Yes, of course it does. You can even set it up so that the more familiar emacs key bindings are in place. It has code folding, syntax highlighting, regular expression search & replace, highlight occurences, common class templates, code block templates, and etc.
It's probably pertinent to note the Eclipse is the only IDE I've ever used that wouldn't let me load any old text file I liked.
I think you're having a problem with your configuration, then. I am able to edit any file within Eclipse (I just tested this to make sure), although I use vim for editing XML files and Python scripts. But I don't have to leave the IDE to to that; I just double click on the file. I told Eclipse to open XML files with my "system editor"; currently XML files are associated with vim on my box.
But even if I didn't choose to do that, any text file can be loaded in Eclipse's editor.
I'm downloading the latest version now to see if it will let me execute a technological marvel such as loading a file I want to edit...we'll see.
Eclipse is not a text editor. It's an IDE. It allows you to manage and work on separate projects within the same environment, and provides a way to isolate those projects from each other. If your biggest complaint about it is that you can't immediately load it up and edit a file, then you are to a large extent missing the point of the tool. It's not a text editor, it's a development environment. Emacs, vim, BBEdit, etc. are text editors. They will do what you want, and can be run simultaneously to Eclipse in modern operating systems.
But when you are dealing with a large number of separate projects, each with their own dependencies, build files, source code, and even source code control system (CVS, MKS, Subversion, some from SourceForge, some internal to your organization), and you want to be able to deal with all of that in a single environment, then Eclipse is a great tool for the job.
Half-Life 2 is also a shitty text editor. But that's not what it was designed to do.
To say that the conservative view is 'gloriously wrong' could be taken the wrong way. The definition of "conservative" is simply unchanged, how things used to be, etc...I'm always skeptical of someone who views the past as completely and utterly inferior.
That is, bar none, the stupidest thing I have ever read outside of an Ann Coulter column. Let me get this straight: you think there are people out there who, merely because something was believed at some period in the past think that those beliefs are stupid? In other words, you really think there are people out there who base their beliefs upon WHEN those beliefs came into being?
Wow. Just *wow.* The mental gymnastics it takes to reach that conclusion is just astounding. I'm willing to bet you spend a lot of time listening to talk radio, but that's just a guess.
I'll take it as given that you deny it.
In any event: you're wrong. Gloriously so. It seems that you don't realize this, but most people have pretty solid reasons for believing what they believe, even when those beliefs differ fundamentally from yours. And, by the way, I include YOU in this group.
I had a friend who just got back from Utah after doing two years worth of contract work. He explained to me how the political situation is there. The Mormons control the polical apparatik, and they in turn are a very top-down organization, with mandates coming from the President, and those mandates very frequently becoming law. No one can oppose them, because so much of the state is Mormon. And there is little disagreement amongst Mormons, because of their inherent loyalty to the church.
So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions. 1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church? And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics? If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me. Nor do I think rigid hierachical organizations are the best way to run a nation (or state, really).
Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need.
My only problem with Safari is that it is so noticeably slower on HTTPS connections. I use a G4 at work, and any time I need to use an HTTPS connection I use Camino because Safari drags so much. It's not so noticeable at home where I have a 1.8GHz G5, but when on slower machines (including my mom's iBook), Safari just drags on secure connections.
1) I can't turn off the damned weird mouse acceleration that OS X uses.
The Keyboard & Mouse prefs didn't do this for you? I also use a trackball, and haven't noticed anything weird. Your milage obviously varies...
2) I can't easily/freeely change the stupid mouse pointer..
Ok.
3) I really, really miss having a tree view of folders, with files listed on the right. I deeply nest my files (for logical organization, etc.) In other respects, I like the finder.
This one I'll give you. In exchange for the tree view, OS X gives you the 3-column view, where you can drill down to specific directories. I've come to be famliar enough with this interface with the keyboard so that the speed difference for me between Explorer and Finder is negligible, but it is more difficult to go back up a hierarchy using this interface, especially to the very top. There are shortcut keys for taking you to common locations (Hard Drive, Applications, etc.) but I agree that it would be nice to at least have the option of a tree view.
A student can get more As without a computer, but they'd be knee deep in shit when they see it everywhere.
