Bush pardoning a death sentence? Well, that's something you don't see everyday.
That's something you don't see ever. Especially in Texas.
Reality check: No death penalty was in the offing; this isn't even a criminal prosecution; and the only thing really at stake was Bill Gates's shot at becoming the first trillionaire. If Microsoft had been divided into software and OS divisions, does anyone seriously think that either BabySoft would have failed? Or that the quality of their products would have declined? (MS haters: substitute could for would.)
President Bush comes from a political philosophy that is anti-antitrust. It's pretty simple.
I think you're right about the cost, at least I have heard that networks have expected studios to underwrite more and more of the expenses. So there is all the more pressure to deliver instant hit shows, rather than wait for a sleeper to simmer. Really, though, Farscape had passed the sleeper stage.
The pitfall I see here is that the show really needs the strength of a fully committed network behind it. Farscape is still pretty obscure and needs to expand its audience share. To do that, it needs promotion and an intelligent time slot. I don't know about elsewhere, but here in DC Farscape was airing late Friday night. That is not primetime, and yes people can tape it but the ones who do already like the show.
So... the money-raising may be symbolic at best, and maybe the ideal outcome is to outbluff the network. However, we would not want a repeat of the Star Trek experience, where the show was renewed under fan pressure, but only for one year and in bizarre moving time slots without promotion. The network guaranteed its demise for "declining ratings."
I don't know the business, and I hope whoever's involved in this white knight plan does. It is rumored that whoever is in charge at SciFi (I forget his name) simply "doesn't like space shows" which is certainly ironic and probably insurmountable. More.
I'm still leaning towards my cruise missile idea. Is there a downside?
This is obviously an issue of the US stepping over the line of sovereignty.
Well, you must know more about jurisdiction than did the district judge. Actually, you don't. I'm just telling the law like it is.
As the coverage of the case makes clear, the gov't will offer evidence of several Americans who purchased ElcomSoft's software. There is also little question that ElcomSoft targeted the lucrative U.S. market, and part of the charge is that they violated the DMCA "willfully" -- that is, they knew what they were doing was illegal. If the state can't prove that, they're of the hook.
Finally, if any of the parties wants to skip town, that's their business. The U.S. will be entitled to arrest them on their next contact, or to extradite them from a cooperating nation.
FWIW I for one didn't think you were seriously going preachy on us. It's tough to communicate tone online without hundreds of those infernal smileys.
There is one distinction here -- Farscape is an *investment* -- I don't know how they plan to work it but I damn well wouldn't give a significant amount without knowing where revenues and royalties were going to go. I think the show is more than good enough to pay for itself and then some, and the SciFi Channel is not my idea of charity (more like war criminal at the moment). Once that's done, donate the principal+earnings and everyone's happy! Heck, maybe I'll give Tiny Tim an advance.
For a stunningly efficient and humane charity, please check out Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres). They go to all the tough spots that even Red Cross fears to tread, indeed they were originally a splinter from RC. [/plug]:)
Yes, good point, and their begathon comes every year! Meanwhile the number and wordiness of thank-yous to corporate sponsors has been growing. (I mostly listen to NPR -- same problem.) Yet membership accounts for only 25% of revenue, so "viewer supported" is true but misleading. One-fourth supporting.
I went to the trouble of looking this up on the CPB site, so feast your eyes. Their financing is complex to say the least. The item "CPB Appropriation" appears to represent the federal government's $300 million share -- a pittance if you compare it to the $800,000 they want here for one episode of one show.
The point is probably just to get the pledges, to make an impression on SciFi whose bottomline motivation is money.
We are all selfish at some point, choosing our comfort over that of someone less fortunate. I've just slotted this quandary into the general principle of all things in moderation.
I don't know about y'all, but for me "only" and "$800,000" don't come in the same sentence. (Except maybe "If I only had $800,000...") And I thought pay-per-view was steep!
I had heard the episode price was closer to $1.7 million... maybe that was not USD. For our non-American audience, $800,000 is real money. I think you can buy a cruise missile for that much -- which I note might be much more persuasive to those SciFi twits. You know, call a meeting, then appear on the videophone with your demands....
