There are two different contracts to be discussed here. 1/ The contract between the card holder and the card issuer 2/ The contract between the card holder and the person providing goods/services - which the card holder uses the card to pay for.
In the case where the first contract is invalid for whatever reason, the contract for goods/services is still perfectly valid. When you sign your credit card authorization to pay for something, you are bringing in the 3rd party (the card issuer) as a party to your original contract, but the conditions of payment remain unchanged. You are still a party to the contract, and if for some reason, the card issuer fails to pay, you are still liable for payment under the contract.
For all of that, if you use the card, it can be implied that you are consenting to the cards terms of use, since they are presented with the card at the time of issuance as well as the time of agreement. If you never use the card, and you never signed the form, then you cannot be said to have agreed to the contract unless there is some other evidence of agreement. The person asserting the contract has the onus of proof in this case. (If there was a signature, then the onus would be on you to disprove the contract).
In any case, the use of personal information by the card issuer may be bound by statue or other common law as well as contract law. Since you never agreed to give them your information, you never agreed for them to be able to sell it elsewhere. Unfortunately, the pith of your question : whether the information is public enough for them to lay claim to and sell anyway, I cannot answer.
IANAL, (never practiced and my qualifications are for a different country) but sounds like you might have enough of a case to consult one concerning your possible remedies - either against the "booth" who took your information without your consent, or the CC issuer for selling your information without a good faith belief that you consented to it.
You know what they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Ma and Pa Kettle know no more about the law, they just think they do. It's the same as all those idiots who seem to think that patent infringement is theft. The rights granted to the copyright owners are legal rights, but they're not property rights.
Your Freedom of Speech is only a right because your government says it is. If the social benefits of amendments to that right outweigh your unfettered exercise of it, then the government may well decide to so limit it.
Your recourse in this case is to a) demonstrate your displeasure at City Hall, hoping that you will garner enough support that the government decides to rethink. * b) vote the government out of office, hoping that the people you vote in will feel as you do. ** c) buy enough representation in the government so that you get what you want without having to have the force of public opinion on your side. d) move to a country where everything works exactly as you like it - good luck finding Utopia.
I don't see the relevance of paying to walk down the street. Freedom of Speech should not be regulated just because someone has paid money to do so (I say should not.. )
The government only promises not to stifle your expression, not guarantees that we have to listen to it. After all, the man has a sign which says "Don't speak to me" - not "don't speak".
When this freedom of speech encroaches on other freedoms, it's a balancing act weighing the public interest in both hands which must take place to determine which freedom takes precedence. There are no absolutes.
__________________ notes: * Public demonstrations, coincidentally exercise the freedom of speech. Be glad you still have this. ** As a display of prevailing opinion, this is one of the only ways you have to making sure the government will take into account the true social benefits of their actions. If only c) weren't the dominant manner in which things apparently get done in the US, and if only the elections weren't rigged to all hell... Ah well. Freedom is an illusion anyway:)
Some people who are not snobs, or cowards might actually enjoy the taste of bourbon, with or without coke. Some of them might also enjoy a nice single-malt scotch and yet find it's hard to find Glenmorangie at the local, and will settle for Jack Daniels and coke because its almost ubiquitous, and gets the ordering at the bar over and done with allowing them to move on to the social aspect of hanging with their friends.
But then again - there is no accounting for taste. Each to their own, I say.
Still not convincing. My point is : the movies of now aren't predictors of what the public of the future will be comfortable with, merely what the public of today is comfortable with.
