You don't have to be bad at math to play the lottery. A buck for a ticket is a small price to pay for the entertainment you get when the numbers come up. Especially if your friends play, it can be a social event when the numbers are announced.
Well, honestly, you play correctly. If you're not actually expecting to win, but you find some entertainment in sitting there with your friends waiting for the numbers to come up, more power to you. I don't think you represent the majority, though. I think most of the people playing the lottery are people who spend money that they could actually use for more practical things, in the hope of moving up from poverty. I don't have numbers to back this feeling up, but I do see those local news stories every time the jackpot goes up into the $200 million range with poor schmoes buying hundreds of dollars worth of tickets. Congratulations, dude: you just increased your odds of winning from nearly impossible to still nearly impossible.
The above is not an argument against the lottery, btw. I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from their own bad decisions. It is, however, an argument for better public education. People would make less bad decisions if they had the tools to analyze a situation better.
Given how my experience was mere months ago I will stick with what I know rather than what I read in some uk paper.
Did you read the linked article? Because I wasn't referring to cost as in your personal monetary cost. I was referring to cost as in the slavery that makes the city so cheap for you. You know, the stuff that you probably wouldn't notice by just spending a few weeks there as a tourist.
Why I would go to Dubai again? Because I can get 2 days complete entertainment and be treated like a king for the cost of a short cab fare in any major American city.
Jury nullification can serve a higher sense of justice, and that was indeed its intended purpose. But it can just as easily be used, say, by a white jury to pardon a white man for murdering a black man.
I've heard that argument before, but that's not a problem with jury nullification. It's a problem with jury selection. If you're dealing with a racially motivated crime and the jury all belongs to the same ethnicity, you have a problem.
I don't get what the problem is. If you don't grasp the material, regardless of the reason, you fail the course. I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't understand evolution.
It wasn't a small cause. It was the primary cause. If people didn't buy houses they couldn't afford, we would not be in a recession right now. It really is that simple. You blame the banks for giving out loans to people that can't afford them, are you suggesting that we have McDonalds refuse to sell food to fat people because they are too stupid to not order 2 Big Macs, super sized fries, with a large chocolate shake? People need to take responsibility for themselves.
What the hell?
When you lose your house because you weren't able to afford payments, that is indeed your fault. You bit off more than you could chew, and now you're paying for it.
When you loan money for somebody who weren't able to afford payments, and then they don't pay, that's your fault for loaning the money. You got their income and credit information, you knew the risk, but you thought it was worth it. When they declare bankruptcy and the house they used as collateral isn't worth as much as the loan, that's your fault. You took a risk you shouldn't have and now you're paying for it.
When you give out too many risky loans, can't justify the risk, so you start playing games to be able to rate those loans as less risky than they actually are, and as a result the economy crashes when the risky loans don't get repaid, the fault is not with the people who took out the loans. It's your bad risk management strategy and arguably fraudulent practices. Your analogy doesn't work because McDonald's incurs no risk by selling food to fat people. If you're going to make your analogy work, it's like McDonald's blaming people who got fat from eating their food because they give McDonald's food a bad reputation and devalue their product.
The prime directive applied for cultures that were vastly behind technologically. They were isolated in their own little islands of worlds, posing zero threat to anyone other than themselves. We do have that version of the prime directive, and we try to protect from interference by civilization at large.
On the other hand, if you're not technologically behind, even the ethical federation was not beyond heavy interference. Even if we leave aside the desperate war against the Dominion in DS9. For example, in Chain of Command, when Starfleet got intelligence (which turned out to be deliberate misinformation) that the Cardassians were building a "biogenic weapon", they sent Picard with a small group to covertly enter Cardassian space and destroy it.
But ideally all of us would find at least one pet project that we devote some of our free time to - soup kitchens, political lobbying (for a worthy cause), volunteer work at a school, volunteer work at a library, mentoring kids, contributing to Wikipedia and similar projects, maintaining a historical monument, improving energy efficiency, or writing free software.
If doing those things make you happy, and it does to most people, then by all means. You don't do them because they're "productive" activities, though. You do them because you get enjoyment out of them.
