In my humble opinion, this is terrific news (if true). I love the show. I'm relieved that they haven't betrayed an interesting concept (like Voyager did after, oh, 5 episodes or so), but this self-contained Xindi/ Expanse season has allowed them to be more daring with tighter stories. And there's been some real character development and plausible ethical dilemmas.
And no, it hasn't contradicted Star Trek continuity- not that that really matters much.
I don't have any viewing figures to quote but I suspect that Enterprise is pretty popular here in the UK. Sky (satellite TV) shows it on Monday evenings at 8:00pm, repeated on Saturday at 3:00pm and Sunday at 7:00pm. Channel 4 (terrestrial TV) shows seasons several months later on Sunday afternoons as part of a string of programmes targetting teenagers, repeated (uncut) very late on a weeknight (TiVo!). Those sound like good time slots to me.
So, there may be vocal people in the USA who dislike Enterprise and it may be losing in ratings to reality TV and sitcoms (who would have thought that the Lowest Common Denominator would be so low and so common?), but that's not even close to the whole story.
We're lucky to have Enterprise on TV. If you want schedules to consist solely of Queer Eye For The World's Wackiest Survivor Idol Friends then carry on ignoring and/ or criticising Enterprise.
I take your point that there are some very valuable services being funded by the money being taken from me. But I don't *know* what my money is being used for, nor do I have any say in the matter.
For example, I'm happy to pay the wages of nurses, but don't want to subsidise poorly performing rail companies. I'm happy to pay for gritters on motorways, but not for the ID card scheme. Surely I should have some say in how my money is (mis)used?
The goverment is taking money from me without my permission- that matches the definition of stealing. And backing up their demands with dubious laws and penalties doesn't make it right- that's too much like extortion through intimidation for my liking.
And the system seems needlessly complex and expensive... For example, why have a local council tax which is subsidised by national government? Why not just request the whole budget from national government and do away with council tax?
I'd like to move to another country since things are getting worse and worse here. I'd like one with laws which protect individuals rather than prop up businesses. And a mature attitude to drugs and sex. And where the law is "innocent until proven guilty", rather than "we'll secretly spy on you and take away your freedoms and generally treat you like a criminal until you're proven innocent".
In the UK the government steals money from us in a number of ways, the ones I can think of easily are;
* Income tax * National insurance (state pensions and health care) * Value added tax (a sales tax) * Specific taxes on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc. * Tax on interest earned in bank accounts etc. * Annual Tax on owning a device which can receive television (funds the BBC- for now) * Annual tax on owning a car * Stamp duty- a tax on buying a home (a percentage of what you pay) * Tax on anything you inherit from a deceased person... and so on.
Pretty stupid, eh? And I'm not offended... it's the government that's stealing (taking without permission) over half the money I earn.
The UK is a terrible country to live in, full of skint alcoholic bigots.
The only people who didn't like The Matrix Trilogy are the ones who missed the point of the movies, and thought it was all about special effects martial arts wirework fighting. It's not that shallow, and The Matrix Trilogy is pretty superb actually.
I read your BBC news story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm with some interest (it is an intriguing story) and some dismay (it has some wild theorising). As a Linux user and 'zealot':-) I found the insinuation that 'we' would be behind the irresponsible attacks on SCO and Microsoft quite insulting.
Linux users and developers are focused on creating a computer system which performs well, is reasonably priced and- importantly- hides nothing from it's user. Open Source and Free Software is about giving the user the option to modify their computer system however they wish. It's about individual choice, quality and freedom.
They are not interested in attacking other groups, certainly not in such an irresonsible manner as the recent Denial Of Service worm attacks. They're only interested in being better than their 'competitors'. Without a profit motive there's no reason to compete on any other criteria than quality. There is no war; Microsoft can do whatever it wants (though they annoy us mightily sometimes:-), SCO's legal threats have no grounding in fact, Linux users and developers just get on with doing what they *want* to do.
I believe that if a true Linux supporter could have done anything to stop these Denial Of Service attacks then they would have done so. They are of no benefit to Linux or anyone else, and could only cause bad press like your article... is it possible that the media is being manipulated into attacking Linux?
