Rather than 90% of the mass in the universe being AWOL, isn't it possible that we don't have an accurate understanding of how gravity functions on an extremely large scale? Could this, in turn, be related to how the expansion of the universe appears to be actually speeding up rather than, as we'd expect, slowing down?
Hell yes.
Astronomically speaking, we're expecing to understand how wall street works by doing nothing more than staring at the trading room floor in a language we don't understand and without auditory input.
For some reason, science falls back on "we've got gravity down, so we must be missing dark matter" before "we might have gravity a bit off."
The internet was built from whole cloth to allow communication. Applications were built for the 'net, not the other way around.
. for example, suppose i'm building software for a PDA - is it wrong to import address/contact info from outlook express? with palladium, i'm sure only 'trusted' applications will be allowed to do that (i.e. the company that paid MS for access). no doubt this will allow MS to control the pace of innovation and guide its development....
You're right, it would. And doing that would get MS back in antitrust court even if Gates was President.
You will die if put on a shelf for twenty years. Software will not.
Innovation will only take the "IT" industry so far. Eventually they'll reach a point where things simply can't get any better, and the brief respite of patents will wittle away the last few differences between OSS and "proprietary" software--and then, because of simple economics, the OSS will succeed.
The only solutions that I can see are for all software to be free software
Or, Free Software simply realizes that they're a long-term movement, and that 7-14 years to get at a competitor's IP is just the cost of doing business for them.
Given MS's vile trackrecord for faking 'grassroots' support, isn't it likely they have a pr-team who keep an eye on Slashdot threads, and try to mod-up pro-MS postings?
That'd only be fair, as the FSF has volunteer zealots who mod down pro-MS anti-Stallman postings.
if lying is a problem for you[as it is for me] then why not make anti-lying laws instead of copyright laws?
Because everyone lies. It's like abortion or blasphemy--it's a wrong we don't want laws against.
and i'm not sure if i agree even if. some of the best music i've ever heard was at live shows with artists i'll never hear again, or on limewire...but this point is really insignificant because you probably are right...the best may be the full timers
Now, don't get me wrong. Part-time artists (like, er, me) sure have a lot of potential. But if it's not something that can ever make them any money, then, from a simple capitalist view, they're not going to try as hard or work as well for their art.
Take a look through my journal--I still stand by the basic concept in "It's time for a change."
the problem is that art, as with religion is none of the laws damn business - why do we need a government to tell us what we can / cannot say/write/create/listen to?
Government has no business telling you or me or anyone what religion we can follow, or what art we can like. HOWEVER, we need government to keep us from telling each other that at the point of a club.
they should *not* HAve the first chance to profit off of their art. they shouldn't profit from their art...at all! this is what is wrong with the entire system!
The greatest artists of all time have been full-time artists. Traditionally, they've supported themseves either through personal wealth or, essentially, being a whore for royalty. Since corporations have all the money today, and they have even less taste than royalty...
If anyone makes any money off of art, it should be the person who created the thing. The world might be a better place if we were all a highly computerized socalist world where we all worked and all got what we wanted, and we used computers to overcome the inefficies inherent in the socialist economic model--but for as long as we're capitalist, those who do things that we value should be paid for doing them, or else they'll stop.
what do you mean lying to the readers of the poem?
The parent said that they were saying the poem was theirs. That's lying. OTOH, taking someone's poem and taking it to another country, and saying that it's their poem, is a perfectly respectable occurance in any instance. And most of the time, the copyright holder will go along with an idea like that.
But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead. We have tried, and failed. The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies. They probably hope to cover up the failure of the system by avoiding any real-world test of the system, though certainly avoiding having missiles launched at the US is a good goal regardless.
I politely disagree.
Yes, there was a scandal awhile back about the military having radio-repeaters (forgot the tech-term) on the target missiles. But, like the military said in their rebuttal, if the defense system isn't designed to look for the signal, it doesn't really alter the validity of the test.
Judging from the PATRIOT III missile system we used in Kuwait recently, the technology is just getting better and better.
Let's be honest, everything done GUI-wise since Windows 3.1 has been eye candy.
Yeah, I mean, having spelling mistakes marked up as you're writing is just eye-candy with no purpose, and those three extra buttons don't add any functionality at all...