That's a false dichotomy. You're implying that by taking computers out of some classes you would be taking them out of all classes. That's silly. While English, history, and algebra may be better served by removing computers from the classroom, computer science, networking, etc., most certainly would not be so served.
This isn't an either/or proposition. Core subjects are not benefited by the presence of computers. Computer classes, obviously, are.
So this clearly is not a computer problem, but a teacher problem. Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class is only a small price to pay to prevent the stagnation of our children's collective intellects.
Computers are a distraction to the underlying goal of communicating information so that it is understood by students. Blaming this on teachers not only completely ignores the results of this study but flies in the face of common sense, as well. Computers are good tools for some (many!) things, but they are not panaceas, and their every failing cannot be so blithely ignored.
I have seen with my own eyes the effect of having computers in the classroom. They are a distraction, not a tool, and should be left in the lab where they belong. I may now program for a living, but I am by no means so foolish as to think the tool of my chosen profession is the best tool for all jobs, education not the least.
Because I am a big fan of it, I would like to take a moment to plug MIT's OpenCourseWare, where you have access to MIT's entire course catalog, including assignments, videos, and other materials. Want to learn Japanese? Go for it. Or perhaps Electromagnetic Fields, Forces, and Motion is more to your liking. Have at thee.
MIT has shown their dedication to an open academic atmosphere and the benefits for the public of easy access to knowledge. Their endorsement of free software here is completely consistent with their previous actions.
So, while it is interesting to speculate on what Apple may be doing and where they may be going with various products, I have never really understood the rabid nature of the fan sites and rumor sites. What is the point with rumors? Can anybody explain that to me?
Dude, if the though of not one but TWO dual-core 64-bit processors sitting on your desk doesn't get you engorged and/or moist, then it is simply impossible for you to call yourself a geek in good standing.
Two 64-bit *multi gigahertz* dual core CPUs. On your desktop. Running OS X.
Even though Apple Computer's stock is pretty high in regards to the P/E ratio (ever since the iPod got the investors' interest), I still think it might be a good buy for the future.
I agree. You won't make any money off of dividends, but my own belief (and Wall Street's consensus, for what that is worth) is that AAPL is a good buy. I'm hoping that when Apple holds their next earnings call that we will find out that the Mac mini has sold absolute gangbusters, and that it will allow the market's focus upon the success of the iPod to be somewhat psychologically replaced by the success of the mini.
Unfortunately, I didn't get in on either stock on the ground floor, and even though they went up pretty high now I think they both might still be great buys for the future.
Apple, yes. Google, not so sure. Apple is consistently coming out with products that make money, and their recent stock split have brought their stock back to more reasonable levels. Google is still trading at around $180/share, and that to my mind is far too high a price to pay given their current revenues. They're profitable, I just don't know about $180/share profitable.
Difficult to see, the future is. *shrug* For whatever reason my inner Warren Buffet says "buy AAPL, wait on GOOG".
Re:Shouldn't that be too bloated to test?
on
Too Darned Big to Test?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And I don't mean to just Microsoft-bash; they are just an easy target. Apple does it, most the major Linux distros I've used do it, it seems like it is just the way the software industry works nowadays. And it is insane.
Apple at least seems to be better about it. With one very notable exception where the contents of my iPod were completely erased, all of the software updates I have gotten from Apple have been flawless and for the most part made the product better. This includes point releases as well as security updates.
I don't know the internals of Apple's development process, but I suspect that they are very disciplined in their QA process. I think Microsoft has driven them to this, because one of the prime differentiating characteristics between Apple and Microsoft software is quality.
A completely revamped, stable OS, the iTunes/iPod combination, Keynote, the entire iLife suite, a web browser, a new neat piece of hardware every year or so, a stable server os along with some nice SAN software, a quick X11 implementation... the list goes on and on. Every couple months Apple has released a new, if not innovative utilitarian piece of software or hardware.
I've noticed the same thing. Microsoft has many thousands of employees, billions of dollars at its disposal, and a huge R&D budget. But the most significant release they have made in the past year is SP2. Apple has done far more with a smaller staff.
I wonder if Microsoft has become burdened by its size. It takes a lot of inertia to change the direction of a company as massive as MS is, and they don't really have an impetus right now to do so. The advent and popularity of the Internet was an event that caused MS to change directions, but nothing like that exists now.
