So if I'm reading this right, Dvorak is saying that (a) O'Gara was
wrong in what she was writing, (b) wrong in doing what she did and
(c) just doing it to drudge (no pun intended) up a few more pageviews,
and that (d) the "Linux community" was in the wrong (or, better yet, had
"imploded" and turned into "paranoid Amiga user"s) for kicking her and her
half-assed reporting to the curb.
Okay, yeah, I think I see your point here, John:
We should be more understanding
towards useless "journalism" and media flamebaiting, because without those
practices you might actually have to come up with something insightful
or worthwhile every week to fill out your column and earn page hits.
Hey, I can see where
you're coming from -- that'd take legwork, insight and generally
staying on top of
the industry. I imagine that's hard work, and trust me: I'm right there
with you on the "I don't like hard work" page.
BTW, congrats on getting your flamebait article on the front
page of Slashdot. It's
good to know that *some* "journalists" are still able to use
(a) and (b) successfully to drum up (c). It's gotta be a good feeling
to walk into your boss's office at review time and wave around yet
another spike in ad impressions courtesy of the Slashdot crowd -- I
hope you're appreciative enough to include Zonk on your Christmas card
list!
Anyhow, hope preparing your standard self-righteous indignation column
for when (d) inevitably rolls around is going well. Aw, who am I kidding, I
know you're an old pro -- I'm sure you were already writing that one when
you handed in this last article to your editor.
A little trolling, and two columns done and in the bank. Must be a nice
life.
So now that some of the hype has settled with regards to the PSP:
Has anyone had a chance to compare the PSP with the other gaming systems out
there? I'm seriously considering picking up *something* to occupy my attention
on the flights I'm going to start taking over the next couple of months (somehow
I've fallen into the business-travel trap).
I'd like to get a decent system. The ability to watch movies is a big draw, but
obviously nothing's out in Sony's proprietary format and I imagine I'd need one
hell of a memory stick to watch anything from one, and it hurts my black little
soul to think seriously about rewarding Sony for their shitty proprietary memory
format.
Played a little bit of Metroid on the Nintendo DS and it was okay. Not so sure
I liken the approach that much -- I suspect that touchscreen would get scratched
all to hell eventually like the screen on my Palm V did.
I've browsed around the web a bit but haven't been able to find a comparison or
even a real decent set of reviews from anywhere I'd trust (note to most gaming
websites: Yeah, we've figured out you're whores. The ads for the product on
the same page as the review was a tip-off).
Opinions/Assistance? Is it even worth it, or should I just buy a nice book and
charge up my iPod?
The team scrapped foam insulation in favor of a redundant Thermal Protection System that includes a backed-up carbon-carbon heat shield.
I read TFA, trollboy. As far as I can tell, this means that they're using the same sort of tiles that are on the bottom of the current shuttle, except in a double layer.
I admit I could be wrong, but it sure looks like the thing's meant to re-enter on it's belly...
Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement
to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the
use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven
heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow?
What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule
if it's not necessarily reusable?
How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO
missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important
ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that
you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars
instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as
just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of
Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be
the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?
And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to
get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the
first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the
first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars?
Did we miss something the last time around?
Irony is: Complaining about the success of George Lucas by posting a story to a popular website about his new movie, thus providing free publicity. I wish the editors would start greenlighting stories about how badly Skyshadow sucks for having a website where he scores huge ad revenu....
I read down to the point where someone posted the bit where Marvin reads God's Last Message to his Creation and just busted out crying like a little kid. I think I scared my wife since I am normally extremely difficult to upset -- I just didn't know how to explain to her the sense of loss I felt. I mean, here I am an adult man bawling into my hands because one of my favorite authors had died. It was really strange.
In an unrelated sidenote, I have the words "Don't Panic" inscribed in large, helpful letters on the inside of my wedding ring. I've found it exceptionally good advice.
Quoth the MSNBC article:
...the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft
propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security
So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential
more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that
have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?
Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.
The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.
This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.
This just in: Bush Jr. engages in petty retribution. Film at 11.
Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an
act
of treason to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning
the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq.
Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?
Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies,
deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been
about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying
for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that
the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted
little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.
FYI, your link's broken so I don't know if you were being serious/sarcastic/funny with that 9-11 comment.
