I'm paricularly against the "Tivoization" clause and cannot for the life of me see what benefits it gives to the copyright holder or user of the code. All it seems to do as far as I can see is take away the freedom to use my code in the way I originally granted. It is designed so that large companies like Microsoft can still earn a living. I heard of at least one embedded Linux platform that is feverishly planning to switch from Linux to Windows because of the Samba's decision to adopt v3.
Nope, sorry. To "inject morality into the laws" you have to be writing those laws - the FSF has no control over copyright law, they are just using it. Fair enough, maybe "injecting" was not the best choice of words, but nitpicking does not change the fact that personal "moral" stance was added to restrict what you can and cannot do under law.
a whole bunch of rights have been taken away from end users via GPL3
The GPL restricts absolutely nothing of what end users do. And can we remember for a second that the GPL grants rights? Granting less rights isn't the same as taking them away. In and of itself, you may be right but consider this:
GPLv2 - you are allowed to do something GPLv3 - you are no longer allowed to do something
I call this taking away rights if a project would move from v2 to v3. I am not saying they don't have right to, but any way of slicing, it is taking away rights.
the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom"
That's the part I really don't get - the "religious beliefs" in this case are software freedom - wouldn't it only by hypocrisy if they weren't actually acting "in the name of freedom"? You may disagree with their methods, but that would speak to "ineptness", not "hypocrisy", no? No, FSF being the proponents of software freedom while condemning people from exercising that freedom in the way inconsistent with FSF's beliefs is pretty much the textbook definition of hypocrisy - although I would agree that "ineptness" may be also appropriate if they are trying to spread software freedom.
I believe that if this had happened, Microsoft would have destroyed BSD's commercial chances using "embrace and extend". They would have created a BSD/Windows hybrid that would have duplicated BSD's API. This would have happened because BSD lacks the GPL's so called "viral clause" that prevents embrace and extend. The existence of this hybrid would have been used by Microsoft to prevent the suits from even considering a move to free software.
So... why is there no BSD/Windows hybrid?? Its not like existence of Linux would stop that? And if it were to happened, why would that be so bad? The MacOS/BSD hybrid seems to be doing wonders for Apple. And having Microsoft go that route could have done wonders for both Microsoft and community at large.
And while we are on the "what-if" kick, were GPL3 in place years ago, would Linux be anywhere near as popular platform it is today - since as you pointed out many of the currently Linux platforms that GPL3 restricts would simply be BSD or Windows.
"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"
Right, so when do we abolish the laws against murder, rape, etc.?
In a "free country" laws are not supposed to be a function of morality - but a function of protection of its citizens. Totalitarian and religious states on the other hand tend to make the leader's or religious morality the law. So, just because a specific law is moral does not mean that morality is the law... if latter were the case we would be all be required by law to attend church, to not have sex out of wedlock, to "donate" money to church, and do all the other crap that passes for "morality" for majority of the world. The real problem with "morality" is that everyone defines it their own way and true "freedom" is ability to choose what you consider moral.
There is a huge difference between making laws moral and making morality law. The first is what you are talking about, the second is what Linus was talking about.
injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3
So the FSF can pass laws now? I actually don't think I'm against that...
Or are they just injecting them into their license? How dare they inject their values into their license! Last I checked copyright *laws* were still laws and copyright violations - be they claimed by RIAA's restrictive license or FSF's restrictive license - are still covered by said laws. But unlike RIAA , FSF claims to stand for "freedom"
So, his comment simply points out that under the banner of "freedom" a whole bunch of rights have been taken away from end users via GPL3. He is not saying "how dare they" or saying they don't have the right - just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom".
The first thing you do every morning is check the sev 1 problems that have occurred when you are out. Next off you look at the 24 hour report to see what is out of whack. Anything odd you follow up on. If everything is fine then you have a cup of strong coffee and wait for the first dumb question of the day.
Deal with the disasters first, after that everything in the day is a lightweight bonus. Generally speaking if you have to check on them, they are not sev 1. If they are sev 1 you should have been contacted by now via automated(monitoring software) or manual(minions) means.
