I know personally that I haven't bought a CD in a couple years, mostly due to the fact I haven't heard anything that compelling, but also that if I want a particular song (rather then blow $$$ on the whole CD), I can get it in a couple minutes online. If these knuckleheads could implement a useful, cheap service to pay for songs, I just might do it.
So, you don't find most of the music out there to your taste but when you do come across something that you do like what do you do? You don't buy it, you download it. And you can't even say that you're just downloading it to preview it can you?
The fact that it isn't available in the form that you consider the most convenient right now is something that you've either got to live with - either bite the bullet and buy the music on CD or wait for iTunes/whatever to make it available.
If I took your everything-has-to-be-perfect attitude with movies then I'd never see a blockbuster like LOTR, etc because I'd never find a large movie screen where my viewing pleasure was uninterrupted by people talking, eating loudly, etc.
If you like it, then buy it. if you don't, then don't. It's your choice. But don't use the it-ain't-what-I-want line, claim the moral high ground then just take what you want anyway because that's just the ammunition that RIAA and friends need.
(I know that someone's going to mod this down as a flame or a troll but I don't care. People have to see that taking something without ever intending to pay for it isn't the way to reward the few artists that they enjoy.)
Everybody is talking about carbon nanotubes these days...
Excuse me? Carbon nanotubes? Not the war in Iraq, global terrorism, the economy, rising unemployment, etc?
Seriously, I know this is Slashdot and even questioning someone else's judgement automatically qualifies you as flamebait but, really, if you think that nanotubes, carbon or otherwise, is the biggest thing on people's minds then you really should get out of the lab more often.
Why don't you read some of the other replies I've posted to other people before you start calling me a *AA puppet. And why don't you read my original post again.
I'm not comparing anything to anything. The point I made (which was clearly understood by most people) was that just because you're in your house that doesn't make you immune from the law. It doesn't matter if the law's stupid or not, it's still going to apply within your home.
Similarly, as I pointed out to another person who was quick to call me a knee-jerker and label me moronic, fair use is fair use wherever you are. Location isn't what's important here, it's your rights that matter.
As I've said in other replies, the whole "it's my house" thing is a big red herring and people shouldn't for a second imagine that being under their own roof offers them any kind of immunity from the law.
Please, if you're going to start flaming someone, make sure you're certain of what they've said and why they've said it. The fact that you've got it so wrong here speaks to your intelligence.
The reason why he isn't breaking the law has nothing to do with whether it's his own house or not.
The actual reason why his file trading of his own files is legal is because they are his own files of his own music, which he owns the copyright to.
The whole "it's ny house", etc is just a red herring. Even if you're talking about generic fair use then whether it's his house, my house, the mall or a damn courthouse it's still the same fair use rights we're talking about. If fair use lets you do something in your house it lets you do something outside your house too - there's nothing magical about crossing your own front door.
The point I was making was that just because you're in your own house you're still well within the reach of the law. Too many people literally do believe that in their home they're untouchable, and that's obviously not true.
Why don't you try reading the guy's whole post you fucking knee-jerk idiot? He's sharing his own music, that he created and that he owns the copyright to.
How the hell did you manage to draw the morionic inference this equates to wanting to rape and torture people?
Why don't you try reading my whole post? I didn't criticise his sharing of his music, etc, I only pointed out that the "it's my house, I'll do what I want" approach isn't one that cuts any mustard with the law.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I made no judgements about the parent post, or anyone else, I simply pointed out how the law works, and that the law applies to you within your home whether or not the law is sensible or ridiculous.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Just because it's your house it doesn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it", or don't you understand what that sentence means?
If you're going flame someone for knee-jerking, or if you're going to call them moronic call someone a moron, please, make sure you're not being a moronic knee-jerker yourself.
Oh, and learn to read. It comes in handy sometimes.
What I do in my own house (hard drive) is my business, and I don't want anyone peeking in my windows (ports) without my permission.
Ahhh, the classic "what I do in my own house" defence. Presumably you think that within the privacy of your own home it's OK for you to do anything, regardless of whether society considers it legal or illegal.
By that rationale, you're allowed to rape, torture and murder people without a care in the world as long as you do it at home. After all, it is your house.
Please, stop living in a dreamworld and come back to reality. Just because it's your house it doensn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it.