Let's say "serious", though: It always amazes me how careless many companies are with their customers' personal data. Data left on insecure public servers, data loaded onto laptops or PDAs, data moved around in unencrypted formats, unerased hard drives put in the trash or shipped to recyclers, etc...
If you read the details of these data loss stories, you'll see that in 99.99% of the cases we *know* how to avoid these losses. There's nothing too incredibly new about maintaining data security. The same concepts that we used 15 years ago still apply today -- training your staff to resist social engineering, maintaining discipline in regards to data use, having sound policy in regards to physical security (including the trash, kids!) and using a little freakin' common sense.
So let me suggest *again* that the reason that these companies lose data is not because they *cannot* avoid it, but because they don't give two shits about it since there are exactly zero penalties for losing other people's personal data. I guarantee you that if the CEO had to sign a Sarbanes-Oxley style document each year certifying data integrity, you'd see these stories once in a blue moon. Why? Because when the higher-ups have some skin in the game, suddenly you start seeing attention paid and resources dedicated.
Until there's a measurable penalty for losing data, most companies are just going to continue losing it. After all, what do they care -- it's your data, not theirs.
Once again, let me suggest that it may be time to legislate significant penalties for companies and/or individuals who are careless with personal data.
Because going back to the moon, designing the techniques for living there, setting up an operation to mine and manufacture things there would be very, very expensive and take a very, *very* long time. NASA's estimate put it at about $450 billion back in the early 90's when they did the 90 Day Report.
Notice how we're not doing that? If you want to get to Mars, you need an approach which can get you to Mars relatively quickly and for a reasonable budget.
Besides, if you want to build things for Mars, you should build them on Mars. There isn't a big difference in the amount of delta-v needed to get to Mars vs. get to the moon, and given that Mars is a much more hospitable place to live and work, it makes more sense to skip the moon and develop the sort of infrastructure you're envisioning there.
The moon will never be a colony. Water is very scarce, there's intense solar radiation (no atmosphere) so you'd have to live deep underground and growing food would be extremely tough.
The best you can hope for on the moon is a base, not a colony. And the only real reason to have a base there (other than being able to say "we have a moon base") is to mine H3. If you want a great spot for a telescope, screw the moon -- try putting it out between Jupiter and Saturn.
It's important to remember that the #1 problem with getting to Mars is getting the funding ("No bucks, no Buck Rogers", after all). This means that the Mars mission which will succeed is the one that gets us to Mars fast and cheap. Lunar missions and the development that accompany them don't fit into that paradigm.
NASA has limited resources. They should use those resources for goals which have the greatest potential for exploration and benefit. As the second-most habitable place in our solar system, I think Mars fits that bill.
The Mars Direct plan shows that a significant Mars mission can be launched from earth directly using existing technology and mostly off-the-shelf parts for a small fraction of the price of any plan involving moon missions or on-orbit assembly.
So we need to go to the moon why again? IMO, the only possible reason to go back there as part of a Mars mission would be to keep all the moon experts at NASA happy...
Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars, and with only 1/6 the gravity and no atmosphere, it's easy to get those materials into orbit.
"Skipping" the moon is sheer lunacy (pardon the pun). Once established, the Moon Base will py for itself countless times over.
No offense, but that's complete horseshit.
What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies. It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in. Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there. If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment.
The moon base was included in NASA's 90 Day Report because it was part of a gigantic wishlist of projects that NASA wanted funding for. Space stations, moon bases, new vehicles, giant interplanetary ships, space girls in tin foil bikinis, etc. That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then.
The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth. Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good location for and establishing a base.
You won't get to Mars by making stupid, wasteful moves, and a moon base is just that.
B5 was a reasonably entertaining show, but IMO it was critically flawed because of the extreme "cringe factor" that worked its way in, especially in the later episodes.
C'mon, we're talking about a series where two advanced races spend thousands of years and unimaginable amounts of effort to influence the evolution of the galaxy only to suddenly pack up and leave because, at the denoumont of the entire serious, Bruce Boxleitner yells "Get the hell out of our galaxy!". The cheese was too thick to get past. "As my grandfather used to say, 'cool!'"...
B5 was better than Enterprise and Voyager and, IMO, it was the reason that DS9 was forced to become watchible in its last couple of seasons. But overall (and still, obviously, in my opinion), it was still a flawed show in a way that BSG is not (at least, not yet).
