Disclaimer: That was second-hand information, I wasn't actually in there at the time. I do think they put limits on the number because of server problems from the weekend.
Uh, the original Star Trek series perhaps? Canned after 2 seasons, but given a third after a huge letter-writing campaign. Don't you know your geek history boy?:)
I'm a regular of the #farscape channel on irc.scifi.com, and it has been incredible. Here's a java chat link for the lazy. Random stars and makers of the show have been showing up there at least once a day, sometimes several visits throughout the day, to give encouragement to the fans. The
channel grew to consistently
hold hundreds of users, maxing out at 700 at a time. Here's a quick rundown of some of the news converage that we've gotten:
Its turning out to be a story not just about a bunch of SciFi geeks crying
about a lost show, but a protest against corporations directing culture
through actions they don't have to justify. I mean, they killed their #2 show after having already made the commitment to the year. I don't consider myself
the protesting type, especially over a TV show... but I wrote a letter, linked to it from my site and
sent a few emails because I think the people who make
and watch the show aren't out of line to demand what was promised to them.
That's exactly my point. It is quite stupid. I don't honestly think that the government would have an interest in persecuting me. But doesn't it show that there is a degree of liberty being stripped if an otherwise rational person would start questioning such a simple action as clicking on a link? What if the link said "Bomb the evil Americans now!" or "Click here if you are Osama Bin-Laden" or "Find out how to make a dirty bomb". There's the slippery slope, where do you draw the line? Is it out of the question that government-installed machines may be monitoring my ISP, looking for things like that?
My right to fulfill my curiousity stops when it causes harm to my fellow man. Recent laws and government actions indicate the intent to broaden the legal definition of harm to encompass things I might *consider* doing, or things that I merely find *interesting*. This concerns me greatly, and I think it's a reasonable concern. My hesitation before clicking the link wasn't paranoia, so much as a sudden realization that I have a little less freedom than I did before this whole mess.
My reaction was to click... and then instantly to reconsider. The phrase "oppose the occupation" was slightly charged, and related to a cause that those in power in the US seems to have a strong opinion about. What if there were a carnivore-like system between me and the link? What would my government assume about me? This all happened in an instant, but the fact of the matter is these thoughts should never have to enter my mind. Upon looking at my instant of hesitation, I knew that we're starting down a slippery slope.
Well, so much for the rumor... Henson isn't owned by Vivendi, USA/Sci-Fi is. So it may be Henson suing Sci-Fi, at least to get the rights back for the 5th season if they can't meet their contractual obligations. But that takes time, and in the meanwhile they have to cut the cast and crew loose and destroy the sets (these are not your ordinary sets that would fold down and fit into a storage area... everything is a curve).
Vivendi is the owner of Henson productions (producers of Farscape) and MP3.com in addition to other media properties. A quick googling indicates that they have been suffering financial difficulties, and are on the brink of bankruptcy. The rumor is, even with the 2-season deal that obligates Henson to the 5th season, they won't be able to produce it for the price of the original contract. Sci-Fi cannot afford the new price for the ratings the show drives, so as a result, they told Henson to stop the 5th season. So, even though I'm sending my letter to Sci-Fi channel, I doubt there will likely be a resolution unless Sci-Fi wants to buy Henson on the cheap in lieu of suing over the contract obligation. The actors in the show are more tenured and are probably driving costs to a certain extent. Furthermore, its unlikely to be picked up by another network who may be willing to pay more, due to the Henson obligation to Sci-Fi channel for the 5th season (Sci-Fi wants their eps at the original price if Vivendi picks up the pieces, or another company buys out Henson).
I intend on writing a letter. Not an email. Not a fax. Not even a phone call. Something physical that they have to open. To prompt them to action on this, you must address their interests.
Sci-Fi Channel,
I have recently been made aware that the series Farscape has been cancelled. Farscape is quite possibly some of the best entertainment on television, and was one of my primary reasons for watching the Sci-Fi channel. Every episode would have me on the edge of my seat even before the opening credits ran. I would usually not tape the show and watch it live since I didn't prefer to wait, and I would often tune into shows both before and after the episode as a result. Due to the cancellation I will not be watching much Sci-Fi channel, and what I do will most likely be of lesser interest and recorded on my VCR to avoid commercials.
I was refering to the scripting and/or other methods of embeding fonts. Not using CSS to tell the browser what fonts to use.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of font embedding technologies. The WEFT and TrueDoc specifications do not require client scripting to be implemented. Embedding retrieves needed fonts via simple linking so it is in no way different in practical implementation than CSS, images or other auxiliary web data. In fact CSS2 was built with the explicit inclusion of font embedding (search the page for "download"). My personal resume is an example of a script-free web standards compliant site which implements both WEFT and TrueDoc, and is 100% disabled-accessible. I highly encourage you to read up on web font embedding, and hopefully revise some egregious misconceptions.
But embeded fonts in Web sites are bad for end users.