This is all guesswork on my part, of course. I think your observations are dead-on, though, and I also wonder how long MS can coast along without suffering consequences.
The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want.
The marketplace works very well in some cases when left alone, in others the public benefits more when government provides an impetus. I see nothing wrong with this, nor do I feel a degree of loyalty to the "free market" over and above my own and my community's interest. If this works well for the most people, then so be it.
Like a lesbian on the Titanitc
on
Datamining the NSA
·
· Score: -1, Troll
...it's going down hard.
Welp, since the server has melted, I guess we'll have to use our psychic powers to determine what s00per s3kr17 stuff our Austrian pal came up with.
I especially liked the part about knowing where bin Laden is, but keeping him around because it' s politically expedient. Wow, my worst fears are confirmed. And the ozone hole in Antarctica is apparently due to to exhaust from the constant UFO traffic.
Natch!
However, that part about Jeff Gannon was just disturbing. There are some visual images you just don't want to have cross your cortex, and especially if they involve Dick Cheney. Yeeeee-ugh.
Since this is the Federal Elections Commission, I assume that it would have no bearing on Governor, State (Senate and Assembly), Township, and County races, is that correct?
Probably, but don't count on it. A zealous prosecutor could find cause, even if all you did was link to the DNC homepage 4 years ago in a single entry.
Selective enforcement is my biggest concern here, almost as concerning as the rule itself.
Does anyone get the impression that there is some subtle but real competition going on between Sun and Apple? Apple seems to be moving in on the server/blade market, and Sun is attempting to do cool GUI tricks. I wouldn't mention this but Sun has made so much of Project Looking Glass that it's kind of hard to not wonder if one of their primary targets here is not Apple and the users who are using it as their preferred UNIX OS.
I mean, ok, you can spend your money however you feel is best. Fine. Whatever.
BUT: That doesn't mean you above being criticized for that choice.
Three million bucks? For a TV show? And it's not even like it's all that good, or important! Hell, if you want to encourage manned space flight why not give it to Space Camp or do a DVD release of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" or something?
The idea that giving millions of dollars away so that a bad sci-fi TV show can continue on is just asinine to me. Maybe I'm missing something here. If so PLEASE tell me where, because from where I sit this looks, well, stupid.
The hooks used by Audio Hijack are lower than the application level. They take what is headed for your sound card and open up a separate stream that pipes the same stream to a different source. WMP just hooks into already existing APIs on OS X, and is really irrelevant in this context.
This bill is a symbol. They don't expect it to pass.
Why the fuck not? "Good ideas about promoting democracy" are neither Republican or Democratic, they're democratic.
If the Republicans oppose this -- and judging from the tone of the conservatives in this forum, at least then they will -- then they have proven themselves to be partsan fascists who are only interested in democracy when it is overseas.
And oh yeah: they support vote fraud. But we already knew that, didn't we?
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever? 'Cause that's what it will be.
I don't think the differences are so significant as to be noteworthy, and the benefits for the community are great. I know it's trendy to believe "government is always bad", but it's not always true. I've worked in enough corporate environments to know how screwed up and inefficient they can be.
Isn't what we really want just more competition?
Sometimes. But competition isn't the end-all be-all. Sure, it works great. Most of the time. But not all of the time.
please educate me! why should you be the one to decide who may have extra money (above what is required for living of course) and who should give theirs to the poor
I'm deciding nothing. I'm passing judgement. Those are two entirely different things. People are and should be free to choose how to spend their money (for the most part), and this case is no different. That does not mean I have to agree or accept as virtuous what they choose.
Judgement does not always imply a desire to prohibit.
Nonsense. We're talking about fans trying to pay for a product they want. I wouldn't pay into this, and I doubt they will be succesful, but there's no aspect of "charity" to it. They're not doing it to keep the cast from poverty, they're doing it because they want more episodes.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I lean towards your point of view. There is something inherently distasteful about this, though. I would never even consider giving my money to such a thing, so I'm sure personal taste is a part of it.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
Of course. That's elementary. But I say the market has already said there is insufficient demand for it. Do you really think these guys will be able to raise that much money? That judgement is a part of the equation here as well. If we are asking ourselves whether or not they are spending their efforts wisely, we have to ask the question of how likely they are to succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
But it contains a text editor, surely?