Ambitious project! Damn! Farscapers are making us Mac zealots look pretty tame -- at least when we send Cupertino a couple thousand we get back a computer and a couple window stickers.
But after all these challenges to the law itself fail, and it looks like they will, repeal or, more likely, amendment will be the only possibility. And I don't think an amendment is all that unlikely.
I think Americans will be a little surprised to see fair use go away. Heck, most of the ones I talk to can't figure out why stealing media is wrong. (I have a growing list of weird excuses people give -- latest entry was that musicians just waste the money they get anyhow.)
Maybe maybe maybe the constitutional free speech issue will prove substantial. More collisions with the DMCA are inevitable, and it appeears the DeCSS ruling is not the end of the road.
Well, there is jurisdiction, at least ElcomSoft raised it and lost. The decision appears to be correct -- though I haven't torn into it, I think the advocates would be making a big deal about it. In one of the posts I linked above, I linked ElcomSoft's brief contesting jurisdiction.
Practicially speaking, ElcomSoft chose to do business and, if fined, may have assets in the States; and Sklyarov put up a whole lot of bail money that I'm sure he wants back. I believe his charges are pending until he fulfills his agreement. I doubt they want to be fugitives, or to provoke and international problem. Also, even if they fled the Russian gov't might well choose to assist us in their efforts to make nice.
I haven't seen an accounting of ElcomSoft's motives. Maybe they didn't think it would go this far. They're facing possible fines of $2.5 million.
There have been several cases brought in civil court. Anyone with standing can bring a civil case, while the gov't alone brings the criminal charges. Criminal penalties for this sort of thing -- basically copyright infringement -- are extraordinary, until the DMCA came along. Likely they have been looking for a good test case to make their precedent. It looks like they will win.
The EFF I believe has some of the other litigation described. This article has some interesting discussion and identifies several examples of litigation or intimidation.
There is one surefire way to invalidate the DMCA -- get Congress to repeal it. I know, tedious and democratic, but maybe the public will get mad enough at some point.
Except Mitnick never had a trial, did he? Just 4+ years of pretrial detention, which I still can't understand, then a plea and sentence of time served.
I've never heard of a pretrial detention like Mitnick's, and in this Sklyarov is similar. But I don't think there's much analogy beyond that; Mitnick acted with a malice absent in Sklyarov (maybe the latter secretly kicks puppies, I don't know). It's not a flattering comparison. That doesn't mean the feds don't look kinda ruthless in both. You don't have to like one side over the other.
Yes, they've got 'em. The article, or something I read, mentions that the gov't will use four Americans who bought the software testify; I imagine they account for the four counts in the indictment. That sale provides jurisdiction easily, and there may be more. ElcomSoft raised and evidently lost on this issue.
Adobe could be sued or prosecuted in Russia if they did something wrongful (allegedly of course:) to a Russian citizen/company abroad or within Russia, among other reasons. International law is a little stickier than I'm making it out to be, but here it's an easy call: willful contact = jurisdiction.
Moreover, ElcomSoft is charged with willfully violating the law, which is criminal under the DMCA. No, ElcomSoft will not go to jail, but I would expect an injunction and fine (up to $2,500,000). How to collect the fine if they refuse to pay? Seize ElcomSoft assets in U.S., petition the Russians to help out (ha -- foreign countries haven't been tripping over themselves to help the U.S. enforce its copyright law), or lay in wait for an ElcomSoft officer to visit the States. The difficulty of enforcing our law abroad is I think the reason they tossed Skylarov in jail -- once he left the country he might be gone for good.
I don't know what defenses they will raise, but there must be something. Maybe they are hoping the jury be sympathetic.
Conceding for now the DMCA's validity, is there much in the way of factual disputes here? If the facts check out, do you accept that ElcomSoft is guilty? I'm pretty sure I do. I'm not saying I want them to be guilty, just guessing at the outcome.