Jesus, this is horrible news. Seriously, how could something like this happen?
I mean, what could the network possibly be thinking? Don't they
understand that they're cancelling the most original, innovative
and entertaining Sci Fi show of this generation? How can they
cancel a show with such a devoted following? How can they turn
their backs on well-developed characters with their flaws and
nuances? What about the great staging and the
inspired writing? How can they ignore such incredible potential?
What about the tremendous buzz behind the show? What about the
devoted legions of fans who are careful to never miss an episode?
The ratings on this have to be through the roof -- everyone I know
watches it religiously!
Christ, I know people who went out and got TiVO just so they could start going
out on Friday nights again without chancing setting their cheap VCRs wrong and
missing it!
I mean, I'm upset, I'm angry and most of all I'm just plain astonished.
I just can't get my head around this. I mean really, it just doesn't
compute. I think the SciFi network ought to be ashamed of themselv...
(whispering, pause)
Oh, wait, they cancelled Enterprise?!? Just 100% for sure this time?
Pft, well duh!
Gee, you really had to be Miss Cleo to see that one coming. All the attention
this was getting, I just figured that they must have cancelled
Battlestar Galactica! Heh, oh Jesus, don't scare me like that! Heh, my
hands are still shaking, man, you freaked me out! Whew...
C'mon, are you serious? You mean there were actually people willing to
pay to see more of this crap? Like, real money? C'mon! An online
petition with two signatures I might buy, but *pay*? Riiight....
Cancelling Enterprise... Yeah, whatever. Tragedy for all three fans
of the series, I'm sure. Heh, pft... "Save Enterprise". Yeah, let me
get right on that! What will the galaxy do without the heroics of
Captain Archer, inspiration to mildly retarded people everywhere?
What about all the memorable characters we know and love, like... er..
You know, hick-sounding white guy! Or british-sounding white guy?
Or the chick in with the big boobies? (okay, 100% seriously: I will miss
those boobies, but then again there's always the internet).
LOL, "Save Enterprise". Ooh! We got to save Enterprise! Because, you know,
it's, um, like a TV show with spaceships or something. Heh.
Whew.
Hey, is it July yet? Man, I couldn't believe that
cliffhanger -- I tell ya, I haven't been genuinely surprised by a TV
show in ages...
Don't worry! IBM has a crack team of their consultants working on the web server issue right now.
If these guys are half as efficiant and technically adept as the ones they sent to my place of employment, I can assure you that the web server will be back online within six months for well under $15 million (costs may increase).
Seriously, in my experience the only thing your average IBM consultant is good at is eating lunch. And some of them even manage to deliver that late and over-budget.
IBM has been pursuing this for a couple of years now. I mean sure, their consultants pushed their own technology, but they were always willing to push it to the side in a heartbeat if they thought it would get them a single penny more. The fact that this is news in 2005 is a little bizarre.
Of course, if IBM has decided to full-on push their consultants, it might help them to find a few who aren't complete morons. Based on my experience, IBM is well on their way to becoming the new Anderson.
IMO, respect is a very basic attribute of any human society. It's a method of identifying those people who can generally be relied on to do the right thing for the right reasons, which comes in handy when a raiding party shows up outside the gate and somebody has to figure out a solution.
This carries on into the professional world, just not in the way the OP thinks. See, he's looking at "respect" in terms of "come feed my ego with flattery and ass-kissing", which is probably why he's getting less and less respect as time goes on. Assuming I'm correct, the overall concept of "respect" continues to work by identifying him as someone who doesn't really deserve it.
Let me start by saying that, odds are, you get the respect you deserve.
Please don't confuse this respect with mugging for compliments, expecting your
coworkers/managers to thank you in their prayers or any of the BS that,
reading between the lines of this topic, I get the
sense the OP was *really* looking for. If you're looking for people to kiss
your ass all day, go get an MBA and become a petty mid-level manager someplace.
Granted there are ups and downs in the industry at large and variations from
employer to employer, but by far the most significant factor in determining
the level of respect people show you at work is your own conduct.
If you've noticed that the people at work suddenly seem to respect you less,
IMO the first place you need to look is at your own conduct. Are you really working
and behaving in a way that earns and demands respect? Overall, this shakes
out into two basic keys:
1. Earn respect. Know your stuff,
be willing to help people out and be someone that people can stand.
