Exactly. With a simple hardware system, you can afford to think of the underlying hardware while writing the software. However, try writing software with the hardware in mind when the hardware is the shuttle. The 'black box' mentality is important because you can easily get completely overwhelmed by trying to think of how every little piece of hardware fits into your software design. The hardware should work and not be concern. Instead of worrying about what the hardware will do if your software crashes spend that time making sure your programs are stable and won't crash.
Mario 3 was a really great game. However, IMO it is slightly overrated by its market sucess. There were far less popular games that were a even better than Mario. For example: StarTropics, Crystalis, The Immortal. They don't make games like they used to...
Children of Dune was the third book in the series, wasn't it? What are they going to do about Dune Messiah. I read Dune Messiah and if I am not mistaken, Paul and his wife(the non princess one) both died in it(Paul was blinded and he walked off to die in the desert) and Duncan Idaho was brought back to life. How are they going to fit that into the story without having to do at least parts of Dune Messiah in flashbacks or something? Or are they just going to screw the story completely?
Why stop at just having the military conducting these attacks? I am sure there are vast numbers of us on the Internet that would be perfectly willing to sacrifice our time and bandwidth on DDoS attacks against every box in Iraq. There are certainly plenty of us that would be more than happy to hack into Saddam's computer networks. As Americans, we should all be allowed to do our part.
What if this the beginning of tariffs on the net? Are we really seeing the political boundaries of the real world being cp'ed to the Internet? What is next? Will we start seeing 'countries' on the net were unless your an american in the real world you won't have access to all the sites that normal Americans have access to(excluding home censorship aka China)? Is the end of the Internet as a global community and the beginning of the segregation of the net?
When you compound that over the next three or four years, the music industry is dead. I don't see a future for it. After awhile, who's going to produce it?
Independents.
It now costs about $350,000 to produce a CD.
Nope, it doesn't.
We're breeding a new group of young students who wouldn't dream of going into a Blockbuster and putting a DVD under their coat. But they have no compunction about bringing down a movie on the Internet. That isn't wrong to them. Why? I don't know.
Because maybe it isn't. Nice phrase: "Bringing down a movie" Does he mean downloading or does he mean when people download a movie off the net, find it sux, and then don't waste their money by going to a theater to see it?
What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law.
There's nothing in law about my right to breathe air. The law is designed to prevent unwanted behaviors. The law is not meant to be a list of what is allowed, it is meant to be a list of what isn't allowed. Just because my right to fair use doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean that that right doesn't exist. Perhaps lawmakers believe it to be self-evident.
But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever. It never wears out.
He obviously doesnt buy his own products.
Today, it's illegal to copy a videocassette. No one has a fair use to copy a videocassette. If you lose it, you get another one, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what people have been doing for generations.
Videocassettes haven't been around for 'generations'.
It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of the series running at the time with the amount of money each movie brought in. If everyone was watching the series, they'd be more likely to go see the movie even though it isn't the same characters. If people don't like the current series, why would they go see a move in that franchise? (rhetorical question)
After seeing a few episodes of Enterprise, I am not at all suprised that Rick Berman doesn't understand why Nemesis tanked. Now, I am not bashing Enterprise at all. It is a half decent series. Nevertheless, it isn't Star Trek.
Watch the shows from both the orginal series and STNG. The strength of the series was excellent and original writing. The best episodes of both of the series had character developement but it often, if not always, took second place to the story. The Captains did come across new civilizations: ones that inspired thought about the morality and philosphy of such civilizations. The captains had principles and a clear understanding of right and wrong and they acted on those views whenever appropriate(rather than the blind child-like morality of Janeway who always followed the rules because hey, they're the rules...) The captains took action not for the sake of action and not because it was always the last resort but because, at the time, it was their best option. Most importantly, they were 20th century human beings, they only lived in the 23rd century. They acted like human beings would act, not like saints would. You could relate to them. You could relate to lines such as:
"If nothing else, I want to make sure we kill the klingons."
"Revenge, Captain?"
"What else is left."
