I'm with you, man. We had a Beta machine. I supported Laserdisc from the late seventies until DVD came out. I insisted on AC-3 when everyone else switched to DTS. I understand about lost causes. The problem is, with (say it with me) a social network, the operative word is social. This means that if you're using a tool to socialize, and nobody else uses that tool, you can't socialize. It may be cool and all to push the buttons and watch things change, but the purpose of the tool is interaction, which precludes someone with which to interact.
So, it really doesn't matter, in this case, who's better, or how many child molesters are using this tool vs that tool. What matters is what Joe and Tom and Jane and your mom can be talked into using. And I don't know about you, but nobody outside my private circle of geeks have even heard of Google+.
> And other than winning the fucking popularity contest, tell me exactly how Facebook is any different from this social network offering.
As a practical matter, the difference, exactly, is this: My friends are over there. My friends are not on Google+.
I mean, I personally consider the G+ interface a little screwy, but admit there are aspects that are undeniably superior to Facebook. But like Beta, G+ may be better, but in the world in which it chooses to compete, the number of users is important. Like VHS, Facebook is annoying, but there's a large enough selection (of users in this case) to make it viable. You may be lucky enough to have all your friends there. For those of us who can't convince our friends to move, G+ is a hermit's cave.
There's a saying: The good news is, your parents are on facebook. The bad news is, your parents are on facebook.
Similarly, the good news is, your parents are *not* on Google+. The bad news is, neither is anyone else.
Not "hater" (how I wish that PC term would go away) but just a non-user. I have a google account (who doesn't?) but I don't remember the last time I logged into Google+. Everyone I know is elsewhere. Friends have a G+ account, but they never go there, which kinda defeats the purpose.
That's not "hating", that's picking up a tool, looking it over, and saying "why do I need this?"
But... how many of those are actual users, or just people who created a google account because it's required to activate their phone? It's like Microsoft counting a pre-installed copy that was deleted and Linux installed in its place, as a Windows sale. Technically true, but not germane.
I think the main reason people use a protocol that works with gtalk (including gtalk) is that of the tools with the highest name recognition, gtalk is the most well known that isn't a spambot generator (yahoo messenger) or isn't confined to Apple gear (whatever Apple uses). I think Microsoft has something and I think AOL is still out there, but of the tools with name recognition, gtalk is the most likely choice.
Although, less now.
I mean, at my work, my group all ran out and got google accounts, even the Apple users, because gtalk worked everywhere and Office Communicator did not. Now, gtalk does *not* work everywhere, and now we have to rethink that.
Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...
Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.
Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen. I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.
Re:what is the point of forking a distro ?
on
Mageia 3 Released
·
· Score: 1
> Watch TOS through the lens of the times: cold war, racial instability, space race, technology leaps, counterculture, the end of imperialism.
Ok, I'll bite. Now watch Into Darkness through the lens of 9/11; the war against terrorism, the militarization of government, "enhanced" infantry, internal struggles in government between "following the rules" and "achieving the objective at any cost". The plot is so currently relevant, it almost runs the risk of appearing archaic in 20 years, like TOS racism episodes seem now.
I'm an old phart. I missed the first run of ST:TOS because Tuesday was scout night. I had to catch up over the summer and fill in the gaps in reruns. I had the official Starfleet blueprint book. I've met Walter Koenig. I was one of the people at first excited, then disappointed, then bored with TNG and the series' that followed after. Somewhere along the line, I went from Trek fanatic to Trek detractor, and let's face it -- Trek in the Rick Berman era deserved some criticism.
The movies -- first one, after all that wait, so disappointing. Did we really have to wait that long for a flashy remake of The Changeling? Second, I saw several times. Third sucked. Fourth was embarrassing in parts, but generally ok. Fifth sucked even worse. Sixth made up for the fifth. I haven't seen any of the TNG films more than once. I remember First Contact was just ok and Generations slightly less so. The rest were painful to watch. Trek was dead dead dead.