The point I was trying to make is that a worthwhile activity is not determined by a measure of how much you got done, but rather by a measure of whether you enjoyed yourself while doing it. Don't go volunteer to mentor kids if you hate kids just because you think the world is in need of mentors. Go volunteer to mentor kids if you enjoy spending time with them. Similarly, don't decide you shouldn't play games because "nothing was accomplished" while you were gaming. If you enjoyed your time playing, it was time well-spent.
Gaming is the reasing I actually stick with Linux. Everytime I was gaming, I realized that I wasted my time instead of doing something productive. With non Win/Mac-OSes I'm very limted with this and won't be tempted.
Your priorities are screwed up. You do productive stuff in order to get money in order to do things that are completely unproductive but make you happy. Ideally, you wouldn't do anything productive at all, and you'd spend all your time doing entertaining things with your family and friends (and by yourself, because honestly, we all need a break from people).
-and those who would simply read from a textbook and were not inclined to answer questions either.
Well, if they don't try their best to answer your questions, I completely agree with you, they're not doing their job. My point was that these people are not trained to teach, so the professors who are good teachers are all people who have a natural talent for it. You're going to get a lot of people who just suck at it, well-intentioned as they may be. In a college setting, it's understood that this does not matter. You're expected to learn on their own, and the professors are there to answer the big questions. Which means they should try to answer your questions to the best of their ability, and you should expect them to know the material inside and out, but you can't rely on them being good at answering the questions in such a way that it'll click with you.
I speak from experience. When I was in grad school to get a Ph.D. in EE, I got thrust into teaching a course after going to a 2-day workshop. Most of the workshop was about what to do to avoid lawsuits (don't go out to meet your students in a bar, you need to maintain a professional distance), and how to handle people who break the academic code. I knew nothing about how to be an effective teacher, and as much as I've tried to, I recognized I sucked at it. I knew the material well, but finding a different way of thinking about it that would resonate with those students who don't think like you do is a tremendously rare and valuable skill.
You'll be glad to know I'm not working in academia, so I'm no longer subjecting students to my crappy lectures.
It is *your* job to learn. It is *not* the professor's job to hold your hand as though you were an infant.
The student isn't paid to learn, the teacher is paid to teach. You have it backwards.
Professors are not teachers. They're experts in a field and you pay to have access to their expertise. Case in point, if you're going to teach in high school, you actually take education classes and get training in how to best get information through to students. Professors don't get any training for teaching, save maybe a 2-3 day workshop when they were graduate student TA's. Their career is about managing labs and writing papers.
You're supposed to do most of the learning entirely on your own. The lectures are supposed to guide you, and it's a place you can use to ask any questions to fill in anything you didn't understand while studying on your own, at home. If you really want to get your money's worth, you find a professor who works on something that really interests you, you get involved, and you learn a hell of a lot more. Now, if your lecturers take attendance, then you can take them to task for not doing a good job teaching, because if you're forced to be in class when you have no questions, they're wasting your time, not just taking your money.
That happened to me. Someone asked me what I do and I answered "Software Developer". A few weeks he described my job to someone else as "IT technician".
I encountered that myself, and was incredibly surprised by it.
I'm an electrical engineer, and whenever people asked me what I do, I got tired of answering EE and then explaining to them that I can't fix the bad wiring in their house because EE doesn't mean "electrician." So, I started answering "software developer" to that question, since that's a more accurate definition of my job anyway (I write engineering simulation software). I was pretty surprised to find out that people will interpret that either as IT admin or IT help desk.
I've since realized you can't win. My economist friends keep having to explain to people that they are not accountants. I think there are very few professions out there that are unambiguous. "I do computer stuff," sounds about right for a proper answer for what we do.
You know, I don't really have a solution myself, but I don't think that's relevant. What you're saying is, "I can't figure out how the scribe industry can survive now that we have the printing press, so we should outlaw the use of a printing press to create copies of books and require that every copy of a book be made by hand in order to artificially inflate the value of books and keep those scribes employed. We'll keep the printing press only for things that MUST be made quickly, like newspapers."
