No offense, de gustibus non est disputandum after all, but if you think Voyager is one of the consistently better treks, I would recommend you check out DS9 and TNG.
Personally I rank them from best to worst as DS9, TNG, TOS (Voyager would win, but TOS was the pioneer, so it gets bonus points), Voyager, Entercrap
it guess it depends on what you mean by multiple logins--you can do cmd line logins, it's just not worth a ton.
And windows TS (Terminal Server) supports many concurrent login and hosted applications. It's nothing new--what's new is RDP being available to the consumer XP os.
Windows has the ability--you just have to buy a more expensive version to make usage of it. Rumors has it that xp SP2 might add permission for 2 logins. Remote Desktop is one of the best things about xp imho.
Re:Caps Lock? Who cares about Caps Lock?
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Some operating systems actually are able to make use of scroll lock! For instance, in FreeBSD you can press scroll lock, and then can scroll up and down (and pgup pgdn) at the console--going back all the way to when it started to boot.
I miss that when I use linux..makes the console feel much less efficient
Does "reading between the lines" mean conspiracy nut by any chance?:-p What you call "reading between the lines" I and others call a lack of historical knowledge and rampant paranoia.
this guy is associated iwth groups that advocate radical activities. His wife was found dead under very suspicious circumstances. He had very suspicious things in his house. This isn't an electrical hobby kit, or an elementary school chem lab--again, your paranoia is getting the best of you. The govt would have been negligent NOT to investigate him. Not to mention, all your exagerrating is about a couple of sub poenas--no court charges, no imprisonment, no nothing..
Even if you take a hardcore libertarian stance, one can make a very compelling argument that Kurtz's activities should not have allowed--in some libertarian thought (and I refer not the big L libertarian party, of which while I am a member, I believe to be full of crackpots, but to little l libertarians) the argument is made that some things are so ultimately dangerous, they pose such a threat to others, that they should nto be allowed. Now you say, that sounds horrible---but look at it this way. I don't think any libertarian of any ilk would say gun control is a good thing. But what about nuclear weapons--should anyone be allowed to have nuclear weapons? One guy could kill millions just like that. A lot of libertarians would say no--nukes should not be allowed. Likewise, things like biolabs in a house are extremely hazardous, for reasons I'd be happy to elaborate in a reply. Possibly even by libertarian standards, those activities should be limited -- the argument could even be made if you don't buy that, that in this case his wife is dead, possibly because of something he did--a full investigation should be done.
I was a student at Duke Univ. where there was a big debate over liberal bias. There was a panel discussion (I'd be glad to provide the link if you like--it was very entertaining) and one of the panel members, a democrat and liberal and a law professor, in response to a a grad student who went off about McCarthyism et all, and how terrible stuff was today, he said (and I'll paraphrase, again, I'll send you a video link, and a time, it's really interesting) that people talking about mccarthyism, and how bad stuff is today, lack any understanding of how things are, how things were, and are subject to paranoia. he then went on to say "I've been on the national board of the ACLU on and off for decades...this is simply not the armageddon of intellectualism in the US...and it really takes a fevered mind to conjure that kind of dread"
And that is my problem you and your ilk--you so strongly overreact to what is an incredibly minor problem at WORST, or (and in this case, imho) a 100% desirable action, that when something really bad does come about, you're like the boy who called wolf--no one cares anymore, and you've given everyone else who cares about such things a bad name,
Let me give you an alternative pov. As a historian, it is precisely these things that you devalue that others value. For instance only recently I was researching an incident during th 1856 presidential election, and a university professor in the South (specifics aren't terribly important for my point). This professor left a copy of all his letters, and they were quite extensive to Duke University library upon his death--these letters are personal, to his sisters, wife, children, etc. And they offer an incredible window into the issues and the time.
Now clearly this was his choice, but as you say, in previous times it was more difficult to make copies. Today we take it for granted that stuff will be around forever--this isn't the case, and it's kinda scary how much might be lost.
While having lived for less then 6 months in Austin, Texas, I got a gun pointed at me once by a mugger, and saw the same happen 2 more times but not involving myself. Of course no statistics there of any value, but it does brign the argument across in a very individual way I can tell you.
