I got flamed/modded down a while ago for voicing severe dissatifaction with the Wesley character. My exact argument was along the line of:
Every episode I saw had that gay kid inventing some new contraption that used purely experimental or hypothetical physics to save everyone's ass.
Some people took extreme offense at that. I also never cared for the Next Generation series anyhow, so I only saw a few shows. But each one was the same ending.
And now I know Wil Wheaton (ala imdb.com), the actor who played Wesley, is a/. reader, so some here are friends with him, and were offended for him. I don't think he ever replied, discretion being the better part of valor and all. As far as the 'gay' reference, watching the few episodes just reminded me of seeing Who's the Boss in the '80s, and you could tell that the actor who played Jonathon was gay. Don't know if Mr. Wheaton is gay, but it sure seemed that way in the show. That wasn't why I hated the series, but refering to it sure pissed off a lot of people. I just thought the show was terrible, and the original was much better.
So while I didn't like Wesley Crusher because the show used him as a crutch, I loved Jar Jar Binks. He is just so stupidly annoying, how can you not like him? And with C-3PO's scenes being limited, they needed someone that could fill in as the stupidly annoying character.
The article states: "The crew of the Enterprise goes back to an earlier century on Earth, to make sure that history happens as it should ("S.T. IV: The Voyage Home"; "S.T. VIII: First Contact")."
I must have seen the alternate version of number 4, because I swear they went back in time to capture two whales and bring them to their present time. Nothing about ending whaling, preventing whales from becoming extinct, bringing all the whales to the future. By the end of the movie, there are exactly two whales in the oceans of Earth, and little hope for their re-populating. While it was simply an eco-feel-good movie, it wasn't a fix-history movie.
Funny line about using 'LSD' in college though.;^)
Hell, I still can't remember the proper way to format a link, not being a webpage-design type guy. I always have to use "View Source", then copy a reference line, paste it in my response, overwrite the web page address and text areas, and make sure I preview it.
That's why I don't post links too often myself. Of course, if I made more links, I would remember it easier, but until then....
At least it isn't the Quantum Bigfoot name that got resurrected. I still get shivers thinking about how many of those I replaced for people. Neat concept, lousy implementation. (Or is that "lossy implentation"? Quite a few people lost everything.)
OH NO!!!!! I had a typo in a Slashdot submision. How can I hold my hed up in public anymore?:-P
Listen here, it's called the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation because it is a FEDERAL agency. Since it is a FEDERAL agency, they have job positions all over the country. Why would they want to hire someone that won't leave their current hometown? Why not hire another applicant that is every bit as qualified, but who is willing to relocate as needed for the first few years?
Many people move to other areas of the country, away from family and friends, or with wife and kids, just to have a better job. And this yahoo is proud that he refused to make that compromise? Oooooh, I am sooooo impressed.
And by the way, I am an ignorant hick, not a redneck. I also joined the service to actually see more of the world than my parents backyard. And I'll have you know, I certainly have above a 4th grade edukashun, I have attended 4 different colleges. One day, I may even finish a degree at one of them.:^)
You showed them!!! How dare they expect to post you anywhere in the US at their discression. Obviously you should only be posted within driving distance of mommy and daddy. How else are you going to get your laundry done every weekend? And you have to get your allowance too, didn't they consider that?
How far was it from your collage to home? More than 10 minutes?
Hell, to us Americans, just shouting "Scotland Yard, DON'T MOVE!" would be catchy. Of course, I'm sure it isn't that much of a novelty over there in Britain.
Just be careful it's clean. My wife's cousin has mild diabetes, and has little feeling in her feet and toes. Well, after not feeling the tack in her shoe for 8 hours, finding it when removing her shoes that night, and spending a month in the hospital, she has no toes on her right foot. The tack caused mild infection, it spread, and the doctors couldn't do anything but amputate all 5 piggies.
The original Olympics were also done in the nude. So if you want to appeal to the historical nature of Greek gaming, go walk around Athens naked, playing Gameboy Mario and see what they do.;^)
Re:Google Cookie Management
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
That was my point. As far as MP3s, file-sharing, Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa/etc, my concerns personally only extend as far as I use them, which I don't. Not that I think they are "bad", as the RIAA says, but I just don't use any of that. When I want to hear music, I play one of my tapes or CDs that I bought. My only concern here would be the ability to make a playable copy of any of them so I could use the copy rather than the original -- a standard example of fair use.