1. Have you heard yourself? European anti-semitism? You do realise that the UK is a permenant member of the Security Council and voted with the majority in most (if not all) of those resolutions that the US vetoed? The same UK that has a significant Jewish population, has had Jewish Prime Ministers (when was there ever an American President that was Jewish) and has had countless Jewish cabinet ministers and MPs?
2. The foreigners that were being referred to in that quote weren't combatants entering Iraq to kill US/UK troops, they were foreign nations critical of the US-led invasion.
Let's not even bring up the concept of free speech shall we?
3. I'm happy to see that Saddam Hussein isn't in power any more but I'm not happy how we've got to that state of affairs. An invasion contrary to the wishes of the UN and the majority of the world's nations, most probably an illegal one too, isn't the way to go about things. You can talk about human rights abuses from now till doomsday, but the only way that this war has any legitimacy on an international level is if Iraq truly did have WMDs that were an immediate threat to the world community.
Under international law, regime change is not a valid reason for invading a sovereign state. Without the WMDs, regime change is what this war is about. If no WMDs are found, that puts the US/UK up shit creek without a paddle.
And if curbing a dictator and/or stopping human rights abuses is what this war is about can someone please tell me when the US invasions of Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Turkey, etc are going to start?
I won't even mention the dozens of brutal, facist dictatorships that the US has supported over the years.
4. The language of the US/UK claims has changed. Bit by bit, the assertions about Iraq's WMD capability have been watered down. Before the war, we were told that Iraq had huge WMD stockpiles. Colin Powell showed the UN aerial pictures of what the US was saying was an actual WMD manufacturing facility. The proof, they said, was there for everyone to plainly see.
Now, a few months later, we aren't claiming that Iraq has (or even had) huge stockpiles of actual WMDs. Now we're just saying that that there was evidence - who knows how good or bad - that there were WMD programmes. And why aren't we seeing any pictures of Colin Powell's WMD plants now? Did they just disappear off the face of the earth? Where did they go? Where did any of the US/UK evidence that was plainly visible go to?
My point was this (distorted though it may have become now): the US government, military and even the media and ridiculously hypocritical when it comes to their own actions. If you're going to criticise others for doing x then don't do x yourself. If you're going to do y, realise that you don't have a leg to stand on when others do y too.
There's no way that, say, Syria setting up a similar terror-based mini stock market based upon attacks on the US would be greeted with anything but total condemnation from the US - you know that as well as I do. So why is it then OK for the US to openly speculate on these things happening to other countries in such a grotesque, tasteless and tacky manner?
I know that someone who considers this "patriotic" is going to mod this down as flamebait but it has to be said: the double standards portrayed by the US are what makes it so unpopular beyond its borders. What double standards you say? Well, let me give you a few examples:
1. When France or Russia want to use their UN Security Council veto then it's treasonous. When the US uses its veto then it's OK.
The number of UN resolutions that the US has vetoed over Israel alone is astonishing. In most cases, the US was the only country standing in the way of a unanymous resolution and it was only its veto that scuppered each vote.
2. When the US interferes in Iraq it's OK, when anyone else does the it's not.
Get this quote:
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."
Want to know who said that and when? Well it was Paul Wofiwitz, US Deputy Secretary of Defense, only last week. Now either he's been hiding in a cave with Osama for the last nine months or he's the one American dumber than Dubya because, as far as the internal affairs of Iraq are concerned, the US is a foreigner too!
3. When an Arab TV stations shows pictures of dead US and British troops it's disgusting. When pictures of Saddam Hussein's two sons are plastered all over the world's press, then it's perfectly fine.
If you want to trot out the line that the people of Iraq needed proof then please explain to me why the same reason/excuse can't be used by others seeking to provide proof of US/UK casualties.
4. Whatever the opponents of the war say is just a pack of lies, whatever the US/UK says is 100 percent honest.
Gee, where do I start with this one? The 45 minute threat assessment? The nuclear materials from Niger? The "saving" of Private Jessica Lynch? The evidence of WMD stockpiles that has suddenly become evidence of WMD programmes?
Since when was having a plan to make something the same as actually having it? Is that how it works? Because if it does then I'm a billionaire - hey, I've got a programme to become a billionaire and it's the same thing right?
This latest DoD gaffe is another example of hypocrisy - if a Muslim nation was to start making predictions about attacks on key US targets how well do you think that sort of "risk analysis" would be taken stateside?