If we're getting into anecdotal evidence here, I've lived in North Carolina (in "the south") for my entire life, and I've seen a person wearing a gun once (not counting police officers), and never seen one fired, never been mugged, etc
I don't have a citation for the climate of Greenland within the next 50-100 years, but if you google Greenland Vineyards or Greenland Vikings, or if you read any Medieval history texts that discuss climate change in the roughly 1000-500 years ago period, you'll see it's quite obvious, and accepted, that climates were different (warmer) then.
I've never understood why people get so scared of climate change--it's done it before, it'll do it again. Do greens have any CLUE how much of the world is unlivable thanks to cold?
Last I checked, the people owned the airwaves and the little slice they had for colleges and highschools is being systematically being pull-out in favor of more clear channel crap.
Did you ever stop and think why Clear Channel is succesful? Maybe it's because people listen to their stations. Everyone gets their panties up in a knot (and by everyone I mean geeks on slashdot and a handful of indie music fans) when a channel that no one listens to gets replaced by a Clear Channel station. What's the big deal, if people didn't like the stations they wouldn't listen, and no one would sell advertisements to clear channel. Not to mention, with tapes, cds, satellite radios, mp3 players, etc, there's NO shortage of music media.
Oh come on get real, according to the poster, who heard it from a "coworker" who heard it from the cop who was acting because of the FBI (I'm loving this reliability already) this "coworker" had the option to let cops do a search, voluntarily, or other legal channels would be pursued. No one knows what those channels would have been. Why are your panties all in a knot over an imagined nothing?
In addition, in paranoid fashion, you're imaging some government wide conspriacy theory of blah blah blah. THere's no mention of fingerprinting, photographing, ANYTHING. Again, why are your panties knotted over nothing?
Someone reported that a crime might be taking place. The police are OBLIGATED to investigate that. The man was given a choice of letting the police in for a search, or making other legal channels come into play. He let the police search. He explained the misunderstanding. They leave. Nobody loses anything, no one is hurt...what's the problem??
"Free Tibet" sticker owners are nothing but bandwagoners. Do you see stickers about "Free Algerians who got their heads cut off by extremists" or "Free [insert oppressed African minority group]"? The only reason the "Free Tibet" sticker is on is because some celebrities endorsed it. Nothing more. Some people go a little further and deify the Dalai Lama as some saviour of human rights in Tibet. What a crock. This is the same guy who at one time ran a theocracy in Tibet (and sicced scorpions on people who didn't pay their taxes on time) - yes, the same guy who got the obviously politically motivated Nobel Peace Prize. History has repeatedly shown that the whole "my enemy's enemy is my friend" thing usually doesn't work out too well in the end.
I will agree that little separates the plight of the Tibetans and the plight of the Hutus and tutsis, the blacks of Darfur, etc. The Dalai Lama can be thanked for raising awareness of the tribulations the Tibetan people are going through. I'd be interested in any of your sources for supposed atrocities the Tibetans committed to warrant Chinese invasion--sounds pretty propaganda riddled to me. And yes, the Dalai Lama WAS a theocratic ruler in Tibet--clearly mcuh worse than the emperors of China, or the modern day communist emperors of China. Perhaps you should read some of the Dalai Lama's works if you're so skeptical, and really don't see what the fuss is about.
Well, seriously, the damage has been done a long time ago. Tibet has been continuously ruled by China (via the Qing Dynasty) for several hundreds years prior. Waiting another few more years before the Communist Party disintegrates in the very near future won't be too bad. The rising Chinese middle class will inevitably change things in that region - all for the better.
China DID rule parts of Tibet for a time under the Qing, yes. How much effective power did they have and for how long? Also, there's that little obnoxious period when Chinese emperors sent princesses and other goods as payment to the powerful Tibetan empire...should China todayt be part of Tibet because of historical political relations?
Your point about the Chinese middle class is both apt and horrifying--the forced movements of people by the Chinese government to reach forced sinicization (sp?) and the destruction of any indigenous peoples is just ridiculous.
The US surely can't point fingers at China for not upholding the basic human rights. The imprisonment of many people in Guantanamo Bay with no trial, no evidence, and for basically no real reason other than show the right-wing voters (who sadly seems to be the majority of US voters) that "we're doing something about terrorism".