How's so? A browser recommending a display method for text is now bad? Should we just toss CSS entirely then? People are going to abuse technology, its a matter of fact... but in the end I don't think font embedding so evil comparatively. Embedding fonts means a user is representing data in text vice using images (control which you can override via stylesheets with fonts/css, and which you have no control over with images). If you had the choice between site navigation that required the downloading of 10 3k GIFs, or one 15k font file, what would you choose? Futhermore, if you want a mouseover effect, would you rather rely on client side scripting for images, or add another line to a CSS file for fonts? Contrasted to existing web technologies font embedding saves bandwidth and better abstracts the content from the display, which are universally accepted by the clueful as a GOOD THING.
A browser is never forced to use the document's suggestions for display in well made documents. Well made documents also provide detailed (but flexible) suggested criteria for display. Embedding fonts is hinting, and if someone is breaking web pages by requiring included fonts for proper display then they are abusing the spirit of both CSS and font embedding. The current font embedding technologies are based on CSS, which has the goal of making a site look good both on 75 and 133 dpi. If the default suggested size of the text really bothers you that much, get a browser that supports one-button usage of your own stylesheet.
This is like painting your house the same color as the hill behind it, or better yet, using mirrors to create a bunch of fake reflections of houses. Not using encryption over wireless is akin to having no key-lock on the front door. Obscuring your house does little to keep someone from taking your precious collection of Atari 2600 cartridges.
You have voiced your witty opinion with the diction of a sailor, by way of an anonymous post... surely I must capitulate to your supreme intellect! I am truly in awe of your non-twattiness, and can only aspire to be but a pale reflection of your sterling example of conduct. I can't wait for the next ballot, can I cast my vote to elect you president now?
I don't undserstand #1... can't handle non-photographic images? What is the reasoning here? Just because it's a created representation of something moving instead of light captured reflecting off an actual thing, somehow its not worthy of your eyes? Do you no longer open any books containing illustrations, because books with illustrations are for children? This sweeping policy against viewing contrived moving images, in itself, does not seem very adult. As for #2-#5, they are generalizations that are often innacurate.
I have bought two cans of Whoop Ass. One I attempted to drink and it tasted like, well, ass. The other one is on my desk, ready to be opened on whomever may piss me off.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: That was second-hand information, I wasn't actually in there at the time. I do think they put limits on the number because of server problems from the weekend.
Beats me. Maybe Java doesn't suck as bad as we thought? :)
Most likely too many users. Try #moya as a backup channel, and keep trying on #farscape.
Uh, the original Star Trek series perhaps? Canned after 2 seasons, but given a third after a huge letter-writing campaign. Don't you know your geek history boy? :)
I'm a regular of the #farscape channel on irc.scifi.com, and it has been incredible. Here's a java chat link for the lazy. Random stars and makers of the show have been showing up there at least once a day, sometimes several visits throughout the day, to give encouragement to the fans. The channel grew to consistently hold hundreds of users, maxing out at 700 at a time. Here's a quick rundown of some of the news converage that we've gotten:
E! OnlineTV Guide (again)
CNN
Wired
BBC
Its turning out to be a story not just about a bunch of SciFi geeks crying about a lost show, but a protest against corporations directing culture through actions they don't have to justify. I mean, they killed their #2 show after having already made the commitment to the year. I don't consider myself the protesting type, especially over a TV show... but I wrote a letter, linked to it from my site and sent a few emails because I think the people who make and watch the show aren't out of line to demand what was promised to them.
I regretfully have to admit, he *was* leaving the door wide open for this. :)
That's exactly my point. It is quite stupid. I don't honestly think that the government would have an interest in persecuting me. But doesn't it show that there is a degree of liberty being stripped if an otherwise rational person would start questioning such a simple action as clicking on a link? What if the link said "Bomb the evil Americans now!" or "Click here if you are Osama Bin-Laden" or "Find out how to make a dirty bomb". There's the slippery slope, where do you draw the line? Is it out of the question that government-installed machines may be monitoring my ISP, looking for things like that?
My right to fulfill my curiousity stops when it causes harm to my fellow man. Recent laws and government actions indicate the intent to broaden the legal definition of harm to encompass things I might *consider* doing, or things that I merely find *interesting*. This concerns me greatly, and I think it's a reasonable concern. My hesitation before clicking the link wasn't paranoia, so much as a sudden realization that I have a little less freedom than I did before this whole mess.
When googling for the word "Palestinian" I came across a text ad which read:
Rebuild Palestinian HomesYou can oppose the Occupation
by helping us to rebuild homes
www.rebuildinghomes.org
My reaction was to click... and then instantly to reconsider. The phrase "oppose the occupation" was slightly charged, and related to a cause that those in power in the US seems to have a strong opinion about. What if there were a carnivore-like system between me and the link? What would my government assume about me? This all happened in an instant, but the fact of the matter is these thoughts should never have to enter my mind. Upon looking at my instant of hesitation, I knew that we're starting down a slippery slope.
Well, so much for the rumor... Henson isn't owned by Vivendi, USA/Sci-Fi is. So it may be Henson suing Sci-Fi, at least to get the rights back for the 5th season if they can't meet their contractual obligations. But that takes time, and in the meanwhile they have to cut the cast and crew loose and destroy the sets (these are not your ordinary sets that would fold down and fit into a storage area... everything is a curve).