If the industry can't survive in a world with the technology where copies are made essentially for free, then that industry should die.
Having people only wanting to talk to you about the same thing over and over for half a century would get old for anyone. Star Trek or otherwise. I'd think that "not wanting to talk about Star Trek" and "hating Star Trek" are different things that some fans are probably confusing.
Well, I agree, but based on what I've seen, I don't think he ever said he didn't want to talk about Star Trek. I absolutely think he pushed for also talking about his other projects, and some people might have interpreted "we've talked enough about Star Trek today" to mean "I don't want to talk about Star Trek."
Also, I should point out that you can view the situation you described in two different ways. You can view it as people wanting to talk to you about the same thing over and over for half a century as repetitive and tiring. You can also view it as, "I was part of something so great that people still remember me, and even newer generations who weren't alive back then are still trying to get to know me half a century later." That's powerful stuff, I'm not sure there's anyone who wouldn't want to be a part of something that special.
That said, the poster above exemplifies the type of fans that misinterprets that sentiment and spreads rumors. He said that Nimoy wants to talk about his photography, and he doesn't care about anything other than the Star Trek work. Listen, if you want to see *Spock*, go buy the DVDs. You go to a convention because you want to see Nimoy. Yes, you want to know about the stories from when he was filming Star Trek, you want to know about his views on the show...but if you're not interested in what other pursuits the man has, then why are you there? Spock isn't real, Nimoy is. Which is really what the title of that first autobiography was meant to be out. It's not, "I Am Not Spock" as in, "I hate that I ever played the part of that character." It's "I Am Not Spock" as in, "this is a book about my life, the man behind Spock, and what I'm truly like."
In a free society, you are free to do things. However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility)...There are already a whole slew of things that you're free to say, but reap the downside of (slander etc.).
I never understood that argument. Is there any society that is not free by that measure? In a dictatorship, you're free to speak out against the government. They'll arrest you for it, but that's the consequence of your speech, right?
I think you confuse consequences with punishment. Freedom necessarily means you won't be punished for the action you're free to do. That doesn't mean there are no consequences. Let's use the cyber-bullying as an example. You're free to say mean things about somebody on the net. When the kid commits suicide, that's a consequence of your action. You didn't mean for it to go that far, but now you have to live with it for the rest of your life. That's responsibility. If in addition to it, the government tries to charge you with a crime, then you didn't have freedom of speech after all.
Think about it...I'm sure you're physically capable of pulling the trigger and shooting someone. However, nobody says you're free to do that. What makes you not free is that we have a punishment for it. It's not that you're free but have to suffer the consequence of life in prison or a death sentence.
Re:Just don't ask him about Star Trek
on
Spock Gives Up the Con
·
· Score: 4, Informative
He certainly felt trapped by his role in ST:TOS. So much so, that he wrote a book about it. It wasn't until MANY years later that he started to do conventions and other ST type appearances.
A lot of people were offended when Nimoy released his autobiography and called it, "I Am Not Spock," and called him ungrateful to the show that propelled his career and other things. All those people were idiots who never bothered to read the book and assumed it was all about him complaining of the typecasting. These complaints from uninformed people is probably what you remember, and it's what you're referencing now.
Well, I read, "I Am Not Spock." A good portion of it (maybe the majority) is about some of his very fond memories at the set of Star Trek. How he and Bill Shatner initially didn't get along, partly because of some hilarious pranks Shatner played on him, usually involving the bicycle Nimoy used to ride to the studio, but were seen as annoying at the time. He also mentioned how their animosity was getting to be a problem, but Roddenberry solved it by making Kirk and Spock close friends on script, which ended up translating to Nimoy and Shatner developing a very strong friendship in real life. Interesting stuff, and he never once disparaged Trek, even as the typecasting caused him problems.
Frankly, I don't know that I buy the whole, "don't talk about Trek" thing, since I've never once seen an interview with Nimoy in which Trek wasn't mentioned. I've seen plenty of convention clips on youtube in which Trek was extensively talked about, and hell, if he wanted to distance himself from it, not being part of the new Trek movie reboot would have been a good idea. I don't doubt that he asks to please talk about things other than Trek, but it doesn't make sense that he "hates" Trek.