You might consider the fact that someone who codes an e-mail worm which works on Microsoft Windows and manipulates Microsoft programs is more likely to be an experienced Microsoft Windows developer. As a Linux user I don't even have the tools or the knowledge to write a Windows program (they tend to cost far too much!), let alone whether the program I've written will spread itself from PC to PC and attack web sites on schedule.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Duncan
PS. I found this e-mail address on the web at http://[deleted] . I hope I've got the correct person; if not, please accept my humble apologies. --
_| _ _ _ ___ _ ___
(_| \_/ / \ \_/-\ \/
Sent with Mozilla 1.6
For some inexplicable reason, people dislike having their spelling corrected and will tend to react angrily. It seems to be a common flaw in many humans that they when they make a mistake, any attempt to correct that mistake or educate them is perceived as a personal attack.
The problem is not merely that people get things wrong, but also that they resist getting them right and resent those who do. Unbelievable...
And here's a couple of entries from the idiot-to-truth dictionary I want to put together;
Yes, Enterprise is excellent, far superior to Voyager. More than any current series (other than 24:-) it deserves to continue and develop.
I love the characteristation and mood of the series, and I'm glad that it's got some brains and hasn't degenerated into a special effects driven shoot-'em-up. The cast are all as good as I could wish for. I like that the characters react realistically to being in a completely unknown hostile environment, having naively assumed that everyone would be as friendly as they.
As for the plots, well, in every area everything has been already been done. It's pleasing and surprising that Enterprise is as original as it is. I would like to see it cover the whole business of "exploring and colonising space" a lot more, perhaps with a season about the establishment of Earth's most distant colony (I've suggested this before:-).
I can only assume that if ratings are dropping it's because most of the audience for television are now looking for explosions, technobabble, gunplay, flashy effects and The Borg. Well, if I had a TV show that's exactly the sort of audience I wouldn't want to attract.
Perhaps Dubya could endorse and support Enterprise as part of the PR effort around his mission to occupy the Moon and invade Mars? "If you're a patriotical American, watch the televisual programmation Star Track: Enterprise".
Oh, and IIRC the Tholians appeared in the episode Future Tense.
Single sales are falling because singles are just tracks released from albums, and prices means that it makes financial sense to buy an album even if there's only 2 or 3 tracks you like on it.
Singles are used as little more than adverts for albums. Which do you hear more often from artists;
1. "We just recorded a new single, we'll release it next week, and we hope to have enough singles to compile an album for release next year or so"
2. "We just recorded a new album, we'll start releasing tracks from it next week"
Decades ago it was the former, but for 'big' artists it's been the latter for many years.
This situation was deliberately created some time ago by the music industry, it's got nothing to do with MP3 or Napster or anything of the sort. If anything, sharing MP3s around is akin to playing singles on the radio- it serves as an advert for the album, nothing more and nothing less.
If you care about sound quality and like a track you wouldn't settle for an MP3 (or radio); unless you're very stupid, you go out and buy the high quality CD album.
As long as something can be seen or heard it can be copied. Even if it's as inefficiently as pointing a microphone at the speakers or a camera at the screen. Our senses don't have DRM etc., so anything they can perceive can't either.
Anyone trying to prevent copying of something would also have to prevent us from being able to see or hear it.
The United States Of America was well known for creating new and confusing "country specific phrases and idioms" even before that illiterate terrorist buffoon Dubya siezed control. Few things make me as incredulous as Americans trying to tell anyone else how to use English, the language they abuse at every opportunity.
Every country and culture has it's own traits. Rather than complain about how they're different from yours and expecting the rest of the world to adopt yours, try to learn to understand them. That's the key skill to making a global society work.
Ah... The Sinclair QL. Another example of us creating something rather powerful yet cheap with ingenuity. That's a great complement to England/ Britain/ The United Kingdom!
If memory serves, the Sinclair QL gave us aan affordable, powerful, 16 bit (might have been 32 bit within the CPU itself) Motorola home and business computer long before Atari or Commodore did.
Or perhaps I'm misleading myself due to my admiration of Sir Clive Sinclair? The man is a genius, we could learn a lot from him. The C5 was his downfall, but even that was merely a good idea ahead of it's time.