ElcomSoft was doing this for profit, if that makes any moral difference. Selling locksmithing tools to a burglar is not particularly savory or legal, and this aspect will make the jury less sympathetic (notice that ElcomSoft wanted a jury). If the skirmishes over the statute did not extricate them, I don't know what chance they have unless there is a juicy factual dispute about who-did-what-where. Yet they haven't pleaded out, assuming a plea agreement was even offered in the test case... Hmm. Need details. Speculation overload.
It is intriguing that no cases have been brought. Yes the law has been used for intimidation, but the prosecutors have no obligation to let anyone off with a warning -- they can prosecute the first infraction. It would be interesting to know why the law apparently has been given low priority.
BTW, I agree the treatment of Dimitry Sklyarov (sp?) was shameful. I don't think Kevin Mitnick is a good analogy, however. Their actions and alleged crimes were of very different natures. Yes, there were problems in the Mitnick prosecution as well, but Sklyarov's no Mitnick.
Here is the EFF's somewhat dated FAQ on the case, more detailed certainly that the Chronicle.
I'm amused when a certain group of people talk about what "everyone" thinks. A lot of the comments here identify what I also thing about, that science fiction should meet the same standards of quality as all writing -- character development, good plot, etc. It's awfully easy to get seduced by gadgets. Just ask James Bond. Good science fiction I think is something "everyone" enjoys, but not the same everyone that gets frenzied about which universe in best. (I like this one.)
Health problems: No. The main RF hazard is radiation powerful and high-frequency enough to heat your tissue. The magnetic field has yet to be demonstrated harmful, though many continue to try. (I used to work with MRI, which involved a 1.5 Tesla superconducting primary magnet.)
Why not here: Lobbyists. On one hand you have the money-losing Amtrak, on the other the money-losing but politically influential airlines. More important than airlines perhaps are those who really fear roads: the automobile industry. That industry includes not just auto mfrs, but also tire mfrs, gasoline suppliers and vendors, and so on. Rail service has a much smaller umbrella.
America is stalled on rail because for years roads were emphasized, and subsidized. Los Angeles, where I grew up, is the classic example of car dependency and mediocre mass transit. People say that areas such as these are "not suited to mass transit" but forget that the layout of the city was determined by cars. Thus cars lead to more cars. In balncing one form of transportation against another, the hidden cost of pollution and auto fatalities and such are rarely assessed. (Yes, people die on trains, too.)
In the Northeast Corridor, where I now live, trains should totally overcome the shuttle, which offers almost no time advantage for a downtown DC to downtown NYC traveler. The problem facing Amtrak, which is only one of many users of the lines, was to get funds to upgrade and electrify the tracks. Congress resisted, citing their operating losses and thus confusing annual deficits with capital investment. Over $2 billion was required to introduce Acela service, which still can only travel at a fraction of its normal speed over much of the route because of antiquated curves and grading.
I don't endorse Amtrak, but see that its challenges are not fairly apprised. being subject to political control, for example, it must maintain unprofitable routes, while not being able to fully exploit the profitable ones, or develop new prospects. Even if Amtrak is successfully denounced, if anything that strengthens the case for rail by implying unexploited possibilities are there.
I love rail service; you get a first-class (big) seat, can get up and walk around, can arrive 30 seconds before the train rolls, don't have a safety lecture about the motions to go through before you die anyway;-), and so on. Sadly, it was 9/11 that gave trains a boost, when airports became even more aggravating. The train's time will come. ("We have the technology. We can rebuild [it]."
5 years ago, didn't we (US) think "Chinese technology" an oxymoron? Now we consider their fairly modest rockets a threat worthy of an ABM program. Relations have not improved a whole lot. We can't quite decide whether China is our biggest nuclear threat or our #1 growth trading partner, or both.
If Iraq had done this, it'd mean they had an economy.... Can you imagine someone in Iraq in a hurry to get somewhere, except out? So, you're right, the natural conclusion would be that it was military, a step towards a supergun or something. A not-very-practical horizontal supergun, but Hussein probably wouldn't figure that out. Or the hawks.:)
Messy, organic dystopia of underdogs who actually die now and then, and even the protagonists don't trust one another -- this is no antiseptic Federation of the best of the best. How is it not different? You may not have watched enough of them to get a feel for it -- the show is not friendly to newcomers -- but there was ample tragedy in it. Also, the evil people had some complexity to them while still being evil. To my mind, only DS9 attempted similar stories. I got tired of Trek stories where all they needed was some trick to wrap up everything by the end of the episode, and little continuity carried forward.
