I kinda like the Nox a real lot. I remember in one of the earlier episode when the Tollan first come and Lya takes them through the Stargate against Mayborn's orders, when O'Neil remarks, "God I love those people".
And I really like their policies - I think they're the most enlightened and most powerful of the lot (okay, maybe excluding the Ancients). I think people are *afraid* to attack them because they are afraid that the Nox would simply beat them.
I'd also like to see the Ancients do some cool stuff, I think they're really the invincible lot. Well, atleast after they ascended - the Wraiths could never get through to Atlantis per se, they only sucked out the humans the Ancients had seeded in Pesagus.
It would be really great if they could show the Nox or Ancients kick some Gou'uld or any other ass.
No, you're misconstruing my statements. I meant that I have the right to _choose_ something before I buy, and the new medium helps me exercise that right in a better way - a much better way. And copyright infringement is _not_ theft, no matter what the **AA's may have you believe.
Even if it were indeed easier to download, not everyone wants to spend time downloading. Serious.
I find it easier to buy off entire seasons of my favorite shows, rather than get them from online. Sure, I download them - but only to see if I like the way it is going.
Besides, if I get a DVD, it's not just me but my friends and family who can also watch it (which includes _normal_ people who know just to pop in a DVD).
You can only download off others on Inet2. Which largely restricts you to a limited choice of downloads, even if you were to download.
Besides, I'm fairly certain that my advisor probably finds it easier to get the DVD off Blockbuster on the way home than get it off a freshman on the campus network.
Liking music and films is one thing, downloading them is another. You're thinking CS-type folks, I'm talking physics and biology folks who are not really comfortable with computers. They find it easier to go to Blockbuster than downloading it online.
Maybe if replicator technologies were to really prevail, people honoring "old-fashioned" beliefs may just not let people duplicate anything they wish, lest it violate some archaic law and economic model not fitting in with progress.
Physical analogies with information does not work. Maybe if you had replicator technology, would you not try on a shirt before deciding if you wanted a better one or more of the same?
Now that people have this ability, some view it as a right.
That's what is called -P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-
Technology lets us do things we could not, before. Your confusing rights with the ability to -- I never said I have the "right" to copy music, merely that the better economic model will prevail.
Either produce good quality material and let people use the technology to try stuff and buy it if they like it, or face losses. If you don't adapt, you die.
When printing press was invented, lots of "writers" and "scribes" went out of jobs, and lots of copies of books were printed which did not benefit the original authors. Media is going through something similar, except that it's a lot easier to copy than before -- and the answer to this is not by preventing everyone from copying.
I sometimes rent it, I sometimes borrow it, I sometimes order off eBay or Amazon and I sometimes download it.
And if I like it, I buy it or more of it.
You're not getting my point -- I'm evaluating the content - it doesn't matter how I do it. I've DivX rips of so many movies. But I also have the DVDs (in some cases more than one) of all those movies.
If it's not worth buying the DVD, it's not worth keeping the content. As simple as that.
This is a new medium, one that allows for copies to be made because it is information. That cannot be changed, and you cannot go back.
But - people still watch good movies. People still buy good DVDs. People still buy good music.
The kind that only download and rip off music and movies are the kind who probably used to record stuff on to cassettess and videotapes without buying in the days gone by anyway. Now, people can download your content, and if they like it they can buy it.
If I can make copies of my wallet and my car, I'd gladly give them to you - and if you like it, I can give you a better quality version of my car at a small price. However, if I have twenty cars that I offer, and only one of them is worth it - why should you have to pay for all twenty when you're going to drive just one?
Just yesterday, I ordered all the seven seasons of Stargate off eBay. Why? Because I liked it.
Until a while ago, I'd not watched it at all - so I just borrowed the first couple of seasons from a friend, who highly recommended it. And then, I downloaded the rest because I wanted to see how it went. How is this any different from borrowing it from a friend? And I liked the series and wanted it for myself, so I just went ahead and purchased the *entire* seven seasons.
I don't see anything wrong in what I did - if anything, I've helped the MPAA make more money.
Good content will always have paying customers, no matter what. And there will always be a percentage of people who will abuse any system to get by without paying - you're affecting those that are willing to pay by going after a few who would not have paid anyway.
You know why? Because those file traders are morally right! The point of copyright law is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to allow cartels to force us to pay them for our own culture. Copyright law has become so perverted that it is almost completely unjust, and I have absolutely no problem with violating an unjust law.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Just what I had in mind, bravo.