For years Netscape pushed new ideas into HTML and the web browser. They ignored standards and were rightly lambasted for it, though many of Netscape's additions have since been standardised and gave us a more useful WWW. Netscape's code's evolution apparently made it difficult to add new standards and features in a stable way. As you say, Netscape was creaking (though it wasn't exactly "unbridled crap").
Internet Explorer 4 raised the bar- but not by much. It was faster, more stable and (prematurely) added some new features that W3C was developing. It's idea of DHTML was better than Netscape's layers and JavaScript. But...
Internet Explorer doesn't seem to have moved much since then. 5 or 6 years and 2 major versions on from then and- as a user- I'm not sure what's different. It has some DOM and better, but flawed, CSS, but this seems more like bug fixes to me. The user interface gained flashier buttons, but not much in the way of useful features.
Thanks to Mozilla, though, Netscape 7.10- built on Mozilla 1.4 AIUI- is a fantastic web browser with features and performance by the bucketload. It took a while, but it was clearly the right- albeit scary- approach to abandon the old Netscape code and start from scratch. As a developer, I love it.
And it doesn't suffer from this "hidden address" flaw. I've just tested it with that page you point to. I see the full URL, not just the misleading part. I don't know when the flaw was introduced into Mozilla but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fix in Mozilla with days... or hours...
This isn't The End Of The World, and Slashdot isn't reporting it that way, but it does make spoofing and identity theft a lot easier. Users can no longer trust what they see in their web browser, and will have even less clue that they've gone to a spoofed site.
As for open source playing catch-up... OK, that's fair, many closed source products have genuinely been better in various ways than open source equivalents, but in some aspects open source has caught up and is ahead. Look at the various Apache-related tools. Look at KDE and Gnome. Look at Linux itself. Look at the plethora of GNU projects. Look at OpenOffice.org.
Which is ahead depends on what specific feature, application, or technology you're looking at.
I'm also slightly puzzled by your Mozilla comments. 40 seconds to load? Wouldn't that depend on the power of the PC it's on? Non-standard GUI? AIUI It's standard across every platform it's on, and can be skinned to ape the platform's own GUI if you must have that (though you may have to create the skin yourself- why should anyone else do it for you?).
And since Mozilla users seem more aware than the average I-use-it-because-it-was-already-in-front-of-me Internet Explorer user, I expect they'll be downloading the fixed version pretty promptly.
And exactly what would make anyone think of doing that?
Do you routinely check the properties of every page you visit in case the URL in the address bar has been spoofed? I doubt it. So why would anyone else think to do it, especially when there's no visual clue that they're being spoofed?
What is a "DOS smileyface"? Do you mean character 001's glyph in DOS codepage 437 (and friends)? Character 001 gets other glyphs in other character sets (encodings, etc., whatever term you prefer).
The "less enlightened" will do no such thing, because they already believe that Microsoft are the only company which understands technology and does all the innovation, and thus believe everything else that Microsoft tells them (including the traditional marketing line "You can do anything you want with Windows Beagle, the fastest, most secure, most private and easiest-to-use Windows ever!").
They won't even have the wit to realise that other web browsers exist, let alone go looking for them and install them.
Microsoft is fostering an attitude of technological ignorance- under a guise of ease of use- because it's easy to exploit the ignorant.
You are very poorly informed, or very misguided, or are a troll.
Internet Explorer, even in it's current 6.x versions, is *far* from being either of those things. The only 'power' it has is from having so much access to the innards of Windows (browser/ OS integration? good as a legal defence, bad as an idea). Which is why it's minor flaws become major security holes. Other browsers' issues don't generally become security holes.
It's a pathetically feature-poor. It's implementation of standards is sometimes incomplete and sometimes broken. It's the sort of product you'd expect to get free with a packet of economy-brand cereal...
Mozilla has been a superior contender for some time now. Don't believe me? Just watch as Internet Explorer copies Mozilla's features- but with broken implementation and numerous flaws, naturally.
Vulcan has excellent shipyard facilities (staff, equipment, materials). Scotty got over-enthusiastic while relabelling the controls and accidentally refitted the entire ship.