And then, J. J. Abrams got involved. The reboot had its flaws -- the lens flare is really irritating, and the engine room looked like a brewery. (Oh, wait...) But it had something that had been lost somewhere along the way. Drive, purpose, excitement, adventure. Now, "adventure", of course, has different meanings to different people. If "adventure" means rehashing some philosophical point in endless meetings or technobabbling one's way out of an artificial predicament, the reboot doesn't have much of that. And that's a good thing.
Which brings us to Star Trek Into Darkness. I had read the reviews and forums before going, and non-trekkies appeared to consider it a good action movie, a real "roller coaster ride" (which made me a little uncomfortable -- so many films labeled thus have sucked mightily), whereas die-hard Trekkies seemed to hate it even more than the first film.
So I didn't know what to expect when I went. And I was amazed. Many of the problems of the reboot film have been corrected, and they've dug into Trek lore that I didn't think I'd ever see on the screen. I will not spoil it here, except to mention the Dreadnaught, which appears in the trailer. That ship was in the original "star fleet blueprints" released in the seventies, (marked "experimental" as I recall) has appeared in a few of the Trek novels, but never on the screen until now. (Which, in-story, makes no sense at all -- Star Fleet should have built several of them for the Borg war, but never mind.) And they even *called* it a Dreadnaught. For those of us who stuck with Trek in the early days, that, (and that the bridge was modeled after the original series) is a huge thing. There are other aspects of the plot (which I won't spoil here) that appeared in Trek novels but had never been filmed. Throughout, the impression I got was that this is Star Trek as originally conceived back in 1966 had they today's techniques and budget.
My conclusion: If you've been raised on Voyager and Enterprise, this is not your Star Trek. For you, there will always be reruns. But if you were eleven when you first saw The Man Trap, the current franchise is something you've wanted to see for a very long time. I'm sorry it doesn't fit the Endless Meetings, Super Talky Trek that some fans appear to desperately need. But speaking for myself, Into Darkness has made me a fan again.
What, right in the middle of the hippie, anti-war, anti-government free love, kill your parents generation? Trek lagged behind. "Dear Abby, my daughter refuses to listen to me. She does all kinds of drugs, listens to loud music and has had sex with hundreds of men. And women. What do I do?"
"Dear Abby. My 8th grade son insists he is gay. I think he's going through a phase. What do I do?"
In the mid-sixties, our small town got it's first strip joint, and the front page had one of the working girls handing the mayor her bra. (Seen from the back, but nevertheless.) Now that's all passe, of course.
Not really the point. With Firefly, it wasn't really about the effects, it was about the script and acting. The stories would have worked as a stage play.
> The sad part about some of the "technology" in Star Trek is that real phenomena and scientific theories can be used to explain at least some of those concepts (such as quantum teleportation and 3D printers) that should be at least correctly referenced in the current series reboot rather than pulling BS out of their hind end.
Uh-huh... the 'Family section' deals with the philosophical and cultural issues that Star Trek addresses. Name something, anything, that hasn't been in a Trek movie or episode. I don't even like Trek but my complaints certainly aren't with the depth of the show. You're either a fucking idiot or a troll.
Yes, trivial proof would be a week's worth of advice columns. Add Dave Barry's column for comic relief. Trek was, after all, a TV show, meant for entertainment, not the sermon on the mount.
Mind you, I've only seen Nemesis and Insurrection once, and I mean to keep it that way. But otherwise, right on. Trekkies appear to have an odd understanding of what "literary" means.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. My daughter skypes. I really have to look into it. She might even start talking to me again.
Or, maybe she skypes because I *don't* use it. I'll have to think this through.
I'm with you, man. We had a Beta machine. I supported Laserdisc from the late seventies until DVD came out. I insisted on AC-3 when everyone else switched to DTS. I understand about lost causes. The problem is, with (say it with me) a social network, the operative word is social. This means that if you're using a tool to socialize, and nobody else uses that tool, you can't socialize. It may be cool and all to push the buttons and watch things change, but the purpose of the tool is interaction, which precludes someone with which to interact.