Oh really, you've interogated them? interesting, I had no idea you had so much knowledge about guantanomo and the inmates being held there. It's amazing that there's no reason to hold them...here I thought it was just blind luck that no American target had been hit by terrorism since 9/11. Here's something else you might not know--Genenva conventions promise nothing to terrorists.
Incidentally, I will also never understand how you people can claim to know what Bush et al are really thinking. Oh that bush! He knew ALL along that there were no WMD's!! He WANTED to mislead everyone so that when no WMD's were found, everyone would be able to criticize him...no, wait, that doesn't work shit...let me think..Oh I get it, Bush WANTED to invade Iraq, because he knew he would order prisoners to be abused and then photos would get out and it would be an electoral disaster! Shit, no that doesn't work either...damn this logic!!!
Perhaps you would enlighten me as to the magical real reasons you alone somehow have figured out?
And Xinjiang was *CERTAINLY* not an independant nation at any time, ever. It has always been considered an "autonomous region" along with a great portion of that western side of China, but it is by no means independant. It still functions under the rules and mandates of the Chinese government(s), and has done so for the past 2200 years.
BZZZZ!! Nonsense! Parts of Xinjiang have historically been part of the various chiense kingdoms (since I believe the Han--thus your statement of 2200 years), however you really have to look to the Qing within the past 300 years to see any real control of the area. Check out the location of the Jade Gate, versus say, Kashgar. Kashgar--now there is a Chinese city for you. You only need to look at most of the residents to see how Chinese xinjiang is. Xinjiang's also been ruled by the Uyghurs (the present day residents, Turkic peoples, who the chiense are attempting [and succeeding] to outbreed with MASSIVE population transfers--similarly done in Tibet) In addition, there have been numerous rebellions in the area, and there WAS briefly in the 20th century an independent East Turkestan. IIRC, Xinjiang means new Province, and was only created within the past 200 years (again, by the Qing--the first chinese dynasty to effectively control the area)
Xinjiang has NOT been part of China for 2200 years. PARTS of it may have been under some relationship with China during some parts of the past 2000 years, but to say it's been part of china for 2000 years is wrong.
Your attempted point is meaning less--it's more than obvious that you can't sue if you're dead. However if a child, wife, relative, etc was killed, you bet your ass you can sue.
How many fields can I pick where your own stupidity would kill you? Chemicals? Insulation in your home? Guess what, you aren't so smart. If not for legislation, think-they're-smarts like you would probably be dead due to misuse of a consumer product that "any idiot" should know how to manipulate.
That's completely ludicrous. If you bought a chemical or insulation that caused death or injury, get ready to sue the pants off the company the sold it to you, because you're about to be rich. Guess how many more people will buy that product after that?
You can't look at TNG/DS9 and tell me there are no decent actors! Picard in TNG for instance. In DS9, Quark, Odo, hell, I can't tihnk of any of the regulars that I would call bad. Sure, there is bad acting, but compared to enterprise, they're all thespians of the year (and you'll note I'm ignoring TOS!;)
I agree with you about 99% of the things you said, but personally I don't like T'pol as a character at all! a Vulcan addict sex fiend?! I just don't get it. IMHO, whoever decided to make the sexy character be vulcan was a big mistake...it spits on the legacy of Spock etc!
Also, personally, I like Phlox a lot...other than him (and Tpol when she's not snorting crystals or applying "vulcan nerve pressure" (BAH)) all the characters are just boring, badly acted stereotypes. Hoshi isn't terrible actually, but she has so few parts.
You know, I was a BIG firefly when it was on tv, pre-ordered the boxed set of dvds etc. And when I watched the DVD's I found I didn't enjoy firefly at all--the acting just sucked so badly. I think that's one part of the enterprise problem too--not a single good character, or notable actor--actually, I like Phlox, but everyone else is just totally BLAH
I feel that TNG and DS9 at a minimum had better acting, and that's part of the reason they age better imho. (Also Ira Steven Behr!)
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, de gustibus non est disputandum after all, but if you think Voyager is one of the consistently better treks, I would recommend you check out DS9 and TNG.
Personally I rank them from best to worst as DS9, TNG, TOS (Voyager would win, but TOS was the pioneer, so it gets bonus points), Voyager, Entercrap
hey, FWIW, the AC that was rude wasn't me..
it guess it depends on what you mean by multiple logins--you can do cmd line logins, it's just not worth a ton.
