As I recall the hot black chick in the tight red outfit seemed to last the entire run. It was only the male red's that never made it out alive. Maybe their mother's should have given them a last name.
By suing people left and right and getting at least some of them to settle (since it's a lot cheaper), he is promoting the myth that ideas can be copyrighted.
Seems to me that there's a well-known, indeed infamous organization that operates along similar lines.
It's an old TV show where men in tight-fitting outfits and women in mini-skirts and tight-fitting nylons flew a primitive warp-drive spaceship around, interfering in the development of numerous civilizations around our part of the galaxy on a weekly basis. That fine tradition was continued in the various Star Trek spinoff franchises that popped up (rather like weeds) in the decades since the original series was aired. Note to first-time viewers: the various characters in TOS (i.e., The Original Series) were conveniently color-coded for longevity: those wearing tight-fitting red outfits generally didn't make it out of any given episode alive.
"Hey, let's alienate(no pun intended) our core audience with a cutesy name!"
They already managed to do that with me when they cancelled Sliders for that stupid First Wave series, killed off Stargate SG-1 in favor of Battlestar Galactica (sorry BG, fans, I call 'em like I see 'em), gave airtime to that "psychic" John Edward, and then topped it all off with WRESTLING. Gagh!
I'd really hoped that when Bonnie ("Let's take the 'science' out of Sci-Fi") Hammer stepped down that the situation at Sci-Fi Channel would improve. I'm sorry to say that the future doesn't look bright.
I mean the term Sci-Fi is a sensible contraction of Science Fiction. What the hell does "SyFy" mean? Jesus H. Christ, do the people that run Sci-Fi really think that they need to dumb things down so far that a microbe could understand them? It's not like Sci-Fi is some inside joke that only a Linux kernel hacker or a physicist would understand. I know a lot of people that have no use for science fiction of any kind... but they sure as hell know what "Sci Fi" means!
...is thank god BSG is on Sci-Fi channel and not Fox. Otherwise we'd likely have had only one season of it.
Ha. Like the Sci-Fi channel under Bonnie "What do you mean it's a hit?" Hammer didn't screw up pretty regularly, with much of the same political infighting and general bad judgment exhibited by Fox. I mean, replacing Sliders with First Wave was about as boneheaded a maneuver as you can possibly imagine (Ms. Hammer was convinced that First Wave was a "guaranteed hit".) Google the conflict between John Rhys-Davies and the fifth season producer David Peckinpah... Christ, talk about politics.
Of course, we're talking about the woman who honestly believed that that John Edward pseudo-psychic and (of all things) wrestling were of any interest to people who enjoy the likes of Stargate SG-1, Sliders, and other well-produced science-fiction (BSG doesn't really cut it in my opinion, but maybe my perceptions are colored from having sat through too many episodes of the original.)
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).
The tv show Sliders was a flop, let's not rehash one of their episode starters.
Sliders a flop? I have to disagree. Flops don't last five seasons, and in fact Sliders was one of the best alternate-Universe series ever created. If it hadn't been for that bitch Bonnie what's-her-face who in some drug-induced haze thought that Second Wave (gagh!) was a guaranteed hit to replace Sliders, it would have gone on for a lot longer. Sci-Fi put all their marbles into Second Wave (which was an actual flop) and had to cancel Sliders, which in spite of the depredations of producer David Peckinpah was still very popular. Yet another stupid move by the Sci-Fi channel, which has a habit of producing hit series and then screwing them up.
This is because the West does not have the one thing that is needed in order to maintain long tern projects of this magnitude. The West does not have continuous governments.
Sure we do... the United States Federal Government has been around for longer than China's current government. What we don't have is long-term commitments... the next Administration that gets elected restructures the Feds priority system and things change. Nevertheless, NASA has been around for a while, is still funded, and our space presence isn't going to just go away. It's too valuable to our economy for one.
You're right that a totalitarian state that doesn't have to contend with elections can maintain a given commitment without the vagaries of elections and the voting public. That was true about the Soviet Union previously. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether China will be able to maintain the requisite economic growth to continue funding its space program. The things are hideously expensive, and China's economy is not stable. Anything could happen in the next ten years or so.