Netscape 7.10 is a wonderful web browser and stable as hell in my experience. I don't see it as bloated, though as a web developer I find the DOM Inspector and JavaScript Console to be invaluable tools.
Apropos all this, how dare AOL use Netscape as a pawn in it's negotiations with Microsoft, callously discard it, then disrespect it's memory with this branding abomination.
Define "hi res":-) . It's not so long ago that "high resolution" was 256 by 192 pixels!
It's a very vague term which changes definition by the day. Today's high resolution is tomorrow's mobile phone screen...
Better to keep film originals (with a resolution which can be measured in molecules, I guess) in archive than rely on any scanned version, since anything less than the original entails a loss of quality and 'resolution':-).
As a TV series, Doctor Who ceased regular production in 1989, though a succesful and stunning TV Movie which introduced Paul McGann as the 8th Doctor in 1996. The franchise continues in numerous other media;
A series of audio dramas from Big Finish ( http://www.bigfinish.com/drwho/ )
Books from Virgin, the BBC, Telos, and Big Finish ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/books/ )
A long-running magazine every 4 weeks
DVD and VHS releases of stories
CD releases of stories with lost video
I ask because it was/is the only example of excellent writing, okay acting and poor special effects in SF TV.
Doctor Who showcased ingenious creativity in the face of limited resources. In an era of vacuous movies and series propped up by special effects (Star Trek: Enterprise is a rare exception), Doctor Who will always stand out. Little wonder so many people love the programme.
Time Lords have 12 regenerations for a total of 13 lives (including the first life). Most Time Lords' lives can last thousands of years before needing a regeneration, but The Doctor leads dangerous lives...
I'm also wondering whether these lives are consecutive, or a regeneration could be a shift sideways through 13 concurrent, individual, lives. It would allow for the numerous 'solo' adventures and eliminate certain continuity issues.
Slashdot Mirror
In my humble opinion, this is terrific news (if true). I love the show. I'm relieved that they haven't betrayed an interesting concept (like Voyager did after, oh, 5 episodes or so), but this self-contained Xindi/ Expanse season has allowed them to be more daring with tighter stories. And there's been some real character development and plausible ethical dilemmas.
And no, it hasn't contradicted Star Trek continuity- not that that really matters much.
I don't have any viewing figures to quote but I suspect that Enterprise is pretty popular here in the UK. Sky (satellite TV) shows it on Monday evenings at 8:00pm, repeated on Saturday at 3:00pm and Sunday at 7:00pm. Channel 4 (terrestrial TV) shows seasons several months later on Sunday afternoons as part of a string of programmes targetting teenagers, repeated (uncut) very late on a weeknight (TiVo!). Those sound like good time slots to me.
So, there may be vocal people in the USA who dislike Enterprise and it may be losing in ratings to reality TV and sitcoms (who would have thought that the Lowest Common Denominator would be so low and so common?), but that's not even close to the whole story.
We're lucky to have Enterprise on TV. If you want schedules to consist solely of Queer Eye For The World's Wackiest Survivor Idol Friends then carry on ignoring and/ or criticising Enterprise.
I'm constantly astounded at how badly some presidents of the USA speak American (let alone English).
In Soviet Russia, new critical-vulnerability-security bulletin-patcher-and-maker overlords welcome you.
I take your point that there are some very valuable services being funded by the money being taken from me. But I don't *know* what my money is being used for, nor do I have any say in the matter.
For example, I'm happy to pay the wages of nurses, but don't want to subsidise poorly performing rail companies. I'm happy to pay for gritters on motorways, but not for the ID card scheme. Surely I should have some say in how my money is (mis)used?
The goverment is taking money from me without my permission- that matches the definition of stealing. And backing up their demands with dubious laws and penalties doesn't make it right- that's too much like extortion through intimidation for my liking.
And the system seems needlessly complex and expensive... For example, why have a local council tax which is subsidised by national government? Why not just request the whole budget from national government and do away with council tax?
I'd like to move to another country since things are getting worse and worse here. I'd like one with laws which protect individuals rather than prop up businesses. And a mature attitude to drugs and sex. And where the law is "innocent until proven guilty", rather than "we'll secretly spy on you and take away your freedoms and generally treat you like a criminal until you're proven innocent".
