If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot.
Then Babylon 5 most certainly *does* need it.
The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes
What?!?!
You were happy with the cast displaying the emotional range of unfinished mahogany and the "badly-rendered plastic" special effects?
Babylon5 was unwatchable because (with the exception of the guy who played Garibaldi) the acting was completely wooden. The special effects were completely crappy - comparable shows did much better with the same software (DS9 and Space: Above and Beyond to name two.)
Yeah, I know, I know.. you think the magic incantation of "STORY ARC! STORY ARC! STORY ARC!" makes up for the shortcomings, but honestly it doesn't.
Maybe if they remade B5 with decent actors and SFX, I might be able to watch it, but not only does the original *not* stand the test of time, it didn't stand the test of first-viewing.
If it were me as the Dick Estate, I'd be shutting the hell up at this point.
The thing is that you're not the Dick Estate - your perspective is based on the fact that you have had to actually *work* for your money, rather than living off the "intellectual property" gravy train of one of your ancestors.
So that makes it OK to steal my bandwidth and annoy me? Fuck that!
However, in this economy, corporations are turning to LinkedIn as a recruiting tool.
Besides "fuck them", this statement shows that you don't understand what happened.
Linkedin sent me email from a known spammer. This was not "recruitment", it was spam.
There is spam on other sites as well
Name them. Name one that will send you OBVIOUS spam, even when you tell them it's spam and you don't want to receive it, just because they want you to join their service.
it doesn't mean those sites are worthless.
Yes, it does. The first time it happened, I can understand it. But they sent me a reminder that I didn't accept a spammer's spam after I reported it as spam - that makes them 100% worthless.
A couple of months ago, I got a "someone who knows you wants you to join" email from Linkedin. Someone had submitted my email address and wanted to "friend" me, and the entire contents of the "this person knows you because..." part was a spam website in China.
Any casual glance would show that it was spam.
Linkedin had "kindly" put a link at the bottom of the email saying "if this is spam, report it here". So I did, and the web page thanked me for reporting the spam.
Two weeks later, I got *ANOTHER* email from Linkedin, "helpfully" reminding me that I hadn't accepted the spammer's invitation
WTF?!?! I told them is was spam, and not only hadn't they banned the spammer, they were spamming for him!
Linkedin instantly went into my mailservers blacklist. They're just fucking spammers.
You need to convince the membership board [...] And who judged what is a 'significant' contribution
This is amazing... we've gone from people not reading the articles, to not reading the *summaries*, to the *submitters* not reading what they themselves wrote!
CmdrTaco, I know it's tradition for editors not to read the summaries, but isn't it taking it a bit far to not read ones you wrote yourself?!?!?
How about we realize that we are far more likely to be killed by our car or the food we eat then by terrorists?
I don't understand - if you're killed by your car or food, aren't you already dead? How is a terrorist supposed to kill you if you've already been killed by your car or food?
When she asked if she could install anti-virus software herself instead of paying Geek Squad to do it, she was told installing software yourself, "negates the vendor's warranty."
Heh. I *love* that part!
Now, whenever someone tells me that Linux can't work on the desktop because "off-the-shelf" Windows software doesn't work on it, I can tell them that you can't do it on Windows without voiding the warranty!
AFAIK, that section is interpreted (sadly SCOTUS has more of a say in this than you do) to mean criminal law and has no bearing in civil law -- which is what we're talking about here.
I was under the impression that copyright contained criminal sanctions as well as civil ones - ie. if you engage in piracy (ie. large-scale for-profit copying) criminal charges can be brought against you.
Compaq never had a good brand reputation to lose. They've made junk computers since day one.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything about Compaq besides what they see in department stores.
Compaq's business products (Deskpro line) were top-of-the-line. They were elegantly-engineered tanks that ran pretty much forever. Opening one up revealed a thing of beauty - being able to swap out expansion cards and hard drives without need of a screwdriver even to open the case, without being flimsy.
The Presario was junk, but do you judge all Fords based solely on the Pinto, all Chevys based solely on the Vega? Compaq made rock-solid business desktops and servers.
If copyright was 10 or 15 years, I'd be OK with draconian DRM restrictions on the things that are under copyright, provided there was a way to break it when the items go into public domain.
Then you misunderstand the purpose of DRM. The main purpose of DRM is to do an end-run around copyright expiration - so works "protected" by it *never* go into the public domain.
Imagine you're a publisher, and you want perpetual copyright, even though you know the highest law in the land says you'll never get it. What's the next best thing? Complete control over the books you sell - so you can prevent anyone from copying them ever again, and can even "recall" them if you want to. And you lobby for a law that makes it illegal for anyone to talk about how to circumvent that control.
At it's core, copyright is the ability to say "you're not allowed to say that, because I said it first." It is (supposedly) a compromise between the public and authors. In order to improve our culture, authors are given a limited right to exclude others from exercising their right of free expression.