You're also forgetting that the primary reason our space program was defunded (commpared to the halcyon days of the Apollo program) was that there was no perceived competition, no "space race" that required continuous investment, nothing to inspire the public. If China proceeds with its plans for utilization of near-space, believe me, that's going to change.
"lol" to you too, you humanoid ass. All right, here goes:
A. you're quoting Fox News, so any credibility you might have had is shot right there, and
B. mere belief in a supreme being of some sort cannot (by any stretch of your obviously overworked imagination) be equated to fundamentalist Christianity, and
C. Let's see. Places where lots of people believe in God... I know! Why don't you bitch about Italy! Would you guess that the percentage of Italians who believe in God is: a. above 90, or b. above 90%. The answer, of course, is c. above 90%. Are all Italians stupid? Is that what you're trying to say?
Assuming your facts are correct (and I'm not granting that at this point) the fact that 90% of American believe in something beyond themselves is absolutely no reason to be insulting. I mean, you assholes complain endlessly about the American people (with no apparent real knowledge of us) and yet, you're behaving in the same uncivilized, uncouth manner you ascribe to us. You have hissy fits if an American says anything about you that you deem derogatory or misinformed (and I'm not just talking about fundamentalist Muslims: some of you European Slashdotters have some growing up to do as well) yet have no problem spouting absolute garbage about us. Dude, just grow up. Seriously.
Personally, I have no belief in any deity, religion or dogma of any kind, but I still found your remark to be irrational and misinformed, and about as cultured and sensitive as a rock. If you're not from the United States (and given how, well, wrong you are I'm guessing you're not) I sincerely hope that you're never allowed to set foot here. The moment that happens our collective IQ will drop by a substantial amount.
tell the same to vietnam, granada, panama, iraq, afghanistan...
Are you claiming that the U.S. annexed all those territories? Oh please. Spare me the anti-U.S rhetoric: temporary occupation is not the same as annexation.
The United States is not an Imperial power, never has been and doesn't want to be. Given the size of the military we owned during the Cold War, we could have been, and there wouldn't have been one goddamn thing any of you could have done about it. There'd have been two global empires, us and the Soviets. But we didn't take that road, and we're not about to now.
So lay off the ridiculous comparisons. We're trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, not make them part of some imaginary Empire you have in your head, and will eventually leave both those countries.
How about introducing some EU-style dataprotection?
Two arguments against:
1 - it would mean admitting the EU was right
2 - it would mean turning back the clock on all the agencies poking in your life already, or exposing that they will be exempt. Both are not good news for a nation that pretends to be about freedom and democracy, and that myth must be kept alive at all costs.
1. They were. That fact was obvious from the start (this was just another "give them an inch and they'll take the whole damn yard" scenario anyway. Or is that centimeter and meter?) Surprise, big corporations can't be trusted. Who knew?
2. The United States' various governments are barred, in many areas, from collecting and storing personal data on their citizens. They're not barred from buying or extorting that information from private aggregators, so there's no motivation to restrict what the private sector can do. So yeah, you're right. The Feds aren't likely to do much about this anytime soon.
Indeed. Sort of like drawing a bogus analogy between information that is created to be distributed and information that is considered to be private.
Not really. On the one hand, large corporations are upset because people are distributing their information without proper authorization. On the other, people are upset because large corporations are distributing their information without proper authorization.
Not so bogus when you get right down to it, and the fact that we consider said information to be "private" doesn't mean that it is. It matters what the law says. I mean, when it comes to content distribution, under U.S. law it's pretty clear that the copyright holder owns that data, and has the right to authorize (or not authorize) distribution of said materials.
Verizon's behavior is an issue because the matter is not so clear-cut. In fact, the real question here is this: who owns the database records that these companies maintain? I mean, if it truly is our data, then we own it, and Verizon can take their extra revenue stream and stuff it. However, if it's not, if the corp owns "our" data, or it's just a matter of public record, then we either deal with that fact or don't use a cell phone.
The law really needs to clarify this. Maybe it already has, I don't know. But giving out this kind of information is only going to hurt people (identity theft and worse) and really shouldn't be allowed, period. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it should be illegal for a business to record any information about its customers that is not absolutely required to provide the purchased service. That means you don't ask for my SS number for a start.