Sometimes people just start rumors that, to the mind of others, makes sense. People think, "yeah, it must be annoying to have a bunch of nerds completely ignore everything else you've ever tried to do" and sometimes he must have felt unappreciated and overshadowed by the Spock character. That said, I've never seen any indication, other than random internet hearsay, that he resents the fans or the show. The book he wrote and the sequel, "I Am Spock," which I've also read, would certainly lead me to believe the opposite.
Highlighting a book or writing in the book margins is not what the courts have determined is "modification" and you know it...In the case of Psystar it is clear that they modified OS X.
Nobody is arguing the state of affairs right now makes what Psystar did illegal. What I am arguing is that it shouldn't be. For every copy of a modified Mac OS X they sold, a copy was bought from Apple. It is morally no different then reselling books I've modified through annotation. To give the author of books the right to "license" the sale to disallow me from doing such thing would be equivalent to what an EULA represents.
Yes, I know the courts supports EULAs. That's exactly why I believe a change is needed. I do not approve of the current laws.
JK Rowling can write another Harry Potter book, copyright it, and refuse to sell it.
Yes, she can. What she can't do is tell me that I can't modify a copy of the book I rightfully bought by, for example, writing on the margins or highlighting certain passages. In addition, she can't stop me from reselling a copy that I bought and modified by writing on the margins. She also most certainly can't sell the book under a license that says, "you're allowed to read it, but not to use under a table leg to help level it.
Copyright restricts distribution of copies. It doesn't restrict what you can do with a copy you rightfully bought.
If Apple had lost this case then what chance does any other software licence have?
Just because you disagree with their terms doesn't mean you can just ignore them, or say a court is wrong for "siding" with them.
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
The GPLv3 is not a software license. It does not restrict the end user in any way whatsoever. It's a distribution license. If the courts declare it invalid, that doesn't mean you can suddenly go around using GPL code anywhere, it means you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
There's a fundamental difference here. I didn't say I'm against copyrights (although I am against infinitely long copyrights), and I have absolutely nothing against Apple dictating the terms of how copies of their software may be distributed. Even if they say, "you can't redistribute copies at all," which is what most people do. If Stallman created a GPLv4 that said, "you can't use proprietary software in conjunction with software using this license," then THAT would be equivalent to an EULA, and yes, I'd be very much against it.
For what it's worth, I've been running zfs under fuse for a while, and am extremely happy with it. It wasn't built for performance, I just wanted the snapshotting + raidz features, so I've never benchmarked it. That said, reliability has been good. I've had a drive fail on me, and rebuilding the array worked as advertised, no issues introduced from fuse.
That's the opposite of volunteering. Like if I hold a gun to your head, and say 'work or I'll kill you'... if you volunteer that's not a choice. Neither is it a choice if I offer to torture you or let you 'volunteer' to work. Neither is it a choice if I offer to put you in a box for the day, or work.
That's not what's happening. You're not getting tortured if you don't choose to work, you simply remain in prison. Yes, you may argue that being imprisoned is torture, but the people working are still imprisoned.
No, a choice would be: come out to the open road. There you can work, or not.
C'mon...I'm the first to admit that we imprison far too many people for victimless crimes, especially with all the drug laws. That said, by your definition it's impossible to not be a slave. I can work or not, but if I choose not to work I won't have money to pay for shelter and food. In a sense, I'm being forced to work, but is that really the same as a gun to my head?
That's because TNG technobabble gets an undeserved bad rap. Amidst the truly bad stuff like reversing polarity and tachyon beams, there's a lot of things with a real science basis.
However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1) release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or earlier chips in the series.)
And if he had installed squeeze in i386, it would have been extremely interesting. Instead he went back and installed an old version of Debian from back when the 386 was supported. He installed a version of Debian that was MEANT to run on that machine.
I have a computer from 1993 still operating and running MS-DOS 5. I'm not about to write an article about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to be bad at math to play the lottery. A buck for a ticket is a small price to pay for the entertainment you get when the numbers come up. Especially if your friends play, it can be a social event when the numbers are announced.