Yes, of course it does. You can even set it up so that the more familiar emacs key bindings are in place. It has code folding, syntax highlighting, regular expression search & replace, highlight occurences, common class templates, code block templates, and etc.
It's probably pertinent to note the Eclipse is the only IDE I've ever used that wouldn't let me load any old text file I liked.
I think you're having a problem with your configuration, then. I am able to edit any file within Eclipse (I just tested this to make sure), although I use vim for editing XML files and Python scripts. But I don't have to leave the IDE to to that; I just double click on the file. I told Eclipse to open XML files with my "system editor"; currently XML files are associated with vim on my box.
But even if I didn't choose to do that, any text file can be loaded in Eclipse's editor.
I'm downloading the latest version now to see if it will let me execute a technological marvel such as loading a file I want to edit...we'll see.
Eclipse is not a text editor. It's an IDE. It allows you to manage and work on separate projects within the same environment, and provides a way to isolate those projects from each other. If your biggest complaint about it is that you can't immediately load it up and edit a file, then you are to a large extent missing the point of the tool. It's not a text editor, it's a development environment. Emacs, vim, BBEdit, etc. are text editors. They will do what you want, and can be run simultaneously to Eclipse in modern operating systems.
But when you are dealing with a large number of separate projects, each with their own dependencies, build files, source code, and even source code control system (CVS, MKS, Subversion, some from SourceForge, some internal to your organization), and you want to be able to deal with all of that in a single environment, then Eclipse is a great tool for the job.
Half-Life 2 is also a shitty text editor. But that's not what it was designed to do.
To say that the conservative view is 'gloriously wrong' could be taken the wrong way. The definition of "conservative" is simply unchanged, how things used to be, etc...I'm always skeptical of someone who views the past as completely and utterly inferior.
That is, bar none, the stupidest thing I have ever read outside of an Ann Coulter column. Let me get this straight: you think there are people out there who, merely because something was believed at some period in the past think that those beliefs are stupid? In other words, you really think there are people out there who base their beliefs upon WHEN those beliefs came into being?
Wow. Just *wow.* The mental gymnastics it takes to reach that conclusion is just astounding. I'm willing to bet you spend a lot of time listening to talk radio, but that's just a guess.
I'll take it as given that you deny it.
In any event: you're wrong. Gloriously so. It seems that you don't realize this, but most people have pretty solid reasons for believing what they believe, even when those beliefs differ fundamentally from yours. And, by the way, I include YOU in this group.
Look at my sig to know my politics.
I had a friend who just got back from Utah after doing two years worth of contract work. He explained to me how the political situation is there. The Mormons control the polical apparatik, and they in turn are a very top-down organization, with mandates coming from the President, and those mandates very frequently becoming law. No one can oppose them, because so much of the state is Mormon. And there is little disagreement amongst Mormons, because of their inherent loyalty to the church.
So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions. 1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church? And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics? If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me. Nor do I think rigid hierachical organizations are the best way to run a nation (or state, really).
Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need.
My only problem with Safari is that it is so noticeably slower on HTTPS connections. I use a G4 at work, and any time I need to use an HTTPS connection I use Camino because Safari drags so much. It's not so noticeable at home where I have a 1.8GHz G5, but when on slower machines (including my mom's iBook), Safari just drags on secure connections.
1) I can't turn off the damned weird mouse acceleration that OS X uses.
The Keyboard & Mouse prefs didn't do this for you? I also use a trackball, and haven't noticed anything weird. Your milage obviously varies...
2) I can't easily/freeely change the stupid mouse pointer..
Ok.
3) I really, really miss having a tree view of folders, with files listed on the right. I deeply nest my files (for logical organization, etc.) In other respects, I like the finder.
This one I'll give you. In exchange for the tree view, OS X gives you the 3-column view, where you can drill down to specific directories. I've come to be famliar enough with this interface with the keyboard so that the speed difference for me between Explorer and Finder is negligible, but it is more difficult to go back up a hierarchy using this interface, especially to the very top. There are shortcut keys for taking you to common locations (Hard Drive, Applications, etc.) but I agree that it would be nice to at least have the option of a tree view.
A student can get more As without a computer, but they'd be knee deep in shit when they see it everywhere.