Now we get characters that seem to have no morality other than 'let's follow the rules' and 'why can't we all just get along.' More often than not, the characters are portrayed more like saints and angels who pity the rest of humanity rather than flesh and blood human beings. And in the odd times when a character does falter and actually does something a real person might(such as Tom Paris saving the artificial ocean), they are oftened considered having fallen from the angelic philosphy they all follow. The orginal captains were grounded in reality, they understood other peoples motives because they themselves were 'real' people. These new people go around the universe more as missionaries than explorers and are constantly unable to understand (only pity) the people they find on their journeys. The old Star Trek had an optimistic future of brave people going forward to champion their principles and learn what the universe had to offer. It had a deep understanding for what it was to be human and it was reflected in the episodes. The new Star Trek has a optimistic future of sort-of-brave people going forward to champions everyones right to follow whatever principles that suits them no more how atrocious and to feel sorry for everyone else in the universe because they don't hold the perfect morality that they do. It has a deep contempt for what it is to be human. The orginal Star Trek crews were like astronauts, daring to go where no one man has gone before just to see what's out there(though they peformed scientific study, it was not the sole reason they were there, the main reason was wonder at was was out there.) The new star Trek crews are more like Lucifer before the fall, marveling in their own imagined perfection and going out into the universe for either purely scientific pursuits or to take part in their ongoing mission... to dispense humanitarian aid and universal peace. As for the story lines, they are often recycled,(if not from an early Star Trek series then from another sci-fi series) and like modern recycling what you get isn't as good as the orginal.
And now Berman tries to make 'Star Trek - The Action Movie'. Proving that the writers for Star Trek are completly out of ideas, they attempt to steal from (of all things) their own franchise (namely ST:II). Showing their usual contempt for humanity, this time with respect to their audience, the writers create a story that neither inspires feeling nor any form of thought. It is as if the writers, feeling rejected since there stories of angelic missionaries have consistently fallen flat, have decided to punish us with a movie that is more like a sequel to Die Hard than Star Trek. 'Joe Sixpack can't understand how great my stories are so he must be ignorant. Let's give him a story that's more on his level.' It was only through the heroic efforts of the actors and actresses of the film that saved it from completely flopping.
Now there are undoubtfully other reasons why the movie failed(market saturation - its like eating chocolate, the first piece is good, the hundreth will make you puke), bad timing (most people go to see the movies to take a break from reality, watching the news were war is looming and then going to see a movie full of futuristic type battles), and incredible compettition(If you could only watch one, which would you have gone to see LOTR: Two Towers, or ST:10). But given that ST:9 bombed too, it seems more likely that it's the philosphy of the people who make the show and less the situational factors.
Everyone always has their own opinion on what people should do with their lives. Why don't people come up with a list of things you don't want to do with your life?
For example:
1. Drink yourself into poverty and die in a gutter.
2. End up in prison sharing a cell with Bart the gay axe murderer. Get old. Die. Spend eternity in hell(a.k.a. Behind a help[less] desk.)
3. Wind up a Microsoft Employee.
Have you ever had to describe your Internet persona? For example, when someone asks you at a party about what you do on the web, do you say something like "Yeah, I'm the Captain Kirk of the Internet!"?
Since when does having a lot of rants up on the Internet mean you know anything about the Internet? I know a lot of AOL users with large web pages but that doesn't mean they are expert web designers or anything. So what's so special about having all that stuff on the Internet that makes you think you actually know something?
Isn't that a little dangerous for military secrecy? I mean, anyone can now take a wireless transmitter and modify it to detect military radar. As technology grows more and more connected, will we someday see people remotely using the cellphone transmitter on a military base or any sensitive area in order to look for flaws and holes in radar coverage?
Just a thought.
I think it is not just people using broadband. I think it also has to deal with the fact that people no longer need crutches online. AOL and MSN are really geared towards people who don't know too much about the Internet. When you get used to doing stuff on your own, those extras MSN and AOL provide become more of a nuiscance than anything else. At that point people usually go for a more basic ISP that gives you access to the Internet at a cheaper price with more reliable (as in easier to connect) service. There is a reason why people make fun of AOL users after all...
