Is it because trains are actually less at risk, or because everyone's running around panicking about planes?
Both.
Physical security is sort of like DRM -- expensive, inconvenient, and largely ineffective against a determined attacker. You can clamor for train station security if you like, but I'd prefer the government stop wasting exorbitant amounts of cash soothing our irrational fear of terrorist attacks.
To be fair, stereoids might be controversial (drugs that are arguably good for you outlawed by a bunch of fat people?), but he was wanted for distribution of cocaine as well, which is illegal in almost all industrialized nations. Also, while there are recognized uses to prescribe steroids, he allegedly imported them illegally. He committed the alleged crimes on US soil, so there's not much controversy involved -- just bad luck.
Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c. That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft.
That's why *I* laugh when people think we haven't solved the issue of atomic abrasion. Teflon was named after our home planet, after all. Ha ha ha...
Imagine if the energy spent trying to hogtie the general (and 99%+ totally honest and willing to purchase) consumer were instead applied to making the technology even better?
I don't disagree that DRM is onerous, but there's no evidence that there's a dichotomy between providing DRM and improving technology. Obviously it limits features by definition, but it's not as if the cryptologists would be developing LoS, if only oh only they weren't burdened with implementing the evil DRM. Moreover, beyond increasing research dollars from less-than-adequate to adequate, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. Throwing more resources at the problem won't necessarily solve it any faster, or provide a substantially better solution.
DRM sucks on its own merits.. there's no need to credit it for global warming as well.
Not a bit like drug dealers...exactly like drug dealers.
The RIAA is shooting people on its turf now? They're still living at home with their moms? They make below minimum wage and fear for their lives every time they go to work? Their product is highly addictive and potentially toxic? Drugs are being widely distributed for free on peer to peer networks?
Yep.. they're exactly like drug dealers. Good call.
It's science fiction, it requires a measure of disbelief.
The suspension of disbelief comes from the fact that they're interacting with aliens who all speak English. Requiring anything beyond that is just insulting. A bunch of whales surrounding a city? Maybe that was Atlantis, but it's the same crap, different actors.
And besides, how do you know something couldn't be rigged up? Got some real alien technology laying around that you'd like to share with the rest of us?
I don't know, of course, but everything that happens is implausible and/or impossible. And I don't mean the circumstances -- although they are implausible to be sure, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in -- I mean what happens inside of those circumstances.
You can't measure light with a multimeter. You just can't. And I'm assuming they're using light, because crystals are not good conductors of electricity, though even if they were, it's a safe bet that the signal paths would be too small to hook up to a multimeter with big ass alligator clips. But even if THAT was possible, what they often do is the equivelant of "cut the red wire," i.e., they often instantly know what to do, which is unlikely even if they had engineered the technology themselves, let alone trying to comprehend someone else's. So just to believe that they can troubleshoot an alien circuit board requires suspension of disbelief on three levels, ignoring entirely the idea that these people are still. Alive. Despite numerous gun battles, kidnappings, etc.
They often know things which are unknowable. For example, in the scenario of infinite dimensions, you would NEVER know if you made it back to the right one. At best, you could know that you found a very similar one, but you could easily go to the grave never knowing for sure, which presents two equally undesirable possibilities: Either the characters are all idiots who just assume they're home, or they realize the very real possibility that they're not home, but don't think it's worth mentioning at all.
Then there's "enlightenment," which, like heaven, presents no compelling argument as to why anyone would really want it.
I could go on for days about how implausible/ridiculous 90% of the show's plot devices are, but I've spent enough time on it already.
Yes, it sucked so bad that it ran for 200+ episodes, spawned a spinoff (with another being developed) and 2 movies in the works.