DRM is a betrayal of this compromise - the public fulfills their part, but the authors never have to fulfill theirs. DRM is the antithesis of copyright, and rather than making laws to protect DRM, any work that is "protected" should be immediately be stripped of its copyright status.
After all, if DRM really worked, they wouldn't *need* copyright law, would they?
If this is a reputable study, they're most likely doing a blind or double-blind study... meaning that 1/2 of their subjects get (if you'll pardon the pun) squat for medication.
Would you go to Mexico and drink the water knowing there was a 50% chance the "anti-diarrhea" drug was a placebo?
Inability to explain why. Credibility of your article nullified.
Agreed.
But to play Devil's advocate for a second, let's assume that the author's company really was legitimate, and really was being "discriminated against" (whether deliberately, or because someone at Google mistook them for search-engine spammers.)
OK, so we have a legitimate company that has been "discriminated against". That still doesn't explain why Google needs to be regulated... there are thousands of scammers who aren't legitimate, and would *love* to be able to game search engines with impunity, making them all but useless.
You are 100% correct to say 'prove your claims', because even if the claims were true, reality still doesn't support the ends they're suggesting.
So? What has that to do with whether or not he actually did what he says he did? It's not even worth mentioning. A good encryption system should not depend upon the presumed illegality of breaking it.
Oh, Tosh!
Don't you know that a criminal would never think of breaking the law!
.. that word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
it's not like the other side go out of their way to make their 'standards' easy for Microsoft to implement.
Since "the other side" in this case are proponents of Open Source or Open Standards, please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot.
Then Babylon 5 most certainly *does* need it.
The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes
What?!?!
You were happy with the cast displaying the emotional range of unfinished mahogany and the "badly-rendered plastic" special effects?
Babylon5 was unwatchable because (with the exception of the guy who played Garibaldi) the acting was completely wooden. The special effects were completely crappy - comparable shows did much better with the same software (DS9 and Space: Above and Beyond to name two.)
Yeah, I know, I know.. you think the magic incantation of "STORY ARC! STORY ARC! STORY ARC!" makes up for the shortcomings, but honestly it doesn't.
Maybe if they remade B5 with decent actors and SFX, I might be able to watch it, but not only does the original *not* stand the test of time, it didn't stand the test of first-viewing.
I think Natal is amazing
I dunno.. I'm kinda scared of this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/6/5/
If it were me as the Dick Estate, I'd be shutting the hell up at this point.
The thing is that you're not the Dick Estate - your perspective is based on the fact that you have had to actually *work* for your money, rather than living off the "intellectual property" gravy train of one of your ancestors.
I think you are being a bit harsh on Linkedin.
Then you don't understand what happened.
Yeah, there is some spam. Spam is everywhere.
So that makes it OK to steal my bandwidth and annoy me? Fuck that!
However, in this economy, corporations are turning to LinkedIn as a recruiting tool.
Besides "fuck them", this statement shows that you don't understand what happened.
Linkedin sent me email from a known spammer. This was not "recruitment", it was spam.
There is spam on other sites as well
Name them. Name one that will send you OBVIOUS spam, even when you tell them it's spam and you don't want to receive it, just because they want you to join their service.
it doesn't mean those sites are worthless.
Yes, it does. The first time it happened, I can understand it. But they sent me a reminder that I didn't accept a spammer's spam after I reported it as spam - that makes them 100% worthless.
A couple of months ago, I got a "someone who knows you wants you to join" email from Linkedin. Someone had submitted my email address and wanted to "friend" me, and the entire contents of the "this person knows you because..." part was a spam website in China.
Any casual glance would show that it was spam.
Linkedin had "kindly" put a link at the bottom of the email saying "if this is spam, report it here". So I did, and the web page thanked me for reporting the spam.
Two weeks later, I got *ANOTHER* email from Linkedin, "helpfully" reminding me that I hadn't accepted the spammer's invitation
WTF?!?! I told them is was spam, and not only hadn't they banned the spammer, they were spamming for him!
Linkedin instantly went into my mailservers blacklist. They're just fucking spammers.
What are you pointing out exactly?
He's asking who determines who decides what is "significant", and the answer was two sencences earlier - the membership board.
Some part of it is a quote from the website.
Exactly - he quoted the answer, then asked the question.
You need to convince the membership board [...] And who judged what is a 'significant' contribution
This is amazing... we've gone from people not reading the articles, to not reading the *summaries*, to the *submitters* not reading what they themselves wrote!
CmdrTaco, I know it's tradition for editors not to read the summaries, but isn't it taking it a bit far to not read ones you wrote yourself?!?!?
How about we realize that we are far more likely to be killed by our car or the food we eat then by terrorists?
I don't understand - if you're killed by your car or food, aren't you already dead? How is a terrorist supposed to kill you if you've already been killed by your car or food?
To get through the tall ones people just wait until someone else is going through and then follow close behind them.
And I'd like to note that when I was in Paris (in 2003) this was a *necessity*, as a good 50% of the metro tickets didn't work.