Well, just FYI I have AT&T's Callvantage service. Never had a problem with it, the feature set is really nice (I like getting emails with my messages as WAV file attachments) and it's $24.95/month. International rates are competitive as well. For example, my girlfriend is from Lagos, and Comcast Digital Voice wanted about $3.50 a fucking minute. Callvantage wants fifteen cents. Calling anywhere in the U.S., Canada and a number of U.S. territories is free.
They also have a softphone that runs on your PC, but I haven't tried that. I just connected the D-Link interface to the punchdown block in my utility room and all the phones in the house work fine.
There's also that Magic Jack gadget that I've seen marketed on TV all the time. One of the engineers at work has one, says it works great. Cheap too, about twenty bucks for a whole year.
Then my friend, they have already been brain washed. Sad really.
Probably not brainwashed, as such... but definitely in denial. No different in the U.S.: I know people who think the RIAA "needs those powers" and that the Telecom immunity deal was a good thing since they're helping in the fight against terrorism.
I've just about written off the UK. Hate to say it, but they're going down a dark road. Now, as an American, I can honestly say that my country's various governments are making every effort to go travel that same road.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall the hot black chick in the tight red outfit seemed to last the entire run. It was only the male red's that never made it out alive. Maybe their mother's should have given them a last name.
Or maybe a darker tan and a boob job.
By suing people left and right and getting at least some of them to settle (since it's a lot cheaper), he is promoting the myth that ideas can be copyrighted.
Seems to me that there's a well-known, indeed infamous organization that operates along similar lines.
Tell us what you really think dude ;)
What is Star-Trek?
It's an old TV show where men in tight-fitting outfits and women in mini-skirts and tight-fitting nylons flew a primitive warp-drive spaceship around, interfering in the development of numerous civilizations around our part of the galaxy on a weekly basis. That fine tradition was continued in the various Star Trek spinoff franchises that popped up (rather like weeds) in the decades since the original series was aired. Note to first-time viewers: the various characters in TOS (i.e., The Original Series) were conveniently color-coded for longevity: those wearing tight-fitting red outfits generally didn't make it out of any given episode alive.
"Hey, let's alienate(no pun intended) our core audience with a cutesy name!"
They already managed to do that with me when they cancelled Sliders for that stupid First Wave series, killed off Stargate SG-1 in favor of Battlestar Galactica (sorry BG, fans, I call 'em like I see 'em), gave airtime to that "psychic" John Edward, and then topped it all off with WRESTLING. Gagh!
... but they sure as hell know what "Sci Fi" means!
I'd really hoped that when Bonnie ("Let's take the 'science' out of Sci-Fi") Hammer stepped down that the situation at Sci-Fi Channel would improve. I'm sorry to say that the future doesn't look bright.
I mean the term Sci-Fi is a sensible contraction of Science Fiction. What the hell does "SyFy" mean? Jesus H. Christ, do the people that run Sci-Fi really think that they need to dumb things down so far that a microbe could understand them? It's not like Sci-Fi is some inside joke that only a Linux kernel hacker or a physicist would understand. I know a lot of people that have no use for science fiction of any kind
Unbe-fucking-lievable.
So does my IBM XT.
You're still using an XT?
Yes, indeed ... we have Congress ...
Thanks, my nose needed rinsed out with milk, and it has been awhile since I wiped off the keyboard and LCD...
Glad to be of service.
...is thank god BSG is on Sci-Fi channel and not Fox. Otherwise we'd likely have had only one season of it.
Ha. Like the Sci-Fi channel under Bonnie "What do you mean it's a hit?" Hammer didn't screw up pretty regularly, with much of the same political infighting and general bad judgment exhibited by Fox. I mean, replacing Sliders with First Wave was about as boneheaded a maneuver as you can possibly imagine (Ms. Hammer was convinced that First Wave was a "guaranteed hit".) Google the conflict between John Rhys-Davies and the fifth season producer David Peckinpah ... Christ, talk about politics.