In the UK the government steals money from us in a number of ways, the ones I can think of easily are;
... and so on.
* Income tax
* National insurance (state pensions and health care)
* Value added tax (a sales tax)
* Specific taxes on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc.
* Tax on interest earned in bank accounts etc.
* Annual Tax on owning a device which can receive television (funds the BBC- for now)
* Annual tax on owning a car
* Stamp duty- a tax on buying a home (a percentage of what you pay)
* Tax on anything you inherit from a deceased person
Pretty stupid, eh? And I'm not offended... it's the government that's stealing (taking without permission) over half the money I earn.
The UK is a terrible country to live in, full of skint alcoholic bigots.
What? By being Really Good, Actually?
The only people who didn't like The Matrix Trilogy are the ones who missed the point of the movies, and thought it was all about special effects martial arts wirework fighting. It's not that shallow, and The Matrix Trilogy is pretty superb actually.
Hello Stephen,
:-) I found the insinuation that 'we' would be behind the irresponsible attacks on SCO and Microsoft quite insulting.
:-), SCO's legal threats have no grounding in fact, Linux users and developers just get on with doing what they *want* to do.
/-\ \ /
I read your BBC news story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm with some interest (it is an intriguing story) and some dismay (it has some wild theorising). As a Linux user and 'zealot'
Linux users and developers are focused on creating a computer system which performs well, is reasonably priced and- importantly- hides nothing from it's user. Open Source and Free Software is about giving the user the option to modify their computer system however they wish. It's about individual choice, quality and freedom.
They are not interested in attacking other groups, certainly not in such an irresonsible manner as the recent Denial Of Service worm attacks. They're only interested in being better than their 'competitors'. Without a profit motive there's no reason to compete on any other criteria than quality. There is no war; Microsoft can do whatever it wants (though they annoy us mightily sometimes
I believe that if a true Linux supporter could have done anything to stop these Denial Of Service attacks then they would have done so. They are of no benefit to Linux or anyone else, and could only cause bad press like your article... is it possible that the media is being manipulated into attacking Linux?
You might consider the fact that someone who codes an e-mail worm which works on Microsoft Windows and manipulates Microsoft programs is more likely to be an experienced Microsoft Windows developer. As a Linux user I don't even have the tools or the knowledge to write a Windows program (they tend to cost far too much!), let alone whether the program I've written will spread itself from PC to PC and attack web sites on schedule.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Duncan
PS. I found this e-mail address on the web at http://[deleted] . I hope I've got the correct person; if not, please accept my humble apologies.
--
_| _ _ _ ___ _ ___
(_| \_/ / \ \_
Sent with Mozilla 1.6
The planet would be fully whitewashed within a week. ...
And the BBC would have to pay for it, naturally.
For some inexplicable reason, people dislike having their spelling corrected and will tend to react angrily. It seems to be a common flaw in many humans that they when they make a mistake, any attempt to correct that mistake or educate them is perceived as a personal attack.
The problem is not merely that people get things wrong, but also that they resist getting them right and resent those who do. Unbelievable...
And here's a couple of entries from the idiot-to-truth dictionary I want to put together;
Yes, Enterprise is excellent, far superior to Voyager. More than any current series (other than 24 :-) it deserves to continue and develop.
:-).
I love the characteristation and mood of the series, and I'm glad that it's got some brains and hasn't degenerated into a special effects driven shoot-'em-up. The cast are all as good as I could wish for. I like that the characters react realistically to being in a completely unknown hostile environment, having naively assumed that everyone would be as friendly as they.
As for the plots, well, in every area everything has been already been done. It's pleasing and surprising that Enterprise is as original as it is. I would like to see it cover the whole business of "exploring and colonising space" a lot more, perhaps with a season about the establishment of Earth's most distant colony (I've suggested this before
I can only assume that if ratings are dropping it's because most of the audience for television are now looking for explosions, technobabble, gunplay, flashy effects and The Borg. Well, if I had a TV show that's exactly the sort of audience I wouldn't want to attract.
