to do one thing, then shuts it down again. Plus when they fire up the computer to run Word, they don't need to access any of the bookmarks they created when they booted it just to check a web site. Not a common use case!
This is kind of similar to those initiatives to allow you to run some apps from the BIOS without booting the OS. Those didn't catch on either.
The specifically said be didn't want the either cost of a phone.
So, if an employer decides that no Libertarians can work for him, that's OK, but if be refuses to do business with anybody who employs Libertarians, that's wrong?
Somebody who's just pulling up information might not want a keyboard. In which case the N800 makes more sense.
Every nation has its brainless labels. The difference with the U.S. is that socialism has never been at all popular here. So you can label somebody a socialist without anyone quibbling with your definitions, or saying "what's wrong with that?"
So, if something's legal, it's morally OK?
Please. Don't stereotype us. Ron Paul fanboys like plnix0 consider anything short of disbanding the government "socialism". Right-wing politicians, having rendered the word "liberal" meaningless by applying it to any idea left of Ghengis Kahn, are now trying to do the same with "socialism". But Americans are getting clued into this semantic abuse. Note that we just elected a President who is now immensely popular, despite endless cries of "socialist".
Your post earns a big "goodie for you".
Boy are you dense. Do you know what the words "implication" and "irony" mean? Guess not.
Let me spell it out for you. I was not arguing that the President has the right to fire private employees. I was trying to demonstrate that if we accept your "logic" (people don't have a right to a job, therefore it's not a violation of your rights to have you fired) then by implication,there's nothing wrong with the government enforcing its views by depriving people of their jobs.
But that's a stupid idea. Of course the government should not be allowed to suppress dissent that way. I wasn't arguing that absurdity. I was demonstrating that your argument implies that absurdity.
I read that the US Military was actually considering procuring and deploying these to combat the "battery problem."
I've been watching "Generation Kill" on DVD. These poor guys are always scrounging for batteries for their night vision gear. The silly thing is that they spend half their time charging around in HUMVs — that presumably have huge alternators. Funny that nobody thought to equip them with a supply of NiCads and a changing station.
But out on a mission, away from such sources of power, I can't see grunts finding the time to lay solar cells in the sun or to wind up a charger.