Unless you're the kind of person who would like to see someone else's posterior in great detail (and have related nightmares and flashbacks for years to follow), do not click on that goat link.
I was once a victim of an apparently friendly "the stuff you want is here"-type message that went straight to that site. Boy, was I glad that nobody else was in the room at the time (and wasn't I disappointed that I wasn't elsewhere too). The whole incident taught me one important lesson - look at the address before you click that link - especially on Slashdot.
Don't click on the link. Especially if you've got your girlfriend, friends and/or family around. Or if you're at work. Especially if you like your job. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Man, that must be the only time a post with a direct link to goatse.cx got modded up.
You, sir, are a genius. I take my hat off to you.
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
Just because you followed a link from the article it doesn't mean that you actually read the article and understood it.
Yes, it's a long way away. But what would you have the development team do:
A. Publicly announce that they have negotiated a tough hurdle (getting the rights) restate their intentions, etc and hopefully find more supporters and backers in the process? or B. Stay quiet, struggle in silence until they have made a whole series of episodes?
Which do you think would be the more successful approach? Which do you think has a proven track record?
I just don't get what you're pissed off at here, the fact that it's announced before being the finished article (which is how things work) or that the Slashdot story headline was entitled "Blakes Seven To Return" (which is down to the story submitter and the editors).
You'll believe it when it's in post-production? Wow, that's a riducously high bar to set your "I'll believe it when" standard at. Wouldn't when it's picked up by the Sci-Fi Channel/whoever be enough for you? Or when it's being filmed? Wouldn't that be good enough?
If you're going to be that paranoid, why not believe it only after it's been aired? Or after it's been nominated for some awards? Or actually won some? Or being re-run? Or until they've had their 25 anniversary cast reunion...
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
Hey, if your article said "hey, it's not returning just yet and there's still x, y and z to do, so that title might be a bit premature" then perhaps I wouldn't have posted a reply. But you didn't, so I did.
And if you RTFA why were you still questioning the broadcast rights? If you hadn't asked about those I definitely wouldn't have been so ready to respond. But you did, so I corrected your mistake.
In future, if you don't like being questioned, corrected or critiqued, I suggest you don't post to Slashdot or other open discussion forums, because that's what they're for - open discussions. Try not to take it so personally.
One of which is the never aired episode written by Douglas Adams (the name of which temporarily espaces me).
Heh, I know that was meant to be "escapes" not "espaces" but it's quite appropriate as there were some Doctor Who stories set in e-space. I'm not certain but I think that one or more of them may have been written by Douglas Adams.
Oh, and the episode that never aired that you're thinking of is called Shada. It was originally cancelled because of a strike. Part of it - the 4th Doctor and Romana punting down a river - was seen in a later story, The Five Doctors.
How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
According to the FAQ, essentially they have no money (yet), no script (yet), no cast (yet) and no broadcasting rights (yet). Trading on the nostalgia zeitgeist? The plan sounds as shaky as one of their sets!
No money?
Well, I can think of a few fans who'd like to see a new series based in the Blake's Seven universe. And if there are fans willing to see it then there will be production companies and broadcasters willing to back it. %5-6 million for a TV show, especially one that already has a cult following, is peanuts - do you have any idea how much the rubbish that fills the channels right now even costs?
If nothing else, it has a particular resonance right now, thanks to the Orwellian Federation, etc. Just like Star Trek's morality matched the 60's, the new Blakes Seven series is tailor-made for the times that we live in.
No script?
Well, jeez, that's the end of the world. How will they ever make anything?
But wait, here's some news just in: apparently, there are these things called scriptwriters. Throw them some cash and give them some time and they'll write a script for you! What a stroke of luck!
No cast?
OMG, another disaster! How will they cope?
Huh, what's that? There's an original cast member involved already? And there are these guys and gals out there - we'll call them actors - constantly looking for new work? And even people - let's call them casting agents - who'll pick the right actors for your production! Genius!
No broadcasting rights?
Well, perhaps you should RTFA. What bit of "Paul Darrow, who played the ruthless anti-hero Avon, is in a consortium that has acquired the rights to the show", didn't you get?
Seriously, money, a script and a cast can be found. But the first step was always going to be getting the rights. If you have the rights you can find the money, a script and a cast. But if you have money, a script and a cast but no rights then you're screwed. It really is that simple.