Have you ever noticed how everyone breaks down into a near-religious frenzy when the topic of the "best" science fiction universe comes up? Everyone has a favorite universe, be it the Foundation Series by Asimov, or the classic Star Wars trilogy. So tell Slashdot what your favorite is, and what the most important part of a science fiction universe is to you.
It is presumed that science fiction moves "everyone" into "near-religious frenzy" (are the religious fully frenzied?), and we all have "a favorite universe." (I'm fond of this one; is another universe possible? Stephen Hawking, are you lurking?)
Before some cruel person strikes you down, not everyone likes science fiction! Professional wresling may have a larger following.
So those of us who do like SF need to be sensitive to the plight of the majority who don't. Primetime mass-audience shows appear more tilted towards the paranormal, like X-files, and we haven't seen tons of creativity in science fiction aside from amazing progress in special effects (The Matrix). Also, many successful flicks seem borderline fantasy -- like Bladerunner -- the cyberwhatever segment.
I'm pissed about Farscape, FWIW. What a waste. Finally an anti-Trek show with challenging plots adn characters comes along and (sniff) they kill it.
I could bore y'all with my DEEP THOUGHTS about the genre, but will save it for another day. Just wanted to make a reality check for those of us who need to "get a life" but don't want to.
Slashdot Mirror
Think you got that one backwards chief. :)
Bush pardoning a death sentence? Well, that's something you don't see everyday.
That's something you don't see ever. Especially in Texas.
Reality check: No death penalty was in the offing; this isn't even a criminal prosecution; and the only thing really at stake was Bill Gates's shot at becoming the first trillionaire. If Microsoft had been divided into software and OS divisions, does anyone seriously think that either BabySoft would have failed? Or that the quality of their products would have declined? (MS haters: substitute could for would.)
President Bush comes from a political philosophy that is anti-antitrust. It's pretty simple.
I think you're right about the cost, at least I have heard that networks have expected studios to underwrite more and more of the expenses. So there is all the more pressure to deliver instant hit shows, rather than wait for a sleeper to simmer. Really, though, Farscape had passed the sleeper stage.
... the money-raising may be symbolic at best, and maybe the ideal outcome is to outbluff the network. However, we would not want a repeat of the Star Trek experience, where the show was renewed under fan pressure, but only for one year and in bizarre moving time slots without promotion. The network guaranteed its demise for "declining ratings."
The pitfall I see here is that the show really needs the strength of a fully committed network behind it. Farscape is still pretty obscure and needs to expand its audience share. To do that, it needs promotion and an intelligent time slot. I don't know about elsewhere, but here in DC Farscape was airing late Friday night. That is not primetime, and yes people can tape it but the ones who do already like the show.
So
I don't know the business, and I hope whoever's involved in this white knight plan does. It is rumored that whoever is in charge at SciFi (I forget his name) simply "doesn't like space shows" which is certainly ironic and probably insurmountable. More.
I'm still leaning towards my cruise missile idea. Is there a downside?
This is obviously an issue of the US stepping over the line of sovereignty.
Well, you must know more about jurisdiction than did the district judge. Actually, you don't. I'm just telling the law like it is.
As the coverage of the case makes clear, the gov't will offer evidence of several Americans who purchased ElcomSoft's software. There is also little question that ElcomSoft targeted the lucrative U.S. market, and part of the charge is that they violated the DMCA "willfully" -- that is, they knew what they were doing was illegal. If the state can't prove that, they're of the hook.
Finally, if any of the parties wants to skip town, that's their business. The U.S. will be entitled to arrest them on their next contact, or to extradite them from a cooperating nation.
There is one distinction here -- Farscape is an *investment* -- I don't know how they plan to work it but I damn well wouldn't give a significant amount without knowing where revenues and royalties were going to go. I think the show is more than good enough to pay for itself and then some, and the SciFi Channel is not my idea of charity (more like war criminal at the moment). Once that's done, donate the principal+earnings and everyone's happy! Heck, maybe I'll give Tiny Tim an advance.