The reason the slammer worm was so sucessful was because system administrators did not patch their systems. They do deserve blame for that. But M$ also deserves blame for the slammer worm due to the horrible security of their software and their philosphy for fixing those problems. If you attempted to stay up-to-date with the security patches M$ provides then what you would find is that over 30% percent of your time would be taken up with nothing but downloading and applying patches. Finding a few vulnerbilities in a product that is relatively secure and releasing patches to fix those vulnerbilties is reasonable. However, finding vast numbers of vulnerbilties in a product that has more holes in it than swiss cheese means that simply releasing patches is not a viable solution to those problems. If you provide a few patches now-and-again, system adminstrators(and regular users) will have no problem staying up to date with their systems. However, if you are constantly subjecting people to a deluge of patches then people are going to start letting security slide. Will another slammer worm occur? As long as companies like Microshaft continue to make insecure products and then expect consumers to take up the burden of spending all their time keeping those products secure, we will continue to see administartors and users alike growing weary of applying endless numbers of patches. As a result countless numbers of systems will continue to remain vulnerable. The best way to prevent another slammer worm is simple: concentrate not only security after a vulnerability has been found but rather concentrate on making your product as secure as possible before it is even released. The more secure your product is before it's released, the less patches people will have to (and hence will be more likely to) apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. With a simple hardware system, you can afford to think of the underlying hardware while writing the software. However, try writing software with the hardware in mind when the hardware is the shuttle. The 'black box' mentality is important because you can easily get completely overwhelmed by trying to think of how every little piece of hardware fits into your software design. The hardware should work and not be concern. Instead of worrying about what the hardware will do if your software crashes spend that time making sure your programs are stable and won't crash.
No Star Trek... No suprise...
Mario 3 was a really great game. However, IMO it is slightly overrated by its market sucess. There were far less popular games that were a even better than Mario. For example: StarTropics, Crystalis, The Immortal. They don't make games like they used to...
We eventually get ripped apart(by enthropy) rather than being crushed by gravity!
The next step of course: Every cd player and mp3 player can only play GRID'd files!
I say 6 days before first retail release!
Children of Dune was the third book in the series, wasn't it? What are they going to do about Dune Messiah. I read Dune Messiah and if I am not mistaken, Paul and his wife(the non princess one) both died in it(Paul was blinded and he walked off to die in the desert) and Duncan Idaho was brought back to life. How are they going to fit that into the story without having to do at least parts of Dune Messiah in flashbacks or something? Or are they just going to screw the story completely?
Security at Microsoft? Secure programs are secure whether you see the source code or not.
Interplanetary Vehicle: 50 billion dollars
Research to make a trip to mars possible: 1 trillion dollars
Being able to say we just landed on a whole nother fricking planet: priceless
The Problems with the shuttles:
1. They cost inordinate amounts of money
2. They provide no significant gain (If your goal is to study stuff to save human lives, the money is better spent researching stuff on Earth)
3. They're obselete(going to space in the shuttle is like going online with a PDP-11)
The Gains from the shuttle:
1. Nearly meaningless science that has very little, if any, practical value.
2. Vast numbers of jobs.
3. The ability to say, "Hey, we're in low Earth orbit!"
The problems with going to Mars:
1. Radiation
2. Physical effects of prolonged zero gravity.
3. Actually getting there and getting back alive.
The gains of going to Mars:
1. The ability to say, "We're on a whole nother fricking planet!"
2. Entry in every history book
3. Vast numbers of jobs
4. Science that is actually worth doing and justifies the cost.
5. Knowing that we have taken a step forward and not a step back
Which would you pick?(rehetorical Question)
Why stop at just having the military conducting these attacks? I am sure there are vast numbers of us on the Internet that would be perfectly willing to sacrifice our time and bandwidth on DDoS attacks against every box in Iraq. There are certainly plenty of us that would be more than happy to hack into Saddam's computer networks. As Americans, we should all be allowed to do our part.
