The most successful companions (like Sarah Jane Smith, arguably Turlough, Romana, Ian Chesterton, Nyssa, Jamie) also showed that characteristic as well.
I agree that the good companions were characters rather than characatures. I'd also throw Ace in with that group. During the final season, we got to know and understand her better than most other companions. Heck, the last episode ever involved a return to her home town.
I'm excited to hear about the possibility of a Dr Who revival, but I hold some reservations.
One: Will there really be a new series?
When Fox did the Dr Who movie a few years back, they said they would see about reviving the series with Paul McGann from the movie as the Doctor. It didn't happen. The books and audio shows continued with McGann as the Doctor, but he was never seen on screen in that role again. There are other times in the past Dr Who has been rumored to be revived but none of them came to fruition.
Two: What style will Dr Who be?
Admittedly, each Doctor has his own style. I'm afraid they will try too hard to return to the glory days of Baker style. I'm too young to have seen Baker when it was fresh, and I find it dated and campy. It's entertaining, but stuck in the 70's. I liked the McCoy years, which seemed ahead of their time. I only hope the Doctor stays true to its British stylings but moves into the modern era. I think it's a good sign that the writer is trying "to take Doctor Who into a new universe."
Three: Death Comes to Time
Did anybody else watch Internet episode of Dr Who? It's still available on the BBC website for another month. It had Anthony Stewart Head in a brief appearance as a Timelord, but that's not a problem. The problem is it might be setting the pattern for the new direction of Dr Who. It seemed to throw too much of what made the Doctor the Doctor out the window. I appreciate that the writers were trying keep up with the times, but you still have to respect the limits imposed by the previous twenty-six years of the series. It can be a dangerous thing "to take Doctor Who into a new universe."
It will be tough to strike the balance between points two and three. If they do it right, they'll have old fans crying about how everybody after Baker sucked, newbs who find the Doctor a bit strange and tough to watch, and a lot of satisfied viewers.
On a side note, I understand Head was considered when they cast the seventh Doctor. I think he'll make a fine eighth Doctor, but I'm glad we got to see McCoy in the role.
This case is absurd. I've looked at the sheet music, and Cage's music is in 7/8 and composed of consecutive eight note rests. Batt's piece is in 4/4 and uses only whole rests. Case dismissed.
Many people said The Who couldn't replace Moon, but they continued off and on for 24 years with replacement drummers. I doubt they'll do their current tour, but I wouldn't be surprized to see them tour again.
First, we're not talking about mandatory school prayer.
Yes we are talking about school prayer. Read the case background. It was filed by an athiest objecting that his daughter had to repeat the Pledge as part of class.
Second, saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is OPTIONAL
In a legal sense, you are correct, but not in a social sense. If you don't say the Pledge with the rest of your class, you were likely labeled a commie traitor in the 50's, or a raghead terrorist today. In any case, your peers would likely say you hate your country and ridicule you. A student should not be forced to pay lip service to a prayer that violates their religion.
Numerous times the courts have ruled that a because something should be a certain way legally, it isn't necessarily that way socially. The doctrine of "separate but equal" is one such instance.
In all likelyhood, this ruling will be slapped down, but I hope it is upheld. The two words "under God" turn the Pledge into a prayer. Just like any prayer organized by the school officials, it should not be allowed in its present form. We're not talking about freedom from religion, we're talking about not being forced to pray to something you don't believe in.
This article stinks of an uninformed writer. First off, "piracy."
world- first plan that legalises [sic] music piracy.
If it's legal, it shouldn't be called "piracy." Copying a CD as a backup is not piracy. I've always accepted the definition of piracy to be "illegally copying a tape/CD/book/game so you don't have to buy it yourself." Perhaps my definition isn't in synch with the rest of the world's, but piracy is inherently illegal, and there are legal reasons to copy a disk.
Of course, this guy may just be buying into the RIAA rhetoric that CD burners are only used to illegally burn CDs. I really hope nobody is that dumb.
The second reason this article looks amateurish is the technical specs.
with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices
The last time I checked, my CD burner could create perfect copies of a CD. The Australian dollar may be weaker than the US dollar, but I don't think the same thing applies to CD burners.
Finally, there's this odd line:
"It is yet another angle in a technological nightmare the music industry is finding unstoppable."
At this point, I'm beginning to think the author is largely uninformed, but knows how to download music and burn it to a CD. His quote seems like wishful thinking, but the industry has had a number of successes stopping digital piracy (Napster, mp3.com, etc...).
In all, a poorly written article, but an interesting issue. There are some major questions left unanswered. What do the artists get out of it? And the AIRA? Is the technology really any superior to home burning technology? What does this legalization to Australia's status in international copyright treaties?
Finally, how are these copiers any legally different from a Xerox machine?
Since this has turned out to be more of a review of the article than I expected, I feel obligated to give it two stars out of five.
4) Tell lies to kill the open source argument "Microsoft is also publishing the system's source code.[']We are trying to be transparent in all this['], says Allchin. " (bullshit, say I)
I think will be the point that defines the plan as an attempt at real security or a plan for world domination. If they do open the code, it shouldn't be terribly difficult for the community to see what Palladium does, and Microsoft is smart enough not to leave the plans for world domination out where Slashdot readers can find them. If they renege on open code promises, we can't take any of thSFÜother promises about Palladium at face value.
Is programing at the point where it can truly emulate soccer? Will they shoot the losing goalie? Will the Italian league fire the Korean when he scores against the Italian national team? Most importantly, will they riot?
Slashdot Mirror
After being abused, I think Gnome needs a few friends.
You're obviously old enough to know how old Janice Ian is.
