Many of the questions didn't warrant long answers. He could have gone into long personal detail about the favorite parody, but he wasn't asked "why?"...
Perhaps Mr. Shatner didn't feel like relating his life story for #7, and what more would you have him say to #9?
The answers were much like answers on any typical television interview, they were to the point.
The interview would have beet better, perhaps, if it was longer, but that is a Slashdot limitation, probably out of respect for the interviewees. It was a glimpse, just a glimpse, though, at a man.
If companies start thinking of ads like in magazines and newspapers, you'll be at Ars Technica, clich the "next page" link, and be presented with a full screen Flash ad that you can't skip until it's loaded, played, and presented you with the link...
I'd rather pay $10 and spend 5 cents for every article I peruse than deal with that kind of hassle.
There are plenty of reasonable payment schemes.
Per page rates like slashdot.
Per article rates.
Per "issue" rates - hard to do on sites not based on a printed publication as they tend to avoid "editions".
Monthly/Yearly subscriptions.
Now+ payments - $2 give you 7 days access to the site, or something similar.
Having several of these options available would be more work for billing, but would offer great choice to the user.
How are you gauging "successful online publication"? Are they making a profit from their ads? Can it be shown that the free service increases readership of the printed publications?
This is an early warning of Things To Come. As the economy stays in the doldrums, we will see more free/ad-driven services online either dry-up or turn to subscriptions.
If the online readership of their publications requires no money (most online versions of magazines/papers don't) then restricting the service to customers ensures that they have made some money off the viewers.
Hopefully they will change their mind, but I don't expect the free content to be free forever.
A single, low flat fee for access to most or all of their content would be nice. Say, $2-$10/mo.
Actually, over time I've upgraded my PowerBooks about as much as I've upgraded my PCs.
More RAM, larger HD, even a processor upgrade in my 1400. And I'm considering doing the same to my Pismo.
I've never really done much beyond adding memory to desktop Macs (Suggested some processor upgrades to a few people, though)... They always seem to have just about everything I need in them.
Nutritional facts are so you know what you are getting out of your food.
Ingredients are so you know what went into your food.
Items that are food allergy concerns are usually referred to in the ingredients or have special labelling. This should be no differeent if the carrot cake you bought uses regular carrots or Beta-Carotene Enhanced carrots.
I think people are worried about "getting something" from the modified foods. Well, I don't inject live wheat cells into my bloodstream, and you shouldn't either. We have a digestive system that breaks things down. It's not as though live cells with retroviruses in them are waiting to strike as you eat.
And what is Modified Food Starch, anyway?:)
Oh, and aside from the Pigs tendancy to separate fat from meat, I can't imagine anyone wanting much from pig DNA. And the changes needed to incorporate that into another animal (cows, for instance) would probably make it a new species. This would go under naming (peef? pow? cig? bine? big?), not labeling.
Because they are labeled differently? Maybe because the media hypes everything they can to get better ratings...
Watch the news. Really watch it. You see two type so stories in the general news: Terror and Happy. I don't mean terror in the "terrorists" sense (though there's always a little of that). The titles, the stories, and even the facts they touch upon are sensationalized.
The only reason many people fear terms like "irradiated" "genetic" is because they are used to make people buy papers and watch the news.
If the media had been like this decades ago there would have been huge scares over words like preservatives and artificial and hydrogenized.
The initial askind for ID is more like the Product Key - making sure you have the right to use the product.
The Activation is like being asked for your ID every time you open the bottle of liquor in your house.
I understand their motivation. Most people don't frig around with their computers enough to be bothered by this, and it helps them prevent some level of misuse.
(I know I'll get responses to this one...) I dare say that more people were angered because they couldn't steal the software as easily than because they were serious upgrade fiends.
It does negatively affect people who have legal copies of the software and like to upgrade their computers. I would be in that group if I didn't still use Windows 98 for my PC.