Furthermore, the most popular sci-fi movies are about people, not technology. It's the trials and tribulations of the characters which people relate to. The future is just another backdrop. All this tells me is that people like movies which are about people. How many all-alien movies are there ? None. It's about how we deal with the aliens that people want to know about. Substitute Robots, clones, Technology-with-social-ramifications for "aliens" and you see where this is going. Future technology in movies is usually Backdrop, Barrier or Social Issue. Transporters are merely a way of getting to the action quickly - backdrop. They've briefly soujourned as a "Barrier" when there's some technobabble reason they don't work, and they've moonlighted as social issue when there's some fundamental questioning about the way they work (they tear you into little pieces and re-assemble you somewhere else... what happens when your "pattern" is recreated but you aren't properly destroyed (Rikers twin) or two patterns are merged (Tuvix)? etc..) There are dozens of other examples, but in all of them it is the way the characters handle these issues, not the underlying technology itself which engages the viewer.
What you're suggesting, however, is that we can guess that the public of the future will be comfortable with certain concepts just because they appear in entertainment media in the present.
I don't think history supports your viewpoint. Extrapolate into the past and ask the question of Sci-Fi as of 60 years ago. Are there things we of the present tolerate now that were unheard of in the 40's and 50's ? Are there things we don't tolerate now that people then were looking forward too ? Of course there are. Ergo, I can't see your theory holds up.
If I understand your argument, you believe that you can predict the kind of technologies that people will develop from the popularity of sci-fi movies.
You reason that technologies which predominate cyber-punk stories will *not* be developed simply because dystopian cyberpunk stories are less popular than utopian Star Trek with their transporters and holodecks. My counter-example was to illustrate that movies with a darker view of technology are made, and are popular. The fact that the humans win at the end is hardly a point in your favour. In fact it stresses my point. The popularity of a movie is related to the story about the humans, irrespective of the technology. If Star Trek didn't have transporters, would it be as popular ? Probably. The transporters are ancillary to the characters and the grand sense of adventure in the final frontier.
I suggest, in contrast, that the popularity of movies reflects the average persons desire for certain types of comfort. Loosely, one could classify all such films concerning possible futures into those which comfort and those which confront. Generally speaking, the average person desires more comfort than confrontation. On the other hand, those people who are driven enough to produce new technologies through diligent research are far from the average person. One might argue that the technologies which lead to the erosion of society in the dystopian views might come from the kinds of people who seek the edge, seek confrontation. Alternatively, I might suggest that the kind of people who are the forefront of thinking in these fields, and who might just be fans of Bladerunner or The Diamond Age, are aware of the dangers enough to do all in their power to prevent such a depressing future from coming about.
Finally, I humbly suggest that the popularity of sci-fi movies probably has very little to do with what actually happens.
After all - where's my robot maid and my flying car ?
I think you'll find that your estimations of popularity are overblown.
For example, Star Trek Nemesis took $97,500,000 gross at the box office world wide, while Terminator 2 took $514,800,000 (worldwide), and the Matrix Reloaded took in at least that world wide.
By your logic, people are looking forward to being dominated by machines.
Are you suggesting that a few science fiction tv shows speak for everyone ? If so, why can't I point at Bladerunner, Neuromancer and a dozen other "cyberpunk" authors as counter example ?
Perhaps they were popular because they were Soap Opera in Space ?
Ok. So you weren't "offended". Did you think the scene was unrealistic ? Did you feel that the actors did a poor job, or did you think maybe the scene was out of context with the rest of the show and stood out as poor writing ? What was it about the scene that annoyed you ?
re: my second paragraph : silly ? Words like "fuck" can be used in many contexts. I was merely attempting to ascertain whether it was the words that were used that "offended" you or something else about the scene.
re: my third paragraph. Not a troll. I see, however, that you did jump to certain conclusions, and I'll infer it was because of what I said, in one way or another. I don't actually think you have a low IQ; I know nothing about you. If you re-read my post, I asked you "If I were to tell you...". You jumped to the conclusion that this was what I was actually saying, when I was merely asking you a question. Obviously you found it more insulting than me just writing out "fuck" in the sentence above, or you would not have responded in the fashion you did...Which proves my point. Insulting or offensive language doesn't require the use of curse words.