Of course what is missed in this discussion is that the job is that of an IT manager and NOT SA and as such it is NOT your job to deal with the actual monitoring and fixing of anything (except, as mentioned above, maybe things of highest priority), it is SA's job. Your job to is to support SA's and make sure the emergencies ARE dealt with while also making sure all (including non-emergency) services are taken care of.
This is why sometimes a good SA does not make a good IT manager.
Maybe because you want the new code to "look like" the old code in the same file?
Maybe because you're not using an IDE?
Maybe because if the IDE reformats all your code you wind up with the entire file as a diff when you check it in to your source code control system? Well, there are plenty of simple solutions to all of the above if you WANT solutions.
If nothing else, have IDE auto-format to IDE user defined standard when editing and then re-format to project specific standard when saving. Solves all of the above issues.
The truth however is that most programmers do not care for such things. There are basic code auto-formatting options on most IDEs but I am yet to see someone use it.
I think what held me back from making the final switch-over to the new number was concern about the viability of Grand Central long term. Well, I think the Google acquisition solves that problem. Google isn't going away anytime soon. I have had my GC number for a while, and besides viability there are a number of other technical issues that I have had. Namely:
1 - Reliability - the week I signed up and started using the service, most of the calls did not in fact go through - calls would go to silence or ring forever
2 - Capability - While the idea of rules based call routing is nice, implementation is very rudamentary - I really wish it was a lot more capable.- Of course this is fixable, esp with Google's backing.
3 - Security - Using caller ID as means of verifying identity - no matter how convenient, is laughable. As an experiment I tried to "hack" into my own voice mail from my office line (it was set up to only work for my cell phone) Took me about 5 minutes (most spent figuring out how to spoof a number. Can repeat in under a minute) - Yes you need to know someone's cell number for this, but its not a huge secret for most people. I don't expect recent ruling that makes spoofing caller ID to fix this either
4 - Return Caller-ID - Unless you use a convoluted method for dialing out, the person you call will get your real number's caller ID - so they are much more likely to call back THAT number than your GC number. Its convoluted, but GC number is supposed to solve the 20 different phone numbers problem, but actually it just makes it a 21 number problem
The major things that makes ESX attractive as far as I know all have to do with Enterprise usage - i.e. bare metal hypervisor (self contained "Host" OS) and ability to live transfer a VM from one server to another via shared storage without shutting down.
Can't see this impacting a home user, unless I am missing something.
Virtual Iron has some features,that are important that VMware does not:) Can you expand on this? I never even heard of Virtual Iron before just now, what useful features does it have over XEN/VMWare?
vm ware is feature king at the moment - but competition is a good thing.
If you want to run multiple linux instances on the cheap then xen is the way to go at the moment. Not that I disagree that OSS and competition is a good thing but what am I missing here? Last I checked VMWare Server product was free - so how much cheaper than free can you get?
I'm a bit surprised you raise the question now, after it has been the entire thrust of my argument so far. Let me copy it from a dictionary: "stereotype noun 1 a an over-generalized and preconceived idea or impression of what characterizes someone or something, especially one that does not allow for any individuality or variation".The bit about not allowing for any individuality or variation is why I lost interest in B5 I raised that question not so much that I did not know what the word meant, but that I was not sure if you did. There are many things positive and negative I heard about B5, but this is the first time someone mentioned "the lack of individuality or variation". I really don't see that, in fact it quite the opposite - the show thrives on individuality. Its the first science fiction show where one alien cannot be easily substituted for another of same species.
Can you please give me some examples of what you are referring to?
The distinction is not in the definitions, rather it is in the (in my view) unreasonable suggestion that the layperson should realise that "science fiction" and its very own, widely understood, listed in the dictionary abbreviation "sci-fi" are in fact very different phrases. The point of that statement is to IDENTIFY that distinction, so there is no expectation that it would be known ahead of time.
Your definitions are indeed tautological. Sci-fi is about objects not people, those films (e.g. I, Robot) that are about objects not people are therefore sci-fi, not science fiction. Can't argue with that, it's a nice little tautology. Again I am not sure your definition of the word tautology and mine match. Tautology is a circular or redundant statement and you were given two distinct definitions and examples to go with them. How is this a tautology?
