This article reminds me of a series of articles found on Space.com called The Phantom Heresies, a collection of speculation on why things were in Star Wars. (Because these links are fairly old, you may have to scrounge around--use Google.)
The link above discusses the powers and the arrogance of the Jedi, and why they had it coming. The cool part for me about these articles was that they reflected my views after watching The Phantom Menace after watching how mortibund both Jedi Council and Senate were in comparison to the efficient manipulations of Darth Sidious in TFM.
Was the Empire a better system? I think that a gilded cage is a cage, no matter how informative or high-class the reading material is that covers the bottom of my cage. I would side with the Rebels, lightsaber in hand if I were a Jedi.
Don't be so presumptuous. The fact that I mentioned the Rogers Report means that I know of this and many more reasons why Challenger met its fate. Cold weather only accelerated the failure; the booster joints were INHERENTLY FLAWED and could've breached (I believe, HAD breeched a bit in one earlier launch) in warmer weather. NASA only dodged bullets until they intentionally shot themselves by launching at freezing temps.
My comment on STA-099 was not really related to the point I made. You DO realize that, right?
I don't believe NASA is actually buying things for use on actual Shuttle hardware, either. However, this reminds me of thinking which got NASA in big, big trouble, and left seven astronauts very, very dead.
Part of the conclusions of the Rogers Investigation of the Challenger disaster discovered that NASA was severely underfunded for Shuttle flight hardware, requiring them to cannabalize parts between Shuttles to keep them operating. The shuttle Enterprise (a test vehicle that never made it to space) certainly has no flight hardware to speak of as it was removed for use on actual flying orbiters.
Why would NASA, an agency that should be using cutting-edge technologies in its missions, want old hardware for ANYTHING? (I know, I know--read the article...this is a knee-jerk post.)
Some food for thought that's a little off-topic: shuttle Enterprise was supposed to be refit for space flight, but engineers found it would be more expensive to refit than to take a spare orbiter fuselage used for structural tests: STA-099.
STA-099 was renamed Challenger. If it weren't for cost cutting, it would've been a nastier history, particularly to naval historians, WWII and "Star Trek" fans, to hear instead that a ship named Enterprise was destroyed on 1/28/86.
If you want art, go to the freakin' Googenheim. If you want something to talk about (that's usually fun) go see Star Wars--any one of them.
Even "Phantom Menace" is enjoyable compared to pieces of celluoid like "Mullholland Drive." It wasn't a bad movie, but then I don't want to have to read Cliff's Notes before seeing it.
Honestly, I still see the saber duel in TFM as Pretty Damned Cool.
1) Most critics from popular mags like Entertainment Weekly probably weren't even BORN when the original Star Wars movie showed up.
2) Those same critics (whose reviews I've read a lot of) seem to believe that "Star Wars" should be always upbeat. It's quite the opposite for the Episodes 1-3. All the Jedi are going to DIE and Anakin's going to be the one to kill them (mostly). Nothing upbeat there. For upbeat, see Episodes 4-6.
It's still a story. Lucas just ingratiated us with more explosions. Makes sense--when Yoda has to open up a can of whoopass in a SW movie, you KNOW things are getting bad for the good guys.
Good comments. Again, I was stretching my presumptions of VPC/Windows, so thanks for clarifying.
It took Connectix three versions to get the Mac version to speed up significantly. VPC/Windows is still new in comparison to its counterparts, so it's a good chance that it's performance will, soon, improve. It HAS to, with all the speed changes on newer hardware.
It's strange that Apple struggles with universal access now. The handicapped abilities found in earlier versions of Mac OS were industry-leading, long before Windows showed up. Two features, Sticky Keys and CloseView (I think that was its name) took care of users unable to use a mouse or with vision issues.
Apple will get a solution--and, if they are in their usual form, a solution that's elegant. Microsoft sometimes makes nice innovations like contextual menus (from right-clicks, although I bet that's stolen from three-button UNIX), but trying to activate and access these features would make Rube Goldberg cry. Apple tends to make switching a feature on easier.
I think Apple had to pick what was important when setting up Mac OS X, and while there are universal access features, they needed to concentrate on getting the OS code working. With Jaguar, they can concentrate on the cool features and important details. Don't know if this will make a difference on the Hill.
Anybody care to write a virus that wipes out corruption in government?