Of course, we're talking about the woman who honestly believed that that John Edward pseudo-psychic and (of all things) wrestling were of any interest to people who enjoy the likes of Stargate SG-1, Sliders, and other well-produced science-fiction (BSG doesn't really cut it in my opinion, but maybe my perceptions are colored from having sat through too many episodes of the original.)
Let's do the timeshift again! Let's do the timeshift again!
It's just a click to the right!
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).
The tv show Sliders was a flop, let's not rehash one of their episode starters.
Sliders a flop? I have to disagree. Flops don't last five seasons, and in fact Sliders was one of the best alternate-Universe series ever created. If it hadn't been for that bitch Bonnie what's-her-face who in some drug-induced haze thought that Second Wave (gagh!) was a guaranteed hit to replace Sliders, it would have gone on for a lot longer. Sci-Fi put all their marbles into Second Wave (which was an actual flop) and had to cancel Sliders, which in spite of the depredations of producer David Peckinpah was still very popular. Yet another stupid move by the Sci-Fi channel, which has a habit of producing hit series and then screwing them up.
{sigh} humorless mods.
This is because the West does not have the one thing that is needed in order to maintain long tern projects of this magnitude. The West does not have continuous governments.
Sure we do ... the United States Federal Government has been around for longer than China's current government. What we don't have is long-term commitments ... the next Administration that gets elected restructures the Feds priority system and things change. Nevertheless, NASA has been around for a while, is still funded, and our space presence isn't going to just go away. It's too valuable to our economy for one.
You're right that a totalitarian state that doesn't have to contend with elections can maintain a given commitment without the vagaries of elections and the voting public. That was true about the Soviet Union previously. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether China will be able to maintain the requisite economic growth to continue funding its space program. The things are hideously expensive, and China's economy is not stable. Anything could happen in the next ten years or so.
You're also forgetting that the primary reason our space program was defunded (commpared to the halcyon days of the Apollo program) was that there was no perceived competition, no "space race" that required continuous investment, nothing to inspire the public. If China proceeds with its plans for utilization of near-space, believe me, that's going to change.
Don't worry. There's still one or maybe two smart people left in the USA. The rest left ages ago when it became a nation of fundamentalist christians.
USA; 90%+ believes in God. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html )
lol
"lol" to you too, you humanoid ass. All right, here goes:
... I know! Why don't you bitch about Italy! Would you guess that the percentage of Italians who believe in God is: a. above 90, or b. above 90%. The answer, of course, is c. above 90%. Are all Italians stupid? Is that what you're trying to say?
A. you're quoting Fox News, so any credibility you might have had is shot right there, and
B. mere belief in a supreme being of some sort cannot (by any stretch of your obviously overworked imagination) be equated to fundamentalist Christianity, and
C. Let's see. Places where lots of people believe in God
Assuming your facts are correct (and I'm not granting that at this point) the fact that 90% of American believe in something beyond themselves is absolutely no reason to be insulting. I mean, you assholes complain endlessly about the American people (with no apparent real knowledge of us) and yet, you're behaving in the same uncivilized, uncouth manner you ascribe to us. You have hissy fits if an American says anything about you that you deem derogatory or misinformed (and I'm not just talking about fundamentalist Muslims: some of you European Slashdotters have some growing up to do as well) yet have no problem spouting absolute garbage about us. Dude, just grow up. Seriously.
Personally, I have no belief in any deity, religion or dogma of any kind, but I still found your remark to be irrational and misinformed, and about as cultured and sensitive as a rock. If you're not from the United States (and given how, well, wrong you are I'm guessing you're not) I sincerely hope that you're never allowed to set foot here. The moment that happens our collective IQ will drop by a substantial amount.
tell the same to vietnam, granada, panama, iraq, afghanistan...
Are you claiming that the U.S. annexed all those territories? Oh please. Spare me the anti-U.S rhetoric: temporary occupation is not the same as annexation.
The United States is not an Imperial power, never has been and doesn't want to be. Given the size of the military we owned during the Cold War, we could have been, and there wouldn't have been one goddamn thing any of you could have done about it. There'd have been two global empires, us and the Soviets. But we didn't take that road, and we're not about to now.
So lay off the ridiculous comparisons. We're trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, not make them part of some imaginary Empire you have in your head, and will eventually leave both those countries.