That's a false dichotomy. You're implying that by taking computers out of some classes you would be taking them out of all classes. That's silly. While English, history, and algebra may be better served by removing computers from the classroom, computer science, networking, etc., most certainly would not be so served.
This isn't an either/or proposition. Core subjects are not benefited by the presence of computers. Computer classes, obviously, are.
So this clearly is not a computer problem, but a teacher problem. Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class is only a small price to pay to prevent the stagnation of our children's collective intellects.
Computers are a distraction to the underlying goal of communicating information so that it is understood by students. Blaming this on teachers not only completely ignores the results of this study but flies in the face of common sense, as well. Computers are good tools for some (many!) things, but they are not panaceas, and their every failing cannot be so blithely ignored.
I have seen with my own eyes the effect of having computers in the classroom. They are a distraction, not a tool, and should be left in the lab where they belong. I may now program for a living, but I am by no means so foolish as to think the tool of my chosen profession is the best tool for all jobs, education not the least.
Because I am a big fan of it, I would like to take a moment to plug MIT's OpenCourseWare, where you have access to MIT's entire course catalog, including assignments, videos, and other materials. Want to learn Japanese? Go for it. Or perhaps Electromagnetic Fields, Forces, and Motion is more to your liking. Have at thee.
MIT has shown their dedication to an open academic atmosphere and the benefits for the public of easy access to knowledge. Their endorsement of free software here is completely consistent with their previous actions.
Good for them.
This may be the first ever entirely content-free story on Slashdot?
Obviously you don't remember Jon Katz.
So, while it is interesting to speculate on what Apple may be doing and where they may be going with various products, I have never really understood the rabid nature of the fan sites and rumor sites. What is the point with rumors? Can anybody explain that to me?
Dude, if the though of not one but TWO dual-core 64-bit processors sitting on your desk doesn't get you engorged and/or moist, then it is simply impossible for you to call yourself a geek in good standing.
Two 64-bit *multi gigahertz* dual core CPUs. On your desktop. Running OS X.
*shifts in chair*
Yup, I'm in the in crowd. Kickin.
Even though Apple Computer's stock is pretty high in regards to the P/E ratio (ever since the iPod got the investors' interest), I still think it might be a good buy for the future.
I agree. You won't make any money off of dividends, but my own belief (and Wall Street's consensus, for what that is worth) is that AAPL is a good buy. I'm hoping that when Apple holds their next earnings call that we will find out that the Mac mini has sold absolute gangbusters, and that it will allow the market's focus upon the success of the iPod to be somewhat psychologically replaced by the success of the mini.
Unfortunately, I didn't get in on either stock on the ground floor, and even though they went up pretty high now I think they both might still be great buys for the future.
Apple, yes. Google, not so sure. Apple is consistently coming out with products that make money, and their recent stock split have brought their stock back to more reasonable levels. Google is still trading at around $180/share, and that to my mind is far too high a price to pay given their current revenues. They're profitable, I just don't know about $180/share profitable.
Difficult to see, the future is. *shrug* For whatever reason my inner Warren Buffet says "buy AAPL, wait on GOOG".
And I don't mean to just Microsoft-bash; they are just an easy target. Apple does it, most the major Linux distros I've used do it, it seems like it is just the way the software industry works nowadays. And it is insane.
Apple at least seems to be better about it. With one very notable exception where the contents of my iPod were completely erased, all of the software updates I have gotten from Apple have been flawless and for the most part made the product better. This includes point releases as well as security updates.
I don't know the internals of Apple's development process, but I suspect that they are very disciplined in their QA process. I think Microsoft has driven them to this, because one of the prime differentiating characteristics between Apple and Microsoft software is quality.
A completely revamped, stable OS, the iTunes/iPod combination, Keynote, the entire iLife suite, a web browser, a new neat piece of hardware every year or so, a stable server os along with some nice SAN software, a quick X11 implementation... the list goes on and on. Every couple months Apple has released a new, if not innovative utilitarian piece of software or hardware.
I've noticed the same thing. Microsoft has many thousands of employees, billions of dollars at its disposal, and a huge R&D budget. But the most significant release they have made in the past year is SP2. Apple has done far more with a smaller staff.
I wonder if Microsoft has become burdened by its size. It takes a lot of inertia to change the direction of a company as massive as MS is, and they don't really have an impetus right now to do so. The advent and popularity of the Internet was an event that caused MS to change directions, but nothing like that exists now.