Cartels are abusing a law that was drafted to _encourage_ science and progress into filling their coffers and stifling anything and everything, while mindless drones like this DAldredge guy buy into the propaganda.
I'm aware of that, I used that to indicate that the economic model has gone anachronic with the new medium in place.
Quality sound and video. Additional material like "how we did it", and even games and other material. All for a reasonable price.
Never denied it. That's why I buy the DVDs for.
Now tell me again why you're justifying the abuse of a taxpayer funded, research network?
For the same reason that we are not locked up in cages and allowed to do nothing but work during our working hours.
Because we're not drones to abide by a set of rules and follow it to the dot. People use the network primarily for research, a small percentage use it for other purposes too. So fucking what?
When the rest of my taxpayer money is used to wage wars that I do not support and not in stem-cell research that I do support, you're more concerned about a bunch of kids using it for entertainment purposes.
And oh, Internet2 is not entirely taxpayer, it is supported by money from several companies -- AT&T, Intel, Sun, Cisco and the like.
I'm talking about seeing a movie before deciding if I should pay $20 to buy it. The new medium gives me that ability, why should I forgo that?
Jack Valenti was the same guy who wanted to ban any and all recording capabilities. Because he was afraid that he'd not be able to control the media.
So, even if the DVDs were indeed a major source of income for the "non-profit" MPAA, I mean MPAA org members, it gives people the choice to decide whether they should pay so much before buying a movie. It takes away that control that they have over the media.
You borrow or photocopy a book that you come across, you buy it if you like it. If you don't, you don't buy it. This is no different.
Some people prefer borrowing it from libraries when it is convenient, some people prefer getting it off Blockbuster if they like it.
Yeah, I download "illegal" stuff. But I pay much more for stuff that I actually like.
Why? Because as the consumer, I've the right to choose what I like, before buying. And the new medium lets me exercise that right - to see if the content is worth buying.
If it's not, I simply do not buy it. That is why it hurts the **AAs - they cannot shove any jackshit down anybody's throat, without a choice.
I download 20 songs off an album, and realize that there is just ONE good song in that album. Why should I pay $25 for that one song? Instead, I'll just get it off iMusic. If it's not available, I'll just keep that one song that I like.
There are some bands, of which I own _every_ single album. Why? Because they make good music, and I would not want to cheat them.
Remember - give the consumer good quality and do not try to rip them off. And they will be happy to help out the artists.
Really? Maybe you should read the article next time, before shooting off your mouth.
"We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time," said Chris Russell, the MPAA's vice president of Internet standards and technology. "Those would go hand in hand."
(emphasis mine)
If you think "managing illegitimate content distribution" is anything other than euphemism for suing people to kingdom come for having a file named Usher, you're an idiot.
Jesus H Christ, what're you? A pawn of the MPAA or RIAA or something? You seem to be supporting them as though they're a goody-two shoe organization.
You don't really get it, do you? People used to record tapes and lend it to friends, people now make Mp3s and share it. It's a new medium and one which does not fit the old business model that the **AA have so far benefitted from.
There've been _LOTS_ of times when I've downloaded a song/movie and realized that I like it, and later purchased it. If it's of bad quality, I simply don't buy it. As simple as that.
Get this - it is a NEW medium. It is digital, and it WILL change the way we treat data. They should adapt their ideas to fit in with the new developments, not try and force their age-old economic ideas.
There are so many small bands out there that make brilliant music. The Internet puts all those artists on the same stage as all the RIAA pumped up puppies with no talent other than strip naked and shake whatever part of their anatomy that they can. The Internet is acting as a medium to filter out bad quality material. If your music is not good, nobody will buy it. I've purchased a CD of every single band that I like -- and guess what? Lately it's been really small and unheard of bands, and not the big ones. Why? Because the big ones do NOT make music. They are commodities and merchandise themselves. And some of us have enough brains in us not to fall for that crap, thank you very much.
And incidentally, MPAA's primary income is hardly the sales of DVDs or other media. They make money from the box office. If a movie is GOOD, everyone will watch it. They WILL buy the DVD, no matter what. On the other hand, if it is not, people will simply download, watch and discard.
Guess what? It gives the consumer more power - the power to choose. The power to see something and decide whether it's worth it or not. I've downloaded a lot of the movies that I've on DVD, prior to watching them or buying them. Why? So that I can _see_ for myself whether it's worth spending so much money. You see, it makes the MPAA and RIAA come out with quality material - not any crap that they can shove down the throats of consumers.