Own your responsibilities. At the same time, don't try to be an expert in matters
you don't really understand and don't try to force your big nose into other
peoples' work.
Be that guy that people want to work with and want on their team.
It's perpetually amazing to me that such a high percentage of people in the
professional world (not just geeks) fall down on one or more of these three
and then act shocked when people hate dealing with them because they're either
incompetent or impossible to work with (which amounts to more or less the
same thing).
2. Demand respect. There are always going to be people who try to make you do
something or bypass you or whatever by running over or around you. Don't stand
for this -- be professional, be polite and (if it's someone up the foodchain from
you) remember your place, but leave it crystal clear that in matters where
you hold responsibility, you will not be cut out and you will not be strongarmed.
This is an attitude, and it's not "respect mah authoritah!" attitude that
I see a lot from geeks.
Competence and confidence are the keys to garnering and maintaining
the respect of your coworkers. Really, they're the keys to success at life in
general.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, yeah, I think I see your point here, John:
We should be more understanding towards useless "journalism" and media flamebaiting, because without those practices you might actually have to come up with something insightful or worthwhile every week to fill out your column and earn page hits. Hey, I can see where you're coming from -- that'd take legwork, insight and generally staying on top of the industry. I imagine that's hard work, and trust me: I'm right there with you on the "I don't like hard work" page.
BTW, congrats on getting your flamebait article on the front page of Slashdot. It's good to know that *some* "journalists" are still able to use (a) and (b) successfully to drum up (c). It's gotta be a good feeling to walk into your boss's office at review time and wave around yet another spike in ad impressions courtesy of the Slashdot crowd -- I hope you're appreciative enough to include Zonk on your Christmas card list!
Anyhow, hope preparing your standard self-righteous indignation column for when (d) inevitably rolls around is going well. Aw, who am I kidding, I know you're an old pro -- I'm sure you were already writing that one when you handed in this last article to your editor.
A little trolling, and two columns done and in the bank. Must be a nice life.
Has anyone had a chance to compare the PSP with the other gaming systems out there? I'm seriously considering picking up *something* to occupy my attention on the flights I'm going to start taking over the next couple of months (somehow I've fallen into the business-travel trap).
I'd like to get a decent system. The ability to watch movies is a big draw, but obviously nothing's out in Sony's proprietary format and I imagine I'd need one hell of a memory stick to watch anything from one, and it hurts my black little soul to think seriously about rewarding Sony for their shitty proprietary memory format.
Played a little bit of Metroid on the Nintendo DS and it was okay. Not so sure I liken the approach that much -- I suspect that touchscreen would get scratched all to hell eventually like the screen on my Palm V did.
I've browsed around the web a bit but haven't been able to find a comparison or even a real decent set of reviews from anywhere I'd trust (note to most gaming websites: Yeah, we've figured out you're whores. The ads for the product on the same page as the review was a tip-off).
Opinions/Assistance? Is it even worth it, or should I just buy a nice book and charge up my iPod?
I read TFA, trollboy. As far as I can tell, this means that they're using the same sort of tiles that are on the bottom of the current shuttle, except in a double layer.
I admit I could be wrong, but it sure looks like the thing's meant to re-enter on it's belly...
Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?
How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?
And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?
In short: Just what, exactly, is going on here?
(pauses, thinks)
Guys, give me twenty minutes.
I read down to the point where someone posted the bit where Marvin reads God's Last Message to his Creation and just busted out crying like a little kid. I think I scared my wife since I am normally extremely difficult to upset -- I just didn't know how to explain to her the sense of loss I felt. I mean, here I am an adult man bawling into my hands because one of my favorite authors had died. It was really strange.
In an unrelated sidenote, I have the words "Don't Panic" inscribed in large, helpful letters on the inside of my wedding ring. I've found it exceptionally good advice.
So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?
What a stroke of luck!
No crime, eh? I'm sure that'll come as a relief to those journalists who are on their way to prison (while Novak, oddly enough, stays free...)
The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.
This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.
The sad thing is that you can't seem to see this.
Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an act of treason to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq. Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?
Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.
Let's say "serious", though: It always amazes me how careless many companies are with their customers' personal data. Data left on insecure public servers, data loaded onto laptops or PDAs, data moved around in unencrypted formats, unerased hard drives put in the trash or shipped to recyclers, etc...