...unless you talk only about emulators for x86 (the topic wasn't too clear about this.)
For most of the x86 UNIX world, VMWare and Bochs are surely helpful. As a Virtual PC for Mac user, I was dubious about the introduction of VPC for Windows until I realized that trying to install multiple versions of OSes on x86 hardware is a pain in the ass at best. VPC should run very nicely on these systems since the emulation may be less. Unlike VPC/Mac, VPC/Windows shouldn't have to translate the processor instructions from Intel Pentium II to PowerPC G3 instructions, but just shove them at the actual processor.
VPC/Mac has one thing going over its x86 cousins: it truly emulates a PC, not just an environment rich enough for an OS to operate. I'm starting to speak out of the side of my mouth, not having to use VMWare or Bochs, but there's something to be said of emulation of a whole machine on hardware that was not intended to process these kind of instructions.
It's not the same, and is not meshed in the the Mac OS as found on Windows.
Practically all VBA components in Office for Mac do not respond in the same way. That's why Mac OS is immune from VBScript and ActiveX attacks--the virus writers either do not have the technical ability to create a virus which can execute on Mac OS, or there's not really a way to do so. Sure, this is "security through obscurity" thing going, but it IS a fact.
Code Red, Nimda, "ILOVEYOU" have no effect on Mac OS.
The last time a government body tried to choose a single computer as a standard, it caused a big stink. The body: NASA. Here's a letter from Dan Goldin, then-NASA administrator, who replied to a congressman on this issue. (http://www.reston.com/nasa/a/07.02.97.goldin.lamp son.html)
Goldin didn't institute this policy, I feel, but some other clown at a NASA agency. Today, since NASA's mandate needs more than a bunch of Windows workstations (with fault tolerances that would give a man-rated program like the Shuttle cause for abandoning spaceflight altogether since destruction of the spacecraft or launch failures would be a virtual certainty) to handle scientific programs and the like. For NASA, moving to Windows just made no sense. For Capital Hill, there is some sense for this until you realize that, in these days, standardizing on a single platform locks a company into the faults (many dangerous) which can result in data destruction or security compromises.
Someone on the Hill needs to be reminded of their own laws. Problem is that the Hill MAKES the laws, and it wouldn't be the first time where Congress does its "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" routine.
Government is normally not allowed to pick one competitor over another for anti-competitive reasons. Bidding is normally done for things where multiple standards are impractical (like fighter jets).
Standardizing on Windows for Congress puts up a big "HACK ME" sign to terrorists and other people with time to waste. UNIX isn't a panacea, but it has a hell of a better resistance to attacks and doesn't suffer from Microsoft's code insecurity and bloat.
Most importantly, Mac OS X is the only UNIX family that runs Microsoft Office, but without the virus compromising technologies like ActiveX and VBScript.
It was consistent. It should've been modded up a bit. It was funny (Iron Chef??! Wow...) It was something that would make nuns blush.
Cool. Any more profane, and you'll just turn into Andrew Dice Clay, who's neither consistent or funny.
I echo your point: in most situations in education, a computer is a simple tool, and should not be a means for pure profit. Microsoft is taking toll on the FUCKING FUTURE, the greedy motherfuckers.
I think Jordan is moving around in a Survivor-style alignment to the most-abundant version of BSD. He likely gets the advantages of working with what he knows, but also being able to show results as users play with the results in Darwin and Mac OS X.
Oh...and I think I got first post. What was that phrase...oh yeah...w00t!
I'm extremely impressed with Java on OS X. It can help a great deal to validate the usefulness Java can make in many environments if they would support Java in same capacity as Apple.
The impressive part involves how Java is integrated in the OS. EVERY Java item I've run uses OS X's native GUI elements, and well.
And what you said--Java on OS X is FAST. It works nothing like its old OS 9 implementation. If you have considered an OS X box for development, its Java support might be one more reason to buy a box.
For techs, having a Java version of an app from a third-party that's otherwise available only for Windows can help a great deal to bringing more Mac OS X boxen to the enterprise. Citrix, the makers of terminal server clients, doesn't have a Mac OS X native app, but its Java code compiles perfectly and works great. Problem solved.
Gotta agree with you. Tim Burton's "Batman" (the first movie) was a very good adaptation of the character. We as fans must remember that Hollywood is full of people who want their OWN adaptations of things, and it is improbable and unlikely for EVERY SINGLE COMIC BOOK element to be present in an adaptation.