You give a solid reasons why B5 is good. But you also point out that the central theme is nothing new. Being the middle guy in a conflict is nothing new. I actually like a lot of it, I don't mean to be that harsh, but I stopped after season one and haven't thought about it much since. It just seemed to want to include every science fiction, sci-fi and fantasy idea, and hence seemed to have one too many stereotypes. Ahhhh, that explains everything. Stopping B5 after season one would most definitely leave you with that impression. But reading chapter one of Harry Potter would leave you to believe that its a book about a kid living under the stairs and being abused by his foster family. Season one is the introduction - its a way to establish normalcy, it is setup. The stories are for the most part standalone 'star-trek' style stories and for all intents and purposes this looks like any other sci-fi show. Of course AFTER you watch the whole thing your view may change and you realize just how much of the foundation of the actual story is laid down in those early episodes, but it is hard to see while you are in it. I highly recommend you continue watching. Its is generally in second season people really start to get really into it. Think of season one being the intro and seasons 2-4 being the actual story and season 5 is the epilogue.
An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?
I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the difference between "science" and "speculation" to your average or intelligent person and still make sense. Even so, that's just to acknowledge someone's perspective - I don't think the term adds much value except for insider discussions.
I think Harlan Ellison created that "distinction in terms" when he made that statement. Not to say the distinction itself was not there, he just gave it name (however good or bad). What he was trying to point out is that what we now label as "sci-fi" got away from what "science fiction" was about. In general usage "sci-fi" came to mean stories that are about laser guns, robots, and women in bizarrely impractical tin foil outfits.Its stories that use "science" as a magical way to resolve issues without really dealing with them. It is stories that are more about the gadgets than people. It is about escaping the reality into world that has nothing to do with our own.
Science fiction on other hand is not about those things. It is about people and the world we live in. No matter how alien the setup is and what aliens, robots, etc are the subject of the story, good science fiction is always relevant to us here and now. All the standard "sci-fi" items are not the point of the story, they are just tools to set up the story in a way that may not be possible (or at least easy) with straight fiction.
There are many good examples of the distinction in recent movies - "I, Robot" the "science fiction" book was a deep examination of human behavior by extracting the idealized behavior and overlaying it on a machine and then viewing it from a human perspective (among many other things) - "I,Robot" - the "sci-fi" movie supposedly based on the book, but really about killer robots. Or "Mimsy were the Borgroves" - a brilliant short story about "nature vs nurture" and the effect of the toys on the way the mind develops - "The Last Mimzy" - a "sci-fi" movie based on the story that castrates any sort of meaning from original work and instead does a random children's adventure with even more random environmental message (where did that come from?)
B5, Firefly, etc all were good science fiction because if you take out the space ships and laser guns and aliens, you still got a strong story about something. I mean B5's big conflict of "community" vs "individual" is universal and applies just as well to "Vorlons" vs "Shadows" as it does to "USSR" vs "USA" in cold war or "socialism" vs "capitalism" in general. It is a fundamental conflict that's as old as time and instead of rehashing it again from one side or another, B5 shows what it is like to be the little guy caught in the middle.
Now, I just want to add, there is definitely a place for "sci-fi" out there and truth be told, I enjoyed both movies mentioned above - but there is no way I can call them good science fiction.
great science fiction must first and foremost be great fiction - something most Sci-Fi misses by a mile
Although I see you have no problem making such subtle distinctions.. I'm wondering whether the definition of Sci-Fi will be a tautology that excludes the possibility of it ever being great fiction.
As I tried to explain above, I don't see this distinction as all that subtle. "Sci-Fi" as we come to know it is not meant to be good fiction - instead it meant to be the opposite - escapism and distraction.
Computers can't take the place of artist and an artist costs $$$. B5 started out on cheep Amigas in 93 and have improved little FX wise since, not that it matters - it's the story that counts. Canvas can't take a place of artist either but we still consider paintings works of art.
Who do you think is using said computers????
BTW, if I remember correctly, these B5 effects are done by same people who are doing BSG effects.