And oh, they're either going to adapt to the new technology or they are going to die. China, India and Brazil are growing, and they have little to no respect for teeny weeny laws related to these things. How're they going to stop them?
They WILL change, or they will die. As simple as that.
I agree with you, however like I mentioned in my post the MPAA and RIAA try enforcing older laws to a new medium, ones where the older rules do not really hold true. Rather than adapt to the new technology and medium, they are trying to control it through lawsuits and strong-arming techniques.
That is what pisses me off. Theirs is the exact kind of mentality that make adoption of new technology hard.
They're ruled by old men in suits who know nor care a damn about technology or progress - they only care about how best they can control it to their benefit. P2P is here to stay, and the sooner the **AA's realize it, the better.
You're forgetting that the people who post on Slashdot with Inet2 access are most probably the only kind who do any kind of file sharing, because the rest are almost all serious researchers who do not really care too much for this kinda stuff. It is mostly the students who do this stuff, I'm quite certain that my professor would care two hoots about sharing a movie, especially when it's a lot easier for him to just order it off eBay or buy it from the nearest Blockbuster.
And another thing is that filesharing is awesome only initially on Inet2, when you realize the immense amount of bandwidth at your disposal. You trade your favourite movies/videos or whatever, and then the novelty wears off. And most schools with Inet2 access have quite rigid protocols which prevent filesharing in many ways.
There will always be a small percentage of misuse, and we've all seen how the RIAA and MPAA gather their statistics. That does not give them the right to enter a research network, just for the purpose of suing others.
Laws are designed to help us co-exist with each other, to respect one another and bring order and a set of rules to abide by so that we can pool in our interests and progress as a civilization.
People or "things" like RIAA and MPAA abuse these laws, which were written to help bring progress. They abuse them into filling their coffers with wealth that is meaningless when it does not really help anybody. More so when it happens at the expense of others, and at the expense of progress.
Internet2 is primarily designed for scientists and research organizations, to pool in their resources and create a powerful network to facilitate better research interaction. Experimental particle physics data goes over several gigabytes, cosmic ray measurements are tremendously huge, gene databanks are big -- this is the kind of information that these networks are built for. Sure, some kid may be misusing them, but the percentage of people doing this would be far too less to be of any consequence (it has come down from 30% to 7%).
People like MPAA just will abuse the system, bring in more bureacracy, more rules and more regulations that will hinder how genuine users will use the system. They will wrap it nice and dandy around money and laws, and buy out our corrupt politicians who will dance to the jingle of wealth. And in the progress, they just will affect real people doing real work.
They are dragging everyone to the level of technology that they can control. Rather than adapt to the new technologies and grow with it, they try and exert their control by legal battles and money. Why can't they admit and move on to an era where their policies and principles encourage the technology, rather than deter it?
I sincerely hope that they are not let on board the Internet2. And I sincerely hope that one day our society is rid of parasitic savages of the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They're the scum and a disgrace of our civilization. They are the true deterrents to progress.
Well, and the ST concept is getting old. After TOS, TNG was unique, new and quite well done. Voyager was horrible, while Deepspace Nine was mediocre. Enterprise is not too bad, but definitely falls short of how the original two were.
While Stargate, Babylon 5, Firefly and Farscape are also facing the same problem in terms of keeping up the expectations, they're still new and have way better cast and storylines.
Star Trek had started out as a unique and new show, and had a great deal to live up to. TNG did a good job, but it's been going downhill ever since. And that is why ST is losing out.
It's almost beginning to be like Star Wars -- milk the ST franchise for all it's worth.
How do you respond to accusations that you condescended and were basically laughing at the subjects in Trekkies?
I laugh at and condescend toward all those who accuse me of laughing and condescending.
Spoken like a true geek. Often times, I do the same thing to people who _laugh_ and _condescend_ me. Have made a lot of people think of me as a jerk, but these aren't the kinda people I particularly want to be associated with, anyway.
Yeah, I'm quite aware of the ethical issues -- and I'm a strict vegetarian. I really wish we were at a stage of advancement where we could synthesize every kinda food -- sometimes I feel guilty about eating plants too:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I kinda like the Nox a real lot. I remember in one of the earlier episode when the Tollan first come and Lya takes them through the Stargate against Mayborn's orders, when O'Neil remarks, "God I love those people".