If I saw someone standing on a park bench hurling obscenities into the air, I might call the men in the little white coats to come take them away. If he was hurling them at passers-by, I might call the cops.
And finally - I never once mentioned religion or nutjobs in any of my posts. I was asking about your own reactions to a particular scene you related to us. I want to get down to *why* exactly you were offended (or whatever you wish to call your reaction). I ask again - was it the words that offended you or the actions.. the emotions behind those words?
Again I suggest that a personal affront directed to someone without any "cussing" can be just as hurtful as one with. It just happens that there is often a correlation between hateful invective and offensive language.
What was more offensive to you : the words they used or the violent emotions the actors were portraying ?
I can write "fuck" here with no emotional content. Are those four letters offensive to you ?
If I were to tell you that I thought your comment moronic and that you obviously have the mental capacity of one of the fish you used to catch, would that not be more personally insulting?
It's not the bad words - it's the intent behind them. The most rational and polite discussion of the virtues of Nazism would still chill me to the bone. Calling your best friend "you old cunt" might be a term of endearment.
Yep - and the funniest thing was that you could always tell when a line was about to be censored, because they couldn't get the real Bruce to do his own over-dubbing. Some poor schmuck who sounded almost exactly unlike Mr Bruce Willis was relegated to the unenviable role of "Mister Falcon" speaker.
But have you ever listened to Beverly Hills Cop when they used the [bleepa-dilla-ding-dong] technique ? My ears got sore from all the shrill whistles and bell-ringing.
I'm sorry, but to whomever advocates this sort of censorship just has to get over it. People in real life do swear. If you don't care to associate with these people because you feel insulted, then perhaps you'd be better off avoiding movies that contain coarse language, in just the same way you avoid coarse people.
But where do you get off telling the rest of us what we can say, let alone what we can listen to ?
Riiight. Reality shows are popular because they're just like reality ?
So you spent 3 months on a desert island competing for a million dollars ?
Reality shows are popular because the people on them are just as petty and vindictive as everyone else and the situations are contrived to hi-light this.
They're comedies and dramas just like regular TV, but the producers don't have to hire writers or actors.
I think a lot is made in both camps about the dangers (environmental and otherwise) of the other sides preferred energy source.
From the studies I've read, it appears to me that Fission is better choice in the mid term than coal burning. Furthermore, compared to renewable sources, such as Solar, Hydroelectric and Wind, it's possibly *more* environmentally friendly (short and long term) when one accounts for the energy and materials costs of manufacture (for solar and wind) and immediate impact (Dams aren't really very nice to their surrounding ecosystem, especially when you consider how many dams might be required to eliminate non-renewable sources altogether).
The whole thing is a gigantic cost-benefit-analysis.
If, for every X MW of energy I get from Solar, I need to cover Y sq ft with panels that require materials I've strip mined from the ground, and require Z MW of energy to produce, how does that compare with the uranium I require for my Fission power plant ? When I also take into account that solar cells wear out and have to be disposed of.. is it that much more friendly to the environment than a breeder reactor which uses very little uranium over its lifetime, and produces (as a byproduct of its operation) more fuel for its own use (making it very efficient)... and produces relatively safe (low radio-activity) end-waste.
Sure that waste is a heavy metal, carrying it's own hazards, but is it more hazardous than many other industrial by-products that are routinely produced and disposed of all over the world today ? Would it be produced in sufficient quantities (for the same energy output) to preclude it as a viable energy source ?
I always hear how Uranium mining is so environmentally unfriendly. Is it so much more unfriendly than other kinds of mining ? Coal for example, comes from somewhere. So not only do you have to burn the coal, but you have to mine it too, right ?
What am I missing?
Re:That's not cool... THIS IS COOL:
on
The "Spider Case"
·
· Score: 1
How is taking someones existing model and shoving a computer in it cooler than creating a custom case from scratch ?
I mean, it's definitely a challenge to fit a mobo inside an model starship and get everything working and all.. But really, it's not exactly stretching your creative legs now is it.