Authors like Harlan Ellison happily associate themselves with sci-fi (and also write outside the genre) without treating it like a cheap marketing ploy. I believe it was in fact Harlan who once said that there is a huge difference between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" and as a writer he wanted nothing to do with the latter.
Ironically, Ellison is probably responsible for most "fantasy-ish" aspects of B5, I mean "Soul Hunters" are straight out of Ellison's writings. I don't know this for sure, but having read Ellison and seen B5, it seemed obvious, especially considering his heavy involvement with B5.
Another writer (Theodore Sturgeon I think) once said that great science fiction must first and foremost be great fiction - something most Sci-Fi misses by a mile. Personally I don't care if you want to classify B5 as "science fiction" or "fantasy", whatever it is, its great fiction and thats enough for me.
This is not about freedom of speech. This is about freedom to choose what you want to sell. Many 'family' companies don't want to sell games that depict this degree of realisitc violence. As individual companies you are right, they have full right to sell or not so sell anything, however once you have all of these companies come together to agree not to sell something, you actually have a classic example of anti-trust law violation... unless of course you scream "but think of the children" - in which case all the laws can be bypassed.
In order for a game to be playable in a console, it must be cryptographically signed by the console manufacturer. So while you can write the code and sell the game for console without manufacturer's permission, no one without a mod-chip or other way to bypass the DRM will be able to play it. And since you are now selling a product that REQUIRES law-breaking (mod-chips violate the DMCA), you open yourself up to all sorts of lawsuits.
If it said GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURE CAM-VAN and wasn't secretive about doing it, it would upset me that much. Well, a friend of mine seen the van when it was doing San Francisco and mentioned it to me back then, and while he did not know about "street-view" name(product was not launched yet at the time), he said it was clear enough that it was Google van and that it was taking pictures of street with cameras. Come to think of it, I think there was even a/. article about it. Does not sound all that secretive.
Kind of makes you wonder why someone would be going so fast through a toll gate, but even stranger, why they managed to miss the toll gate and crashed into the barrier between gates. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. But it is a spectacular video to watch I think the official explanation is that the driver had a seizure and lost control, but that police car that arrives seconds later makes me wonder how they got there so fast. But maybe a cop was just nearby.
'm unaware of another show with even a remotely similar take on the space western theme Cowboy Bebop - in fact for first few episodes of Firefly I could not get the feeling that it is a cheap live action Bebop ripoff. But then again, the first few episodes were the worst. If you have never seen Cowboy Bebop - I highly recommend it, any fan of Firefly is sure to love it.
That being said, I don't understand why there is always a "simpsons already did it"-type chorus following any new show as if just because the concept has been done before, it cannot be done again and be good. I mean "Heroes" is just an X-Man rip-off, and not even the only one, but it is still good (anyone remember that other X-Man ripoff show a few years back? Can't remember the name of it now). Sure there are plenty of really BAD remakes and clones , but there are also plenty of really horrible original concepts too (anyone seen Monk lately? Brilliant concept, run so far into the ground is will soon pop out in China). Generally a
The premise is usually one of the least significant signs of a a good show. The most significant parts are not premises or even plot lines, it is the quality of writing. This is what makes shows like Firefly good. Who cares if they are "space cowboy" themed or not - they could be riding in a Winnebago around 1960's USA for all I care, it would still be a good show if you have good writing.
Clearcase does have a higher admin overhead than CVS. Clearcase also does not work particularly well over a WAN and I suspect ext3cow or something similar would have the same issue. The use model for a SCM tool based on ext3cow would be similar to NFS which you usually do not use on a WAN. Slightly off-topic, but I would not discount Clearcase on WAN. There are many reasons to hate Clearcase, but lack of distributed/wide area support is not one of them, thats actually one place I've seen it shine. Back in the day(about 10 years back) the company I worked for had part of the dev team in middle of nowhere China. The CC admin set up a satellite CC server in China and since the internet connection was unreliable (could not even reliably FTP a 10k file), he set up server-to-server sync via E-Mail. Warped enough but it worked like a charm, though it took a day or so, but the version control was being synced.