Perhaps Dubya could endorse and support Enterprise as part of the PR effort around his mission to occupy the Moon and invade Mars? "If you're a patriotical American, watch the televisual programmation Star Track: Enterprise".
Oh, and IIRC the Tholians appeared in the episode Future Tense.
I thought the first episode of Star Trek: Enterprise was really good. Why did you think it was bad?
Single sales are falling because singles are just tracks released from albums, and prices means that it makes financial sense to buy an album even if there's only 2 or 3 tracks you like on it.
Singles are used as little more than adverts for albums. Which do you hear more often from artists;
1. "We just recorded a new single, we'll release it next week, and we hope to have enough singles to compile an album for release next year or so"
2. "We just recorded a new album, we'll start releasing tracks from it next week"
Decades ago it was the former, but for 'big' artists it's been the latter for many years.
This situation was deliberately created some time ago by the music industry, it's got nothing to do with MP3 or Napster or anything of the sort. If anything, sharing MP3s around is akin to playing singles on the radio- it serves as an advert for the album, nothing more and nothing less.
If you care about sound quality and like a track you wouldn't settle for an MP3 (or radio); unless you're very stupid, you go out and buy the high quality CD album.
Mod the parent up! As insightful or informative!
As long as something can be seen or heard it can be copied. Even if it's as inefficiently as pointing a microphone at the speakers or a camera at the screen. Our senses don't have DRM etc., so anything they can perceive can't either.
Anyone trying to prevent copying of something would also have to prevent us from being able to see or hear it.
The United States Of America was well known for creating new and confusing "country specific phrases and idioms" even before that illiterate terrorist buffoon Dubya siezed control. Few things make me as incredulous as Americans trying to tell anyone else how to use English, the language they abuse at every opportunity.
Every country and culture has it's own traits. Rather than complain about how they're different from yours and expecting the rest of the world to adopt yours, try to learn to understand them. That's the key skill to making a global society work.
Ah... The Sinclair QL. Another example of us creating something rather powerful yet cheap with ingenuity. That's a great complement to England/ Britain/ The United Kingdom!
If memory serves, the Sinclair QL gave us aan affordable, powerful, 16 bit (might have been 32 bit within the CPU itself) Motorola home and business computer long before Atari or Commodore did.
Or perhaps I'm misleading myself due to my admiration of Sir Clive Sinclair? The man is a genius, we could learn a lot from him. The C5 was his downfall, but even that was merely a good idea ahead of it's time.
Mod me offtopic..!
For years Netscape pushed new ideas into HTML and the web browser. They ignored standards and were rightly lambasted for it, though many of Netscape's additions have since been standardised and gave us a more useful WWW. Netscape's code's evolution apparently made it difficult to add new standards and features in a stable way. As you say, Netscape was creaking (though it wasn't exactly "unbridled crap").
Internet Explorer 4 raised the bar- but not by much. It was faster, more stable and (prematurely) added some new features that W3C was developing. It's idea of DHTML was better than Netscape's layers and JavaScript. But...
Internet Explorer doesn't seem to have moved much since then. 5 or 6 years and 2 major versions on from then and- as a user- I'm not sure what's different. It has some DOM and better, but flawed, CSS, but this seems more like bug fixes to me. The user interface gained flashier buttons, but not much in the way of useful features.
Thanks to Mozilla, though, Netscape 7.10- built on Mozilla 1.4 AIUI- is a fantastic web browser with features and performance by the bucketload. It took a while, but it was clearly the right- albeit scary- approach to abandon the old Netscape code and start from scratch. As a developer, I love it.
And it doesn't suffer from this "hidden address" flaw. I've just tested it with that page you point to. I see the full URL, not just the misleading part. I don't know when the flaw was introduced into Mozilla but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a fix in Mozilla with days... or hours...
This isn't The End Of The World, and Slashdot isn't reporting it that way, but it does make spoofing and identity theft a lot easier. Users can no longer trust what they see in their web browser, and will have even less clue that they've gone to a spoofed site.
As for open source playing catch-up... OK, that's fair, many closed source products have genuinely been better in various ways than open source equivalents, but in some aspects open source has caught up and is ahead. Look at the various Apache-related tools. Look at KDE and Gnome. Look at Linux itself. Look at the plethora of GNU projects. Look at OpenOffice.org.