You, um, seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone here is 15 and lives at home. Lay off the "coffee and pixie sticks" diet.
;-)
Anyway, the group of people that lives in my house is a bunch of leeches. Especially the kids. And I'm not too impressed with the cat, either.
Yes, good point, and their begathon comes every year! Meanwhile the number and wordiness of thank-yous to corporate sponsors has been growing. (I mostly listen to NPR -- same problem.) Yet membership accounts for only 25% of revenue, so "viewer supported" is true but misleading. One-fourth supporting.
I went to the trouble of looking this up on the CPB site, so feast your eyes. Their financing is complex to say the least. The item "CPB Appropriation" appears to represent the federal government's $300 million share -- a pittance if you compare it to the $800,000 they want here for one episode of one show.
The point is probably just to get the pledges, to make an impression on SciFi whose bottomline motivation is money.
Boy did that go over my head!
I'll translate: Do both doofus.
We are all selfish at some point, choosing our comfort over that of someone less fortunate. I've just slotted this quandary into the general principle of all things in moderation.
I don't know about y'all, but for me "only" and "$800,000" don't come in the same sentence. (Except maybe "If I only had $800,000...") And I thought pay-per-view was steep!
... maybe that was not USD. For our non-American audience, $800,000 is real money. I think you can buy a cruise missile for that much -- which I note might be much more persuasive to those SciFi twits. You know, call a meeting, then appear on the videophone with your demands....
I had heard the episode price was closer to $1.7 million
Ambitious project! Damn! Farscapers are making us Mac zealots look pretty tame -- at least when we send Cupertino a couple thousand we get back a computer and a couple window stickers.
Oh, I didn't say it would happen anytime soon!
But after all these challenges to the law itself fail, and it looks like they will, repeal or, more likely, amendment will be the only possibility. And I don't think an amendment is all that unlikely.
I think Americans will be a little surprised to see fair use go away. Heck, most of the ones I talk to can't figure out why stealing media is wrong. (I have a growing list of weird excuses people give -- latest entry was that musicians just waste the money they get anyhow.)
Maybe maybe maybe the constitutional free speech issue will prove substantial. More collisions with the DMCA are inevitable, and it appeears the DeCSS ruling is not the end of the road.
...plus a lot of scatological jokes...way fewer gadgets...and Crichton is not Sisko/Bashir/O'Brien because he's not black/arab/irish....
:)
I agree that Lexx couldn't be compared with anything.
Well, there is jurisdiction, at least ElcomSoft raised it and lost. The decision appears to be correct -- though I haven't torn into it, I think the advocates would be making a big deal about it. In one of the posts I linked above, I linked ElcomSoft's brief contesting jurisdiction.
Practicially speaking, ElcomSoft chose to do business and, if fined, may have assets in the States; and Sklyarov put up a whole lot of bail money that I'm sure he wants back. I believe his charges are pending until he fulfills his agreement. I doubt they want to be fugitives, or to provoke and international problem. Also, even if they fled the Russian gov't might well choose to assist us in their efforts to make nice.
I haven't seen an accounting of ElcomSoft's motives. Maybe they didn't think it would go this far. They're facing possible fines of $2.5 million.
Um, yes, but that wasn't the sort of commentary I was inviting by making my post. There's plenty of that here already, and tons more elsewhere online.
There have been several cases brought in civil court. Anyone with standing can bring a civil case, while the gov't alone brings the criminal charges. Criminal penalties for this sort of thing -- basically copyright infringement -- are extraordinary, until the DMCA came along. Likely they have been looking for a good test case to make their precedent. It looks like they will win.
The EFF I believe has some of the other litigation described. This article has some interesting discussion and identifies several examples of litigation or intimidation.
There is one surefire way to invalidate the DMCA -- get Congress to repeal it. I know, tedious and democratic, but maybe the public will get mad enough at some point.
Wait, sorry---wrong trial...