And windows TS (Terminal Server) supports many concurrent login and hosted applications. It's nothing new--what's new is RDP being available to the consumer XP os.
Windows has the ability--you just have to buy a more expensive version to make usage of it. Rumors has it that xp SP2 might add permission for 2 logins. Remote Desktop is one of the best things about xp imho.
Some operating systems actually are able to make use of scroll lock! For instance, in FreeBSD you can press scroll lock, and then can scroll up and down (and pgup pgdn) at the console--going back all the way to when it started to boot.
I miss that when I use linux..makes the console feel much less efficient
Does "reading between the lines" mean conspiracy nut by any chance? :-p What you call "reading between the lines" I and others call a lack of historical knowledge and rampant paranoia.
this guy is associated iwth groups that advocate radical activities. His wife was found dead under very suspicious circumstances. He had very suspicious things in his house. This isn't an electrical hobby kit, or an elementary school chem lab--again, your paranoia is getting the best of you. The govt would have been negligent NOT to investigate him. Not to mention, all your exagerrating is about a couple of sub poenas--no court charges, no imprisonment, no nothing..
Even if you take a hardcore libertarian stance, one can make a very compelling argument that Kurtz's activities should not have allowed--in some libertarian thought (and I refer not the big L libertarian party, of which while I am a member, I believe to be full of crackpots, but to little l libertarians) the argument is made that some things are so ultimately dangerous, they pose such a threat to others, that they should nto be allowed. Now you say, that sounds horrible---but look at it this way. I don't think any libertarian of any ilk would say gun control is a good thing. But what about nuclear weapons--should anyone be allowed to have nuclear weapons? One guy could kill millions just like that. A lot of libertarians would say no--nukes should not be allowed. Likewise, things like biolabs in a house are extremely hazardous, for reasons I'd be happy to elaborate in a reply. Possibly even by libertarian standards, those activities should be limited -- the argument could even be made if you don't buy that, that in this case his wife is dead, possibly because of something he did--a full investigation should be done.
I was a student at Duke Univ. where there was a big debate over liberal bias. There was a panel discussion (I'd be glad to provide the link if you like--it was very entertaining) and one of the panel members, a democrat and liberal and a law professor, in response to a a grad student who went off about McCarthyism et all, and how terrible stuff was today, he said (and I'll paraphrase, again, I'll send you a video link, and a time, it's really interesting) that people talking about mccarthyism, and how bad stuff is today, lack any understanding of how things are, how things were, and are subject to paranoia. he then went on to say "I've been on the national board of the ACLU on and off for decades...this is simply not the armageddon of intellectualism in the US...and it really takes a fevered mind to conjure that kind of dread"
And that is my problem you and your ilk--you so strongly overreact to what is an incredibly minor problem at WORST, or (and in this case, imho) a 100% desirable action, that when something really bad does come about, you're like the boy who called wolf--no one cares anymore, and you've given everyone else who cares about such things a bad name,
How about a better idea--you actually RTFA and realize that once again, you and your ilk are overreacting because you don't know the facts.
What it is is lack of empathy; there's something wrong with these kids, they get pleasure from causing other people pain.
The Germans DID invent the word Schadenfreude ;)
Let me give you an alternative pov. As a historian, it is precisely these things that you devalue that others value. For instance only recently I was researching an incident during th 1856 presidential election, and a university professor in the South (specifics aren't terribly important for my point). This professor left a copy of all his letters, and they were quite extensive to Duke University library upon his death--these letters are personal, to his sisters, wife, children, etc. And they offer an incredible window into the issues and the time.
Now clearly this was his choice, but as you say, in previous times it was more difficult to make copies. Today we take it for granted that stuff will be around forever--this isn't the case, and it's kinda scary how much might be lost.
While having lived for less then 6 months in Austin, Texas, I got a gun pointed at me once by a mugger, and saw the same happen 2 more times but not involving myself. Of course no statistics there of any value, but it does brign the argument across in a very individual way I can tell you.
If we're getting into anecdotal evidence here, I've lived in North Carolina (in "the south") for my entire life, and I've seen a person wearing a gun once (not counting police officers), and never seen one fired, never been mugged, etc
I don't have a citation for the climate of Greenland within the next 50-100 years, but if you google Greenland Vineyards or Greenland Vikings, or if you read any Medieval history texts that discuss climate change in the roughly 1000-500 years ago period, you'll see it's quite obvious, and accepted, that climates were different (warmer) then.