How about introducing some EU-style dataprotection?
Two arguments against:
1 - it would mean admitting the EU was right 2 - it would mean turning back the clock on all the agencies poking in your life already, or exposing that they will be exempt. Both are not good news for a nation that pretends to be about freedom and democracy, and that myth must be kept alive at all costs.
1. They were. That fact was obvious from the start (this was just another "give them an inch and they'll take the whole damn yard" scenario anyway. Or is that centimeter and meter?) Surprise, big corporations can't be trusted. Who knew?
2. The United States' various governments are barred, in many areas, from collecting and storing personal data on their citizens. They're not barred from buying or extorting that information from private aggregators, so there's no motivation to restrict what the private sector can do. So yeah, you're right. The Feds aren't likely to do much about this anytime soon.
Follow these instructions:
1) Call Verizon. 2) Have the representative explain "CPNI." 3) Ask a couple of questions. 4) Ask the representative to OPT-OUT of all your phones.
You have just cost Verizon Wireless about $20.00 for that call.
I don't even have Verizon and I think I'd like to call them and try to opt out anyway.
You really think there is a difference?
What make believe world do you live in?
The two divisions are governed by substantially different bodies of regulation. That's the difference.
Indeed. Sort of like drawing a bogus analogy between information that is created to be distributed and information that is considered to be private.
Not really. On the one hand, large corporations are upset because people are distributing their information without proper authorization. On the other, people are upset because large corporations are distributing their information without proper authorization.
Not so bogus when you get right down to it, and the fact that we consider said information to be "private" doesn't mean that it is. It matters what the law says. I mean, when it comes to content distribution, under U.S. law it's pretty clear that the copyright holder owns that data, and has the right to authorize (or not authorize) distribution of said materials.
Verizon's behavior is an issue because the matter is not so clear-cut. In fact, the real question here is this: who owns the database records that these companies maintain? I mean, if it truly is our data, then we own it, and Verizon can take their extra revenue stream and stuff it. However, if it's not, if the corp owns "our" data, or it's just a matter of public record, then we either deal with that fact or don't use a cell phone.
The law really needs to clarify this. Maybe it already has, I don't know. But giving out this kind of information is only going to hurt people (identity theft and worse) and really shouldn't be allowed, period. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it should be illegal for a business to record any information about its customers that is not absolutely required to provide the purchased service. That means you don't ask for my SS number for a start.
Well, just FYI I have AT&T's Callvantage service. Never had a problem with it, the feature set is really nice (I like getting emails with my messages as WAV file attachments) and it's $24.95/month. International rates are competitive as well. For example, my girlfriend is from Lagos, and Comcast Digital Voice wanted about $3.50 a fucking minute. Callvantage wants fifteen cents. Calling anywhere in the U.S., Canada and a number of U.S. territories is free.
They also have a softphone that runs on your PC, but I haven't tried that. I just connected the D-Link interface to the punchdown block in my utility room and all the phones in the house work fine.
There's also that Magic Jack gadget that I've seen marketed on TV all the time. One of the engineers at work has one, says it works great. Cheap too, about twenty bucks for a whole year.
I don't carry a cellphone anymore. I hate being 'on call' like that when I'm away.
Two words: Caller ID.
Sadly our whores....errr politicians sold us out years ago.
If they were actually whores, at least we'd all have gotten laid.
That was well before Reagan.
Yeah, but it's a lot more fun to pick on a popular dead guy.
Now it's just like herding sheep.
Which is too bad. It used to be like herding software engineers. Things were better then.
Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay.
It's still totally okay. But they'll ring up the marked price anyway.
Then my friend, they have already been brain washed. Sad really.
Probably not brainwashed, as such ... but definitely in denial. No different in the U.S.: I know people who think the RIAA "needs those powers" and that the Telecom immunity deal was a good thing since they're helping in the fight against terrorism.
Gagh.
UK Government Wants To Kill Net Neutrality In EU
Hannibal King: "Fuck me. Fuck me sideways."
I've just about written off the UK. Hate to say it, but they're going down a dark road. Now, as an American, I can honestly say that my country's various governments are making every effort to go travel that same road.
I'm bitterly disappointed in both of them.