So now it's racist to hate people from India? Touchy, touchy!
Silly coward. If you assume that just because a tech support person is stupid that s/he must come from India then that's a form of racism. Similarly, if you assume that stupid/unhelpful tech support people are, say, black then that would be racist too.
And, to use your own example, it would also be racist to hate someone just because of where they come from. In fact, if you hate based on colour, creed, nationality or religion then that makes you a dictionary definition racist.
You don't have to shout racial slurs, send hate mail, throw stones or plant bombs to be a racist, you just have to be prejudiced about someone based on their profile rather than their personality.
Substitute "program" for "book" and instead of helping him with him with science let's say we're helping him with his code. Now factor in that it's not an open-source project (I'm assuming he's not going to make his novel free as in speech.
How many people on Slashdot do you think would help someone else code a closed-source (possibly non-free) application? How is it any different because it's a book? That's partially where I'm coming from but I'm trying to be pragmatic, hence I responded with caveats rather than condemnation.
Nevertheless, I do feel that it's rather lazy for someone to submit an Ask Slashdot for this sort of help. Far better would be approaching an academic or a postgraduate student, getting him/her on board and picking his/her brains. Most people in academia would be glad to help out for nothing more than a thank you in the author's notes, and their knowledge of the subject would undoubtably be superior.
My criticism isn't squarely aimed at the questioner but also at the editors too. Far too many of the recent Ask Slashdot's have been completely non-technical in nature and, dare I say it, off-topic.
Occupying Your Freetime on a Business Trip? Getting Back Into Shape While At The Office? Tooth Whitening Products? Sexual Harassment for Consultants? What if Energy was (Nearly) Free? Sports Technology? Collecting a Judgement? And those are just the ones from the last month or so.
Haven't people heard of sites that provide travel guides, exercise resources, medical help, legal advice, etc? Worse, haven't the editors realised that some of these topics are completely inappropriate for this forum? I mean, teeth whitening? What's next, penile implants?* How long before we get asked for interesting topics to discuss over dinner?
Ask Slashdot has become a slippery slope. Right now it looks like we're heading down it headfirst.
(*At least penile implants aren't completely off-topic, if the amount of coverage that spam on the subject generates is anything to go by.)
Water and electricity are commonly billed on a usage basis -- you pay $X per gallon of water, you pay $Y per megawatt of electricity. This causes certain actions, such as conservation of water and electricity, which are beneficial as these are limited resources.
Actually, most people in the UK pay a flat fee for water. Newer homes tend to be metered, but the majority of homes (maybe 90 percent or more I would guess) pay a flat fee for their water supply.
Your complex question requires a complex answer. I would say Pi.
Pi isn't a complex number (at least not one with an imaginary part).
2 + 3i, however, is a complex number.
WTF? Do your own research! And protect yourself!
on
Antimatter and Antistars?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Seriously, some recent Ask Slashdot's have been ridiculous - doesn't anyone know how to use Google, etc anymore?
This one takes the biscuit though. You're a writer (or want to be) - at the very least you should be able to do your own research for your work!
Posting an Ask Slashdot is a very bad idea, for at least two reasons:
1. There's no way you can easily distinguish between accurate and inaccurate statements.
Just because something quotes a scientist or it's been modded up it doesn't make it any more reliable then anything else.
2. You leave yourself open to litigation.
George Lucas makes a point of not looking at Star Wars fan fiction because he doesn't want to leave himself vulnerable to the guy who'll scream "Hey, you stole that scene/character/whatever in Episode III from my story!". You might not have billions to lose but by canvassing for information and ideas so publicly you're still leaving yourself wide open to that sort of allegation.
You might think that Slashdot is an open forum, populated by open source advocates who would all be opposed to intellectual property litigation and would do nothing more than help out and wish you luck but it'll only take one asshole to prove you wrong.
Someone's bound to mod this down as flamebait or as a troll but if you're going to be an author then you can't afford to ignore this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I know personally that I haven't bought a CD in a couple years, mostly due to the fact I haven't heard anything that compelling, but also that if I want a particular song (rather then blow $$$ on the whole CD), I can get it in a couple minutes online. If these knuckleheads could implement a useful, cheap service to pay for songs, I just might do it.
So, you don't find most of the music out there to your taste but when you do come across something that you do like what do you do? You don't buy it, you download it. And you can't even say that you're just downloading it to preview it can you?