Slashdot Mirror
-Em
The GPL restricts absolutely nothing of what end users do. And can we remember for a second that the GPL grants rights? Granting less rights isn't the same as taking them away. In and of itself, you may be right but consider this:
GPLv2 - you are allowed to do something
GPLv3 - you are no longer allowed to do something
I call this taking away rights if a project would move from v2 to v3. I am not saying they don't have right to, but any way of slicing, it is taking away rights. the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom"
That's the part I really don't get - the "religious beliefs" in this case are software freedom - wouldn't it only by hypocrisy if they weren't actually acting "in the name of freedom"? You may disagree with their methods, but that would speak to "ineptness", not "hypocrisy", no? No, FSF being the proponents of software freedom while condemning people from exercising that freedom in the way inconsistent with FSF's beliefs is pretty much the textbook definition of hypocrisy - although I would agree that "ineptness" may be also appropriate if they are trying to spread software freedom.
-Em
I believe that if this had happened, Microsoft would have destroyed BSD's commercial chances using "embrace and extend". They would have created a BSD/Windows hybrid that would have duplicated BSD's API. This would have happened because BSD lacks the GPL's so called "viral clause" that prevents embrace and extend. The existence of this hybrid would have been used by Microsoft to prevent the suits from even considering a move to free software.
So... why is there no BSD/Windows hybrid?? Its not like existence of Linux would stop that? And if it were to happened, why would that be so bad? The MacOS/BSD hybrid seems to be doing wonders for Apple. And having Microsoft go that route could have done wonders for both Microsoft and community at large.And while we are on the "what-if" kick, were GPL3 in place years ago, would Linux be anywhere near as popular platform it is today - since as you pointed out many of the currently Linux platforms that GPL3 restricts would simply be BSD or Windows.
-Em
"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"
Right, so when do we abolish the laws against murder, rape, etc.?
In a "free country" laws are not supposed to be a function of morality - but a function of protection of its citizens. Totalitarian and religious states on the other hand tend to make the leader's or religious morality the law. So, just because a specific law is moral does not mean that morality is the law... if latter were the case we would be all be required by law to attend church, to not have sex out of wedlock, to "donate" money to church, and do all the other crap that passes for "morality" for majority of the world. The real problem with "morality" is that everyone defines it their own way and true "freedom" is ability to choose what you consider moral.-Em
There is a huge difference between making laws moral and making morality law. The first is what you are talking about, the second is what Linus was talking about.
-Em
So the FSF can pass laws now? I actually don't think I'm against that...
Or are they just injecting them into their license? How dare they inject their values into their license! Last I checked copyright *laws* were still laws and copyright violations - be they claimed by RIAA's restrictive license or FSF's restrictive license - are still covered by said laws. But unlike RIAA , FSF claims to stand for "freedom"
So, his comment simply points out that under the banner of "freedom" a whole bunch of rights have been taken away from end users via GPL3. He is not saying "how dare they" or saying they don't have the right - just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of taking away rights and freedoms based on religious beliefs and claiming to do it "in the name of freedom".
-Em
Allowing traffic through requires more bandwidth than blocking traffic.
Whomever got paid to "research" this - I admire your ability to get paid for stating the obvious.
-Em
Deal with the disasters first, after that everything in the day is a lightweight bonus. Generally speaking if you have to check on them, they are not sev 1. If they are sev 1 you should have been contacted by now via automated(monitoring software) or manual(minions) means.
Of course what is missed in this discussion is that the job is that of an IT manager and NOT SA and as such it is NOT your job to deal with the actual monitoring and fixing of anything (except, as mentioned above, maybe things of highest priority), it is SA's job. Your job to is to support SA's and make sure the emergencies ARE dealt with while also making sure all (including non-emergency) services are taken care of.
This is why sometimes a good SA does not make a good IT manager.
-Em
Maybe because you're not using an IDE?
Maybe because if the IDE reformats all your code you wind up with the entire file as a diff when you check it in to your source code control system? Well, there are plenty of simple solutions to all of the above if you WANT solutions.
If nothing else, have IDE auto-format to IDE user defined standard when editing and then re-format to project specific standard when saving. Solves all of the above issues.