Popularity is not a significant measure of quality. A lack of viable alternatives, for example, can contribute to inflated figures. Would you rather watch someone count for an hour, or watch Tom & Jerry? Additionally, I have no problem believing that I would enjoy the show if I were still a pubescent kid and had limited experience in human interaction, motivation, dialog, troubleshooting/problem solving, and 6 years in the military which, as any booter can tell you, is not even remotely similar to what is depicted in SG1. Try saying "with all due respect," for example, to a superior -- a phrase which is commonly bantered about on the show. In reality, that's a great way to get yourself a nice ass chewing, at best, because it's really a sign of utter disrespect.
So (for example) the deaths of several major characters, world war, biological warfare, and numerous instances of general murder/torture/enslavement of innocent people don't count as bad or unhappy in your book?
What major characters? That doctor was the only person even approaching a major character who was killed off, that I saw. They almost killed off Sam's dad, but couldn't quite bring themselves to do it. Of course, he was utterly irrelevant to the show before then, so even if they had killed him off, he'd still be more of an extra than anything else.
Anyway, since the acting/scripts/plots were so shallow and, as I mentioned, character development is/was minimal, who cares if they die? The only endearing q
I understand that the alleged GPL infringement has nothing to do with the iPhone trademark, but what does any of it have to do with the ability to grow fungus?
Mods: a troll is someone who posts something he doesn't really believe in order to evoke a reaction. Let me assure you that the above post is an accurate representation of my opinion. The moderation of "Troll" is not synonymous with "I disagree." If you disagree, post a coherent response.
You must have watched a different version than I did. What the people in front of the camera were doing barely passed as acting, and the plots, dialog, and sets left much to be desired. The characters were generic, wooden, and shallow, and there was little to no reason to care about them. Technology and science underwent idiotification (No problem.. I can troubleshoot a crystal with my handy multimeter), alienating the supposed target audience, while everyone else was already alienated by the fact that it's a dorky show. No problem went unsolved and nothing particularly bad or unhappy ever happened (that I saw).
Personally, I'm happy that it's finally cancelled. It's unfortunate that it took 10 years of embarrassment for it to happen, but hopefully it will be decades more (if ever) before we're subjected to anything like that again. While I believe there's room for an exploration-themed show, I think future shows will need to do a better job of integrating plausible drama and character development. The age of simplistic, one dimensional, one hour resolution sci-fi is (hopefully) coming to an end.
Well they did spin off their hardware unit as Agilent a few years back, which in turn spun off their semiconductor unit as Avago Technologies, so yeah.. it's surprising they're doing semiconductor research, since the point of spinning off those units was to allow them to focus more exclusively on selling PCs and printers.
If he had a regular door instead of a Starfleet door and replaced any blatantly Star Trek-related items with something more contemporary, no one would be bashing his setup.
Actually, the theater has little going for it aside from the theme (or including the theme, depending on your taste). I think the guy's a nut job, the theme is tacky, and the equipment selection was obviously a secondary concern, but it's his home and he's free to design it in whatever way he likes.
Exactly.. children are highly impressionable. In the face of conflict, they tend to believe the most recent thing they were told, or saw. They may believe that mommy loves them one minute, but if they get in trouble 5 minutes later, they may think that mommy hates them. Arguments such as "Your parents wouldn't punish you if they really loved you," and "Other kids' parents don't do that," are irrefutable for children, and readily believable. There are multitudes of examples of the coordinated exploitation of children's ignorance, from child spies in the Soviet Bloc to child soldiers in Africa.
At any rate, even if the parents were flat-out bad parents, kidnapping (or harboring a child runaway) is not the correct answer.
"Dave...what's this TOR thing I keep seeing on the ip list?" "It means they have no chance of completing their 20GB download before the next format wars start." "Ah."
Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.
When's the last time you watched any of those stations? Ever heard of Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, or Joe Scarborough? CNN International is fairly balanced, but every domestic all-news channel in the US panders to the conservative viewership. Now it may well be that liberals simply don't watch enough TV for anyone to care about their demographic, or maybe the controversial stances of conservatives/ultra-conservatives just make for more dramatic television, but whatever the reason, there has been a clear and steady march to the right among domestic US news stations and shows ever since the debut of FOX "News".