Well, then for your sensibilies read "improve" as "change." As far as the law should care, turning shakesphere into dirty limericks should be the same as turning it into a novel or new movie.
If you aren't changing the original, you're not making art--you're just literally copying someone else's art. (And not in an artistic way, even.)
If i take a poem, written in america, and i use it, claiming it as my own, in canada, and gain thousands of fans and admirers in canada, that poem had an effect it would not have had otherwise : why be so picky ? why do we need to be worshipped for our art? unless we are in some way insecure of it perhaps?
It's not just fame--though recognition certainly is a part of it. It's the moral principle that if someone creates something, they should have the first chance to profit from it for some limited time. This is how we reward artistic creations and encourage more.
If you just want to get a poem to canada, why claim it as your own? There's no defense for that--it's an underhanded tactic, and is literally lying to the readers of that poem. And this isn't just copyright--it's as much a lie to take Shakesphere and claim it as your own as it is to take Spielberge and claim it as your own.
(And, FWIW, if a work isn't in a market already, you can probably get it to canada for expenses + 5%-10% (or more) of the author's cut, above-board and totally legal and ethical.)
Not in the state I live in. Come into my home illegally in the middle of the night, and if I even think you're armed, you've breathed your last breath.
And if you've kidnapped my teenage daughter?
Or I'm a police officer serving a no-knock warrant?
Or you're mentally challenged?
Or _I_ actually own the house, and you've just been living there while I've been out of the country?
Clear cases are clear-cut. Those that are not clear-cut... which is most of them... require trials. This is why we have lawyers and--more importantly--jury duty.
There is no equivalency here that would benefit the RIAA. The only equivalency would be that THEY are the unauthorized intruder in any action of the nature described. I sincerely hope they are treated as such.
Feel free. I doubt that they'll charge you for hacking them if it's immediate & retalitory.
would be better seen as a tabboo art form in which the expansion of meaning without permission of an author, who has not yet developed enough to understand why this has to happen for the better of us all:/ no sidestepping.
Huh?
You'll need to elaborate how copying someone else's art without improvement, attribution, permission, or even commentary can possibly be considered "art."
And even derivitive art is subject to copyright laws.
If you point to someone and say "they're gay", you're almost certainly either a non-homosexual mocking the person, or a homosexual trying to justify your sexuality.
Batman and Robin are not gay. In fact, I can guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that they have never, ever, had sex, or entertained any notions of having sex.
I mean, for crying out loud, they're fictional characters!:) It's not like a historically real figure--we can look up Bill Kane's character write-ups, and the notes of ever writer & editor & producer who's ever worked on the dynamic duo, and say with utmost certainty if they are or are not of an abnormal sexuality.
FWIW, I'm just offended by the whole notion because I'm a fan of comics, heroes, and whatnot. I've got issues--like staying up 'til 3 am posting on/.;)
I don't love living in a homophobic world, and I'm not sure why you say I do.
I'm just blaming homophobia for the assumption that if two males have a close relationship, they have to be gay. (That's darn sexist too--if two WOMEN have a close relationship, they're not accused of being gay... ok, fantasized about, but any two women who spend more than a week in the same building are.)
Wow, you mean the RIAA is physically destroying computers? Give them a hacker prize!
RIAA's reverse-hacking is the equivalent of following the thugs who stole your merchandise, setting up a camera to look for your stuff, breaking into their car when you find it, and then taking it back.
Like the headline said--questionable legality. (Remember--this is the digital age. Anyone not making backups deserves to lose out. Which reminds me that it's time to backup.)
Re:SCO has another problem too
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It'd take a specific trial to prove it. And I'd wager that SCO's complete and total lack of a desire to publish any of ITS IP will exlude them from being interpreted to enter a contract with it.
It'd be akin to writing up a contract for making a movie out of a Stephen King book for $5, placing said contract on the last few blank pages with the note "by signing the cover, author agrees to this agreement" then taking it to a book signing, having King sign it, and then using the book to argue that you had a contract to make the movie.
Yes, it's spot-on. (The site in general is spot-on, aside from the usage of "Pagan" both as the modern religion and as ancient non-Judeo-Christian religions) In particular:
Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia. Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations.