Vivendi is the owner of Henson productions (producers of Farscape) and MP3.com in addition to other media properties. A quick googling indicates that they have been suffering financial difficulties, and are on the brink of bankruptcy. The rumor is, even with the 2-season deal that obligates Henson to the 5th season, they won't be able to produce it for the price of the original contract. Sci-Fi cannot afford the new price for the ratings the show drives, so as a result, they told Henson to stop the 5th season. So, even though I'm sending my letter to Sci-Fi channel, I doubt there will likely be a resolution unless Sci-Fi wants to buy Henson on the cheap in lieu of suing over the contract obligation. The actors in the show are more tenured and are probably driving costs to a certain extent. Furthermore, its unlikely to be picked up by another network who may be willing to pay more, due to the Henson obligation to Sci-Fi channel for the 5th season (Sci-Fi wants their eps at the original price if Vivendi picks up the pieces, or another company buys out Henson).
I intend on writing a letter. Not an email. Not a fax. Not even a phone call. Something physical that they have to open. To prompt them to action on this, you must address their interests.
Sci-Fi Channel,
I have recently been made aware that the series Farscape has been cancelled. Farscape is quite possibly some of the best entertainment on television, and was one of my primary reasons for watching the Sci-Fi channel. Every episode would have me on the edge of my seat even before the opening credits ran. I would usually not tape the show and watch it live since I didn't prefer to wait, and I would often tune into shows both before and after the episode as a result. Due to the cancellation I will not be watching much Sci-Fi channel, and what I do will most likely be of lesser interest and recorded on my VCR to avoid commercials.
Sincerely...
Well, they wouldn't take the print resume in crayon, so whatcha gunna do?
I was refering to the scripting and/or other methods of embeding fonts. Not using CSS to tell the browser what fonts to use.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of font embedding technologies. The WEFT and TrueDoc specifications do not require client scripting to be implemented. Embedding retrieves needed fonts via simple linking so it is in no way different in practical implementation than CSS, images or other auxiliary web data. In fact CSS2 was built with the explicit inclusion of font embedding (search the page for "download"). My personal resume is an example of a script-free web standards compliant site which implements both WEFT and TrueDoc, and is 100% disabled-accessible. I highly encourage you to read up on web font embedding, and hopefully revise some egregious misconceptions.
But embeded fonts in Web sites are bad for end users.
How's so? A browser recommending a display method for text is now bad? Should we just toss CSS entirely then? People are going to abuse technology, its a matter of fact... but in the end I don't think font embedding so evil comparatively. Embedding fonts means a user is representing data in text vice using images (control which you can override via stylesheets with fonts/css, and which you have no control over with images). If you had the choice between site navigation that required the downloading of 10 3k GIFs, or one 15k font file, what would you choose? Futhermore, if you want a mouseover effect, would you rather rely on client side scripting for images, or add another line to a CSS file for fonts? Contrasted to existing web technologies font embedding saves bandwidth and better abstracts the content from the display, which are universally accepted by the clueful as a GOOD THING.A browser is never forced to use the document's suggestions for display in well made documents. Well made documents also provide detailed (but flexible) suggested criteria for display. Embedding fonts is hinting, and if someone is breaking web pages by requiring included fonts for proper display then they are abusing the spirit of both CSS and font embedding. The current font embedding technologies are based on CSS, which has the goal of making a site look good both on 75 and 133 dpi. If the default suggested size of the text really bothers you that much, get a browser that supports one-button usage of your own stylesheet.
70kg of empty calories and 1400cc of atmosphere.
This is like painting your house the same color as the hill behind it, or better yet, using mirrors to create a bunch of fake reflections of houses. Not using encryption over wireless is akin to having no key-lock on the front door. Obscuring your house does little to keep someone from taking your precious collection of Atari 2600 cartridges.
You have voiced your witty opinion with the diction of a sailor, by way of an anonymous post... surely I must capitulate to your supreme intellect! I am truly in awe of your non-twattiness, and can only aspire to be but a pale reflection of your sterling example of conduct. I can't wait for the next ballot, can I cast my vote to elect you president now?
No, you're thinking of "military intelligence".
Systems security consultant: You don't even have to be given access to the systems you need to remotely access!
I don't undserstand #1... can't handle non-photographic images? What is the reasoning here? Just because it's a created representation of something moving instead of light captured reflecting off an actual thing, somehow its not worthy of your eyes? Do you no longer open any books containing illustrations, because books with illustrations are for children? This sweeping policy against viewing contrived moving images, in itself, does not seem very adult. As for #2-#5, they are generalizations that are often innacurate.
The reason for a lack of a Matrix game is the fact that they're waiting to produce a massively multiplayer subscription-based one, so they can get every penny *every month*.
yzquxnet is protected.
yzquxnet has gone down the stairs.
If you can't do it shamelessly, then why do it at all?
I have bought two cans of Whoop Ass. One I attempted to drink and it tasted like, well, ass. The other one is on my desk, ready to be opened on whomever may piss me off.
The LD50 for caffein is about 10 grams. You could kill everyone at the LAN, and a great deal of the neighbors complaining about the noise.