Well, honestly, you play correctly. If you're not actually expecting to win, but you find some entertainment in sitting there with your friends waiting for the numbers to come up, more power to you. I don't think you represent the majority, though. I think most of the people playing the lottery are people who spend money that they could actually use for more practical things, in the hope of moving up from poverty. I don't have numbers to back this feeling up, but I do see those local news stories every time the jackpot goes up into the $200 million range with poor schmoes buying hundreds of dollars worth of tickets. Congratulations, dude: you just increased your odds of winning from nearly impossible to still nearly impossible.
The above is not an argument against the lottery, btw. I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from their own bad decisions. It is, however, an argument for better public education. People would make less bad decisions if they had the tools to analyze a situation better.
Given how my experience was mere months ago I will stick with what I know rather than what I read in some uk paper.
Did you read the linked article? Because I wasn't referring to cost as in your personal monetary cost. I was referring to cost as in the slavery that makes the city so cheap for you. You know, the stuff that you probably wouldn't notice by just spending a few weeks there as a tourist.
Why I would go to Dubai again? Because I can get 2 days complete entertainment and be treated like a king for the cost of a short cab fare in any major American city.
The cost is actually a little bit higher
It's a problem with jury selection.
The jury is selected randomly. There is a ~30% chance that a 10%-minority will not be represented on the jury.
The jury candidates are selected randomly. The jury itself is selected by the defense and prosecutor in the jury selection process.
Jury nullification can serve a higher sense of justice, and that was indeed its intended purpose. But it can just as easily be used, say, by a white jury to pardon a white man for murdering a black man.
I've heard that argument before, but that's not a problem with jury nullification. It's a problem with jury selection. If you're dealing with a racially motivated crime and the jury all belongs to the same ethnicity, you have a problem.
I don't get what the problem is. If you don't grasp the material, regardless of the reason, you fail the course. I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't understand evolution.
It wasn't a small cause. It was the primary cause. If people didn't buy houses they couldn't afford, we would not be in a recession right now. It really is that simple. You blame the banks for giving out loans to people that can't afford them, are you suggesting that we have McDonalds refuse to sell food to fat people because they are too stupid to not order 2 Big Macs, super sized fries, with a large chocolate shake? People need to take responsibility for themselves.
What the hell?
When you lose your house because you weren't able to afford payments, that is indeed your fault. You bit off more than you could chew, and now you're paying for it.
When you loan money for somebody who weren't able to afford payments, and then they don't pay, that's your fault for loaning the money. You got their income and credit information, you knew the risk, but you thought it was worth it. When they declare bankruptcy and the house they used as collateral isn't worth as much as the loan, that's your fault. You took a risk you shouldn't have and now you're paying for it.
When you give out too many risky loans, can't justify the risk, so you start playing games to be able to rate those loans as less risky than they actually are, and as a result the economy crashes when the risky loans don't get repaid, the fault is not with the people who took out the loans. It's your bad risk management strategy and arguably fraudulent practices. Your analogy doesn't work because McDonald's incurs no risk by selling food to fat people. If you're going to make your analogy work, it's like McDonald's blaming people who got fat from eating their food because they give McDonald's food a bad reputation and devalue their product.
Actually, that's not much different at all.
The prime directive applied for cultures that were vastly behind technologically. They were isolated in their own little islands of worlds, posing zero threat to anyone other than themselves. We do have that version of the prime directive, and we try to protect from interference by civilization at large.
On the other hand, if you're not technologically behind, even the ethical federation was not beyond heavy interference. Even if we leave aside the desperate war against the Dominion in DS9. For example, in Chain of Command, when Starfleet got intelligence (which turned out to be deliberate misinformation) that the Cardassians were building a "biogenic weapon", they sent Picard with a small group to covertly enter Cardassian space and destroy it.
But ideally all of us would find at least one pet project that we devote some of our free time to - soup kitchens, political lobbying (for a worthy cause), volunteer work at a school, volunteer work at a library, mentoring kids, contributing to Wikipedia and similar projects, maintaining a historical monument, improving energy efficiency, or writing free software.