The fact that it isn't available in the form that you consider the most convenient right now is something that you've either got to live with - either bite the bullet and buy the music on CD or wait for iTunes/whatever to make it available.
If I took your everything-has-to-be-perfect attitude with movies then I'd never see a blockbuster like LOTR, etc because I'd never find a large movie screen where my viewing pleasure was uninterrupted by people talking, eating loudly, etc.
If you like it, then buy it. if you don't, then don't. It's your choice. But don't use the it-ain't-what-I-want line, claim the moral high ground then just take what you want anyway because that's just the ammunition that RIAA and friends need.
(I know that someone's going to mod this down as a flame or a troll but I don't care. People have to see that taking something without ever intending to pay for it isn't the way to reward the few artists that they enjoy.)
Everybody is talking about carbon nanotubes these days...
Excuse me? Carbon nanotubes? Not the war in Iraq, global terrorism, the economy, rising unemployment, etc?
Seriously, I know this is Slashdot and even questioning someone else's judgement automatically qualifies you as flamebait but, really, if you think that nanotubes, carbon or otherwise, is the biggest thing on people's minds then you really should get out of the lab more often.
Ahh, so that's what he meant when he was talking about fast Kessel runs!
...a lifesize working duplicate of Seven of Nine, Trinity, the TX or a Vanessa Kensington fembot. Yeah, baby!
Why don't you read some of the other replies I've posted to other people before you start calling me a *AA puppet. And why don't you read my original post again.
I'm not comparing anything to anything. The point I made (which was clearly understood by most people) was that just because you're in your house that doesn't make you immune from the law. It doesn't matter if the law's stupid or not, it's still going to apply within your home.
Similarly, as I pointed out to another person who was quick to call me a knee-jerker and label me moronic, fair use is fair use wherever you are. Location isn't what's important here, it's your rights that matter.
As I've said in other replies, the whole "it's my house" thing is a big red herring and people shouldn't for a second imagine that being under their own roof offers them any kind of immunity from the law.
Please, if you're going to start flaming someone, make sure you're certain of what they've said and why they've said it. The fact that you've got it so wrong here speaks to your intelligence.
Vote apathy. Apathy is the only real choi... awww, screw it, I can't be bothered to tell you.
The reason why he isn't breaking the law has nothing to do with whether it's his own house or not.
The actual reason why his file trading of his own files is legal is because they are his own files of his own music, which he owns the copyright to.
The whole "it's ny house", etc is just a red herring. Even if you're talking about generic fair use then whether it's his house, my house, the mall or a damn courthouse it's still the same fair use rights we're talking about. If fair use lets you do something in your house it lets you do something outside your house too - there's nothing magical about crossing your own front door.
The point I was making was that just because you're in your own house you're still well within the reach of the law. Too many people literally do believe that in their home they're untouchable, and that's obviously not true.
Why don't you try reading the guy's whole post you fucking knee-jerk idiot? He's sharing his own music, that he created and that he owns the copyright to.
How the hell did you manage to draw the morionic inference this equates to wanting to rape and torture people?
Why don't you try reading my whole post? I didn't criticise his sharing of his music, etc, I only pointed out that the "it's my house, I'll do what I want" approach isn't one that cuts any mustard with the law.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I made no judgements about the parent post, or anyone else, I simply pointed out how the law works, and that the law applies to you within your home whether or not the law is sensible or ridiculous.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Just because it's your house it doesn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it", or don't you understand what that sentence means?
If you're going flame someone for knee-jerking, or if you're going to call them moronic call someone a moron, please, make sure you're not being a moronic knee-jerker yourself.
Oh, and learn to read. It comes in handy sometimes.
What I do in my own house (hard drive) is my business, and I don't want anyone peeking in my windows (ports) without my permission.
Ahhh, the classic "what I do in my own house" defence. Presumably you think that within the privacy of your own home it's OK for you to do anything, regardless of whether society considers it legal or illegal.
By that rationale, you're allowed to rape, torture and murder people without a care in the world as long as you do it at home. After all, it is your house.
Please, stop living in a dreamworld and come back to reality. Just because it's your house it doensn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it.
1. Have you heard yourself? European anti-semitism? You do realise that the UK is a permenant member of the Security Council and voted with the majority in most (if not all) of those resolutions that the US vetoed? The same UK that has a significant Jewish population, has had Jewish Prime Ministers (when was there ever an American President that was Jewish) and has had countless Jewish cabinet ministers and MPs?