I've never understood why people get so scared of climate change--it's done it before, it'll do it again. Do greens have any CLUE how much of the world is unlivable thanks to cold?
Last I checked, the people owned the airwaves and the little slice they had for colleges and highschools is being systematically being pull-out in favor of more clear channel crap.
Did you ever stop and think why Clear Channel is succesful? Maybe it's because people listen to their stations. Everyone gets their panties up in a knot (and by everyone I mean geeks on slashdot and a handful of indie music fans) when a channel that no one listens to gets replaced by a Clear Channel station. What's the big deal, if people didn't like the stations they wouldn't listen, and no one would sell advertisements to clear channel. Not to mention, with tapes, cds, satellite radios, mp3 players, etc, there's NO shortage of music media.
We know the homeland security BS is totally unconstitutional? Prove it. Tell me what about it is unconstitutional.
Oh come on get real, according to the poster, who heard it from a "coworker" who heard it from the cop who was acting because of the FBI (I'm loving this reliability already) this "coworker" had the option to let cops do a search, voluntarily, or other legal channels would be pursued. No one knows what those channels would have been. Why are your panties all in a knot over an imagined nothing?
In addition, in paranoid fashion, you're imaging some government wide conspriacy theory of blah blah blah. THere's no mention of fingerprinting, photographing, ANYTHING. Again, why are your panties knotted over nothing?
Someone reported that a crime might be taking place. The police are OBLIGATED to investigate that. The man was given a choice of letting the police in for a search, or making other legal channels come into play. He let the police search. He explained the misunderstanding. They leave. Nobody loses anything, no one is hurt...what's the problem??
"Free Tibet" sticker owners are nothing but bandwagoners. Do you see stickers about "Free Algerians who got their heads cut off by extremists" or "Free [insert oppressed African minority group]"? The only reason the "Free Tibet" sticker is on is because some celebrities endorsed it. Nothing more. Some people go a little further and deify the Dalai Lama as some saviour of human rights in Tibet. What a crock. This is the same guy who at one time ran a theocracy in Tibet (and sicced scorpions on people who didn't pay their taxes on time) - yes, the same guy who got the obviously politically motivated Nobel Peace Prize. History has repeatedly shown that the whole "my enemy's enemy is my friend" thing usually doesn't work out too well in the end.
I will agree that little separates the plight of the Tibetans and the plight of the Hutus and tutsis, the blacks of Darfur, etc. The Dalai Lama can be thanked for raising awareness of the tribulations the Tibetan people are going through. I'd be interested in any of your sources for supposed atrocities the Tibetans committed to warrant Chinese invasion--sounds pretty propaganda riddled to me. And yes, the Dalai Lama WAS a theocratic ruler in Tibet--clearly mcuh worse than the emperors of China, or the modern day communist emperors of China. Perhaps you should read some of the Dalai Lama's works if you're so skeptical, and really don't see what the fuss is about.
Well, seriously, the damage has been done a long time ago. Tibet has been continuously ruled by China (via the Qing Dynasty) for several hundreds years prior. Waiting another few more years before the Communist Party disintegrates in the very near future won't be too bad. The rising Chinese middle class will inevitably change things in that region - all for the better.
China DID rule parts of Tibet for a time under the Qing, yes. How much effective power did they have and for how long? Also, there's that little obnoxious period when Chinese emperors sent princesses and other goods as payment to the powerful Tibetan empire...should China todayt be part of Tibet because of historical political relations?
Your point about the Chinese middle class is both apt and horrifying--the forced movements of people by the Chinese government to reach forced sinicization (sp?) and the destruction of any indigenous peoples is just ridiculous.
Hah, you really think you would get in trouble?! I don't think so... In fact I think it's NUTS that you think would get in trouble.
Ever seen the movie Red Dawn? Russians and Cubans take over most of the US. WOOO, THEY GOT IN TROUIBLE FOR THAT FILM!!!
Ever read the book 5th Column by Heinlein? Chinese took over most of America. WOOOOO, THEY GOT IN TROUBLE FOR THAT FILM!!!!
Say what you want, any comparison of chinese freedoms to US is pretty ludicrous imho.