Anything sitting on that much propellant is "dangerous". I'd have to say that anything that "dangerous" which *never* exploded and destroyed half of Forida qualifies as "safe" under most acceptable definitions.
My biggest problem with some of the HTML editors was that they used to muddy the markup with annoying things. I haven't used Dreamweaver in ages, so I don't know if it does this.
I find that a simple document with most of the display directives in CSS files is far easier to maintain than a lot of embedded <font> tags and so forth that is often generated by many GUI-based editors.
When you can speak corba with netcat, i'll be impressed, but HTML was never a terribly hard problem, and it doesn't really ring my bell to try to make it one.
Agreed. But it's the people who use Dreamweaver because *they can't understand markup* that many people disdain. It is these people one wishes to dissociate from when one claims "real programmers use vi/emacs/whatever". In those days where everyone and their dog was in the dotCom boom and half of them thought HTML Programmer was a valid title, those of us with actual degrees and/or experience in actual programming must distinguish ourselves somehow.
Of course, some of us do it through being good at what we do, but others use vi.
But you have to agree that none of these characters are "musclebound idiots". Characterizing the entire swath of fiction in this manner is a generalization of the worst kind. Most "heroes" throughout time display a wide variety of traits. I happened to pick a few examples where the heroes were mentally capable. That they were also physically capable doesn't invalidate my argument - which was to point out that musclebound idiots are not the be all and end all of our heroic icons.
Actually if you could permanently achieve 1) first, you might find the reverse order is also applicable, provided you sleep with someone powerful in Show Business(4).
Strangely, I never once thought of the different skin colours in Star Trek. Unlike many contemporary shows (especially sit coms) which seem almost completely homogenous, Star Trek manages (to me) to integrate all these humans of many different colours without making any issue of it. Humans (in Star Trek), being one of many species, don't seem to hilight their own internal differences all that much. One might even say that humans seem to treat other species in almost the same manner (which is pretty easy since they all look like humans with make up on).
A "token" representative of other races in a movie is really only there as a nod of the head to multi-culturalism and serves no other purpose.
Contrast this with the Star Trek universe where a characters rank (in star fleet) and importance to the story is completely unrelated to his race, gender, even species. Examples : A woman captains Voyager. Sisko commander of DS9, is black. There are others.
I do agree that ST has tried to tackle issues of racial bias within the context of the show (such as the episodes where Sisko dreamed he was a black sci-fi writer in the 50s, or the other numerous humans vs racially insensitive aliens etc). Furthermore, I also agree that this sort of moralizing can be heavy-handed and detract from otherwise enjoyable viewing. But I disagree that the actors are chosen as "token" representatives of their race.
1/ Yes breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. Where did he say otherwise ?
2/ You arguments about speed are completely fallacious. Say the posted speed limit is 10 miles per hour, but it's a straight road, there's no traffic or pedestrians. Are you saying I can't drive safely at 30 miles per hour ? What if the speed limit is 70 miles per hour but it's a peasoup fog out ? Is it still ok for me to drive at 70 miles per hour ? Statistics show exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Speed is not the cause of tailgating, passing on the right or other such behaviour. There is certainly a correlation between such reckless driving and exceeding the ambient speed of the surrounding traffic (or the limit set by the driving conditions, such as visibility etc), but that is completely irrespective of the posted limits.
There are plenty of average people who drive at over 160 kilometers an hour or more on the German autobahnen. The number of accidents per capita on these roads is actually less than that on US roads.
I will agree with you on one point - and probably the only good reason for speed limits : accidents which do occur at high speed are usually much more dramatic and likely to result in fatalities than at lower speeds. But speed is not usually the cause of the accident, it merely contributes to the harm caused *when* an accident occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two different contracts to be discussed here.
1/ The contract between the card holder and the card issuer
2/ The contract between the card holder and the person providing goods/services - which the card holder uses the card to pay for.