The few things that are different (the organic stuff) are small. The heart of Spidey is here, and a damned sight better than the TV show (believe me--I watched it first-run). I definitely agree on your comment about "X-Men." People aren't going to buy the use of the costumes of the comic books because they were too campy. Some costumes, like Superman's and Batman's, weren't changed that much from their comic book versions (which have changed a lot over the years, too). Spidey's costume is quite acceptable.
People have complained about how Spidey moves. For cryin' out loud--he's now a MUTANT. How slow do you think Spidey has to be so he won't get shot? In a comic book, you don't have a perception of speed but your own. This movie has Raimi's, and again, it's acceptable enough.
And to add on to this thread's note: Don't spend your money and you won't need to complain. The comic will live, with all its fanboys and its canon. Not even the WB animated series of heroes is perfect or canon, but it is enjoyable, and that is what it's all about.
Apple didn't stop using SCSI as standard equipment because of its speed. They used it in their Macs for YEARS because of better speeds than any drives of the time. Apple chose IDE later (when Job returned) for reasons of cost, just as PC makers do. Removing SCSI as standard brought down Mac prices by a few hundred dollars.
For general daily use, and because of recent advances in IDE, there was no advantage to using SCSI as standard any longer for Apple.
However, SCSI, particularly the LVD (SCSI-3) will SMOKE any hard drive interface today, which is why Apple still equips various SCSI configs on build-to-order workstations and their Server models.
FireWire (1394) is theoretically as fast as SCSI-3, but few people can afford a true FireWire drive with genuine FW controllers (earlier FW drives were some IDE or SCSI to FW translator or used slow drives on a FW interface).
Apple is overdue to upgrade their logic boards (motherboards) to the faster buses found in the best PC boards now, so there should be improvements in their performance for that platform in the coming months.
Good point--cool as the Voltron lionbot was, the Robeasts were getting a little tiresome. Only in a special where both Voltrons combined forces to mop up the universe did things really get interesting! A great scene from that special was when the two black-haired leaders of the two bots where competing in pistol target practice. Members from both teams became bored watching because neither of them missed.
Yeah...I remember the two Optimus Prime returns, too. Now that you define the "second half" episodes--yeah, those were pretty good. It was interesting on how they had Spike grow up--that's something you never saw in typical USA animation.
Like most American animation (which we call "cartoons") Transformer storylines weren't all that deep. One particular thread that was pretty cool involved the last fight between the Autobots and Decepticons, particularly when the Autobot leader, Optimus Prime, "dies," and Megatron is transformed by some planet-sized robot (Omicron?). The storyline advances a bit to the figure where a Prime successor has to deal with Galvatron, a crazier, more powerful version of Megatron.
Sure, it was a little reaching, but for the time (pre-"Batman:TAS", which I consider the start of the American animation renaissance where storyline and animation quality began anime-like improvements) Transformers was pretty good. Its animation was better than many other shops. However, Batman:TAS and other WB shows ("Justice League" being the most recent) is, in my opinion, good American animation that has matured and doesn't insult young or old. Imagine a Transformers show directed by Paul Dini...
Mind you, I was watching this stuff first-run in my latter years of COLLEGE, so not only am I old and still remember this stuff, but I would still pick the series Voltron (I prefer the Lion Robot over the Car Robot) over Transformers any day. I would recommend Transformers to my son for some early-years robot geek action since I think he's a little young to handle Dad's obsession with BattleBots.
And don't get me started about that pesky Sabon and his Power Ranger crap that stole ideas for both Transformers and Voltron, and even the "G-Force" old anime. Ugh.
Slashdot Mirror
A great link on Jedi arrogance in this same series of articles can be found at this link.
This article reminds me of a series of articles found on Space.com called The Phantom Heresies, a collection of speculation on why things were in Star Wars. (Because these links are fairly old, you may have to scrounge around--use Google.)
The link above discusses the powers and the arrogance of the Jedi, and why they had it coming. The cool part for me about these articles was that they reflected my views after watching The Phantom Menace after watching how mortibund both Jedi Council and Senate were in comparison to the efficient manipulations of Darth Sidious in TFM.