If you read the details of these data loss stories, you'll see that in 99.99% of the cases we *know* how to avoid these losses. There's nothing too incredibly new about maintaining data security. The same concepts that we used 15 years ago still apply today -- training your staff to resist social engineering, maintaining discipline in regards to data use, having sound policy in regards to physical security (including the trash, kids!) and using a little freakin' common sense.
So let me suggest *again* that the reason that these companies lose data is not because they *cannot* avoid it, but because they don't give two shits about it since there are exactly zero penalties for losing other people's personal data. I guarantee you that if the CEO had to sign a Sarbanes-Oxley style document each year certifying data integrity, you'd see these stories once in a blue moon. Why? Because when the higher-ups have some skin in the game, suddenly you start seeing attention paid and resources dedicated.
Until there's a measurable penalty for losing data, most companies are just going to continue losing it. After all, what do they care -- it's your data, not theirs.
Once again, let me suggest that it may be time to legislate significant penalties for companies and/or individuals who are careless with personal data.
*Very* nice. I'm stealing that one.
Because going back to the moon, designing the techniques for living there, setting up an operation to mine and manufacture things there would be very, very expensive and take a very, *very* long time. NASA's estimate put it at about $450 billion back in the early 90's when they did the 90 Day Report.
Notice how we're not doing that? If you want to get to Mars, you need an approach which can get you to Mars relatively quickly and for a reasonable budget.
Besides, if you want to build things for Mars, you should build them on Mars. There isn't a big difference in the amount of delta-v needed to get to Mars vs. get to the moon, and given that Mars is a much more hospitable place to live and work, it makes more sense to skip the moon and develop the sort of infrastructure you're envisioning there.
There is no problem with a lack of oxygen. The vacuum would kill you way before you had a chance to suffocate.
The best you can hope for on the moon is a base, not a colony. And the only real reason to have a base there (other than being able to say "we have a moon base") is to mine H3. If you want a great spot for a telescope, screw the moon -- try putting it out between Jupiter and Saturn.
It's important to remember that the #1 problem with getting to Mars is getting the funding ("No bucks, no Buck Rogers", after all). This means that the Mars mission which will succeed is the one that gets us to Mars fast and cheap. Lunar missions and the development that accompany them don't fit into that paradigm.
NASA has limited resources. They should use those resources for goals which have the greatest potential for exploration and benefit. As the second-most habitable place in our solar system, I think Mars fits that bill.
How big a ship do you think we need?
The Mars Direct plan shows that a significant Mars mission can be launched from earth directly using existing technology and mostly off-the-shelf parts for a small fraction of the price of any plan involving moon missions or on-orbit assembly.
So we need to go to the moon why again? IMO, the only possible reason to go back there as part of a Mars mission would be to keep all the moon experts at NASA happy...
"Skipping" the moon is sheer lunacy (pardon the pun). Once established, the Moon Base will py for itself countless times over.
No offense, but that's complete horseshit.
What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies. It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in. Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there. If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment.
The moon base was included in NASA's 90 Day Report because it was part of a gigantic wishlist of projects that NASA wanted funding for. Space stations, moon bases, new vehicles, giant interplanetary ships, space girls in tin foil bikinis, etc. That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then.
The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth. Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good location for and establishing a base.
You won't get to Mars by making stupid, wasteful moves, and a moon base is just that.
B5 was a reasonably entertaining show, but IMO it was critically flawed because of the extreme "cringe factor" that worked its way in, especially in the later episodes.
C'mon, we're talking about a series where two advanced races spend thousands of years and unimaginable amounts of effort to influence the evolution of the galaxy only to suddenly pack up and leave because, at the denoumont of the entire serious, Bruce Boxleitner yells "Get the hell out of our galaxy!". The cheese was too thick to get past. "As my grandfather used to say, 'cool!'"...
B5 was better than Enterprise and Voyager and, IMO, it was the reason that DS9 was forced to become watchible in its last couple of seasons. But overall (and still, obviously, in my opinion), it was still a flawed show in a way that BSG is not (at least, not yet).
I mean, what could the network possibly be thinking? Don't they understand that they're cancelling the most original, innovative and entertaining Sci Fi show of this generation? How can they cancel a show with such a devoted following? How can they turn their backs on well-developed characters with their flaws and nuances? What about the great staging and the inspired writing? How can they ignore such incredible potential?