Are we at a point where companies are expected not to do things in their best interests? DRM, if implemented well, could be a painless thing. Now I agree it's not implemented well, and shouldn't been pushed on people until such time. But then, if we held to that theory, no one would be using half the stuff out there. WPA, it's not too painful - (among other things the telephone part could be better - transition the alpha-numeric code into simple sentances or something easier to deal with...) and yet we still scream about Microsoft being manipulative bastards.
Well, yes, they are. And it's not reasonable for Microsoft to want to know what's in my computer (hardware-wise) at any given time. But there are millions of people using Windows who have never seen a Windows CD out of it's box, much less touched a Genuine Microsoft CD.
What Microsoft should really do to increase legal customer base is offer an amnesty period to people who have illegal copies of Windows. They should offer a downloadable program (something like WPA) that specs your computer and allows the purchase of one copy of Windows for $100. And that should be tracked, quite well, to catch offenders. -- Some of the things I've said may not apply to you. Some of the things I've said may offend you. But no matter who you are, You MUST REMEMBER this ONE THING: -- My Other Shirt Is An Armani
You do, however, have test fields, laboratories, sampling, testing, et cetera.
It's not as though on Monday a scientist modifies a gene and on Friday it's being sold in 100,000 grocery stores.
There is a huge process of making sure there aren't any adverse changes to the plant, that you haven't accidentally made a super corn laced with cyanide...
If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.
Maroon carrots and golden rice made their way into the market - I didn't hear much screaming about genetically altered food then.
No, I think we would need to start this naming trend with smaller letter-number combinations. Perhaps three letter and four numbers... this would only give you 175 million different names, but someone would at least get to be THX-1138.:)
RC5 took almost 5 years to crack, but take look at the graph. At the beginning of 1998 there were about 15 GigaKeys/sec. Then look at the increase.
Sure, a fair portion of the increase was also the addition of new computers, but 261 days to double is comfortably below Moore's Law. If the whole project had run continuously at 200 GigaKeys/sec, it would have taken under 2.5 years, and under two years at their reported peak rate of 270 GigaKeys/sec.
So, if we follow the 261 day doubling statistic they had, all these encryption methods seem weaker than reported. The big issue is if it's 4 years now, it's 1 year soon, and 3 months, soon after.
If the cracking power scales nearly linearly, shouldn't we make some projections on how fast we can crack this encryption in a year? In two years?
If your data is very time sensitive, then most "strong" encryptions currently available will do. If your data is, however, of a continuously sensitive nature (some corporate or government info), maybe you should be looking at the 1000+ bit keys now.
It did leave a good bit out, but you can't expect anyone but true fanatics to sit through 6 hours per movie to ensure every bit was included. The additions/adaptations for Arwen's character are understandable. I don't really miss Tom Bombadil, though. He was a fun character, but he didn't have anything to do with the story. Ultimately, he was a sidetrack, a lead-in to a book that was never written.
I know I'll catch a lot of flak for this, but here goes:
I really enjoyed the books, and would not even begin to compare a movie to them for the wholeness and the granularity of the story. Even so, the book offers unfair advantages. Tolkien can say "his eyes flashed" and you make it happen, which is why turning a popular work into a movie is so difficult. Peter James does a great job with the material. I particularly can't wait to see the Ents, as I would like to see a tree that wasn't a tree.
Moving into the dangerous ground, Tolkien wrote some great work, but his books require great imagination to fill in the holes. Tolkien's time scale was never very concise(on the mountain, turn around, in the mine...) and the spaces in his book sometimes leave you wanting for some accounting (Frodo suddently ages twenty-seven years without any significant events?)
Don't get me wrong; I love the books, and the story. So don't shoot me.
depends on how you define "productive menmbers of society".
The people trying to further themseleves? This is where CEOs and businesses like Enron come in.
People trying to do what is in their best interests, while looking out for others - good luck finding many of these people - they were run out of business long ago by the Wal-Marts of the world.
People trying to further the community before themselves? This was once the defining characteristic of a polotician. Then DC was built, and the poloticians had a place to get drunk and have sex with prostitues... It was down hill from there.
As for the wealth and freedom aspect - greed and the lust for power are too great, and freedom requires education and vigilance by everyone, not great leaders.