If doing those things make you happy, and it does to most people, then by all means. You don't do them because they're "productive" activities, though. You do them because you get enjoyment out of them.
The point I was trying to make is that a worthwhile activity is not determined by a measure of how much you got done, but rather by a measure of whether you enjoyed yourself while doing it. Don't go volunteer to mentor kids if you hate kids just because you think the world is in need of mentors. Go volunteer to mentor kids if you enjoy spending time with them. Similarly, don't decide you shouldn't play games because "nothing was accomplished" while you were gaming. If you enjoyed your time playing, it was time well-spent.
Gaming is the reasing I actually stick with Linux. Everytime I was gaming, I realized that I wasted my time instead of doing something productive. With non Win/Mac-OSes I'm very limted with this and won't be tempted.
Your priorities are screwed up. You do productive stuff in order to get money in order to do things that are completely unproductive but make you happy. Ideally, you wouldn't do anything productive at all, and you'd spend all your time doing entertaining things with your family and friends (and by yourself, because honestly, we all need a break from people).
-and those who would simply read from a textbook and were not inclined to answer questions either.
Well, if they don't try their best to answer your questions, I completely agree with you, they're not doing their job. My point was that these people are not trained to teach, so the professors who are good teachers are all people who have a natural talent for it. You're going to get a lot of people who just suck at it, well-intentioned as they may be. In a college setting, it's understood that this does not matter. You're expected to learn on their own, and the professors are there to answer the big questions. Which means they should try to answer your questions to the best of their ability, and you should expect them to know the material inside and out, but you can't rely on them being good at answering the questions in such a way that it'll click with you.
I speak from experience. When I was in grad school to get a Ph.D. in EE, I got thrust into teaching a course after going to a 2-day workshop. Most of the workshop was about what to do to avoid lawsuits (don't go out to meet your students in a bar, you need to maintain a professional distance), and how to handle people who break the academic code. I knew nothing about how to be an effective teacher, and as much as I've tried to, I recognized I sucked at it. I knew the material well, but finding a different way of thinking about it that would resonate with those students who don't think like you do is a tremendously rare and valuable skill.
You'll be glad to know I'm not working in academia, so I'm no longer subjecting students to my crappy lectures.
The student isn't paid to learn, the teacher is paid to teach. You have it backwards.
Professors are not teachers. They're experts in a field and you pay to have access to their expertise. Case in point, if you're going to teach in high school, you actually take education classes and get training in how to best get information through to students. Professors don't get any training for teaching, save maybe a 2-3 day workshop when they were graduate student TA's. Their career is about managing labs and writing papers.
You're supposed to do most of the learning entirely on your own. The lectures are supposed to guide you, and it's a place you can use to ask any questions to fill in anything you didn't understand while studying on your own, at home. If you really want to get your money's worth, you find a professor who works on something that really interests you, you get involved, and you learn a hell of a lot more. Now, if your lecturers take attendance, then you can take them to task for not doing a good job teaching, because if you're forced to be in class when you have no questions, they're wasting your time, not just taking your money.
That happened to me. Someone asked me what I do and I answered "Software Developer". A few weeks he described my job to someone else as "IT technician".
I encountered that myself, and was incredibly surprised by it.
I'm an electrical engineer, and whenever people asked me what I do, I got tired of answering EE and then explaining to them that I can't fix the bad wiring in their house because EE doesn't mean "electrician." So, I started answering "software developer" to that question, since that's a more accurate definition of my job anyway (I write engineering simulation software). I was pretty surprised to find out that people will interpret that either as IT admin or IT help desk.
I've since realized you can't win. My economist friends keep having to explain to people that they are not accountants. I think there are very few professions out there that are unambiguous. "I do computer stuff," sounds about right for a proper answer for what we do.
You know, I don't really have a solution myself, but I don't think that's relevant. What you're saying is, "I can't figure out how the scribe industry can survive now that we have the printing press, so we should outlaw the use of a printing press to create copies of books and require that every copy of a book be made by hand in order to artificially inflate the value of books and keep those scribes employed. We'll keep the printing press only for things that MUST be made quickly, like newspapers."