Except Mitnick never had a trial, did he? Just 4+ years of pretrial detention, which I still can't understand, then a plea and sentence of time served.
I've never heard of a pretrial detention like Mitnick's, and in this Sklyarov is similar. But I don't think there's much analogy beyond that; Mitnick acted with a malice absent in Sklyarov (maybe the latter secretly kicks puppies, I don't know). It's not a flattering comparison. That doesn't mean the feds don't look kinda ruthless in both. You don't have to like one side over the other.
Yes, they've got 'em. The article, or something I read, mentions that the gov't will use four Americans who bought the software testify; I imagine they account for the four counts in the indictment. That sale provides jurisdiction easily, and there may be more. ElcomSoft raised and evidently lost on this issue.
:) to a Russian citizen/company abroad or within Russia, among other reasons. International law is a little stickier than I'm making it out to be, but here it's an easy call: willful contact = jurisdiction.
Adobe could be sued or prosecuted in Russia if they did something wrongful (allegedly of course
Moreover, ElcomSoft is charged with willfully violating the law, which is criminal under the DMCA. No, ElcomSoft will not go to jail, but I would expect an injunction and fine (up to $2,500,000). How to collect the fine if they refuse to pay? Seize ElcomSoft assets in U.S., petition the Russians to help out (ha -- foreign countries haven't been tripping over themselves to help the U.S. enforce its copyright law), or lay in wait for an ElcomSoft officer to visit the States. The difficulty of enforcing our law abroad is I think the reason they tossed Skylarov in jail -- once he left the country he might be gone for good.
I don't know what defenses they will raise, but there must be something. Maybe they are hoping the jury be sympathetic.
Actually, a challenge to the law's validity is brought at the outset. Elcomsoft did so and lost.
I just didn't want people going off on what a terrible law it is, or that it violated free speech.
Conceding for now the DMCA's validity, is there much in the way of factual disputes here? If the facts check out, do you accept that ElcomSoft is guilty? I'm pretty sure I do. I'm not saying I want them to be guilty, just guessing at the outcome.
ElcomSoft was doing this for profit, if that makes any moral difference. Selling locksmithing tools to a burglar is not particularly savory or legal, and this aspect will make the jury less sympathetic (notice that ElcomSoft wanted a jury). If the skirmishes over the statute did not extricate them, I don't know what chance they have unless there is a juicy factual dispute about who-did-what-where. Yet they haven't pleaded out, assuming a plea agreement was even offered in the test case... Hmm. Need details. Speculation overload.
It is intriguing that no cases have been brought. Yes the law has been used for intimidation, but the prosecutors have no obligation to let anyone off with a warning -- they can prosecute the first infraction. It would be interesting to know why the law apparently has been given low priority.
BTW, I agree the treatment of Dimitry Sklyarov (sp?) was shameful. I don't think Kevin Mitnick is a good analogy, however. Their actions and alleged crimes were of very different natures. Yes, there were problems in the Mitnick prosecution as well, but Sklyarov's no Mitnick.
Here is the EFF's somewhat dated FAQ on the case, more detailed certainly that the Chronicle.
...but there is no lack of providers.
I would be interested in this, also, thank you for asking.
Yes, but it was so eloquent!
I'm amused when a certain group of people talk about what "everyone" thinks. A lot of the comments here identify what I also thing about, that science fiction should meet the same standards of quality as all writing -- character development, good plot, etc. It's awfully easy to get seduced by gadgets. Just ask James Bond. Good science fiction I think is something "everyone" enjoys, but not the same everyone that gets frenzied about which universe in best. (I like this one.)
Health problems: No. The main RF hazard is radiation powerful and high-frequency enough to heat your tissue. The magnetic field has yet to be demonstrated harmful, though many continue to try. (I used to work with MRI, which involved a 1.5 Tesla superconducting primary magnet.)
;-), and so on. Sadly, it was 9/11 that gave trains a boost, when airports became even more aggravating. The train's time will come. ("We have the technology. We can rebuild [it]."