So, it really doesn't matter, in this case, who's better, or how many child molesters are using this tool vs that tool. What matters is what Joe and Tom and Jane and your mom can be talked into using. And I don't know about you, but nobody outside my private circle of geeks have even heard of Google+.
> And other than winning the fucking popularity contest, tell me exactly how Facebook is any different from this social network offering.
As a practical matter, the difference, exactly, is this: My friends are over there. My friends are not on Google+.
I mean, I personally consider the G+ interface a little screwy, but admit there are aspects that are undeniably superior to Facebook. But like Beta, G+ may be better, but in the world in which it chooses to compete, the number of users is important. Like VHS, Facebook is annoying, but there's a large enough selection (of users in this case) to make it viable. You may be lucky enough to have all your friends there. For those of us who can't convince our friends to move, G+ is a hermit's cave.
There's a saying: The good news is, your parents are on facebook. The bad news is, your parents are on facebook.
Similarly, the good news is, your parents are *not* on Google+. The bad news is, neither is anyone else.
Not "hater" (how I wish that PC term would go away) but just a non-user. I have a google account (who doesn't?) but I don't remember the last time I logged into Google+. Everyone I know is elsewhere. Friends have a G+ account, but they never go there, which kinda defeats the purpose.
That's not "hating", that's picking up a tool, looking it over, and saying "why do I need this?"
But... how many of those are actual users, or just people who created a google account because it's required to activate their phone? It's like Microsoft counting a pre-installed copy that was deleted and Linux installed in its place, as a Windows sale. Technically true, but not germane.
I think the main reason people use a protocol that works with gtalk (including gtalk) is that of the tools with the highest name recognition, gtalk is the most well known that isn't a spambot generator (yahoo messenger) or isn't confined to Apple gear (whatever Apple uses). I think Microsoft has something and I think AOL is still out there, but of the tools with name recognition, gtalk is the most likely choice.
Although, less now.
I mean, at my work, my group all ran out and got google accounts, even the Apple users, because gtalk worked everywhere and Office Communicator did not. Now, gtalk does *not* work everywhere, and now we have to rethink that.
Ok, so Google Talk is going away at some point, everyone I talk to who uses a different tool will no longer be reachable with "Hangouts", and I'll be confined only to my excruciatingly small circle of Google+ friends...
Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.
Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen. I haven't heard of anything so useless since the Anarchists Union.
Share and enjoy.
Wasn't that a recent movie franchise?
> Watch TOS through the lens of the times: cold war, racial instability, space race, technology leaps, counterculture, the end of imperialism.
Ok, I'll bite. Now watch Into Darkness through the lens of 9/11; the war against terrorism, the militarization of government, "enhanced" infantry, internal struggles in government between "following the rules" and "achieving the objective at any cost". The plot is so currently relevant, it almost runs the risk of appearing archaic in 20 years, like TOS racism episodes seem now.
> Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as sci-fi.
Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as generally boring and pedestrian sci-fi.
Fixed it for you.
> In about 10 years humans will finally meet aliens
Ok, I'm mildly interested. Is this your own private conviction, or are you basing it on something?
Was that the only word I used incorrectly? A personal best!
I'm an old phart. I missed the first run of ST:TOS because Tuesday was scout night. I had to catch up over the summer and fill in the gaps in reruns. I had the official Starfleet blueprint book. I've met Walter Koenig. I was one of the people at first excited, then disappointed, then bored with TNG and the series' that followed after. Somewhere along the line, I went from Trek fanatic to Trek detractor, and let's face it -- Trek in the Rick Berman era deserved some criticism.
The movies -- first one, after all that wait, so disappointing. Did we really have to wait that long for a flashy remake of The Changeling? Second, I saw several times. Third sucked. Fourth was embarrassing in parts, but generally ok. Fifth sucked even worse. Sixth made up for the fifth. I haven't seen any of the TNG films more than once. I remember First Contact was just ok and Generations slightly less so. The rest were painful to watch. Trek was dead dead dead.