Us Christians borrowed many secondary & decorative parts of Easter from the pagans, who had a holiday at the same time. This does not mean that we stole the holiday from them.:)
They have sued college students for $90 billion and settled for $17 thousand which is still way too much.
Based on what? If the college students held up a bank, hacked the RIAA servers, or stole from a local artist, they'd still be liable for damages.
They count 50 cd burners at faster speeds to be 420 burners for statistic purposes.
Ever been sued / looked at the inital claim in a lawsuit? Any plausible method of counting or claiming gets used to be in the claimant's best interest.
My wife had an auto accident some years back. The moron driver, who IMO caused the accident by driving recklessly (and wasn't ticketed due to a quirk in NYS's traffic code) sued us, and the inital claim read as if my wife had followed the lady for a mile, sped up to 60, and slamned right into her when she was just driving along, happy as can be.
The suit was settled out of court with our insurance company, btw. We didn't pay a single dime.
They have been proven guilty of illegal cd price fixing and screwing the consumer.
Which makes them somehow unable to defend their interest now? Just because someone's a child molester doesn't deprive them of their freedom of speech. (Freedom of anonymnity, sure, but not speech.)
Copyright infringement and Spam are the 'net's biggest problems. Thankfull, good filtering, new laws, and simple poor PR is killing the later, and a good model and proper enforcement are slowly killing the former.
Once Apple has its music service avalible for windows sans iPod--or it's emulated--the justification for current P2P gets smaller and smaller and smaller.
It's clearly illegal to shoot someone on the street.
It's of questionable legality to shoot someone who's come into your house in the middle of the night.
Copyright infringement is a crime against someone--a tort. If you can shoot someone who's trying to kill you, beat up someone who attacks you, or respond in kind to someone who's maligning you, why not use a quirk of software to stop someone who's using a quirk of software to "steal" from you?
BTW, what is copyrighted regarding source code, anyway? What if a person changed all the variable names, transformed all the conditions into boolean-equivalent--but different--statements, switched a for loop into a do-while loop, etc.? How far does the copyright really go before it just becomes absurd?
First off, IANAL--and you're obviously not, or you wouldn't have asked the question.
What is and is not a derivitive work--and thus subject to copyright--is something that requires a judge, jury, and a whole gaggle of lawyers to figure out. It's neither clear-cut, simple, or even logical. The line is somewhere between "a short farmer and a wizard destroy the power source of a great evil" and The Lord of the Rings... and it's all but impossible to tell with absolute certainy where anything in the midrange falls ahead of time.
(A twist-by-twist copy could be kosher, while a scene-by-scene copy could be verbotten.)
FWIW, this is why the Open Gaming License is so popular in RPGs today. (First d20/D&D, then the Action! system, and probably more to follow). The detractors who say that the OGL is unnecessary because folks have been making compatible-and-legal projects for years are right--but the OGL makes the "safe harbor" a lot larger.)
It's not that the show predates all other Treks per se, it's just that putting it before all the others shows in the Trek universe timeline seriously limits the writers as to what they can and can't do with the characters, races and technology available to them.
No, it doesn't.
Tracking by causality, Enterprise takes place AFTER Voyager. The Federation won, invented time travel, and now is fighting itself in a "Temporal Cold War."
Enterprise should be purposefully different in several key ways from the earlier 'treks., and it should feel free to break continuity. Anyone who's been paying attention won't find it any more discontinuous than First Contact.
Dear god, not Cogenitor. I may never watch Enterprise again after that.
All Trip did was teach a person how to read--she killed herself. He is NOT responsible for her suicide, and Archer chewing trip out is just, well, so out of character I can't stand it.
TOS would have written it off as "a tradgedy", and Kirk certainy wouldn't have blamed Checkov for trying to teach someone how to read.
Hell, they should have let her go back, but perhaps foever cloistered but able to read... or had her die from "information overload" that the casual scan couldn't account for. Or just had her kill herself, and not have %!#$#@^Ting Berman make a subtle "America is bad for thinking our culture is right" line.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than 90% of the mass in the universe being AWOL, isn't it possible that we don't have an accurate understanding of how gravity functions on an extremely large scale? Could this, in turn, be related to how the expansion of the universe appears to be actually speeding up rather than, as we'd expect, slowing down?
Hell yes.
Astronomically speaking, we're expecing to understand how wall street works by doing nothing more than staring at the trading room floor in a language we don't understand and without auditory input.