I don't think we'll see any Darwin/x86 Switch commercials...
I was typing this shell script on my dad's RedHat box, and it was a
really good shell script, and I went to save and it was like "bleep bleep bleep bleep" and, like, half of it was gone. And I was like, "unnnh?". And I had to write it over, but it wasn't as good 'cause I had to do it fast...
I'm going to spoil it - even though this is a guess.
The mystery man the Suliban work for is a ROMULAN. Think about it. We've met the major players from TOS except for the Romulans. The shadow looks like a Romulan in the chamber. Archer looks at "The Romulan Star Empire" book in the future.
Am I the only one detecting some weak foreshadowing?
Anyway, the temporal cold war is a weak premise. What happens when they end it? Enterprise never happened (which would suit the pre-Enterprise Trek timeline)? They can't just end that future without changing the timeline before the show - they didn't really touch on how the loss of Archer didn't totally frig the past, as the future leader would never have existed to help them...
Also, thre are some weak continuity issues... No Vulcan mindmelds, yet by Spock's time they are so common that it is Vulcan custom for a son to bond with his father.
Oh, and villifying the Vulcans. As my friend said, it's the only group out of which they hadn't already made bad guys.
I still watch it. Partly because I like Trek, partly because I want to see how the hell they clean up their loose ends.
I imagine you can see it from different angles. If it only shined light out in one direction, it would be fully coherent light, and OLEDs would make great lasers. It owuld also make a fairly worthless screen, because you could only see a few pixels per eye at any moment - it would be hard to read.
I think the "one direction" refers to back and front as opposed to side to side.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to have a steep learning curve for excellent useability.
While I agree that GUIs frequently slow down certain tasks, it is not always true.
Take a look at The Humane Environment for a serious look at usable text interfaces.
Many of the questions didn't warrant long answers. He could have gone into long personal detail about the favorite parody, but he wasn't asked "why?"...
Perhaps Mr. Shatner didn't feel like relating his life story for #7, and what more would you have him say to #9?
The answers were much like answers on any typical television interview, they were to the point.
The interview would have beet better, perhaps, if it was longer, but that is a Slashdot limitation, probably out of respect for the interviewees. It was a glimpse, just a glimpse, though, at a man.
I for one enjoyed it.
I'd rather pay $10 and spend 5 cents for every article I peruse than deal with that kind of hassle.
There are plenty of reasonable payment schemes.
Having several of these options available would be more work for billing, but would offer great choice to the user.
How are you gauging "successful online publication"? Are they making a profit from their ads? Can it be shown that the free service increases readership of the printed publications?
This is an early warning of Things To Come. As the economy stays in the doldrums, we will see more free/ad-driven services online either dry-up or turn to subscriptions.
It happened here at slashdot, it happened at User Friendly. It's happening.
There is freedom of information, but that information won't be available for free...
they refer to their access numbers as AOL.COM numbers - it is a PPP connection, and you can just dial in...
- Current Internet population pays nothing for the content - if they lose viewers, they have only lost ad revenue.
- Reduction of traffic means savings in maintenance, bandwidth, servers, etc. (may make up for ad revenue)
- All viewers will be guaranteed customers of Time Warner - they must have paid TW sometime.
- Increase in AOL members, however small, will improve income to the company, also providing them with more ad revenue...
If you were AOL wouldn't thie be beginning to look better?If the online readership of their publications requires no money (most online versions of magazines/papers don't) then restricting the service to customers ensures that they have made some money off the viewers.
Hopefully they will change their mind, but I don't expect the free content to be free forever.
A single, low flat fee for access to most or all of their content would be nice. Say, $2-$10/mo.
Actually, over time I've upgraded my PowerBooks about as much as I've upgraded my PCs.
More RAM, larger HD, even a processor upgrade in my 1400. And I'm considering doing the same to my Pismo.
I've never really done much beyond adding memory to desktop Macs (Suggested some processor upgrades to a few people, though)... They always seem to have just about everything I need in them.
probably run WINE
That's not true. Almost every programmer has produced at least one, usually dozens.