So does this article reflect how Verizon's stance will directly affect my 'rights' to fair use? I don't know if you meant to do so, but your response highlights that question perfectly. The article has almost nothing to do with my original post. The Verizon person, Sarah Deutsch, goes into great detail about why they and other backbone providers should not be the target of the next round of laws. But as for the average individual, that is another matter.
The main thing Ms. Deutsch says they are fighting against is responsibility as a connection provider or conduit for others' data. There is the mention of RIAA wanting to hack users computers, but no real argument against it. Only a weak "That's just wrong" sentiment. She mentions "users would want to receive some increased security in the area of fair use...." But that is only a bargaining chip, not a demand.
So I guess my original post has little to do with the article, because as I said, I am not a pirate. The title says it all.
Good to see more weight behind individual rights, but what a way to bias a reader.
"Why telecoms back the pirate cause"
Gee, I'm not a pirate, and I think the ability to freely make backup copies of my movies/music/files is a fair and just one. But since I'm _not_ a pirate, the actions of Verizon obviously won't affect me, right? It's not my cause they are fighting for.
Now time to actually read the article and see if it's worth my time.
It seems your best bet is to find more friends closer to you.;^) Or have your distant friends electronically loan you their CDs. Then it isn't a matter of Napster/Morpheus/etc. (And to the common joe, Napster is still the only network sharing music.) Just you and a friend trading music to see if you like it.
I understand that the P2P networks let people find music they like that they can't hear any other way. But to say it is the 'only' option is being a little unrealistic. It may certainly be the quickest and simplest, but there are other ways.
And just for the record, I don't use any of the P2P networks, I have never downloaded an MP3 file, I have never ripped a song from one of my CDs, I haven't bought a CD in a year or two, and I think the recording industry is showing itself for the stupid greedy selfish bastards they are. If I ever find out they invaded my system on their assumption that I have copies of their music, which I don't, I would immediately bring a $50 million lawsuit against them.
Many valid points, but I think that you have the wrong idea of what a "pacifist country" means. Even though England was ruling India with an iron fist, they felt they had the right, because England claimed it as a colony. It wasn't a foriegn nation in the 1930's, just a colony that they had to control.
Pacifism for a country means they wouldn't attack the devil himself, as long as he is at the head of a different country. Even if he is trying to take over the rest of the continent, pacifists want to talk peace. But at the same time, the pacifist country could be a totalitarian regime as well. Foriegn policy and internal policy to not need to coincide.
Of course, I am not a foreign affairs scholar, and my previous post was simply an example. If I am not using a standard definition of 'pacifism', so be it. This is how it seems to me.
No. Pacifists want all fighting to end, and will not engage in any violence themselves.
From what I see, the Libertarians want the US out of all other countries wars and governmental affairs, but would react with violence towards any invasion of the US.
Basically, Britain was run by pacifists while Hitler built his military, and 'annexed' a couple areas. But Britain attacked Germany after the invasion of Poland, and so was not pacifist anymore.
The Libertarians would have not attacked until they were attacked, much like the US declaring war after the Pearl Harbor attack.
For your information, many of the elections have had voter fraud. Gore isn't the first to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote. Bush is not responsible for the disgrace that was Florida in 2000, the county clerk responsible for the butterfly ballots was a Democrats; those votes alone would have given Gore a sure win, regardless of the hanging/dimpled chad fight.
And to combat the other thought in your head, all of the ballots were counted, some were counted 4 or 5 times. Some people either voted for two candidates for president, or couldn't make a hole in a paper card. Their ballots were still counted, they just didn't have a vote for the presidential race.
And, there is no solid proof that Gore won the popular vote anyway. Many absentee ballots from military personnel were not counted. They could have upped the numbers for Bush considerably, nationwide.
vkg said: Boohoohoo, someone saw through my brilliant plan to sow more anti-bush propaganda while pretending to actually care about a real issue. And they modded me flamebait, boohoohoo.
Get real. You were not trying to raise any point other than you can't stand Bush being in office. You just tried to pull the wolf-in-sheeps-clothing routine. And it was such a pitiful attempt, you got your just desserts.
Usually, there's just methane down there. But that is being pumped out and sold for profit. I wonder if they thought of that when they started the landfills, or if someone in the 80's just had a sudden revelation.