And then, J. J. Abrams got involved. The reboot had its flaws -- the lens flare is really irritating, and the engine room looked like a brewery. (Oh, wait...) But it had something that had been lost somewhere along the way. Drive, purpose, excitement, adventure. Now, "adventure", of course, has different meanings to different people. If "adventure" means rehashing some philosophical point in endless meetings or technobabbling one's way out of an artificial predicament, the reboot doesn't have much of that. And that's a good thing.
Which brings us to Star Trek Into Darkness. I had read the reviews and forums before going, and non-trekkies appeared to consider it a good action movie, a real "roller coaster ride" (which made me a little uncomfortable -- so many films labeled thus have sucked mightily), whereas die-hard Trekkies seemed to hate it even more than the first film.
So I didn't know what to expect when I went. And I was amazed. Many of the problems of the reboot film have been corrected, and they've dug into Trek lore that I didn't think I'd ever see on the screen. I will not spoil it here, except to mention the Dreadnaught, which appears in the trailer. That ship was in the original "star fleet blueprints" released in the seventies, (marked "experimental" as I recall) has appeared in a few of the Trek novels, but never on the screen until now. (Which, in-story, makes no sense at all -- Star Fleet should have built several of them for the Borg war, but never mind.) And they even *called* it a Dreadnaught. For those of us who stuck with Trek in the early days, that, (and that the bridge was modeled after the original series) is a huge thing. There are other aspects of the plot (which I won't spoil here) that appeared in Trek novels but had never been filmed. Throughout, the impression I got was that this is Star Trek as originally conceived back in 1966 had they today's techniques and budget.
My conclusion: If you've been raised on Voyager and Enterprise, this is not your Star Trek. For you, there will always be reruns. But if you were eleven when you first saw The Man Trap, the current franchise is something you've wanted to see for a very long time. I'm sorry it doesn't fit the Endless Meetings, Super Talky Trek that some fans appear to desperately need. But speaking for myself, Into Darkness has made me a fan again.
What, right in the middle of the hippie, anti-war, anti-government free love, kill your parents generation? Trek lagged behind. "Dear Abby, my daughter refuses to listen to me. She does all kinds of drugs, listens to loud music and has had sex with hundreds of men. And women. What do I do?"
"Dear Abby. My 8th grade son insists he is gay. I think he's going through a phase. What do I do?"
In the mid-sixties, our small town got it's first strip joint, and the front page had one of the working girls handing the mayor her bra. (Seen from the back, but nevertheless.) Now that's all passe, of course.
Not really the point. With Firefly, it wasn't really about the effects, it was about the script and acting. The stories would have worked as a stage play.
> The sad part about some of the "technology" in Star Trek is that real phenomena and scientific theories can be used to explain at least some of those concepts (such as quantum teleportation and 3D printers) that should be at least correctly referenced in the current series reboot rather than pulling BS out of their hind end.
Yes, what he said.
Firefly was arguably superior.
Uh-huh... the 'Family section' deals with the philosophical and cultural issues that Star Trek addresses. Name something, anything, that hasn't been in a Trek movie or episode.
I don't even like Trek but my complaints certainly aren't with the depth of the show. You're either a fucking idiot or a troll.
Yes, trivial proof would be a week's worth of advice columns. Add Dave Barry's column for comic relief. Trek was, after all, a TV show, meant for entertainment, not the sermon on the mount.
This.
You nailed it.
Mind you, I've only seen Nemesis and Insurrection once, and I mean to keep it that way. But otherwise, right on. Trekkies appear to have an odd understanding of what "literary" means.
Oh please. But with rare exception, with not any more depth than the Family section of one's local newspaper.
This one. (You have to wait through a commercial, apologies.)
I liked the first film, but it was *in spite of* the lens flare. Idiotic waste of special effect.