2. The foreigners that were being referred to in that quote weren't combatants entering Iraq to kill US/UK troops, they were foreign nations critical of the US-led invasion.
Let's not even bring up the concept of free speech shall we?
3. I'm happy to see that Saddam Hussein isn't in power any more but I'm not happy how we've got to that state of affairs. An invasion contrary to the wishes of the UN and the majority of the world's nations, most probably an illegal one too, isn't the way to go about things. You can talk about human rights abuses from now till doomsday, but the only way that this war has any legitimacy on an international level is if Iraq truly did have WMDs that were an immediate threat to the world community.
Under international law, regime change is not a valid reason for invading a sovereign state. Without the WMDs, regime change is what this war is about. If no WMDs are found, that puts the US/UK up shit creek without a paddle.
And if curbing a dictator and/or stopping human rights abuses is what this war is about can someone please tell me when the US invasions of Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Turkey, etc are going to start?
I won't even mention the dozens of brutal, facist dictatorships that the US has supported over the years.
4. The language of the US/UK claims has changed. Bit by bit, the assertions about Iraq's WMD capability have been watered down. Before the war, we were told that Iraq had huge WMD stockpiles. Colin Powell showed the UN aerial pictures of what the US was saying was an actual WMD manufacturing facility. The proof, they said, was there for everyone to plainly see.
Now, a few months later, we aren't claiming that Iraq has (or even had) huge stockpiles of actual WMDs. Now we're just saying that that there was evidence - who knows how good or bad - that there were WMD programmes. And why aren't we seeing any pictures of Colin Powell's WMD plants now? Did they just disappear off the face of the earth? Where did they go? Where did any of the US/UK evidence that was plainly visible go to?
My point was this (distorted though it may have become now): the US government, military and even the media and ridiculously hypocritical when it comes to their own actions. If you're going to criticise others for doing x then don't do x yourself. If you're going to do y, realise that you don't have a leg to stand on when others do y too.
There's no way that, say, Syria setting up a similar terror-based mini stock market based upon attacks on the US would be greeted with anything but total condemnation from the US - you know that as well as I do. So why is it then OK for the US to openly speculate on these things happening to other countries in such a grotesque, tasteless and tacky manner?
I know that someone who considers this "patriotic" is going to mod this down as flamebait but it has to be said: the double standards portrayed by the US are what makes it so unpopular beyond its borders. What double standards you say? Well, let me give you a few examples:
1. When France or Russia want to use their UN Security Council veto then it's treasonous. When the US uses its veto then it's OK.
The number of UN resolutions that the US has vetoed over Israel alone is astonishing. In most cases, the US was the only country standing in the way of a unanymous resolution and it was only its veto that scuppered each vote.
2. When the US interferes in Iraq it's OK, when anyone else does the it's not.
Get this quote:
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."
Want to know who said that and when? Well it was Paul Wofiwitz, US Deputy Secretary of Defense, only last week. Now either he's been hiding in a cave with Osama for the last nine months or he's the one American dumber than Dubya because, as far as the internal affairs of Iraq are concerned, the US is a foreigner too!
3. When an Arab TV stations shows pictures of dead US and British troops it's disgusting. When pictures of Saddam Hussein's two sons are plastered all over the world's press, then it's perfectly fine.
If you want to trot out the line that the people of Iraq needed proof then please explain to me why the same reason/excuse can't be used by others seeking to provide proof of US/UK casualties.
4. Whatever the opponents of the war say is just a pack of lies, whatever the US/UK says is 100 percent honest.
Gee, where do I start with this one? The 45 minute threat assessment? The nuclear materials from Niger? The "saving" of Private Jessica Lynch? The evidence of WMD stockpiles that has suddenly become evidence of WMD programmes?
Since when was having a plan to make something the same as actually having it? Is that how it works? Because if it does then I'm a billionaire - hey, I've got a programme to become a billionaire and it's the same thing right?
This latest DoD gaffe is another example of hypocrisy - if a Muslim nation was to start making predictions about attacks on key US targets how well do you think that sort of "risk analysis" would be taken stateside?
Proofreading?
You're new here aren't you?
Warning
Unless you're the kind of person who would like to see someone else's posterior in great detail (and have related nightmares and flashbacks for years to follow), do not click on that goat link.