There's tons of information widely available about undersea cables, if one cares to look. In general, though, they just lay one cable at a time, and only lay a new one when capacity is getting low. This may be surprising, but even a 2.1cm cable takes up a lot of room on a ship when it's 10,000 miles long.
Of course it's just cut up newspaper really, which might well annoy you, because you were actually expecting money, money you had every reason to believe was not mine to give, but you asked for it anyway.
First of all, if someone was offering to give me money, I may think a lot of things, but I would not have "every reason to believe it was not theirs to give." Likewise, there is no presumption that something that is offered as a free download is inherently illicit. On the contrary, if someone is offering me a free download, I have every reason to believe they are authorized to do so. It's not my obligation to make sure Sun really has the right to distribute NetBeans for free -- if they don't, it's their own problem.
That I may have received cut-up newspaper instead of money is just all the more reason why this whole thing is ridiculous.
You can't infringe on a copyright you already own. At best, it's a defense for the downloaders by saying that the copyright holder made the material freely available. And actually, that seems like a pretty strong defense. If I put a paper on top of the copier with a note that says "Press here to obtain your copy," it would be ridiculous to think I could then sue you for making the copy.
The only catch is that I could say "You can have a free copy, but you may not redistribute." Since all downloaders of a torrent are also uploaders, you'd be violating the redistribution clause. I highly doubt, however, that any such wording was present in the torrent (although it is possible to add comments). Also, intentionally using a distribution mechanism which by default makes people distributors would seem to be a de facto exception to the clause since you knew, or should have known, that redistribution would occur through your actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Close.. they were actually avoiding patents from Edison's Film Manufacturing Company. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_ States#Rise_of_Hollywood
Is it because trains are actually less at risk, or because everyone's running around panicking about planes?
Both.
Physical security is sort of like DRM -- expensive, inconvenient, and largely ineffective against a determined attacker. You can clamor for train station security if you like, but I'd prefer the government stop wasting exorbitant amounts of cash soothing our irrational fear of terrorist attacks.
To be fair, stereoids might be controversial (drugs that are arguably good for you outlawed by a bunch of fat people?), but he was wanted for distribution of cocaine as well, which is illegal in almost all industrialized nations. Also, while there are recognized uses to prescribe steroids, he allegedly imported them illegally. He committed the alleged crimes on US soil, so there's not much controversy involved -- just bad luck.
Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c. That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft.
That's why *I* laugh when people think we haven't solved the issue of atomic abrasion. Teflon was named after our home planet, after all. Ha ha ha...
Puny human!
Imagine if the energy spent trying to hogtie the general (and 99%+ totally honest and willing to purchase) consumer were instead applied to making the technology even better?
I don't disagree that DRM is onerous, but there's no evidence that there's a dichotomy between providing DRM and improving technology. Obviously it limits features by definition, but it's not as if the cryptologists would be developing LoS, if only oh only they weren't burdened with implementing the evil DRM. Moreover, beyond increasing research dollars from less-than-adequate to adequate, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. Throwing more resources at the problem won't necessarily solve it any faster, or provide a substantially better solution.
DRM sucks on its own merits.. there's no need to credit it for global warming as well.
Not a bit like drug dealers...exactly like drug dealers.
The RIAA is shooting people on its turf now? They're still living at home with their moms? They make below minimum wage and fear for their lives every time they go to work? Their product is highly addictive and potentially toxic? Drugs are being widely distributed for free on peer to peer networks?
Yep.. they're exactly like drug dealers. Good call.
It's science fiction, it requires a measure of disbelief.
The suspension of disbelief comes from the fact that they're interacting with aliens who all speak English. Requiring anything beyond that is just insulting. A bunch of whales surrounding a city? Maybe that was Atlantis, but it's the same crap, different actors.
And besides, how do you know something couldn't be rigged up? Got some real alien technology laying around that you'd like to share with the rest of us?