If I ever have a family member's ashes scattered over Alaskan wildernes, remind me to rent a plane of my own, and do it myself.
Or, rent a WWII fighter with full ammo load, and follow the chartered plane, just to make sure they dump the ashes where I said to. If they dump them early, their own ashes will accompany them.
Not my definition of reckless. Say I'm standing around, not bothering noone, and a group of people attack me. I pull out a gun and I shoot them all once. Three of them drop to the ground, and two run away through a crowd.
Firing at the two fleeing crooks is reckless, as I may hit bystanders. But the three on the ground are still in my immediate presence, and still constitute a threat to me. One shot can knock a person down without causing serious damage. That person may be able to stand back up after a minute. Or rather, get to his hands and knees, while faking a serious injury, and lunge at me with a knife. Or even just roll on his side, pull out a gun and shoot me where I stand. There is no rule saying a knife-wielding mugger can't have a gun in his pocket, as backup. (Just because it is a movie cliche doesn't mean it isn't a real possibility.)
So if I have three attackers lying around me, they had better lay on their stomaches, with their legs out straight and hands on their head. Or else they are still a lethal threat to me, and I will put a bullet in their head to ensure my safety. Nothing reckless about it. Pure self-defense. I have the authority to continue acting until I believe the threat is gone. If that means three people go the the morgue instead of the ER, that is how it will be.
That being said, I supported Bernie Goetz, even after finding out he was high on drugs at the time. His right to self defense isn't waived just because he isn't stone-cold sober, even with using illegal drugs. And I don't carry a gun with me, so the above situation is purely hypothetical.
And for some reason they really downplayed the fact that the movie was based on a Stephen King story. I read the story years ago, and didn't realize the movie was based on it, because I had forgotten the title. (I never saw the movie though.) Then I was looking through some books, and saw the title, and a lightbulb went off.
That one and "Stand By Me" were handled very well in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
but at the last moment everything works out." ...thanks to Love Potion Number 9."
I got flamed/modded down a while ago for voicing severe dissatifaction with the Wesley character. My exact argument was along the line of:
/. reader, so some here are friends with him, and were offended for him. I don't think he ever replied, discretion being the better part of valor and all. As far as the 'gay' reference, watching the few episodes just reminded me of seeing Who's the Boss in the '80s, and you could tell that the actor who played Jonathon was gay. Don't know if Mr. Wheaton is gay, but it sure seemed that way in the show. That wasn't why I hated the series, but refering to it sure pissed off a lot of people. I just thought the show was terrible, and the original was much better.
Every episode I saw had that gay kid inventing some new contraption that used purely experimental or hypothetical physics to save everyone's ass.
Some people took extreme offense at that. I also never cared for the Next Generation series anyhow, so I only saw a few shows. But each one was the same ending.
And now I know Wil Wheaton (ala imdb.com), the actor who played Wesley, is a
So while I didn't like Wesley Crusher because the show used him as a crutch, I loved Jar Jar Binks. He is just so stupidly annoying, how can you not like him? And with C-3PO's scenes being limited, they needed someone that could fill in as the stupidly annoying character.
The article states:
;^)
"The crew of the Enterprise goes back to an earlier century on Earth, to make sure that history happens as it should ("S.T. IV: The Voyage Home"; "S.T. VIII: First Contact")."
I must have seen the alternate version of number 4, because I swear they went back in time to capture two whales and bring them to their present time. Nothing about ending whaling, preventing whales from becoming extinct, bringing all the whales to the future. By the end of the movie, there are exactly two whales in the oceans of Earth, and little hope for their re-populating. While it was simply an eco-feel-good movie, it wasn't a fix-history movie.
Funny line about using 'LSD' in college though.
Hell, I still can't remember the proper way to format a link, not being a webpage-design type guy. I always have to use "View Source", then copy a reference line, paste it in my response, overwrite the web page address and text areas, and make sure I preview it.
That's why I don't post links too often myself. Of course, if I made more links, I would remember it easier, but until then....
At least it isn't the Quantum Bigfoot name that got resurrected. I still get shivers thinking about how many of those I replaced for people. Neat concept, lousy implementation. (Or is that "lossy implentation"? Quite a few people lost everything.)