The US surely can't point fingers at China for not upholding the basic human rights. The imprisonment of many people in Guantanamo Bay with no trial, no evidence, and for basically no real reason other than show the right-wing voters (who sadly seems to be the majority of US voters) that "we're doing something about terrorism".
Oh really, you've interogated them? interesting, I had no idea you had so much knowledge about guantanomo and the inmates being held there. It's amazing that there's no reason to hold them...here I thought it was just blind luck that no American target had been hit by terrorism since 9/11. Here's something else you might not know--Genenva conventions promise nothing to terrorists.
Incidentally, I will also never understand how you people can claim to know what Bush et al are really thinking. Oh that bush! He knew ALL along that there were no WMD's!! He WANTED to mislead everyone so that when no WMD's were found, everyone would be able to criticize him...no, wait, that doesn't work shit...let me think..Oh I get it, Bush WANTED to invade Iraq, because he knew he would order prisoners to be abused and then photos would get out and it would be an electoral disaster! Shit, no that doesn't work either...damn this logic!!!
Perhaps you would enlighten me as to the magical real reasons you alone somehow have figured out?
And Xinjiang was *CERTAINLY* not an independant nation at any time, ever. It has always been considered an "autonomous region" along with a great portion of that western side of China, but it is by no means independant. It still functions under the rules and mandates of the Chinese government(s), and has done so for the past 2200 years.
BZZZZ!! Nonsense! Parts of Xinjiang have historically been part of the various chiense kingdoms (since I believe the Han--thus your statement of 2200 years), however you really have to look to the Qing within the past 300 years to see any real control of the area. Check out the location of the Jade Gate, versus say, Kashgar. Kashgar--now there is a Chinese city for you. You only need to look at most of the residents to see how Chinese xinjiang is. Xinjiang's also been ruled by the Uyghurs (the present day residents, Turkic peoples, who the chiense are attempting [and succeeding] to outbreed with MASSIVE population transfers--similarly done in Tibet) In addition, there have been numerous rebellions in the area, and there WAS briefly in the 20th century an independent East Turkestan. IIRC, Xinjiang means new Province, and was only created within the past 200 years (again, by the Qing--the first chinese dynasty to effectively control the area)
Xinjiang has NOT been part of China for 2200 years. PARTS of it may have been under some relationship with China during some parts of the past 2000 years, but to say it's been part of china for 2000 years is wrong.
Your attempted point is meaning less--it's more than obvious that you can't sue if you're dead. However if a child, wife, relative, etc was killed, you bet your ass you can sue.
How many fields can I pick where your own stupidity would kill you? Chemicals? Insulation in your home? Guess what, you aren't so smart. If not for legislation, think-they're-smarts like you would probably be dead due to misuse of a consumer product that "any idiot" should know how to manipulate.
That's completely ludicrous. If you bought a chemical or insulation that caused death or injury, get ready to sue the pants off the company the sold it to you, because you're about to be rich. Guess how many more people will buy that product after that?
It comes to different tastes I guess. DS9 is definitely my favorite Trek, then TNG, then TOS/Voyager, then Enterprise.
I do wish Firefly would have kept going...Whedon's great, and I'm sure he would taken it interesting places.
Also I agree about Andromeda not being that hot. I watched 2.5 or so seasons of Farscape, and got bored.
You can't look at TNG/DS9 and tell me there are no decent actors! Picard in TNG for instance. In DS9, Quark, Odo, hell, I can't tihnk of any of the regulars that I would call bad. Sure, there is bad acting, but compared to enterprise, they're all thespians of the year (and you'll note I'm ignoring TOS! ;)
I agree with you about 99% of the things you said, but personally I don't like T'pol as a character at all! a Vulcan addict sex fiend?! I just don't get it. IMHO, whoever decided to make the sexy character be vulcan was a big mistake...it spits on the legacy of Spock etc!
Also, personally, I like Phlox a lot...other than him (and Tpol when she's not snorting crystals or applying "vulcan nerve pressure" (BAH)) all the characters are just boring, badly acted stereotypes. Hoshi isn't terrible actually, but she has so few parts.
I feel that TNG and DS9 at a minimum had better acting, and that's part of the reason they age better imho. (Also Ira Steven Behr!)
Lol, that's a great name (luzumsuz lazim)