For some reason, science falls back on "we've got gravity down, so we must be missing dark matter" before "we might have gravity a bit off."
Come again?
The internet was built from whole cloth to allow communication. Applications were built for the 'net, not the other way around.
. for example, suppose i'm building software for a PDA - is it wrong to import address/contact info from outlook express? with palladium, i'm sure only 'trusted' applications will be allowed to do that (i.e. the company that paid MS for access). no doubt this will allow MS to control the pace of innovation and guide its development....
You're right, it would. And doing that would get MS back in antitrust court even if Gates was President.
You will die if put on a shelf for twenty years. Software will not.
Innovation will only take the "IT" industry so far. Eventually they'll reach a point where things simply can't get any better, and the brief respite of patents will wittle away the last few differences between OSS and "proprietary" software--and then, because of simple economics, the OSS will succeed.
The only solutions that I can see are for all software to be free software
Or, Free Software simply realizes that they're a long-term movement, and that 7-14 years to get at a competitor's IP is just the cost of doing business for them.
Given MS's vile trackrecord for faking 'grassroots' support, isn't it likely they have a pr-team who keep an eye on Slashdot threads, and try to mod-up pro-MS postings?
That'd only be fair, as the FSF has volunteer zealots who mod down pro-MS anti-Stallman postings.
if lying is a problem for you[as it is for me] then why not make anti-lying laws instead of copyright laws?
Because everyone lies. It's like abortion or blasphemy--it's a wrong we don't want laws against.
and i'm not sure if i agree even if. some of the best music i've ever heard was at live shows with artists i'll never hear again, or on limewire...but this point is really insignificant because you probably are right...the best may be the full timers
Now, don't get me wrong. Part-time artists (like, er, me) sure have a lot of potential. But if it's not something that can ever make them any money, then, from a simple capitalist view, they're not going to try as hard or work as well for their art.
Take a look through my journal--I still stand by the basic concept in "It's time for a change."
the problem is that art, as with religion is none of the laws damn business - why do we need a government to tell us what we can / cannot say/write/create/listen to?
Government has no business telling you or me or anyone what religion we can follow, or what art we can like. HOWEVER, we need government to keep us from telling each other that at the point of a club.
they should *not* HAve the first chance to profit off of their art. they shouldn't profit from their art...at all! this is what is wrong with the entire system!
The greatest artists of all time have been full-time artists. Traditionally, they've supported themseves either through personal wealth or, essentially, being a whore for royalty. Since corporations have all the money today, and they have even less taste than royalty...
If anyone makes any money off of art, it should be the person who created the thing. The world might be a better place if we were all a highly computerized socalist world where we all worked and all got what we wanted, and we used computers to overcome the inefficies inherent in the socialist economic model--but for as long as we're capitalist, those who do things that we value should be paid for doing them, or else they'll stop.
what do you mean lying to the readers of the poem?
The parent said that they were saying the poem was theirs. That's lying. OTOH, taking someone's poem and taking it to another country, and saying that it's their poem, is a perfectly respectable occurance in any instance. And most of the time, the copyright holder will go along with an idea like that.
But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead. We have tried, and failed. The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies. They probably hope to cover up the failure of the system by avoiding any real-world test of the system, though certainly avoiding having missiles launched at the US is a good goal regardless.
I politely disagree.
Yes, there was a scandal awhile back about the military having radio-repeaters (forgot the tech-term) on the target missiles. But, like the military said in their rebuttal, if the defense system isn't designed to look for the signal, it doesn't really alter the validity of the test.
Judging from the PATRIOT III missile system we used in Kuwait recently, the technology is just getting better and better.
Let's be honest, everything done GUI-wise since Windows 3.1 has been eye candy.
Yeah, I mean, having spelling mistakes marked up as you're writing is just eye-candy with no purpose, and those three extra buttons don't add any functionality at all...
improvement [on art] is a hard thing to do
Well, then for your sensibilies read "improve" as "change." As far as the law should care, turning shakesphere into dirty limericks should be the same as turning it into a novel or new movie.
If you aren't changing the original, you're not making art--you're just literally copying someone else's art. (And not in an artistic way, even.)