What if this the beginning of tariffs on the net? Are we really seeing the political boundaries of the real world being cp'ed to the Internet? What is next? Will we start seeing 'countries' on the net were unless your an american in the real world you won't have access to all the sites that normal Americans have access to(excluding home censorship aka China)? Is the end of the Internet as a global community and the beginning of the segregation of the net?
How will I ever install "Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego" now?
When you compound that over the next three or four years, the music industry is dead. I don't see a future for it. After awhile, who's going to produce it?
Independents.
It now costs about $350,000 to produce a CD.
Nope, it doesn't.
We're breeding a new group of young students who wouldn't dream of going into a Blockbuster and putting a DVD under their coat. But they have no compunction about bringing down a movie on the Internet. That isn't wrong to them. Why? I don't know.
Because maybe it isn't. Nice phrase: "Bringing down a movie" Does he mean downloading or does he mean when people download a movie off the net, find it sux, and then don't waste their money by going to a theater to see it?
What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law.
There's nothing in law about my right to breathe air. The law is designed to prevent unwanted behaviors. The law is not meant to be a list of what is allowed, it is meant to be a list of what isn't allowed. Just because my right to fair use doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean that that right doesn't exist. Perhaps lawmakers believe it to be self-evident.
But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever. It never wears out.
He obviously doesnt buy his own products.
Today, it's illegal to copy a videocassette. No one has a fair use to copy a videocassette. If you lose it, you get another one, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what people have been doing for generations.
Videocassettes haven't been around for 'generations'.
Have people finally gotten tired of playing the sims? Halellujah!
It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of the series running at the time with the amount of money each movie brought in. If everyone was watching the series, they'd be more likely to go see the movie even though it isn't the same characters. If people don't like the current series, why would they go see a move in that franchise? (rhetorical question)
After seeing a few episodes of Enterprise, I am not at all suprised that Rick Berman doesn't understand why Nemesis tanked. Now, I am not bashing Enterprise at all. It is a half decent series. Nevertheless, it isn't Star Trek.
Watch the shows from both the orginal series and STNG. The strength of the series was excellent and original writing. The best episodes of both of the series had character developement but it often, if not always, took second place to the story. The Captains did come across new civilizations: ones that inspired thought about the morality and philosphy of such civilizations. The captains had principles and a clear understanding of right and wrong and they acted on those views whenever appropriate(rather than the blind child-like morality of Janeway who always followed the rules because hey, they're the rules...) The captains took action not for the sake of action and not because it was always the last resort but because, at the time, it was their best option. Most importantly, they were 20th century human beings, they only lived in the 23rd century. They acted like human beings would act, not like saints would. You could relate to them. You could relate to lines such as:
"If nothing else, I want to make sure we kill the klingons."
"Revenge, Captain?"
"What else is left."
Now we get characters that seem to have no morality other than 'let's follow the rules' and 'why can't we all just get along.' More often than not, the characters are portrayed more like saints and angels who pity the rest of humanity rather than flesh and blood human beings. And in the odd times when a character does falter and actually does something a real person might(such as Tom Paris saving the artificial ocean), they are oftened considered having fallen from the angelic philosphy they all follow. The orginal captains were grounded in reality, they understood other peoples motives because they themselves were 'real' people. These new people go around the universe more as missionaries than explorers and are constantly unable to understand (only pity) the people they find on their journeys. The old Star Trek had an optimistic future of brave people going forward to champion their principles and learn what the universe had to offer. It had a deep understanding for what it was to be human and it was reflected in the episodes. The new Star Trek has a optimistic future of sort-of-brave people going forward to champions everyones right to follow whatever principles that suits them no more how atrocious and to feel sorry for everyone else in the universe because they don't hold the perfect morality that they do. It has a deep contempt for what it is to be human. The orginal Star Trek crews were like astronauts, daring to go where no one man has gone before just to see what's out there(though they peformed scientific study, it was not the sole reason they were there, the main reason was wonder at was was out there.) The new star Trek crews are more like Lucifer before the fall, marveling in their own imagined perfection and going out into the universe for either purely scientific pursuits or to take part in their ongoing mission... to dispense humanitarian aid and universal peace. As for the story lines, they are often recycled,(if not from an early Star Trek series then from another sci-fi series) and like modern recycling what you get isn't as good as the orginal.