If the industry can't survive in a world with the technology where copies are made essentially for free, then that industry should die.
Having people only wanting to talk to you about the same thing over and over for half a century would get old for anyone. Star Trek or otherwise. I'd think that "not wanting to talk about Star Trek" and "hating Star Trek" are different things that some fans are probably confusing.
Well, I agree, but based on what I've seen, I don't think he ever said he didn't want to talk about Star Trek. I absolutely think he pushed for also talking about his other projects, and some people might have interpreted "we've talked enough about Star Trek today" to mean "I don't want to talk about Star Trek."
Also, I should point out that you can view the situation you described in two different ways. You can view it as people wanting to talk to you about the same thing over and over for half a century as repetitive and tiring. You can also view it as, "I was part of something so great that people still remember me, and even newer generations who weren't alive back then are still trying to get to know me half a century later." That's powerful stuff, I'm not sure there's anyone who wouldn't want to be a part of something that special.
That said, the poster above exemplifies the type of fans that misinterprets that sentiment and spreads rumors. He said that Nimoy wants to talk about his photography, and he doesn't care about anything other than the Star Trek work. Listen, if you want to see *Spock*, go buy the DVDs. You go to a convention because you want to see Nimoy. Yes, you want to know about the stories from when he was filming Star Trek, you want to know about his views on the show...but if you're not interested in what other pursuits the man has, then why are you there? Spock isn't real, Nimoy is. Which is really what the title of that first autobiography was meant to be out. It's not, "I Am Not Spock" as in, "I hate that I ever played the part of that character." It's "I Am Not Spock" as in, "this is a book about my life, the man behind Spock, and what I'm truly like."
In a free society, you are free to do things. However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility)...There are already a whole slew of things that you're free to say, but reap the downside of (slander etc.).
I never understood that argument. Is there any society that is not free by that measure? In a dictatorship, you're free to speak out against the government. They'll arrest you for it, but that's the consequence of your speech, right?
I think you confuse consequences with punishment. Freedom necessarily means you won't be punished for the action you're free to do. That doesn't mean there are no consequences. Let's use the cyber-bullying as an example. You're free to say mean things about somebody on the net. When the kid commits suicide, that's a consequence of your action. You didn't mean for it to go that far, but now you have to live with it for the rest of your life. That's responsibility. If in addition to it, the government tries to charge you with a crime, then you didn't have freedom of speech after all.
Think about it...I'm sure you're physically capable of pulling the trigger and shooting someone. However, nobody says you're free to do that. What makes you not free is that we have a punishment for it. It's not that you're free but have to suffer the consequence of life in prison or a death sentence.
He certainly felt trapped by his role in ST:TOS. So much so, that he wrote a book about it. It wasn't until MANY years later that he started to do conventions and other ST type appearances.
A lot of people were offended when Nimoy released his autobiography and called it, "I Am Not Spock," and called him ungrateful to the show that propelled his career and other things. All those people were idiots who never bothered to read the book and assumed it was all about him complaining of the typecasting. These complaints from uninformed people is probably what you remember, and it's what you're referencing now.
Well, I read, "I Am Not Spock." A good portion of it (maybe the majority) is about some of his very fond memories at the set of Star Trek. How he and Bill Shatner initially didn't get along, partly because of some hilarious pranks Shatner played on him, usually involving the bicycle Nimoy used to ride to the studio, but were seen as annoying at the time. He also mentioned how their animosity was getting to be a problem, but Roddenberry solved it by making Kirk and Spock close friends on script, which ended up translating to Nimoy and Shatner developing a very strong friendship in real life. Interesting stuff, and he never once disparaged Trek, even as the typecasting caused him problems.
Frankly, I don't know that I buy the whole, "don't talk about Trek" thing, since I've never once seen an interview with Nimoy in which Trek wasn't mentioned. I've seen plenty of convention clips on youtube in which Trek was extensively talked about, and hell, if he wanted to distance himself from it, not being part of the new Trek movie reboot would have been a good idea. I don't doubt that he asks to please talk about things other than Trek, but it doesn't make sense that he "hates" Trek.