The truth however is that most programmers do not care for such things. There are basic code auto-formatting options on most IDEs but I am yet to see someone use it.
-Em
1 - Reliability - the week I signed up and started using the service, most of the calls did not in fact go through - calls would go to silence or ring forever
2 - Capability - While the idea of rules based call routing is nice, implementation is very rudamentary - I really wish it was a lot more capable.- Of course this is fixable, esp with Google's backing.
3 - Security - Using caller ID as means of verifying identity - no matter how convenient, is laughable. As an experiment I tried to "hack" into my own voice mail from my office line (it was set up to only work for my cell phone) Took me about 5 minutes (most spent figuring out how to spoof a number. Can repeat in under a minute) - Yes you need to know someone's cell number for this, but its not a huge secret for most people. I don't expect recent ruling that makes spoofing caller ID to fix this either
4 - Return Caller-ID - Unless you use a convoluted method for dialing out, the person you call will get your real number's caller ID - so they are much more likely to call back THAT number than your GC number. Its convoluted, but GC number is supposed to solve the 20 different phone numbers problem, but actually it just makes it a 21 number problem
-Em
The major things that makes ESX attractive as far as I know all have to do with Enterprise usage - i.e. bare metal hypervisor (self contained "Host" OS) and ability to live transfer a VM from one server to another via shared storage without shutting down.
Can't see this impacting a home user, unless I am missing something.
-Em
Thanks
-Em
If you want to run multiple linux instances on the cheap then xen is the way to go at the moment. Not that I disagree that OSS and competition is a good thing but what am I missing here? Last I checked VMWare Server product was free - so how much cheaper than free can you get?
-Em
Can you please give me some examples of what you are referring to? The distinction is not in the definitions, rather it is in the (in my view) unreasonable suggestion that the layperson should realise that "science fiction" and its very own, widely understood, listed in the dictionary abbreviation "sci-fi" are in fact very different phrases. The point of that statement is to IDENTIFY that distinction, so there is no expectation that it would be known ahead of time. Your definitions are indeed tautological. Sci-fi is about objects not people, those films (e.g. I, Robot) that are about objects not people are therefore sci-fi, not science fiction. Can't argue with that, it's a nice little tautology. Again I am not sure your definition of the word tautology and mine match. Tautology is a circular or redundant statement and you were given two distinct definitions and examples to go with them. How is this a tautology? You give a solid reasons why B5 is good. But you also point out that the central theme is nothing new. Being the middle guy in a conflict is nothing new. I actually like a lot of it, I don't mean to be that harsh, but I stopped after season one and haven't thought about it much since. It just seemed to want to include every science fiction, sci-fi and fantasy idea, and hence seemed to have one too many stereotypes. Ahhhh, that explains everything. Stopping B5 after season one would most definitely leave you with that impression. But reading chapter one of Harry Potter would leave you to believe that its a book about a kid living under the stairs and being abused by his foster family. Season one is the introduction - its a way to establish normalcy, it is setup. The stories are for the most part standalone 'star-trek' style stories and for all intents and purposes this looks like any other sci-fi show. Of course AFTER you watch the whole thing your view may change and you realize just how much of the foundation of the actual story is laid down in those early episodes, but it is hard to see while you are in it. I highly recommend you continue watching. Its is generally in second season people really start to get really into it. Think of season one being the intro and seasons 2-4 being the actual story and season 5 is the epilogue.
-Em
-Em
An interesting historical point. I wasn't aware of the distinction between science fiction and sci-fi - could you provide it?
I tend not to bother with distinctions that will have no meaning to people not part of the group that have chosen to make it; it's as bad as cheap marketing ploys. Wouldn't be surprised if the original poster was happily using SciFi as an abbreviation for science fiction, good or bad, great and small. I understand the idea of specualtive fiction, because you could discuss the difference between "science" and "speculation" to your average or intelligent person and still make sense. Even so, that's just to acknowledge someone's perspective - I don't think the term adds much value except for insider discussions.