This is all guesswork on my part, of course. I think your observations are dead-on, though, and I also wonder how long MS can coast along without suffering consequences.
The point of a marketplace is that it provides freedom to choose products and services you want.
The marketplace works very well in some cases when left alone, in others the public benefits more when government provides an impetus. I see nothing wrong with this, nor do I feel a degree of loyalty to the "free market" over and above my own and my community's interest. If this works well for the most people, then so be it.
Welp, since the server has melted, I guess we'll have to use our psychic powers to determine what s00per s3kr17 stuff our Austrian pal came up with.
I especially liked the part about knowing where bin Laden is, but keeping him around because it' s politically expedient. Wow, my worst fears are confirmed. And the ozone hole in Antarctica is apparently due to to exhaust from the constant UFO traffic.
Natch!
However, that part about Jeff Gannon was just disturbing. There are some visual images you just don't want to have cross your cortex, and especially if they involve Dick Cheney. Yeeeee-ugh.
Since this is the Federal Elections Commission, I assume that it would have no bearing on Governor, State (Senate and Assembly), Township, and County races, is that correct?
Probably, but don't count on it. A zealous prosecutor could find cause, even if all you did was link to the DNC homepage 4 years ago in a single entry.
Selective enforcement is my biggest concern here, almost as concerning as the rule itself.
Does anyone get the impression that there is some subtle but real competition going on between Sun and Apple? Apple seems to be moving in on the server/blade market, and Sun is attempting to do cool GUI tricks. I wouldn't mention this but Sun has made so much of Project Looking Glass that it's kind of hard to not wonder if one of their primary targets here is not Apple and the users who are using it as their preferred UNIX OS.
What is wrong with some people?
I mean, ok, you can spend your money however you feel is best. Fine. Whatever.
BUT: That doesn't mean you above being criticized for that choice.
Three million bucks? For a TV show? And it's not even like it's all that good, or important! Hell, if you want to encourage manned space flight why not give it to Space Camp or do a DVD release of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" or something?
The idea that giving millions of dollars away so that a bad sci-fi TV show can continue on is just asinine to me. Maybe I'm missing something here. If so PLEASE tell me where, because from where I sit this looks, well, stupid.
The hooks used by Audio Hijack are lower than the application level. They take what is headed for your sound card and open up a separate stream that pipes the same stream to a different source. WMP just hooks into already existing APIs on OS X, and is really irrelevant in this context.
This bill is a symbol. They don't expect it to pass.
Why the fuck not? "Good ideas about promoting democracy" are neither Republican or Democratic, they're democratic.
If the Republicans oppose this -- and judging from the tone of the conservatives in this forum, at least then they will -- then they have proven themselves to be partsan fascists who are only interested in democracy when it is overseas.
And oh yeah: they support vote fraud. But we already knew that, didn't we?
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever? 'Cause that's what it will be.
I don't think the differences are so significant as to be noteworthy, and the benefits for the community are great. I know it's trendy to believe "government is always bad", but it's not always true. I've worked in enough corporate environments to know how screwed up and inefficient they can be.
Isn't what we really want just more competition?
Sometimes. But competition isn't the end-all be-all. Sure, it works great. Most of the time. But not all of the time.
please educate me! why should you be the one to decide who may have extra money (above what is required for living of course) and who should give theirs to the poor
I'm deciding nothing. I'm passing judgement. Those are two entirely different things. People are and should be free to choose how to spend their money (for the most part), and this case is no different. That does not mean I have to agree or accept as virtuous what they choose.
Judgement does not always imply a desire to prohibit.
Nonsense. We're talking about fans trying to pay for a product they want. I wouldn't pay into this, and I doubt they will be succesful, but there's no aspect of "charity" to it. They're not doing it to keep the cast from poverty, they're doing it because they want more episodes.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I lean towards your point of view. There is something inherently distasteful about this, though. I would never even consider giving my money to such a thing, so I'm sure personal taste is a part of it.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
Of course. That's elementary. But I say the market has already said there is insufficient demand for it. Do you really think these guys will be able to raise that much money? That judgement is a part of the equation here as well. If we are asking ourselves whether or not they are spending their efforts wisely, we have to ask the question of how likely they are to succeed.