Was the Empire a better system? I think that a gilded cage is a cage, no matter how informative or high-class the reading material is that covers the bottom of my cage. I would side with the Rebels, lightsaber in hand if I were a Jedi.
So funny!
Reminds me of PlanetDiablo's Wacky Item Database.
Don't be so presumptuous. The fact that I mentioned the Rogers Report means that I know of this and many more reasons why Challenger met its fate. Cold weather only accelerated the failure; the booster joints were INHERENTLY FLAWED and could've breached (I believe, HAD breeched a bit in one earlier launch) in warmer weather. NASA only dodged bullets until they intentionally shot themselves by launching at freezing temps.
My comment on STA-099 was not really related to the point I made. You DO realize that, right?
I don't believe NASA is actually buying things for use on actual Shuttle hardware, either. However, this reminds me of thinking which got NASA in big, big trouble, and left seven astronauts very, very dead.
Part of the conclusions of the Rogers Investigation of the Challenger disaster discovered that NASA was severely underfunded for Shuttle flight hardware, requiring them to cannabalize parts between Shuttles to keep them operating. The shuttle Enterprise (a test vehicle that never made it to space) certainly has no flight hardware to speak of as it was removed for use on actual flying orbiters.
Why would NASA, an agency that should be using cutting-edge technologies in its missions, want old hardware for ANYTHING? (I know, I know--read the article...this is a knee-jerk post.)
Some food for thought that's a little off-topic: shuttle Enterprise was supposed to be refit for space flight, but engineers found it would be more expensive to refit than to take a spare orbiter fuselage used for structural tests: STA-099.
STA-099 was renamed Challenger. If it weren't for cost cutting, it would've been a nastier history, particularly to naval historians, WWII and "Star Trek" fans, to hear instead that a ship named Enterprise was destroyed on 1/28/86.
Hear, hear!
If you want art, go to the freakin' Googenheim. If you want something to talk about (that's usually fun) go see Star Wars--any one of them.
Even "Phantom Menace" is enjoyable compared to pieces of celluoid like "Mullholland Drive." It wasn't a bad movie, but then I don't want to have to read Cliff's Notes before seeing it.
Honestly, I still see the saber duel in TFM as Pretty Damned Cool.
It should be noted that:
1) Most critics from popular mags like Entertainment Weekly probably weren't even BORN when the original Star Wars movie showed up.
2) Those same critics (whose reviews I've read a lot of) seem to believe that "Star Wars" should be always upbeat. It's quite the opposite for the Episodes 1-3. All the Jedi are going to DIE and Anakin's going to be the one to kill them (mostly). Nothing upbeat there. For upbeat, see Episodes 4-6.
It's still a story. Lucas just ingratiated us with more explosions. Makes sense--when Yoda has to open up a can of whoopass in a SW movie, you KNOW things are getting bad for the good guys.
Good comments. Again, I was stretching my presumptions of VPC/Windows, so thanks for clarifying.
It took Connectix three versions to get the Mac version to speed up significantly. VPC/Windows is still new in comparison to its counterparts, so it's a good chance that it's performance will, soon, improve. It HAS to, with all the speed changes on newer hardware.
It's strange that Apple struggles with universal access now. The handicapped abilities found in earlier versions of Mac OS were industry-leading, long before Windows showed up. Two features, Sticky Keys and CloseView (I think that was its name) took care of users unable to use a mouse or with vision issues.
Apple will get a solution--and, if they are in their usual form, a solution that's elegant. Microsoft sometimes makes nice innovations like contextual menus (from right-clicks, although I bet that's stolen from three-button UNIX), but trying to activate and access these features would make Rube Goldberg cry. Apple tends to make switching a feature on easier.
I think Apple had to pick what was important when setting up Mac OS X, and while there are universal access features, they needed to concentrate on getting the OS code working. With Jaguar, they can concentrate on the cool features and important details. Don't know if this will make a difference on the Hill.
Anybody care to write a virus that wipes out corruption in government?
...unless you talk only about emulators for x86 (the topic wasn't too clear about this.)
For most of the x86 UNIX world, VMWare and Bochs are surely helpful. As a Virtual PC for Mac user, I was dubious about the introduction of VPC for Windows until I realized that trying to install multiple versions of OSes on x86 hardware is a pain in the ass at best. VPC should run very nicely on these systems since the emulation may be less. Unlike VPC/Mac, VPC/Windows shouldn't have to translate the processor instructions from Intel Pentium II to PowerPC G3 instructions, but just shove them at the actual processor.