In the case where the first contract is invalid for whatever reason, the contract for goods/services is still perfectly valid. When you sign your credit card authorization to pay for something, you are bringing in the 3rd party (the card issuer) as a party to your original contract, but the conditions of payment remain unchanged. You are still a party to the contract, and if for some reason, the card issuer fails to pay, you are still liable for payment under the contract.
For all of that, if you use the card, it can be implied that you are consenting to the cards terms of use, since they are presented with the card at the time of issuance as well as the time of agreement. If you never use the card, and you never signed the form, then you cannot be said to have agreed to the contract unless there is some other evidence of agreement. The person asserting the contract has the onus of proof in this case. (If there was a signature, then the onus would be on you to disprove the contract).
In any case, the use of personal information by the card issuer may be bound by statue or other common law as well as contract law. Since you never agreed to give them your information, you never agreed for them to be able to sell it elsewhere. Unfortunately, the pith of your question : whether the information is public enough for them to lay claim to and sell anyway, I cannot answer.
IANAL, (never practiced and my qualifications are for a different country) but sounds like you might have enough of a case to consult one concerning your possible remedies - either against the "booth" who took your information without your consent, or the CC issuer for selling your information without a good faith belief that you consented to it.
You know what they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Ma and Pa Kettle know no more about the law, they just think they do. It's the same as all those idiots who seem to think that patent infringement is theft. The rights granted to the copyright owners are legal rights, but they're not property rights.
Your Freedom of Speech is only a right because your government says it is. If the social benefits of amendments to that right outweigh your unfettered exercise of it, then the government may well decide to so limit it.
: :)
Your recourse in this case is to
a) demonstrate your displeasure at City Hall, hoping that you will garner enough support that the government decides to rethink. *
b) vote the government out of office, hoping that the people you vote in will feel as you do. **
c) buy enough representation in the government so that you get what you want without having to have the force of public opinion on your side.
d) move to a country where everything works exactly as you like it - good luck finding Utopia.
I don't see the relevance of paying to walk down the street. Freedom of Speech should not be regulated just because someone has paid money to do so (I say should not.. )
The government only promises not to stifle your expression, not guarantees that we have to listen
to it. After all, the man has a sign which says "Don't speak to me" - not "don't speak".
When this freedom of speech encroaches on other freedoms, it's a balancing act weighing the public interest in both hands which must take place to determine which freedom takes precedence. There are no absolutes.
__________________
notes
* Public demonstrations, coincidentally exercise the freedom of speech. Be glad you still have this.
** As a display of prevailing opinion, this is one of the only ways you have to making sure the government will take into account the true social benefits of their actions. If only c) weren't the dominant manner in which things apparently get done in the US, and if only the elections weren't rigged to all hell... Ah well. Freedom is an illusion anyway
Some people who are not snobs, or cowards might actually enjoy the taste of bourbon, with or without coke. Some of them might also enjoy a nice single-malt scotch and yet find it's hard to find Glenmorangie at the local, and will settle for Jack Daniels and coke because its almost ubiquitous, and gets the ordering at the bar over and done with allowing them to move on to the social aspect of hanging with their friends.
But then again - there is no accounting for taste.
Each to their own, I say.
Still not convincing.
My point is : the movies of now aren't predictors of what the public of the future will be comfortable with, merely what the public of today is comfortable with.
Furthermore, the most popular sci-fi movies are about people, not technology. It's the trials and tribulations of the characters which people relate to. The future is just another backdrop. All this tells me is that people like movies which are about people. How many all-alien movies are there ? None. It's about how we deal with the aliens that people want to know about. Substitute Robots, clones, Technology-with-social-ramifications for "aliens" and you see where this is going.