I was once a victim of an apparently friendly "the stuff you want is here"-type message that went straight to that site. Boy, was I glad that nobody else was in the room at the time (and wasn't I disappointed that I wasn't elsewhere too). The whole incident taught me one important lesson - look at the address before you click that link - especially on Slashdot.
Don't click on the link. Especially if you've got your girlfriend, friends and/or family around. Or if you're at work. Especially if you like your job. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Man, that must be the only time a post with a direct link to goatse.cx got modded up.
You, sir, are a genius. I take my hat off to you.
Just because you followed a link from the article it doesn't mean that you actually read the article and understood it.
Yes, it's a long way away. But what would you have the development team do:
A. Publicly announce that they have negotiated a tough hurdle (getting the rights) restate their intentions, etc and hopefully find more supporters and backers in the process? or
B. Stay quiet, struggle in silence until they have made a whole series of episodes?
Which do you think would be the more successful approach? Which do you think has a proven track record?
I just don't get what you're pissed off at here, the fact that it's announced before being the finished article (which is how things work) or that the Slashdot story headline was entitled "Blakes Seven To Return" (which is down to the story submitter and the editors).
You'll believe it when it's in post-production? Wow, that's a riducously high bar to set your "I'll believe it when" standard at. Wouldn't when it's picked up by the Sci-Fi Channel/whoever be enough for you? Or when it's being filmed? Wouldn't that be good enough?
If you're going to be that paranoid, why not believe it only after it's been aired? Or after it's been nominated for some awards? Or actually won some? Or being re-run? Or until they've had their 25 anniversary cast reunion...
Hey, if your article said "hey, it's not returning just yet and there's still x, y and z to do, so that title might be a bit premature" then perhaps I wouldn't have posted a reply. But you didn't, so I did.
And if you RTFA why were you still questioning the broadcast rights? If you hadn't asked about those I definitely wouldn't have been so ready to respond. But you did, so I corrected your mistake.
In future, if you don't like being questioned, corrected or critiqued, I suggest you don't post to Slashdot or other open discussion forums, because that's what they're for - open discussions. Try not to take it so personally.
One of which is the never aired episode written by Douglas Adams (the name of which temporarily espaces me).
Heh, I know that was meant to be "escapes" not "espaces" but it's quite appropriate as there were some Doctor Who stories set in e-space. I'm not certain but I think that one or more of them may have been written by Douglas Adams.
Oh, and the episode that never aired that you're thinking of is called Shada. It was originally cancelled because of a strike. Part of it - the 4th Doctor and Romana punting down a river - was seen in a later story, The Five Doctors.
According to the FAQ, essentially they have no money (yet), no script (yet), no cast (yet) and no broadcasting rights (yet).
Trading on the nostalgia zeitgeist? The plan sounds as shaky as one of their sets!
No money?
Well, I can think of a few fans who'd like to see a new series based in the Blake's Seven universe. And if there are fans willing to see it then there will be production companies and broadcasters willing to back it. %5-6 million for a TV show, especially one that already has a cult following, is peanuts - do you have any idea how much the rubbish that fills the channels right now even costs?
If nothing else, it has a particular resonance right now, thanks to the Orwellian Federation, etc. Just like Star Trek's morality matched the 60's, the new Blakes Seven series is tailor-made for the times that we live in.
No script?
Well, jeez, that's the end of the world. How will they ever make anything?
But wait, here's some news just in: apparently, there are these things called scriptwriters. Throw them some cash and give them some time and they'll write a script for you! What a stroke of luck!
No cast?
OMG, another disaster! How will they cope?
Huh, what's that? There's an original cast member involved already? And there are these guys and gals out there - we'll call them actors - constantly looking for new work? And even people - let's call them casting agents - who'll pick the right actors for your production! Genius!
No broadcasting rights?
Well, perhaps you should RTFA. What bit of "Paul Darrow, who played the ruthless anti-hero Avon, is in a consortium that has acquired the rights to the show", didn't you get?
Seriously, money, a script and a cast can be found. But the first step was always going to be getting the rights. If you have the rights you can find the money, a script and a cast. But if you have money, a script and a cast but no rights then you're screwed. It really is that simple.
So now it's racist to hate people from India? Touchy, touchy!