VPC/Mac has one thing going over its x86 cousins: it truly emulates a PC, not just an environment rich enough for an OS to operate. I'm starting to speak out of the side of my mouth, not having to use VMWare or Bochs, but there's something to be said of emulation of a whole machine on hardware that was not intended to process these kind of instructions.
It's not the same, and is not meshed in the the Mac OS as found on Windows.
Practically all VBA components in Office for Mac do not respond in the same way. That's why Mac OS is immune from VBScript and ActiveX attacks--the virus writers either do not have the technical ability to create a virus which can execute on Mac OS, or there's not really a way to do so. Sure, this is "security through obscurity" thing going, but it IS a fact.
Code Red, Nimda, "ILOVEYOU" have no effect on Mac OS.
The last time a government body tried to choose a single computer as a standard, it caused a big stink. The body: NASA. Here's a letter from Dan Goldin, then-NASA administrator, who replied to a congressman on this issue. (http://www.reston.com/nasa/a/07.02.97.goldin.lamp son.html)
Goldin didn't institute this policy, I feel, but some other clown at a NASA agency. Today, since NASA's mandate needs more than a bunch of Windows workstations (with fault tolerances that would give a man-rated program like the Shuttle cause for abandoning spaceflight altogether since destruction of the spacecraft or launch failures would be a virtual certainty) to handle scientific programs and the like. For NASA, moving to Windows just made no sense. For Capital Hill, there is some sense for this until you realize that, in these days, standardizing on a single platform locks a company into the faults (many dangerous) which can result in data destruction or security compromises.
Someone on the Hill needs to be reminded of their own laws. Problem is that the Hill MAKES the laws, and it wouldn't be the first time where Congress does its "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" routine.
Government is normally not allowed to pick one competitor over another for anti-competitive reasons. Bidding is normally done for things where multiple standards are impractical (like fighter jets).
Standardizing on Windows for Congress puts up a big "HACK ME" sign to terrorists and other people with time to waste. UNIX isn't a panacea, but it has a hell of a better resistance to attacks and doesn't suffer from Microsoft's code insecurity and bloat.
Most importantly, Mac OS X is the only UNIX family that runs Microsoft Office, but without the virus compromising technologies like ActiveX and VBScript.
I can say a few things about your rant.
It was consistent.
It should've been modded up a bit.
It was funny (Iron Chef??! Wow...)
It was something that would make nuns blush.
Cool. Any more profane, and you'll just turn into Andrew Dice Clay, who's neither consistent or funny.
I echo your point: in most situations in education, a computer is a simple tool, and should not be a means for pure profit. Microsoft is taking toll on the FUCKING FUTURE, the greedy motherfuckers.
Wow. Now I'm getting profane. I like it.
That means that hackers would have as much success in hacking FreeBSD or other BSDs, or even Linux.
Don't really how often that happens, but it doesn't sound like idiots can hack *nixes very often.
Well, Jordan is an Apple employee, too. So he gets paid to have fun and contribute to the FreeBSD family. A nice arrangement.
Seems that the w00ts go to you for being first poster...
I think Jordan is moving around in a Survivor-style alignment to the most-abundant version of BSD. He likely gets the advantages of working with what he knows, but also being able to show results as users play with the results in Darwin and Mac OS X.
Oh...and I think I got first post. What was that phrase...oh yeah...w00t!
I'm extremely impressed with Java on OS X. It can help a great deal to validate the usefulness Java can make in many environments if they would support Java in same capacity as Apple.
The impressive part involves how Java is integrated in the OS. EVERY Java item I've run uses OS X's native GUI elements, and well.
And what you said--Java on OS X is FAST. It works nothing like its old OS 9 implementation. If you have considered an OS X box for development, its Java support might be one more reason to buy a box.
For techs, having a Java version of an app from a third-party that's otherwise available only for Windows can help a great deal to bringing more Mac OS X boxen to the enterprise. Citrix, the makers of terminal server clients, doesn't have a Mac OS X native app, but its Java code compiles perfectly and works great. Problem solved.
Gotta agree with you. Tim Burton's "Batman" (the first movie) was a very good adaptation of the character. We as fans must remember that Hollywood is full of people who want their OWN adaptations of things, and it is improbable and unlikely for EVERY SINGLE COMIC BOOK element to be present in an adaptation.