And I really like their policies - I think they're the most enlightened and most powerful of the lot (okay, maybe excluding the Ancients). I think people are *afraid* to attack them because they are afraid that the Nox would simply beat them.
I'd also like to see the Ancients do some cool stuff, I think they're really the invincible lot. Well, atleast after they ascended - the Wraiths could never get through to Atlantis per se, they only sucked out the humans the Ancients had seeded in Pesagus.
It would be really great if they could show the Nox or Ancients kick some Gou'uld or any other ass.
Imagine all the coffee in the world was going to run out eventually, maybe soon.
That's a really *really* mean thing to say x-(
No, you're misconstruing my statements. I meant that I have the right to _choose_ something before I buy, and the new medium helps me exercise that right in a better way - a much better way. And copyright infringement is _not_ theft, no matter what the **AA's may have you believe.
Even if it were indeed easier to download, not everyone wants to spend time downloading. Serious.
I find it easier to buy off entire seasons of my favorite shows, rather than get them from online. Sure, I download them - but only to see if I like the way it is going.
Besides, if I get a DVD, it's not just me but my friends and family who can also watch it (which includes _normal_ people who know just to pop in a DVD).
You can only download off others on Inet2. Which largely restricts you to a limited choice of downloads, even if you were to download.
Besides, I'm fairly certain that my advisor probably finds it easier to get the DVD off Blockbuster on the way home than get it off a freshman on the campus network.
Liking music and films is one thing, downloading them is another. You're thinking CS-type folks, I'm talking physics and biology folks who are not really comfortable with computers. They find it easier to go to Blockbuster than downloading it online.
And along the same lines, it makes me wonder.
Maybe if replicator technologies were to really prevail, people honoring "old-fashioned" beliefs may just not let people duplicate anything they wish, lest it violate some archaic law and economic model not fitting in with progress.
Physical analogies with information does not work. Maybe if you had replicator technology, would you not try on a shirt before deciding if you wanted a better one or more of the same?
Now that people have this ability, some view it as a right.
That's what is called -P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-
Technology lets us do things we could not, before. Your confusing rights with the ability to -- I never said I have the "right" to copy music, merely that the better economic model will prevail.
Either produce good quality material and let people use the technology to try stuff and buy it if they like it, or face losses. If you don't adapt, you die.
When printing press was invented, lots of "writers" and "scribes" went out of jobs, and lots of copies of books were printed which did not benefit the original authors. Media is going through something similar, except that it's a lot easier to copy than before -- and the answer to this is not by preventing everyone from copying.
I do what is _most_ convenient to me.
I sometimes rent it, I sometimes borrow it, I sometimes order off eBay or Amazon and I sometimes download it.
And if I like it, I buy it or more of it.
You're not getting my point -- I'm evaluating the content - it doesn't matter how I do it. I've DivX rips of so many movies. But I also have the DVDs (in some cases more than one) of all those movies.
If it's not worth buying the DVD, it's not worth keeping the content. As simple as that.
Completely flawed analogy.
This is a new medium, one that allows for copies to be made because it is information. That cannot be changed, and you cannot go back.
But - people still watch good movies. People still buy good DVDs. People still buy good music.
The kind that only download and rip off music and movies are the kind who probably used to record stuff on to cassettess and videotapes without buying in the days gone by anyway. Now, people can download your content, and if they like it they can buy it.
If I can make copies of my wallet and my car, I'd gladly give them to you - and if you like it, I can give you a better quality version of my car at a small price. However, if I have twenty cars that I offer, and only one of them is worth it - why should you have to pay for all twenty when you're going to drive just one?
Just yesterday, I ordered all the seven seasons of Stargate off eBay. Why? Because I liked it.
Until a while ago, I'd not watched it at all - so I just borrowed the first couple of seasons from a friend, who highly recommended it. And then, I downloaded the rest because I wanted to see how it went. How is this any different from borrowing it from a friend? And I liked the series and wanted it for myself, so I just went ahead and purchased the *entire* seven seasons.
I don't see anything wrong in what I did - if anything, I've helped the MPAA make more money.
Good content will always have paying customers, no matter what. And there will always be a percentage of people who will abuse any system to get by without paying - you're affecting those that are willing to pay by going after a few who would not have paid anyway.
You know why? Because those file traders are morally right! The point of copyright law is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to allow cartels to force us to pay them for our own culture. Copyright law has become so perverted that it is almost completely unjust, and I have absolutely no problem with violating an unjust law.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant! Just what I had in mind, bravo.