I don't know, of course, but everything that happens is implausible and/or impossible. And I don't mean the circumstances -- although they are implausible to be sure, but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in -- I mean what happens inside of those circumstances.
You can't measure light with a multimeter. You just can't. And I'm assuming they're using light, because crystals are not good conductors of electricity, though even if they were, it's a safe bet that the signal paths would be too small to hook up to a multimeter with big ass alligator clips. But even if THAT was possible, what they often do is the equivelant of "cut the red wire," i.e., they often instantly know what to do, which is unlikely even if they had engineered the technology themselves, let alone trying to comprehend someone else's. So just to believe that they can troubleshoot an alien circuit board requires suspension of disbelief on three levels, ignoring entirely the idea that these people are still. Alive. Despite numerous gun battles, kidnappings, etc.
They often know things which are unknowable. For example, in the scenario of infinite dimensions, you would NEVER know if you made it back to the right one. At best, you could know that you found a very similar one, but you could easily go to the grave never knowing for sure, which presents two equally undesirable possibilities: Either the characters are all idiots who just assume they're home, or they realize the very real possibility that they're not home, but don't think it's worth mentioning at all.
Then there's "enlightenment," which, like heaven, presents no compelling argument as to why anyone would really want it.
I could go on for days about how implausible/ridiculous 90% of the show's plot devices are, but I've spent enough time on it already.
Yes, it sucked so bad that it ran for 200+ episodes, spawned a spinoff (with another being developed) and 2 movies in the works.
Popularity is not a significant measure of quality. A lack of viable alternatives, for example, can contribute to inflated figures. Would you rather watch someone count for an hour, or watch Tom & Jerry? Additionally, I have no problem believing that I would enjoy the show if I were still a pubescent kid and had limited experience in human interaction, motivation, dialog, troubleshooting/problem solving, and 6 years in the military which, as any booter can tell you, is not even remotely similar to what is depicted in SG1. Try saying "with all due respect," for example, to a superior -- a phrase which is commonly bantered about on the show. In reality, that's a great way to get yourself a nice ass chewing, at best, because it's really a sign of utter disrespect.
So (for example) the deaths of several major characters, world war, biological warfare, and numerous instances of general murder/torture/enslavement of innocent people don't count as bad or unhappy in your book?
What major characters? That doctor was the only person even approaching a major character who was killed off, that I saw. They almost killed off Sam's dad, but couldn't quite bring themselves to do it. Of course, he was utterly irrelevant to the show before then, so even if they had killed him off, he'd still be more of an extra than anything else.
Anyway, since the acting/scripts/plots were so shallow and, as I mentioned, character development is/was minimal, who cares if they die? The only endearing q
I understand that the alleged GPL infringement has nothing to do with the iPhone trademark, but what does any of it have to do with the ability to grow fungus?
Mods: a troll is someone who posts something he doesn't really believe in order to evoke a reaction. Let me assure you that the above post is an accurate representation of my opinion. The moderation of "Troll" is not synonymous with "I disagree." If you disagree, post a coherent response.
you can download Doom 3 now and ruin it on Solaris 10
Tell us how you really feel...
It's a great show with a great cast.
You must have watched a different version than I did. What the people in front of the camera were doing barely passed as acting, and the plots, dialog, and sets left much to be desired. The characters were generic, wooden, and shallow, and there was little to no reason to care about them. Technology and science underwent idiotification (No problem.. I can troubleshoot a crystal with my handy multimeter), alienating the supposed target audience, while everyone else was already alienated by the fact that it's a dorky show. No problem went unsolved and nothing particularly bad or unhappy ever happened (that I saw).
Personally, I'm happy that it's finally cancelled. It's unfortunate that it took 10 years of embarrassment for it to happen, but hopefully it will be decades more (if ever) before we're subjected to anything like that again. While I believe there's room for an exploration-themed show, I think future shows will need to do a better job of integrating plausible drama and character development. The age of simplistic, one dimensional, one hour resolution sci-fi is (hopefully) coming to an end.