Many of them say "Hello World!"
Nutritional facts are so you know what you are getting out of your food.
:)
Ingredients are so you know what went into your food.
Items that are food allergy concerns are usually referred to in the ingredients or have special labelling. This should be no differeent if the carrot cake you bought uses regular carrots or Beta-Carotene Enhanced carrots.
I think people are worried about "getting something" from the modified foods. Well, I don't inject live wheat cells into my bloodstream, and you shouldn't either. We have a digestive system that breaks things down. It's not as though live cells with retroviruses in them are waiting to strike as you eat.
And what is Modified Food Starch, anyway?
Oh, and aside from the Pigs tendancy to separate fat from meat, I can't imagine anyone wanting much from pig DNA. And the changes needed to incorporate that into another animal (cows, for instance) would probably make it a new species. This would go under naming (peef? pow? cig? bine? big?), not labeling.
And it probably wouldn't be Kosher.
Why would you choose not to buy them?
Because they are labeled differently?
Maybe because the media hypes everything they can to get better ratings...
Watch the news. Really watch it. You see two type so stories in the general news: Terror and Happy. I don't mean terror in the "terrorists" sense (though there's always a little of that). The titles, the stories, and even the facts they touch upon are sensationalized.
The only reason many people fear terms like "irradiated" "genetic" is because they are used to make people buy papers and watch the news.
If the media had been like this decades ago there would have been huge scares over words like preservatives and artificial and hydrogenized.
Not quite.
The initial askind for ID is more like the Product Key - making sure you have the right to use the product.
The Activation is like being asked for your ID every time you open the bottle of liquor in your house.
I understand their motivation. Most people don't frig around with their computers enough to be bothered by this, and it helps them prevent some level of misuse.
(I know I'll get responses to this one...)
I dare say that more people were angered because they couldn't steal the software as easily than because they were serious upgrade fiends.
It does negatively affect people who have legal copies of the software and like to upgrade their computers. I would be in that group if I didn't still use Windows 98 for my PC.
Are we at a point where companies are expected not to do things in their best interests? DRM, if implemented well, could be a painless thing. Now I agree it's not implemented well, and shouldn't been pushed on people until such time. But then, if we held to that theory, no one would be using half the stuff out there. WPA, it's not too painful - (among other things the telephone part could be better - transition the alpha-numeric code into simple sentances or something easier to deal with...) and yet we still scream about Microsoft being manipulative bastards.
Well, yes, they are. And it's not reasonable for Microsoft to want to know what's in my computer (hardware-wise) at any given time. But there are millions of people using Windows who have never seen a Windows CD out of it's box, much less touched a Genuine Microsoft CD.
What Microsoft should really do to increase legal customer base is offer an amnesty period to people who have illegal copies of Windows. They should offer a downloadable program (something like WPA) that specs your computer and allows the purchase of one copy of Windows for $100. And that should be tracked, quite well, to catch offenders.
--
Some of the things I've said may not apply to you.
Some of the things I've said may offend you.
But no matter who you are,
You MUST REMEMBER this ONE THING:
--
My Other Shirt Is An Armani
Hope to be the media center of tomorrow?
Did you see Windows XP Media Center Edition?
They plan on being it.
You do, however, have test fields, laboratories, sampling, testing, et cetera.
It's not as though on Monday a scientist modifies a gene and on Friday it's being sold in 100,000 grocery stores.
There is a huge process of making sure there aren't any adverse changes to the plant, that you haven't accidentally made a super corn laced with cyanide...
If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.
Maroon carrots and golden rice made their way into the market - I didn't hear much screaming about genetically altered food then.
No, I think we would need to start this naming trend with smaller letter-number combinations. Perhaps three letter and four numbers... this would only give you 175 million different names, but someone would at least get to be THX-1138. :)
Something tells me that even though he hasn't purchased a CD since 1998, he has still obtained some new music.
However, I do agree with dontbuycds.org in that the RIAA is in violation of anti-trust laws.