When she asked if she could install anti-virus software herself instead of paying Geek Squad to do it, she was told installing software yourself, "negates the vendor's warranty."
Heh. I *love* that part!
Now, whenever someone tells me that Linux can't work on the desktop because "off-the-shelf" Windows software doesn't work on it, I can tell them that you can't do it on Windows without voiding the warranty!
At over 200 million new addresses needed per year, returning all of those class As wouldn't buy more than 2-3 years.
That's great then - everyone knows that the world is gonna end in 2012, so it's not a problem!
what politician wants to seem like they support free expression?
There, fixed that for you.
Isn't the sign bit only used to indicate error? ((time_t)-1) isn't a valid time but perhaps some other negative values are.
Sorry, what are you talking about?
$ echo -1 |awk '{print strftime("%c",$1,0)}'
Wed 31 Dec 1969 04:59:59 PM MST
$ echo -1 |awk '{print strftime("%c",$1,1)}'
Wed 31 Dec 1969 11:59:59 PM GMT
$ echo -1 |awk '{print strftime("%s",$1,0)}'
-1
Seems to work fine for me.
Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?
You have a promising career in middle management ahead of you!
AFAIK, that section is interpreted (sadly SCOTUS has more of a say in this than you do) to mean criminal law and has no bearing in civil law -- which is what we're talking about here.
I was under the impression that copyright contained criminal sanctions as well as civil ones - ie. if you engage in piracy (ie. large-scale for-profit copying) criminal charges can be brought against you.
Compaq never had a good brand reputation to lose. They've made junk computers since day one.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything about Compaq besides what they see in department stores.
Compaq's business products (Deskpro line) were top-of-the-line. They were elegantly-engineered tanks that ran pretty much forever. Opening one up revealed a thing of beauty - being able to swap out expansion cards and hard drives without need of a screwdriver even to open the case, without being flimsy.
The Presario was junk, but do you judge all Fords based solely on the Pinto, all Chevys based solely on the Vega? Compaq made rock-solid business desktops and servers.
Some people have "admin sensibility" and some don't. I know I don't, so when somebody asked me if I wanted root on some box, I always said "NO!".
Actually, it sounds like you *do* have "admin sensibility", and the "somebody" who offered you root doesn't.
I love you, and I want to have your baby.
If copyright was 10 or 15 years, I'd be OK with draconian DRM restrictions on the things that are under copyright, provided there was a way to break it when the items go into public domain.
Then you misunderstand the purpose of DRM. The main purpose of DRM is to do an end-run around copyright expiration - so works "protected" by it *never* go into the public domain.
Imagine you're a publisher, and you want perpetual copyright, even though you know the highest law in the land says you'll never get it. What's the next best thing? Complete control over the books you sell - so you can prevent anyone from copying them ever again, and can even "recall" them if you want to. And you lobby for a law that makes it illegal for anyone to talk about how to circumvent that control.
At it's core, copyright is the ability to say "you're not allowed to say that, because I said it first." It is (supposedly) a compromise between the public and authors. In order to improve our culture, authors are given a limited right to exclude others from exercising their right of free expression.
DRM is a betrayal of this compromise - the public fulfills their part, but the authors never have to fulfill theirs. DRM is the antithesis of copyright, and rather than making laws to protect DRM, any work that is "protected" should be immediately be stripped of its copyright status.
After all, if DRM really worked, they wouldn't *need* copyright law, would they?
If this is a reputable study, they're most likely doing a blind or double-blind study... meaning that 1/2 of their subjects get (if you'll pardon the pun) squat for medication.
Would you go to Mexico and drink the water knowing there was a 50% chance the "anti-diarrhea" drug was a placebo?
Ginkgo Balboa is clinically proven to improve your boxing skills.
And Ginkgo Bilboa is clinically proven to improve your storytelling skills to other hobbits.
Inability to explain why. Credibility of your article nullified.
Agreed.
But to play Devil's advocate for a second, let's assume that the author's company really was legitimate, and really was being "discriminated against" (whether deliberately, or because someone at Google mistook them for search-engine spammers.)
OK, so we have a legitimate company that has been "discriminated against". That still doesn't explain why Google needs to be regulated... there are thousands of scammers who aren't legitimate, and would *love* to be able to game search engines with impunity, making them all but useless.
You are 100% correct to say 'prove your claims', because even if the claims were true, reality still doesn't support the ends they're suggesting.
Mr. Nohl's efforts illegal
So? What has that to do with whether or not he actually did what he says he did? It's not even worth mentioning. A good encryption system should not depend upon the presumed illegality of breaking it.
Oh, Tosh!
Don't you know that a criminal would never think of breaking the law!
To be fair
.. that word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
it's not like the other side go out of their way to make their 'standards' easy for Microsoft to implement.
Since "the other side" in this case are proponents of Open Source or Open Standards, please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.
abortions can also be counted as early deaths
Not for the purposes of determining life expectancy.
At the stage abortion is legal, a fetus is not (legally) a human being, and so would not be included in life expectancy calculations.