Which is ahead depends on what specific feature, application, or technology you're looking at.
I'm also slightly puzzled by your Mozilla comments. 40 seconds to load? Wouldn't that depend on the power of the PC it's on? Non-standard GUI? AIUI It's standard across every platform it's on, and can be skinned to ape the platform's own GUI if you must have that (though you may have to create the skin yourself- why should anyone else do it for you?).
And since Mozilla users seem more aware than the average I-use-it-because-it-was-already-in-front-of-me Internet Explorer user, I expect they'll be downloading the fixed version pretty promptly.
And exactly what would make anyone think of doing that?
Do you routinely check the properties of every page you visit in case the URL in the address bar has been spoofed? I doubt it. So why would anyone else think to do it, especially when there's no visual clue that they're being spoofed?
What is a "DOS smileyface"? Do you mean character 001's glyph in DOS codepage 437 (and friends)? Character 001 gets other glyphs in other character sets (encodings, etc., whatever term you prefer).
The "less enlightened" will do no such thing, because they already believe that Microsoft are the only company which understands technology and does all the innovation, and thus believe everything else that Microsoft tells them (including the traditional marketing line "You can do anything you want with Windows Beagle, the fastest, most secure, most private and easiest-to-use Windows ever!").
They won't even have the wit to realise that other web browsers exist, let alone go looking for them and install them.
Microsoft is fostering an attitude of technological ignorance- under a guise of ease of use- because it's easy to exploit the ignorant.
You are very poorly informed, or very misguided, or are a troll.
Internet Explorer, even in it's current 6.x versions, is *far* from being either of those things. The only 'power' it has is from having so much access to the innards of Windows (browser/ OS integration? good as a legal defence, bad as an idea). Which is why it's minor flaws become major security holes. Other browsers' issues don't generally become security holes.
It's a pathetically feature-poor. It's implementation of standards is sometimes incomplete and sometimes broken. It's the sort of product you'd expect to get free with a packet of economy-brand cereal...
Mozilla has been a superior contender for some time now. Don't believe me? Just watch as Internet Explorer copies Mozilla's features- but with broken implementation and numerous flaws, naturally.
Simple.
Vulcan has excellent shipyard facilities (staff, equipment, materials). Scotty got over-enthusiastic while relabelling the controls and accidentally refitted the entire ship.
You're a rubbish geek :-) .
Kirk and friends were flying a stolen Klingon ship in Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home, not Enterprise.
Also, now that we have the excellent series (Star Trek:) Enterprise, don't we have to rework references to the "original" Enterprise?
Netscape 7.10 is a wonderful web browser and stable as hell in my experience. I don't see it as bloated, though as a web developer I find the DOM Inspector and JavaScript Console to be invaluable tools.
Apropos all this, how dare AOL use Netscape as a pawn in it's negotiations with Microsoft, callously discard it, then disrespect it's memory with this branding abomination.
Define "hi res" :-) . It's not so long ago that "high resolution" was 256 by 192 pixels!
:-) .
It's a very vague term which changes definition by the day. Today's high resolution is tomorrow's mobile phone screen...
Better to keep film originals (with a resolution which can be measured in molecules, I guess) in archive than rely on any scanned version, since anything less than the original entails a loss of quality and 'resolution'
Yes, I know this is a fairly redundant comment...
As a TV series, Doctor Who ceased regular production in 1989, though a succesful and stunning TV Movie which introduced Paul McGann as the 8th Doctor in 1996. The franchise continues in numerous other media;
Doctor Who showcased ingenious creativity in the face of limited resources. In an era of vacuous movies and series propped up by special effects (Star Trek: Enterprise is a rare exception), Doctor Who will always stand out. Little wonder so many people love the programme.
Time Lords have 12 regenerations for a total of 13 lives (including the first life). Most Time Lords' lives can last thousands of years before needing a regeneration, but The Doctor leads dangerous lives... I'm also wondering whether these lives are consecutive, or a regeneration could be a shift sideways through 13 concurrent, individual, lives. It would allow for the numerous 'solo' adventures and eliminate certain continuity issues.