I hear they're coming out with a game based on the book.
Well they did spin off their hardware unit as Agilent a few years back, which in turn spun off their semiconductor unit as Avago Technologies, so yeah.. it's surprising they're doing semiconductor research, since the point of spinning off those units was to allow them to focus more exclusively on selling PCs and printers.
...and, does he have two guys who live behind the walls to pull the doors open?
Shhh! Shhh!
If he had a regular door instead of a Starfleet door and replaced any blatantly Star Trek-related items with something more contemporary, no one would be bashing his setup.
Actually, the theater has little going for it aside from the theme (or including the theme, depending on your taste). I think the guy's a nut job, the theme is tacky, and the equipment selection was obviously a secondary concern, but it's his home and he's free to design it in whatever way he likes.
but it is an attempt to say that he's not biased against the particular group that he's accusing of rigging the election.
Not really.. he mentioned nothing of Republicans; he may despise them as well!
Exactly.. children are highly impressionable. In the face of conflict, they tend to believe the most recent thing they were told, or saw. They may believe that mommy loves them one minute, but if they get in trouble 5 minutes later, they may think that mommy hates them. Arguments such as "Your parents wouldn't punish you if they really loved you," and "Other kids' parents don't do that," are irrefutable for children, and readily believable. There are multitudes of examples of the coordinated exploitation of children's ignorance, from child spies in the Soviet Bloc to child soldiers in Africa.
At any rate, even if the parents were flat-out bad parents, kidnapping (or harboring a child runaway) is not the correct answer.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's not your first manifesto.
Parodiable?
Would the ostentatious use of pseudo-words be considered pulling a Quayle, or a Gore?
"Dave...what's this TOR thing I keep seeing on the ip list?"
"It means they have no chance of completing their 20GB download before the next format wars start."
"Ah."
There.. fixed that for you.
Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.
When's the last time you watched any of those stations? Ever heard of Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, or Joe Scarborough? CNN International is fairly balanced, but every domestic all-news channel in the US panders to the conservative viewership. Now it may well be that liberals simply don't watch enough TV for anyone to care about their demographic, or maybe the controversial stances of conservatives/ultra-conservatives just make for more dramatic television, but whatever the reason, there has been a clear and steady march to the right among domestic US news stations and shows ever since the debut of FOX "News".
<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests...
HTTP Error 506: Sarcasm expected on line 06.
There's tons of information widely available about undersea cables, if one cares to look. In general, though, they just lay one cable at a time, and only lay a new one when capacity is getting low. This may be surprising, but even a 2.1cm cable takes up a lot of room on a ship when it's 10,000 miles long.
Of course it's just cut up newspaper really, which might well annoy you, because you were actually expecting money, money you had every reason to believe was not mine to give, but you asked for it anyway.
First of all, if someone was offering to give me money, I may think a lot of things, but I would not have "every reason to believe it was not theirs to give." Likewise, there is no presumption that something that is offered as a free download is inherently illicit. On the contrary, if someone is offering me a free download, I have every reason to believe they are authorized to do so. It's not my obligation to make sure Sun really has the right to distribute NetBeans for free -- if they don't, it's their own problem.
That I may have received cut-up newspaper instead of money is just all the more reason why this whole thing is ridiculous.
You can't infringe on a copyright you already own. At best, it's a defense for the downloaders by saying that the copyright holder made the material freely available. And actually, that seems like a pretty strong defense. If I put a paper on top of the copier with a note that says "Press here to obtain your copy," it would be ridiculous to think I could then sue you for making the copy.
The only catch is that I could say "You can have a free copy, but you may not redistribute." Since all downloaders of a torrent are also uploaders, you'd be violating the redistribution clause. I highly doubt, however, that any such wording was present in the torrent (although it is possible to add comments). Also, intentionally using a distribution mechanism which by default makes people distributors would seem to be a de facto exception to the clause since you knew, or should have known, that redistribution would occur through your actions.