It's interesting to see graphs of cracking power.
RC5 took almost 5 years to crack, but take look at the graph. At the beginning of 1998 there were about 15 GigaKeys/sec. Then look at the increase.
Sure, a fair portion of the increase was also the addition of new computers, but 261 days to double is comfortably below Moore's Law. If the whole project had run continuously at 200 GigaKeys/sec, it would have taken under 2.5 years, and under two years at their reported peak rate of 270 GigaKeys/sec.
So, if we follow the 261 day doubling statistic they had, all these encryption methods seem weaker than reported. The big issue is if it's 4 years now, it's 1 year soon, and 3 months, soon after.
If the cracking power scales nearly linearly, shouldn't we make some projections on how fast we can crack this encryption in a year? In two years?
If your data is very time sensitive, then most "strong" encryptions currently available will do. If your data is, however, of a continuously sensitive nature (some corporate or government info), maybe you should be looking at the 1000+ bit keys now.
It did leave a good bit out, but you can't expect anyone but true fanatics to sit through 6 hours per movie to ensure every bit was included. The additions/adaptations for Arwen's character are understandable. I don't really miss Tom Bombadil, though. He was a fun character, but he didn't have anything to do with the story. Ultimately, he was a sidetrack, a lead-in to a book that was never written.
I know I'll catch a lot of flak for this, but here goes:
I really enjoyed the books, and would not even begin to compare a movie to them for the wholeness and the granularity of the story. Even so, the book offers unfair advantages. Tolkien can say "his eyes flashed" and you make it happen, which is why turning a popular work into a movie is so difficult. Peter James does a great job with the material. I particularly can't wait to see the Ents, as I would like to see a tree that wasn't a tree.
Moving into the dangerous ground, Tolkien wrote some great work, but his books require great imagination to fill in the holes. Tolkien's time scale was never very concise(on the mountain, turn around, in the mine...) and the spaces in his book sometimes leave you wanting for some accounting (Frodo suddently ages twenty-seven years without any significant events?)
Don't get me wrong; I love the books, and the story. So don't shoot me.
depends on how you define "productive menmbers of society".
The people trying to further themseleves? This is where CEOs and businesses like Enron come in.
People trying to do what is in their best interests, while looking out for others - good luck finding many of these people - they were run out of business long ago by the Wal-Marts of the world.
People trying to further the community before themselves? This was once the defining characteristic of a polotician. Then DC was built, and the poloticians had a place to get drunk and have sex with prostitues... It was down hill from there.
As for the wealth and freedom aspect - greed and the lust for power are too great, and freedom requires education and vigilance by everyone, not great leaders.
actually it was Network Solutions who had the monopoly.
I'm going to spoil it - even though this is a guess.
The mystery man the Suliban work for is a ROMULAN. Think about it. We've met the major players from TOS except for the Romulans. The shadow looks like a Romulan in the chamber. Archer looks at "The Romulan Star Empire" book in the future.
Am I the only one detecting some weak foreshadowing?
Anyway, the temporal cold war is a weak premise. What happens when they end it? Enterprise never happened (which would suit the pre-Enterprise Trek timeline)? They can't just end that future without changing the timeline before the show - they didn't really touch on how the loss of Archer didn't totally frig the past, as the future leader would never have existed to help them...
Also, thre are some weak continuity issues... No Vulcan mindmelds, yet by Spock's time they are so common that it is Vulcan custom for a son to bond with his father.
Oh, and villifying the Vulcans. As my friend said, it's the only group out of which they hadn't already made bad guys.
I still watch it. Partly because I like Trek, partly because I want to see how the hell they clean up their loose ends.
I imagine you can see it from different angles. If it only shined light out in one direction, it would be fully coherent light, and OLEDs would make great lasers. It owuld also make a fairly worthless screen, because you could only see a few pixels per eye at any moment - it would be hard to read.
I think the "one direction" refers to back and front as opposed to side to side.
But then, maybe I'm ill-informed.
Color-changing clothes would be cool, but what do you do when your battery pack dies and your clothes go off? :)