The few things that are different (the organic stuff) are small. The heart of Spidey is here, and a damned sight better than the TV show (believe me--I watched it first-run). I definitely agree on your comment about "X-Men." People aren't going to buy the use of the costumes of the comic books because they were too campy. Some costumes, like Superman's and Batman's, weren't changed that much from their comic book versions (which have changed a lot over the years, too). Spidey's costume is quite acceptable.
People have complained about how Spidey moves. For cryin' out loud--he's now a MUTANT. How slow do you think Spidey has to be so he won't get shot? In a comic book, you don't have a perception of speed but your own. This movie has Raimi's, and again, it's acceptable enough.
And to add on to this thread's note: Don't spend your money and you won't need to complain. The comic will live, with all its fanboys and its canon. Not even the WB animated series of heroes is perfect or canon, but it is enjoyable, and that is what it's all about.
Au contraire.
Apple didn't stop using SCSI as standard equipment because of its speed. They used it in their Macs for YEARS because of better speeds than any drives of the time. Apple chose IDE later (when Job returned) for reasons of cost, just as PC makers do. Removing SCSI as standard brought down Mac prices by a few hundred dollars.
For general daily use, and because of recent advances in IDE, there was no advantage to using SCSI as standard any longer for Apple.
However, SCSI, particularly the LVD (SCSI-3) will SMOKE any hard drive interface today, which is why Apple still equips various SCSI configs on build-to-order workstations and their Server models.
FireWire (1394) is theoretically as fast as SCSI-3, but few people can afford a true FireWire drive with genuine FW controllers (earlier FW drives were some IDE or SCSI to FW translator or used slow drives on a FW interface).
Apple is overdue to upgrade their logic boards (motherboards) to the faster buses found in the best PC boards now, so there should be improvements in their performance for that platform in the coming months.
And I'm sure that, as a child, you might have said, "Girls?? Ewww!!!"
People change with the times and, in the case of Jobs, with business. In NeXT's time, X did suck, but it got better.
"Wireless cable." An oxymoron with emphasis on "moron."
Hm. What's next? Seedless corn? Genuine baby oil?
For those of us who liked another show, Voltron, visit this link for a start on more about the show's Japanese origins:
http://www.arus.org/voltron/anime.html
"Wasn't it Gargoyles that started the animation ren in America?"
I wouldn't think so. Batman:TAS arrived around 1992. Gargoyles didn't show up until around 1998.
Good point--cool as the Voltron lionbot was, the Robeasts were getting a little tiresome. Only in a special where both Voltrons combined forces to mop up the universe did things really get interesting! A great scene from that special was when the two black-haired leaders of the two bots where competing in pistol target practice. Members from both teams became bored watching because neither of them missed.
Yeah...I remember the two Optimus Prime returns, too. Now that you define the "second half" episodes--yeah, those were pretty good. It was interesting on how they had Spike grow up--that's something you never saw in typical USA animation.
Like most American animation (which we call "cartoons") Transformer storylines weren't all that deep. One particular thread that was pretty cool involved the last fight between the Autobots and Decepticons, particularly when the Autobot leader, Optimus Prime, "dies," and Megatron is transformed by some planet-sized robot (Omicron?). The storyline advances a bit to the figure where a Prime successor has to deal with Galvatron, a crazier, more powerful version of Megatron.
Sure, it was a little reaching, but for the time (pre-"Batman:TAS", which I consider the start of the American animation renaissance where storyline and animation quality began anime-like improvements) Transformers was pretty good. Its animation was better than many other shops. However, Batman:TAS and other WB shows ("Justice League" being the most recent) is, in my opinion, good American animation that has matured and doesn't insult young or old. Imagine a Transformers show directed by Paul Dini...
Mind you, I was watching this stuff first-run in my latter years of COLLEGE, so not only am I old and still remember this stuff, but I would still pick the series Voltron (I prefer the Lion Robot over the Car Robot) over Transformers any day. I would recommend Transformers to my son for some early-years robot geek action since I think he's a little young to handle Dad's obsession with BattleBots.
And don't get me started about that pesky Sabon and his Power Ranger crap that stole ideas for both Transformers and Voltron, and even the "G-Force" old anime. Ugh.