OH NO!!!!! I had a typo in a Slashdot submision. How can I hold my hed up in public anymore? :-P
:^)
Listen here, it's called the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation because it is a FEDERAL agency. Since it is a FEDERAL agency, they have job positions all over the country. Why would they want to hire someone that won't leave their current hometown? Why not hire another applicant that is every bit as qualified, but who is willing to relocate as needed for the first few years?
Many people move to other areas of the country, away from family and friends, or with wife and kids, just to have a better job. And this yahoo is proud that he refused to make that compromise? Oooooh, I am sooooo impressed.
And by the way, I am an ignorant hick, not a redneck. I also joined the service to actually see more of the world than my parents backyard. And I'll have you know, I certainly have above a 4th grade edukashun, I have attended 4 different colleges. One day, I may even finish a degree at one of them.
You showed them!!! How dare they expect to post you anywhere in the US at their discression. Obviously you should only be posted within driving distance of mommy and daddy. How else are you going to get your laundry done every weekend?
And you have to get your allowance too, didn't they consider that?
How far was it from your collage to home? More than 10 minutes?
Hell, to us Americans, just shouting "Scotland Yard, DON'T MOVE!" would be catchy. Of course, I'm sure it isn't that much of a novelty over there in Britain.
Just be careful it's clean. My wife's cousin has mild diabetes, and has little feeling in her feet and toes. Well, after not feeling the tack in her shoe for 8 hours, finding it when removing her shoes that night, and spending a month in the hospital, she has no toes on her right foot. The tack caused mild infection, it spread, and the doctors couldn't do anything but amputate all 5 piggies.
The original Olympics were also done in the nude. So if you want to appeal to the historical nature of Greek gaming, go walk around Athens naked, playing Gameboy Mario and see what they do. ;^)
mmmmm.....p0rn with cookies...mmmmmm
That was my point. As far as MP3s, file-sharing, Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa/etc, my concerns personally only extend as far as I use them, which I don't. Not that I think they are "bad", as the RIAA says, but I just don't use any of that. When I want to hear music, I play one of my tapes or CDs that I bought. My only concern here would be the ability to make a playable copy of any of them so I could use the copy rather than the original -- a standard example of fair use.
So does this article reflect how Verizon's stance will directly affect my 'rights' to fair use? I don't know if you meant to do so, but your response highlights that question perfectly. The article has almost nothing to do with my original post. The Verizon person, Sarah Deutsch, goes into great detail about why they and other backbone providers should not be the target of the next round of laws. But as for the average individual, that is another matter.
The main thing Ms. Deutsch says they are fighting against is responsibility as a connection provider or conduit for others' data. There is the mention of RIAA wanting to hack users computers, but no real argument against it. Only a weak "That's just wrong" sentiment. She mentions "users would want to receive some increased security in the area of fair use...." But that is only a bargaining chip, not a demand.
So I guess my original post has little to do with the article, because as I said, I am not a pirate. The title says it all.
Good to see more weight behind individual rights, but what a way to bias a reader.
"Why telecoms back the pirate cause"
Gee, I'm not a pirate, and I think the ability to freely make backup copies of my movies/music/files is a fair and just one. But since I'm _not_ a pirate, the actions of Verizon obviously won't affect me, right? It's not my cause they are fighting for.
Now time to actually read the article and see if it's worth my time.
It seems your best bet is to find more friends closer to you. ;^) Or have your distant friends electronically loan you their CDs. Then it isn't a matter of Napster/Morpheus/etc. (And to the common joe, Napster is still the only network sharing music.) Just you and a friend trading music to see if you like it.
I understand that the P2P networks let people find music they like that they can't hear any other way. But to say it is the 'only' option is being a little unrealistic. It may certainly be the quickest and simplest, but there are other ways.
And just for the record, I don't use any of the P2P networks, I have never downloaded an MP3 file, I have never ripped a song from one of my CDs, I haven't bought a CD in a year or two, and I think the recording industry is showing itself for the stupid greedy selfish bastards they are. If I ever find out they invaded my system on their assumption that I have copies of their music, which I don't, I would immediately bring a $50 million lawsuit against them.
Many valid points, but I think that you have the wrong idea of what a "pacifist country" means. Even though England was ruling India with an iron fist, they felt they had the right, because England claimed it as a colony. It wasn't a foriegn nation in the 1930's, just a colony that they had to control.