If i take a poem, written in america, and i use it, claiming it as my own, in canada, and gain thousands of fans and admirers in canada, that poem had an effect it would not have had otherwise : why be so picky ? why do we need to be worshipped for our art? unless we are in some way insecure of it perhaps?
It's not just fame--though recognition certainly is a part of it. It's the moral principle that if someone creates something, they should have the first chance to profit from it for some limited time. This is how we reward artistic creations and encourage more.
If you just want to get a poem to canada, why claim it as your own? There's no defense for that--it's an underhanded tactic, and is literally lying to the readers of that poem. And this isn't just copyright--it's as much a lie to take Shakesphere and claim it as your own as it is to take Spielberge and claim it as your own.
(And, FWIW, if a work isn't in a market already, you can probably get it to canada for expenses + 5%-10% (or more) of the author's cut, above-board and totally legal and ethical.)
Not in the state I live in. Come into my home illegally in the middle of the night, and if I even think you're armed, you've breathed your last breath.
And if you've kidnapped my teenage daughter?
Or I'm a police officer serving a no-knock warrant?
Or you're mentally challenged?
Or _I_ actually own the house, and you've just been living there while I've been out of the country?
Clear cases are clear-cut. Those that are not clear-cut... which is most of them... require trials. This is why we have lawyers and--more importantly--jury duty.
There is no equivalency here that would benefit the RIAA. The only equivalency would be that THEY are the unauthorized intruder in any action of the nature described. I sincerely hope they are treated as such.
Feel free. I doubt that they'll charge you for hacking them if it's immediate & retalitory.
would be better seen as a tabboo art form in which the expansion of meaning without permission of an author, who has not yet developed enough to understand why this has to happen for the better of us all :/ no sidestepping.
Huh?
You'll need to elaborate how copying someone else's art without improvement, attribution, permission, or even commentary can possibly be considered "art."
And even derivitive art is subject to copyright laws.
Isn't it?
:) It's not like a historically real figure--we can look up Bill Kane's character write-ups, and the notes of ever writer & editor & producer who's ever worked on the dynamic duo, and say with utmost certainty if they are or are not of an abnormal sexuality.
/. ;)
If you point to someone and say "they're gay", you're almost certainly either a non-homosexual mocking the person, or a homosexual trying to justify your sexuality.
Batman and Robin are not gay. In fact, I can guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that they have never, ever, had sex, or entertained any notions of having sex.
I mean, for crying out loud, they're fictional characters!
FWIW, I'm just offended by the whole notion because I'm a fan of comics, heroes, and whatnot. I've got issues--like staying up 'til 3 am posting on
Well, first off, homophobia and fetishes aren't necessarily hand-in-hand. (This coming from a straight-arrow-married-at-18 kid, too.)
Secondly, they're frigging supperheroes!
I mean, no one ever accuses Superman or the Fantastic Four of being gay for their wardrobe...
I don't love living in a homophobic world, and I'm not sure why you say I do.
I'm just blaming homophobia for the assumption that if two males have a close relationship, they have to be gay. (That's darn sexist too--if two WOMEN have a close relationship, they're not accused of being gay... ok, fantasized about, but any two women who spend more than a week in the same building are.)
You cannot be jailed for a tort.
Several torts are coexistant with crimes. OJ Simpson was found guilty of murder, but liable for wrongful death.
I was just randomly dropping legal vocabulary. Most P2P file sharers are NOT criminals--but they are commiting torts.
Wow, you mean the RIAA is physically destroying computers? Give them a hacker prize!
RIAA's reverse-hacking is the equivalent of following the thugs who stole your merchandise, setting up a camera to look for your stuff, breaking into their car when you find it, and then taking it back.
Like the headline said--questionable legality. (Remember--this is the digital age. Anyone not making backups deserves to lose out. Which reminds me that it's time to backup.)
It'd take a specific trial to prove it. And I'd wager that SCO's complete and total lack of a desire to publish any of ITS IP will exlude them from being interpreted to enter a contract with it.
It'd be akin to writing up a contract for making a movie out of a Stephen King book for $5, placing said contract on the last few blank pages with the note "by signing the cover, author agrees to this agreement" then taking it to a book signing, having King sign it, and then using the book to argue that you had a contract to make the movie.
Like this page?