Sometimes people just start rumors that, to the mind of others, makes sense. People think, "yeah, it must be annoying to have a bunch of nerds completely ignore everything else you've ever tried to do" and sometimes he must have felt unappreciated and overshadowed by the Spock character. That said, I've never seen any indication, other than random internet hearsay, that he resents the fans or the show. The book he wrote and the sequel, "I Am Spock," which I've also read, would certainly lead me to believe the opposite.
Highlighting a book or writing in the book margins is not what the courts have determined is "modification" and you know it...In the case of Psystar it is clear that they modified OS X.
Nobody is arguing the state of affairs right now makes what Psystar did illegal. What I am arguing is that it shouldn't be. For every copy of a modified Mac OS X they sold, a copy was bought from Apple. It is morally no different then reselling books I've modified through annotation. To give the author of books the right to "license" the sale to disallow me from doing such thing would be equivalent to what an EULA represents.
Yes, I know the courts supports EULAs. That's exactly why I believe a change is needed. I do not approve of the current laws.
JK Rowling can write another Harry Potter book, copyright it, and refuse to sell it.
Yes, she can. What she can't do is tell me that I can't modify a copy of the book I rightfully bought by, for example, writing on the margins or highlighting certain passages. In addition, she can't stop me from reselling a copy that I bought and modified by writing on the margins. She also most certainly can't sell the book under a license that says, "you're allowed to read it, but not to use under a table leg to help level it.
Copyright restricts distribution of copies. It doesn't restrict what you can do with a copy you rightfully bought.
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
If Apple had lost this case then what chance does any other software licence have?
Just because you disagree with their terms doesn't mean you can just ignore them, or say a court is wrong for "siding" with them.
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
The GPLv3 is not a software license. It does not restrict the end user in any way whatsoever. It's a distribution license. If the courts declare it invalid, that doesn't mean you can suddenly go around using GPL code anywhere, it means you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
There's a fundamental difference here. I didn't say I'm against copyrights (although I am against infinitely long copyrights), and I have absolutely nothing against Apple dictating the terms of how copies of their software may be distributed. Even if they say, "you can't redistribute copies at all," which is what most people do. If Stallman created a GPLv4 that said, "you can't use proprietary software in conjunction with software using this license," then THAT would be equivalent to an EULA, and yes, I'd be very much against it.
What kind of reform do you suggest...that license agreements between parties shouldn't be held to mean what they say?
That software is sold, not licensed. Personally I don't like the idea that anyone can tell me where I can or can't install any software I buy.
For what it's worth, I've been running zfs under fuse for a while, and am extremely happy with it. It wasn't built for performance, I just wanted the snapshotting + raidz features, so I've never benchmarked it. That said, reliability has been good. I've had a drive fail on me, and rebuilding the array worked as advertised, no issues introduced from fuse.
That's the opposite of volunteering. Like if I hold a gun to your head, and say 'work or I'll kill you' ... if you volunteer that's not a choice. Neither is it a choice if I offer to torture you or let you 'volunteer' to work. Neither is it a choice if I offer to put you in a box for the day, or work.
That's not what's happening. You're not getting tortured if you don't choose to work, you simply remain in prison. Yes, you may argue that being imprisoned is torture, but the people working are still imprisoned.
No, a choice would be: come out to the open road. There you can work, or not.
C'mon...I'm the first to admit that we imprison far too many people for victimless crimes, especially with all the drug laws. That said, by your definition it's impossible to not be a slave. I can work or not, but if I choose not to work I won't have money to pay for shelter and food. In a sense, I'm being forced to work, but is that really the same as a gun to my head?
That's because TNG technobabble gets an undeserved bad rap. Amidst the truly bad stuff like reversing polarity and tachyon beams, there's a lot of things with a real science basis.
From the Debian Installation manual:-
However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1) release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or earlier chips in the series.)
And if he had installed squeeze in i386, it would have been extremely interesting. Instead he went back and installed an old version of Debian from back when the 386 was supported. He installed a version of Debian that was MEANT to run on that machine.
I have a computer from 1993 still operating and running MS-DOS 5. I'm not about to write an article about it.