Cartels are abusing a law that was drafted to _encourage_ science and progress into filling their coffers and stifling anything and everything, while mindless drones like this DAldredge guy buy into the propaganda.
Sad.
Blockbuster, Hollywood video, Netflick.
And the Internet.
The story is about the MPAA, not the RIAA.
I'm aware of that, I used that to indicate that the economic model has gone anachronic with the new medium in place.
Quality sound and video. Additional material like "how we did it", and even games and other material. All for a reasonable price.
Never denied it. That's why I buy the DVDs for.
Now tell me again why you're justifying the abuse of a taxpayer funded, research network?
For the same reason that we are not locked up in cages and allowed to do nothing but work during our working hours.
Because we're not drones to abide by a set of rules and follow it to the dot. People use the network primarily for research, a small percentage use it for other purposes too. So fucking what?
When the rest of my taxpayer money is used to wage wars that I do not support and not in stem-cell research that I do support, you're more concerned about a bunch of kids using it for entertainment purposes.
And oh, Internet2 is not entirely taxpayer, it is supported by money from several companies -- AT&T, Intel, Sun, Cisco and the like.
Who is talking about fairuse here?
I'm talking about seeing a movie before deciding if I should pay $20 to buy it. The new medium gives me that ability, why should I forgo that?
Jack Valenti was the same guy who wanted to ban any and all recording capabilities. Because he was afraid that he'd not be able to control the media.
So, even if the DVDs were indeed a major source of income for the "non-profit" MPAA, I mean MPAA org members, it gives people the choice to decide whether they should pay so much before buying a movie. It takes away that control that they have over the media.
You borrow or photocopy a book that you come across, you buy it if you like it. If you don't, you don't buy it. This is no different.
Some people prefer borrowing it from libraries when it is convenient, some people prefer getting it off Blockbuster if they like it.
Yeah, I download "illegal" stuff. But I pay much more for stuff that I actually like.
Why? Because as the consumer, I've the right to choose what I like, before buying. And the new medium lets me exercise that right - to see if the content is worth buying.
If it's not, I simply do not buy it. That is why it hurts the **AAs - they cannot shove any jackshit down anybody's throat, without a choice.
I download 20 songs off an album, and realize that there is just ONE good song in that album. Why should I pay $25 for that one song? Instead, I'll just get it off iMusic. If it's not available, I'll just keep that one song that I like.
There are some bands, of which I own _every_ single album. Why? Because they make good music, and I would not want to cheat them.
Remember - give the consumer good quality and do not try to rip them off. And they will be happy to help out the artists.
Really? Maybe you should read the article next time, before shooting off your mouth.
"We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time," said Chris Russell, the MPAA's vice president of Internet standards and technology. "Those would go hand in hand."
(emphasis mine)
If you think "managing illegitimate content distribution" is anything other than euphemism for suing people to kingdom come for having a file named Usher, you're an idiot.
That is their problem.
Jesus H Christ, what're you? A pawn of the MPAA or RIAA or something? You seem to be supporting them as though they're a goody-two shoe organization.
You don't really get it, do you? People used to record tapes and lend it to friends, people now make Mp3s and share it. It's a new medium and one which does not fit the old business model that the **AA have so far benefitted from.
There've been _LOTS_ of times when I've downloaded a song/movie and realized that I like it, and later purchased it. If it's of bad quality, I simply don't buy it. As simple as that.
Get this - it is a NEW medium. It is digital, and it WILL change the way we treat data. They should adapt their ideas to fit in with the new developments, not try and force their age-old economic ideas.
There are so many small bands out there that make brilliant music. The Internet puts all those artists on the same stage as all the RIAA pumped up puppies with no talent other than strip naked and shake whatever part of their anatomy that they can. The Internet is acting as a medium to filter out bad quality material. If your music is not good, nobody will buy it. I've purchased a CD of every single band that I like -- and guess what? Lately it's been really small and unheard of bands, and not the big ones. Why? Because the big ones do NOT make music. They are commodities and merchandise themselves. And some of us have enough brains in us not to fall for that crap, thank you very much.
And incidentally, MPAA's primary income is hardly the sales of DVDs or other media. They make money from the box office. If a movie is GOOD, everyone will watch it. They WILL buy the DVD, no matter what. On the other hand, if it is not, people will simply download, watch and discard.