I think Harlan Ellison created that "distinction in terms" when he made that statement. Not to say the distinction itself was not there, he just gave it name (however good or bad). What he was trying to point out is that what we now label as "sci-fi" got away from what "science fiction" was about. In general usage "sci-fi" came to mean stories that are about laser guns, robots, and women in bizarrely impractical tin foil outfits.Its stories that use "science" as a magical way to resolve issues without really dealing with them. It is stories that are more about the gadgets than people. It is about escaping the reality into world that has nothing to do with our own.
Science fiction on other hand is not about those things. It is about people and the world we live in. No matter how alien the setup is and what aliens, robots, etc are the subject of the story, good science fiction is always relevant to us here and now. All the standard "sci-fi" items are not the point of the story, they are just tools to set up the story in a way that may not be possible (or at least easy) with straight fiction.
There are many good examples of the distinction in recent movies - "I, Robot" the "science fiction" book was a deep examination of human behavior by extracting the idealized behavior and overlaying it on a machine and then viewing it from a human perspective (among many other things) - "I,Robot" - the "sci-fi" movie supposedly based on the book, but really about killer robots. Or "Mimsy were the Borgroves" - a brilliant short story about "nature vs nurture" and the effect of the toys on the way the mind develops - "The Last Mimzy" - a "sci-fi" movie based on the story that castrates any sort of meaning from original work and instead does a random children's adventure with even more random environmental message (where did that come from?)
B5, Firefly, etc all were good science fiction because if you take out the space ships and laser guns and aliens, you still got a strong story about something. I mean B5's big conflict of "community" vs "individual" is universal and applies just as well to "Vorlons" vs "Shadows" as it does to "USSR" vs "USA" in cold war or "socialism" vs "capitalism" in general. It is a fundamental conflict that's as old as time and instead of rehashing it again from one side or another, B5 shows what it is like to be the little guy caught in the middle.
Now, I just want to add, there is definitely a place for "sci-fi" out there and truth be told, I enjoyed both movies mentioned above - but there is no way I can call them good science fiction.
Although I see you have no problem making such subtle distinctions .. I'm wondering whether the definition of Sci-Fi will be a tautology that excludes the possibility of it ever being great fiction.
As I tried to explain above, I don't see this distinction as all that subtle. "Sci-Fi" as we come to know it is not meant to be good fiction - instead it meant to be the opposite - escapism and distraction.
But rather than dwell on trivia about the us
Who do you think is using said computers????
BTW, if I remember correctly, these B5 effects are done by same people who are doing BSG effects.
-Em
Quark was the best
Ironically, Ellison is probably responsible for most "fantasy-ish" aspects of B5, I mean "Soul Hunters" are straight out of Ellison's writings. I don't know this for sure, but having read Ellison and seen B5, it seemed obvious, especially considering his heavy involvement with B5.
Another writer (Theodore Sturgeon I think) once said that great science fiction must first and foremost be great fiction - something most Sci-Fi misses by a mile. Personally I don't care if you want to classify B5 as "science fiction" or "fantasy", whatever it is, its great fiction and thats enough for me.
-Em
In order for a game to be playable in a console, it must be cryptographically signed by the console manufacturer. So while you can write the code and sell the game for console without manufacturer's permission, no one without a mod-chip or other way to bypass the DRM will be able to play it. And since you are now selling a product that REQUIRES law-breaking (mod-chips violate the DMCA), you open yourself up to all sorts of lawsuits.
-Em
-Em
That being said, I don't understand why there is always a "simpsons already did it"-type chorus following any new show as if just because the concept has been done before, it cannot be done again and be good. I mean "Heroes" is just an X-Man rip-off, and not even the only one, but it is still good (anyone remember that other X-Man ripoff show a few years back? Can't remember the name of it now). Sure there are plenty of really BAD remakes and clones , but there are also plenty of really horrible original concepts too (anyone seen Monk lately? Brilliant concept, run so far into the ground is will soon pop out in China). Generally a
The premise is usually one of the least significant signs of a a good show. The most significant parts are not premises or even plot lines, it is the quality of writing. This is what makes shows like Firefly good. Who cares if they are "space cowboy" themed or not - they could be riding in a Winnebago around 1960's USA for all I care, it would still be a good show if you have good writing.
-Em
-Em