Silly coward. If you assume that just because a tech support person is stupid that s/he must come from India then that's a form of racism. Similarly, if you assume that stupid/unhelpful tech support people are, say, black then that would be racist too.
And, to use your own example, it would also be racist to hate someone just because of where they come from. In fact, if you hate based on colour, creed, nationality or religion then that makes you a dictionary definition racist.
You don't have to shout racial slurs, send hate mail, throw stones or plant bombs to be a racist, you just have to be prejudiced about someone based on their profile rather than their personality.
Glad to be of some help to your education.
Of course it heats up on Mars! Why do you think it's red? Duh!
And Uranus* is blue cos it's so cold.
Hot things get red, cold things get blue - doesn't every kid know this?
(*All those fans of Uranus/your anus jokes this is your cue. Go get 'em tiger.)
Nice anecdote, btw. Illustrates how companies can't really taylorize tech support. Was the guy you called in India?
WTF? There are idiot tech support people the world over. There's more chance the guy his wife was talking to was in Indiana, not India.
Please, if you're going to be disparaging about tech support people, try not to be racist about it.
Substitute "program" for "book" and instead of helping him with him with science let's say we're helping him with his code. Now factor in that it's not an open-source project (I'm assuming he's not going to make his novel free as in speech.
How many people on Slashdot do you think would help someone else code a closed-source (possibly non-free) application? How is it any different because it's a book? That's partially where I'm coming from but I'm trying to be pragmatic, hence I responded with caveats rather than condemnation.
Nevertheless, I do feel that it's rather lazy for someone to submit an Ask Slashdot for this sort of help. Far better would be approaching an academic or a postgraduate student, getting him/her on board and picking his/her brains. Most people in academia would be glad to help out for nothing more than a thank you in the author's notes, and their knowledge of the subject would undoubtably be superior.
My criticism isn't squarely aimed at the questioner but also at the editors too. Far too many of the recent Ask Slashdot's have been completely non-technical in nature and, dare I say it, off-topic.
Occupying Your Freetime on a Business Trip? Getting Back Into Shape While At The Office? Tooth Whitening Products? Sexual Harassment for Consultants? What if Energy was (Nearly) Free? Sports Technology? Collecting a Judgement? And those are just the ones from the last month or so.
Haven't people heard of sites that provide travel guides, exercise resources, medical help, legal advice, etc? Worse, haven't the editors realised that some of these topics are completely inappropriate for this forum? I mean, teeth whitening? What's next, penile implants?* How long before we get asked for interesting topics to discuss over dinner?
Ask Slashdot has become a slippery slope. Right now it looks like we're heading down it headfirst.
(*At least penile implants aren't completely off-topic, if the amount of coverage that spam on the subject generates is anything to go by.)
Water, electricity... bandwidth?
Water and electricity are commonly billed on a usage basis -- you pay $X per gallon of water, you pay $Y per megawatt of electricity. This causes certain actions, such as conservation of water and electricity, which are beneficial as these are limited resources.
Actually, most people in the UK pay a flat fee for water. Newer homes tend to be metered, but the majority of homes (maybe 90 percent or more I would guess) pay a flat fee for their water supply.
Your complex question requires a complex answer. I would say Pi.
Pi isn't a complex number (at least not one with an imaginary part).
2 + 3i, however, is a complex number.
Seriously, some recent Ask Slashdot's have been ridiculous - doesn't anyone know how to use Google, etc anymore?
This one takes the biscuit though. You're a writer (or want to be) - at the very least you should be able to do your own research for your work!
Posting an Ask Slashdot is a very bad idea, for at least two reasons:
1. There's no way you can easily distinguish between accurate and inaccurate statements.
Just because something quotes a scientist or it's been modded up it doesn't make it any more reliable then anything else.
2. You leave yourself open to litigation.
George Lucas makes a point of not looking at Star Wars fan fiction because he doesn't want to leave himself vulnerable to the guy who'll scream "Hey, you stole that scene/character/whatever in Episode III from my story!". You might not have billions to lose but by canvassing for information and ideas so publicly you're still leaving yourself wide open to that sort of allegation.
You might think that Slashdot is an open forum, populated by open source advocates who would all be opposed to intellectual property litigation and would do nothing more than help out and wish you luck but it'll only take one asshole to prove you wrong.
Someone's bound to mod this down as flamebait or as a troll but if you're going to be an author then you can't afford to ignore this stuff.