Guess what? It gives the consumer more power - the power to choose. The power to see something and decide whether it's worth it or not. I've downloaded a lot of the movies that I've on DVD, prior to watching them or buying them. Why? So that I can _see_ for myself whether it's worth spending so much money. You see, it makes the MPAA and RIAA come out with quality material - not any crap that they can shove down the throats of consumers.
And oh, they're either going to adapt to the new technology or they are going to die. China, India and Brazil are growing, and they have little to no respect for teeny weeny laws related to these things. How're they going to stop them?
They WILL change, or they will die. As simple as that.
emboldened a bit by greed.
You seem to have a knack for understatements there.
I agree with you, however like I mentioned in my post the MPAA and RIAA try enforcing older laws to a new medium, ones where the older rules do not really hold true. Rather than adapt to the new technology and medium, they are trying to control it through lawsuits and strong-arming techniques.
That is what pisses me off. Theirs is the exact kind of mentality that make adoption of new technology hard.
They're ruled by old men in suits who know nor care a damn about technology or progress - they only care about how best they can control it to their benefit. P2P is here to stay, and the sooner the **AA's realize it, the better.
You're forgetting that the people who post on Slashdot with Inet2 access are most probably the only kind who do any kind of file sharing, because the rest are almost all serious researchers who do not really care too much for this kinda stuff. It is mostly the students who do this stuff, I'm quite certain that my professor would care two hoots about sharing a movie, especially when it's a lot easier for him to just order it off eBay or buy it from the nearest Blockbuster.
And another thing is that filesharing is awesome only initially on Inet2, when you realize the immense amount of bandwidth at your disposal. You trade your favourite movies/videos or whatever, and then the novelty wears off. And most schools with Inet2 access have quite rigid protocols which prevent filesharing in many ways.
There will always be a small percentage of misuse, and we've all seen how the RIAA and MPAA gather their statistics. That does not give them the right to enter a research network, just for the purpose of suing others.
Laws are designed to help us co-exist with each other, to respect one another and bring order and a set of rules to abide by so that we can pool in our interests and progress as a civilization.
People or "things" like RIAA and MPAA abuse these laws, which were written to help bring progress. They abuse them into filling their coffers with wealth that is meaningless when it does not really help anybody. More so when it happens at the expense of others, and at the expense of progress.
Internet2 is primarily designed for scientists and research organizations, to pool in their resources and create a powerful network to facilitate better research interaction. Experimental particle physics data goes over several gigabytes, cosmic ray measurements are tremendously huge, gene databanks are big -- this is the kind of information that these networks are built for. Sure, some kid may be misusing them, but the percentage of people doing this would be far too less to be of any consequence (it has come down from 30% to 7%).
People like MPAA just will abuse the system, bring in more bureacracy, more rules and more regulations that will hinder how genuine users will use the system. They will wrap it nice and dandy around money and laws, and buy out our corrupt politicians who will dance to the jingle of wealth. And in the progress, they just will affect real people doing real work.
They are dragging everyone to the level of technology that they can control. Rather than adapt to the new technologies and grow with it, they try and exert their control by legal battles and money. Why can't they admit and move on to an era where their policies and principles encourage the technology, rather than deter it?
I sincerely hope that they are not let on board the Internet2. And I sincerely hope that one day our society is rid of parasitic savages of the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They're the scum and a disgrace of our civilization. They are the true deterrents to progress.
Well, and the ST concept is getting old. After TOS, TNG was unique, new and quite well done. Voyager was horrible, while Deepspace Nine was mediocre. Enterprise is not too bad, but definitely falls short of how the original two were.
While Stargate, Babylon 5, Firefly and Farscape are also facing the same problem in terms of keeping up the expectations, they're still new and have way better cast and storylines.
Star Trek had started out as a unique and new show, and had a great deal to live up to. TNG did a good job, but it's been going downhill ever since. And that is why ST is losing out.
It's almost beginning to be like Star Wars -- milk the ST franchise for all it's worth.
How do you respond to accusations that you condescended and were basically laughing at the subjects in Trekkies?
I laugh at and condescend toward all those who accuse me of laughing and condescending.
Spoken like a true geek. Often times, I do the same thing to people who _laugh_ and _condescend_ me. Have made a lot of people think of me as a jerk, but these aren't the kinda people I particularly want to be associated with, anyway.
Yeah, I'm quite aware of the ethical issues -- and I'm a strict vegetarian. I really wish we were at a stage of advancement where we could synthesize every kinda food -- sometimes I feel guilty about eating plants too :-)
>last I checked animals had no 'rights' thanks very much.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm complaining about.