Pacifism for a country means they wouldn't attack the devil himself, as long as he is at the head of a different country. Even if he is trying to take over the rest of the continent, pacifists want to talk peace. But at the same time, the pacifist country could be a totalitarian regime as well. Foriegn policy and internal policy to not need to coincide.
Of course, I am not a foreign affairs scholar, and my previous post was simply an example. If I am not using a standard definition of 'pacifism', so be it. This is how it seems to me.
Hey, I may be an idiot and a fool, but...
What was that third thing again?
Have you ever heard of:
Radio
MTV
VH1
CMT
friends who have a copy of the CD
concerts
commercials on TV for SamGoody
CowboyNeal Karaoke Night
No. Pacifists want all fighting to end, and will not engage in any violence themselves.
From what I see, the Libertarians want the US out of all other countries wars and governmental affairs, but would react with violence towards any invasion of the US.
Basically, Britain was run by pacifists while Hitler built his military, and 'annexed' a couple areas. But Britain attacked Germany after the invasion of Poland, and so was not pacifist anymore.
The Libertarians would have not attacked until they were attacked, much like the US declaring war after the Pearl Harbor attack.
For your information, many of the elections have had voter fraud. Gore isn't the first to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote. Bush is not responsible for the disgrace that was Florida in 2000, the county clerk responsible for the butterfly ballots was a Democrats; those votes alone would have given Gore a sure win, regardless of the hanging/dimpled chad fight.
And to combat the other thought in your head, all of the ballots were counted, some were counted 4 or 5 times. Some people either voted for two candidates for president, or couldn't make a hole in a paper card. Their ballots were still counted, they just didn't have a vote for the presidential race.
And, there is no solid proof that Gore won the popular vote anyway. Many absentee ballots from military personnel were not counted. They could have upped the numbers for Bush considerably, nationwide.
vkg said: Boohoohoo, someone saw through my brilliant plan to sow more anti-bush propaganda while pretending to actually care about a real issue. And they modded me flamebait, boohoohoo.
Get real. You were not trying to raise any point other than you can't stand Bush being in office. You just tried to pull the wolf-in-sheeps-clothing routine. And it was such a pitiful attempt, you got your just desserts.
Usually, there's just methane down there. But that is being pumped out and sold for profit. I wonder if they thought of that when they started the landfills, or if someone in the 80's just had a sudden revelation.
If I ever have a family member's ashes scattered over Alaskan wildernes, remind me to rent a plane of my own, and do it myself.
Or, rent a WWII fighter with full ammo load, and follow the chartered plane, just to make sure they dump the ashes where I said to. If they dump them early, their own ashes will accompany them.
Well, if you're going to cheat, don't buy a natural diamond. Get Cubic Zirconia.
And since this process would be making a fake diamond anyway, cz would probably be the better choice over natural anyway.
Not my definition of reckless. Say I'm standing around, not bothering noone, and a group of people attack me. I pull out a gun and I shoot them all once. Three of them drop to the ground, and two run away through a crowd.
Firing at the two fleeing crooks is reckless, as I may hit bystanders. But the three on the ground are still in my immediate presence, and still constitute a threat to me. One shot can knock a person down without causing serious damage. That person may be able to stand back up after a minute. Or rather, get to his hands and knees, while faking a serious injury, and lunge at me with a knife. Or even just roll on his side, pull out a gun and shoot me where I stand. There is no rule saying a knife-wielding mugger can't have a gun in his pocket, as backup. (Just because it is a movie cliche doesn't mean it isn't a real possibility.)
So if I have three attackers lying around me, they had better lay on their stomaches, with their legs out straight and hands on their head. Or else they are still a lethal threat to me, and I will put a bullet in their head to ensure my safety. Nothing reckless about it. Pure self-defense. I have the authority to continue acting until I believe the threat is gone. If that means three people go the the morgue instead of the ER, that is how it will be.
That being said, I supported Bernie Goetz, even after finding out he was high on drugs at the time. His right to self defense isn't waived just because he isn't stone-cold sober, even with using illegal drugs. And I don't carry a gun with me, so the above situation is purely hypothetical.
And for some reason they really downplayed the fact that the movie was based on a Stephen King story. I read the story years ago, and didn't realize the movie was based on it, because I had forgotten the title. (I never saw the movie though.) Then I was looking through some books, and saw the title, and a lightbulb went off.
That one and "Stand By Me" were handled very well in that regard.