I agree that the good companions were characters rather than characatures. I'd also throw Ace in with that group. During the final season, we got to know and understand her better than most other companions. Heck, the last episode ever involved a return to her home town.
One: Will there really be a new series?
When Fox did the Dr Who movie a few years back, they said they would see about reviving the series with Paul McGann from the movie as the Doctor. It didn't happen. The books and audio shows continued with McGann as the Doctor, but he was never seen on screen in that role again. There are other times in the past Dr Who has been rumored to be revived but none of them came to fruition.
Two: What style will Dr Who be?
Admittedly, each Doctor has his own style. I'm afraid they will try too hard to return to the glory days of Baker style. I'm too young to have seen Baker when it was fresh, and I find it dated and campy. It's entertaining, but stuck in the 70's. I liked the McCoy years, which seemed ahead of their time. I only hope the Doctor stays true to its British stylings but moves into the modern era. I think it's a good sign that the writer is trying "to take Doctor Who into a new universe."
Three: Death Comes to Time
Did anybody else watch Internet episode of Dr Who? It's still available on the BBC website for another month. It had Anthony Stewart Head in a brief appearance as a Timelord, but that's not a problem. The problem is it might be setting the pattern for the new direction of Dr Who. It seemed to throw too much of what made the Doctor the Doctor out the window. I appreciate that the writers were trying keep up with the times, but you still have to respect the limits imposed by the previous twenty-six years of the series. It can be a dangerous thing "to take Doctor Who into a new universe."
It will be tough to strike the balance between points two and three. If they do it right, they'll have old fans crying about how everybody after Baker sucked, newbs who find the Doctor a bit strange and tough to watch, and a lot of satisfied viewers.
On a side note, I understand Head was considered when they cast the seventh Doctor. I think he'll make a fine eighth Doctor, but I'm glad we got to see McCoy in the role.
I can name that sone in zero notes.
This case is absurd. I've looked at the sheet music, and Cage's music is in 7/8 and composed of consecutive eight note rests. Batt's piece is in 4/4 and uses only whole rests. Case dismissed.
Heh. You do realize that guy is ROTFLHAO right now, don't you? 8^D So that's the story behind that pic.
Many people said The Who couldn't replace Moon, but they continued off and on for 24 years with replacement drummers. I doubt they'll do their current tour, but I wouldn't be surprized to see them tour again.
Yes we are talking about school prayer. Read the case background. It was filed by an athiest objecting that his daughter had to repeat the Pledge as part of class.
Second, saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is OPTIONAL
In a legal sense, you are correct, but not in a social sense. If you don't say the Pledge with the rest of your class, you were likely labeled a commie traitor in the 50's, or a raghead terrorist today. In any case, your peers would likely say you hate your country and ridicule you. A student should not be forced to pay lip service to a prayer that violates their religion.
Numerous times the courts have ruled that a because something should be a certain way legally, it isn't necessarily that way socially. The doctrine of "separate but equal" is one such instance.
In all likelyhood, this ruling will be slapped down, but I hope it is upheld. The two words "under God" turn the Pledge into a prayer. Just like any prayer organized by the school officials, it should not be allowed in its present form. We're not talking about freedom from religion, we're talking about not being forced to pray to something you don't believe in.
Prayer before a Senate or House session is not mandatory, therefore it doesn't violate the Constitution as mandatory school prayer does.
world- first plan that legalises [sic] music piracy.
If it's legal, it shouldn't be called "piracy." Copying a CD as a backup is not piracy. I've always accepted the definition of piracy to be "illegally copying a tape/CD/book/game so you don't have to buy it yourself." Perhaps my definition isn't in synch with the rest of the world's, but piracy is inherently illegal, and there are legal reasons to copy a disk.
Of course, this guy may just be buying into the RIAA rhetoric that CD burners are only used to illegally burn CDs. I really hope nobody is that dumb.
The second reason this article looks amateurish is the technical specs.
with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices
The last time I checked, my CD burner could create perfect copies of a CD. The Australian dollar may be weaker than the US dollar, but I don't think the same thing applies to CD burners.
Finally, there's this odd line:
"It is yet another angle in a technological nightmare the music industry is finding unstoppable."
At this point, I'm beginning to think the author is largely uninformed, but knows how to download music and burn it to a CD. His quote seems like wishful thinking, but the industry has had a number of successes stopping digital piracy (Napster, mp3.com, etc...).
In all, a poorly written article, but an interesting issue. There are some major questions left unanswered. What do the artists get out of it? And the AIRA? Is the technology really any superior to home burning technology? What does this legalization to Australia's status in international copyright treaties?
Finally, how are these copiers any legally different from a Xerox machine?
Since this has turned out to be more of a review of the article than I expected, I feel obligated to give it two stars out of five.
I think will be the point that defines the plan as an attempt at real security or a plan for world domination. If they do open the code, it shouldn't be terribly difficult for the community to see what Palladium does, and Microsoft is smart enough not to leave the plans for world domination out where Slashdot readers can find them. If they renege on open code promises, we can't take any of thSFÜother promises about Palladium at face value.
Isn't Gnome abuse a felony in most states?
Don't think this is a high scoring slaughter. They're using binary.
Is programing at the point where it can truly emulate soccer? Will they shoot the losing goalie? Will the Italian league fire the Korean when he scores against the Italian national team? Most importantly, will they riot?
Wasn't this joke worn out in the days of Battlecruiser 3000?
"... [Neverwinter Nights] is destined to be the more-addictive-than-crack game of 2001. - Aaron John Loeb Chairman, Game Critics Awards"
I miss out on all the good games. Oh well, I should be able to find it in the bargin bin by now.