Why not here: Lobbyists. On one hand you have the money-losing Amtrak, on the other the money-losing but politically influential airlines. More important than airlines perhaps are those who really fear roads: the automobile industry. That industry includes not just auto mfrs, but also tire mfrs, gasoline suppliers and vendors, and so on. Rail service has a much smaller umbrella.
America is stalled on rail because for years roads were emphasized, and subsidized. Los Angeles, where I grew up, is the classic example of car dependency and mediocre mass transit. People say that areas such as these are "not suited to mass transit" but forget that the layout of the city was determined by cars. Thus cars lead to more cars. In balncing one form of transportation against another, the hidden cost of pollution and auto fatalities and such are rarely assessed. (Yes, people die on trains, too.)
In the Northeast Corridor, where I now live, trains should totally overcome the shuttle, which offers almost no time advantage for a downtown DC to downtown NYC traveler. The problem facing Amtrak, which is only one of many users of the lines, was to get funds to upgrade and electrify the tracks. Congress resisted, citing their operating losses and thus confusing annual deficits with capital investment. Over $2 billion was required to introduce Acela service, which still can only travel at a fraction of its normal speed over much of the route because of antiquated curves and grading.
I don't endorse Amtrak, but see that its challenges are not fairly apprised. being subject to political control, for example, it must maintain unprofitable routes, while not being able to fully exploit the profitable ones, or develop new prospects. Even if Amtrak is successfully denounced, if anything that strengthens the case for rail by implying unexploited possibilities are there.
I love rail service; you get a first-class (big) seat, can get up and walk around, can arrive 30 seconds before the train rolls, don't have a safety lecture about the motions to go through before you die anyway
5 years ago, didn't we (US) think "Chinese technology" an oxymoron? Now we consider their fairly modest rockets a threat worthy of an ABM program. Relations have not improved a whole lot. We can't quite decide whether China is our biggest nuclear threat or our #1 growth trading partner, or both.
:)
If Iraq had done this, it'd mean they had an economy.... Can you imagine someone in Iraq in a hurry to get somewhere, except out? So, you're right, the natural conclusion would be that it was military, a step towards a supergun or something. A not-very-practical horizontal supergun, but Hussein probably wouldn't figure that out. Or the hawks.
(1) I'm surprised and (2) it doesn't really matter, I cited The Matrix as a familiar example of the innovation, not the inventor of them.
Lexx had much better writing.
:)
Lexx had writing??
How is Farscape anti-Trek?
Messy, organic dystopia of underdogs who actually die now and then, and even the protagonists don't trust one another -- this is no antiseptic Federation of the best of the best. How is it not different? You may not have watched enough of them to get a feel for it -- the show is not friendly to newcomers -- but there was ample tragedy in it. Also, the evil people had some complexity to them while still being evil. To my mind, only DS9 attempted similar stories. I got tired of Trek stories where all they needed was some trick to wrap up everything by the end of the episode, and little continuity carried forward.
Have you ever noticed how everyone breaks down into a near-religious frenzy when the topic of the "best" science fiction universe comes up? Everyone has a favorite universe, be it the Foundation Series by Asimov, or the classic Star Wars trilogy. So tell Slashdot what your favorite is, and what the most important part of a science fiction universe is to you.
It is presumed that science fiction moves "everyone" into "near-religious frenzy" (are the religious fully frenzied?), and we all have "a favorite universe." (I'm fond of this one; is another universe possible? Stephen Hawking, are you lurking?)
Before some cruel person strikes you down, not everyone likes science fiction! Professional wresling may have a larger following.
So those of us who do like SF need to be sensitive to the plight of the majority who don't. Primetime mass-audience shows appear more tilted towards the paranormal, like X-files, and we haven't seen tons of creativity in science fiction aside from amazing progress in special effects (The Matrix). Also, many successful flicks seem borderline fantasy -- like Bladerunner -- the cyberwhatever segment.
I'm pissed about Farscape, FWIW. What a waste. Finally an anti-Trek show with challenging plots adn characters comes along and (sniff) they kill it.
I could bore y'all with my DEEP THOUGHTS about the genre, but will save it for another day. Just wanted to make a reality check for those of us who need to "get a life" but don't want to.