:)
Yes, it's spot-on. (The site in general is spot-on, aside from the usage of "Pagan" both as the modern religion and as ancient non-Judeo-Christian religions) In particular:
Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia. Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations.
Us Christians borrowed many secondary & decorative parts of Easter from the pagans, who had a holiday at the same time. This does not mean that we stole the holiday from them.
They have sued college students for $90 billion and settled for $17 thousand which is still way too much.
Based on what? If the college students held up a bank, hacked the RIAA servers, or stole from a local artist, they'd still be liable for damages.
They count 50 cd burners at faster speeds to be 420 burners for statistic purposes.
Ever been sued / looked at the inital claim in a lawsuit? Any plausible method of counting or claiming gets used to be in the claimant's best interest.
My wife had an auto accident some years back. The moron driver, who IMO caused the accident by driving recklessly (and wasn't ticketed due to a quirk in NYS's traffic code) sued us, and the inital claim read as if my wife had followed the lady for a mile, sped up to 60, and slamned right into her when she was just driving along, happy as can be.
The suit was settled out of court with our insurance company, btw. We didn't pay a single dime.
They have been proven guilty of illegal cd price fixing and screwing the consumer.
Which makes them somehow unable to defend their interest now? Just because someone's a child molester doesn't deprive them of their freedom of speech. (Freedom of anonymnity, sure, but not speech.)
Copyright infringement and Spam are the 'net's biggest problems. Thankfull, good filtering, new laws, and simple poor PR is killing the later, and a good model and proper enforcement are slowly killing the former.
Once Apple has its music service avalible for windows sans iPod--or it's emulated--the justification for current P2P gets smaller and smaller and smaller.
It's clearly illegal to shoot someone on the street.
It's of questionable legality to shoot someone who's come into your house in the middle of the night.
Copyright infringement is a crime against someone--a tort. If you can shoot someone who's trying to kill you, beat up someone who attacks you, or respond in kind to someone who's maligning you, why not use a quirk of software to stop someone who's using a quirk of software to "steal" from you?
Any adult should be able to see the homosexual relationship between Batman and Robin without any assistance.
Hey, just because you love living in a homophobic world doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
BTW, what is copyrighted regarding source code, anyway? What if a person changed all the variable names, transformed all the conditions into boolean-equivalent--but different--statements, switched a for loop into a do-while loop, etc.? How far does the copyright really go before it just becomes absurd?
First off, IANAL--and you're obviously not, or you wouldn't have asked the question.
What is and is not a derivitive work--and thus subject to copyright--is something that requires a judge, jury, and a whole gaggle of lawyers to figure out. It's neither clear-cut, simple, or even logical. The line is somewhere between "a short farmer and a wizard destroy the power source of a great evil" and The Lord of the Rings... and it's all but impossible to tell with absolute certainy where anything in the midrange falls ahead of time.
(A twist-by-twist copy could be kosher, while a scene-by-scene copy could be verbotten.)
FWIW, this is why the Open Gaming License is so popular in RPGs today. (First d20/D&D, then the Action! system, and probably more to follow). The detractors who say that the OGL is unnecessary because folks have been making compatible-and-legal projects for years are right--but the OGL makes the "safe harbor" a lot larger.)
It's not that the show predates all other Treks per se, it's just that putting it before all the others shows in the Trek universe timeline seriously limits the writers as to what they can and can't do with the characters, races and technology available to them.
No, it doesn't.
Tracking by causality, Enterprise takes place AFTER Voyager. The Federation won, invented time travel, and now is fighting itself in a "Temporal Cold War."
Enterprise should be purposefully different in several key ways from the earlier 'treks., and it should feel free to break continuity. Anyone who's been paying attention won't find it any more discontinuous than First Contact.
Dear god, not Cogenitor. I may never watch Enterprise again after that.
All Trip did was teach a person how to read--she killed herself. He is NOT responsible for her suicide, and Archer chewing trip out is just, well, so out of character I can't stand it.
TOS would have written it off as "a tradgedy", and Kirk certainy wouldn't have blamed Checkov for trying to teach someone how to read.
Hell, they should have let her go back, but perhaps foever cloistered but able to read... or had her die from "information overload" that the casual scan couldn't account for. Or just had her kill herself, and not have %!#$#@^Ting Berman make a subtle "America is bad for thinking our culture is right" line.