What about the tremendous buzz behind the show? What about the devoted legions of fans who are careful to never miss an episode? The ratings on this have to be through the roof -- everyone I know watches it religiously! Christ, I know people who went out and got TiVO just so they could start going out on Friday nights again without chancing setting their cheap VCRs wrong and missing it!
I mean, I'm upset, I'm angry and most of all I'm just plain astonished. I just can't get my head around this. I mean really, it just doesn't compute. I think the SciFi network ought to be ashamed of themselv...
(whispering, pause)
Oh, wait, they cancelled Enterprise?!? Just 100% for sure this time? Pft, well duh! Gee, you really had to be Miss Cleo to see that one coming. All the attention this was getting, I just figured that they must have cancelled Battlestar Galactica! Heh, oh Jesus, don't scare me like that! Heh, my hands are still shaking, man, you freaked me out! Whew...
C'mon, are you serious? You mean there were actually people willing to pay to see more of this crap? Like, real money? C'mon! An online petition with two signatures I might buy, but *pay*? Riiight....
Cancelling Enterprise... Yeah, whatever. Tragedy for all three fans of the series, I'm sure. Heh, pft... "Save Enterprise". Yeah, let me get right on that! What will the galaxy do without the heroics of Captain Archer, inspiration to mildly retarded people everywhere? What about all the memorable characters we know and love, like... er.. You know, hick-sounding white guy! Or british-sounding white guy? Or the chick in with the big boobies? (okay, 100% seriously: I will miss those boobies, but then again there's always the internet). LOL, "Save Enterprise". Ooh! We got to save Enterprise! Because, you know, it's, um, like a TV show with spaceships or something. Heh.
Whew.
Hey, is it July yet? Man, I couldn't believe that cliffhanger -- I tell ya, I haven't been genuinely surprised by a TV show in ages...
Actually, they sent out the annoucement a couple of years ago. It just happened to make its way out of the Lotus Notes server today...
If these guys are half as efficiant and technically adept as the ones they sent to my place of employment, I can assure you that the web server will be back online within six months for well under $15 million (costs may increase).
Seriously, in my experience the only thing your average IBM consultant is good at is eating lunch. And some of them even manage to deliver that late and over-budget.
Of course, if IBM has decided to full-on push their consultants, it might help them to find a few who aren't complete morons. Based on my experience, IBM is well on their way to becoming the new Anderson.
IMO, respect is a very basic attribute of any human society. It's a method of identifying those people who can generally be relied on to do the right thing for the right reasons, which comes in handy when a raiding party shows up outside the gate and somebody has to figure out a solution.
This carries on into the professional world, just not in the way the OP thinks. See, he's looking at "respect" in terms of "come feed my ego with flattery and ass-kissing", which is probably why he's getting less and less respect as time goes on. Assuming I'm correct, the overall concept of "respect" continues to work by identifying him as someone who doesn't really deserve it.
Granted there are ups and downs in the industry at large and variations from employer to employer, but by far the most significant factor in determining the level of respect people show you at work is your own conduct. If you've noticed that the people at work suddenly seem to respect you less, IMO the first place you need to look is at your own conduct. Are you really working and behaving in a way that earns and demands respect? Overall, this shakes out into two basic keys:
1. Earn respect. Know your stuff, be willing to help people out and be someone that people can stand. Own your responsibilities. At the same time, don't try to be an expert in matters you don't really understand and don't try to force your big nose into other peoples' work. Be that guy that people want to work with and want on their team. It's perpetually amazing to me that such a high percentage of people in the professional world (not just geeks) fall down on one or more of these three and then act shocked when people hate dealing with them because they're either incompetent or impossible to work with (which amounts to more or less the same thing).
2. Demand respect. There are always going to be people who try to make you do something or bypass you or whatever by running over or around you. Don't stand for this -- be professional, be polite and (if it's someone up the foodchain from you) remember your place, but leave it crystal clear that in matters where you hold responsibility, you will not be cut out and you will not be strongarmed. This is an attitude, and it's not "respect mah authoritah!" attitude that I see a lot from geeks.
Competence and confidence are the keys to garnering and maintaining the respect of your coworkers. Really, they're the keys to success at life in general.