And now Berman tries to make 'Star Trek - The Action Movie'. Proving that the writers for Star Trek are completly out of ideas, they attempt to steal from (of all things) their own franchise (namely ST:II). Showing their usual contempt for humanity, this time with respect to their audience, the writers create a story that neither inspires feeling nor any form of thought. It is as if the writers, feeling rejected since there stories of angelic missionaries have consistently fallen flat, have decided to punish us with a movie that is more like a sequel to Die Hard than Star Trek. 'Joe Sixpack can't understand how great my stories are so he must be ignorant. Let's give him a story that's more on his level.' It was only through the heroic efforts of the actors and actresses of the film that saved it from completely flopping.
Now there are undoubtfully other reasons why the movie failed(market saturation - its like eating chocolate, the first piece is good, the hundreth will make you puke), bad timing (most people go to see the movies to take a break from reality, watching the news were war is looming and then going to see a movie full of futuristic type battles), and incredible compettition(If you could only watch one, which would you have gone to see LOTR: Two Towers, or ST:10). But given that ST:9 bombed too, it seems more likely that it's the philosphy of the people who make the show and less the situational factors.
Everyone always has their own opinion on what people should do with their lives. Why don't people come up with a list of things you don't want to do with your life? For example: 1. Drink yourself into poverty and die in a gutter. 2. End up in prison sharing a cell with Bart the gay axe murderer. Get old. Die. Spend eternity in hell(a.k.a. Behind a help[less] desk.) 3. Wind up a Microsoft Employee.
Was probably bought out by MicroMorse.
Have you ever had to describe your Internet persona? For example, when someone asks you at a party about what you do on the web, do you say something like "Yeah, I'm the Captain Kirk of the Internet!"?
Seeing how he's now dead, do you think we have seen the end of Dick Nixon's political career?
Since when does having a lot of rants up on the Internet mean you know anything about the Internet? I know a lot of AOL users with large web pages but that doesn't mean they are expert web designers or anything. So what's so special about having all that stuff on the Internet that makes you think you actually know something?
Isn't that a little dangerous for military secrecy? I mean, anyone can now take a wireless transmitter and modify it to detect military radar. As technology grows more and more connected, will we someday see people remotely using the cellphone transmitter on a military base or any sensitive area in order to look for flaws and holes in radar coverage? Just a thought.
I think it is not just people using broadband. I think it also has to deal with the fact that people no longer need crutches online. AOL and MSN are really geared towards people who don't know too much about the Internet. When you get used to doing stuff on your own, those extras MSN and AOL provide become more of a nuiscance than anything else. At that point people usually go for a more basic ISP that gives you access to the Internet at a cheaper price with more reliable (as in easier to connect) service. There is a reason why people make fun of AOL users after all...
The reason the slammer worm was so sucessful was because system administrators did not patch their systems. They do deserve blame for that. But M$ also deserves blame for the slammer worm due to the horrible security of their software and their philosphy for fixing those problems. If you attempted to stay up-to-date with the security patches M$ provides then what you would find is that over 30% percent of your time would be taken up with nothing but downloading and applying patches. Finding a few vulnerbilities in a product that is relatively secure and releasing patches to fix those vulnerbilties is reasonable. However, finding vast numbers of vulnerbilties in a product that has more holes in it than swiss cheese means that simply releasing patches is not a viable solution to those problems. If you provide a few patches now-and-again, system adminstrators(and regular users) will have no problem staying up to date with their systems. However, if you are constantly subjecting people to a deluge of patches then people are going to start letting security slide. Will another slammer worm occur? As long as companies like Microshaft continue to make insecure products and then expect consumers to take up the burden of spending all their time keeping those products secure, we will continue to see administartors and users alike growing weary of applying endless numbers of patches. As a result countless numbers of systems will continue to remain vulnerable. The best way to prevent another slammer worm is simple: concentrate not only security after a vulnerability has been found but rather concentrate on making your product as secure as possible before it is even released. The more secure your product is before it's released, the less patches people will have to (and hence will be more likely to) apply.