Future technology in movies is usually Backdrop, Barrier or Social Issue. Transporters are merely a way of getting to the action quickly - backdrop. They've briefly soujourned as a "Barrier" when there's some technobabble reason they don't work, and they've moonlighted as social issue when there's some fundamental questioning about the way they work (they tear you into little pieces and re-assemble you somewhere else... what happens when your "pattern" is recreated but you aren't properly destroyed (Rikers twin) or two patterns are merged (Tuvix)? etc..)
There are dozens of other examples, but in all of them it is the way the characters handle these issues, not the underlying technology itself which engages the viewer.
What you're suggesting, however, is that we can guess that the public of the future will be comfortable with certain concepts just because they appear in entertainment media in the present.
I don't think history supports your viewpoint. Extrapolate into the past and ask the question of Sci-Fi as of 60 years ago. Are there things we of the present tolerate now that were unheard of in the 40's and 50's ? Are there things we don't tolerate now that people then were looking forward too ?
Of course there are. Ergo, I can't see your theory holds up.
If I understand your argument, you believe that you can predict the kind of technologies that people will develop from the popularity of sci-fi movies.
You reason that technologies which predominate cyber-punk stories will *not* be developed simply because dystopian cyberpunk stories are less popular than utopian Star Trek with their transporters and holodecks. My counter-example was to illustrate that movies with a darker view of technology are made, and are popular. The fact that the humans win at the end is hardly a point in your favour. In fact it stresses my point. The popularity of a movie is related to the story about the humans, irrespective of the technology. If Star Trek didn't have transporters, would it be as popular ? Probably. The transporters are ancillary to the characters and the grand sense of adventure in the final frontier.
I suggest, in contrast, that the popularity of movies reflects the average persons desire for certain types of comfort. Loosely, one could classify all such films concerning possible futures into those which comfort and those which confront. Generally speaking, the average person desires more comfort than confrontation.
On the other hand, those people who are driven enough to produce new technologies through diligent research are far from the average person.
One might argue that the technologies which lead to the erosion of society in the dystopian views might come from the kinds of people who seek the edge, seek confrontation.
Alternatively, I might suggest that the kind of people who are the forefront of thinking in these fields, and who might just be fans of Bladerunner or The Diamond Age, are aware of the dangers enough to do all in their power to prevent such a depressing future from coming about.
Finally, I humbly suggest that the popularity of sci-fi movies probably has very little to do with what actually happens.
After all - where's my robot maid and my flying car ?
I think you'll find that your estimations of popularity are overblown.
For example, Star Trek Nemesis took $97,500,000 gross at the box office world wide, while Terminator 2 took $514,800,000 (worldwide), and the Matrix Reloaded took in at least that world wide.
By your logic, people are looking forward to being dominated by machines.
Correlation != causation.
Are you suggesting that a few science fiction tv shows speak for everyone ?
If so, why can't I point at Bladerunner, Neuromancer and a dozen other "cyberpunk" authors as counter example ?
Perhaps they were popular because they were Soap Opera in Space ?
To be fair , the article mentions that the laptop was being used for editing, rather than direct recording...
Ok. So you weren't "offended". Did you think the scene was unrealistic ? Did you feel that the actors did a poor job, or did you think maybe the scene was out of context with the rest of the show and stood out as poor writing ? What was it about the scene that annoyed you ?
...". You jumped to the conclusion that this was what I was actually saying, when I was merely asking you a question. ..Which proves my point. Insulting or offensive language doesn't require the use of curse words.
re: my second paragraph : silly ? Words like "fuck" can be used in many contexts. I was merely attempting to ascertain whether it was the words that were used that "offended" you or something else about the scene.
re: my third paragraph. Not a troll. I see, however, that you did jump to certain conclusions, and I'll infer it was because of what I said, in one way or another. I don't actually think you have a low IQ; I know nothing about you. If you re-read my post, I asked you "If I were to tell you
Obviously you found it more insulting than me just writing out "fuck" in the sentence above, or you would not have responded in the fashion you did.
If I saw someone standing on a park bench hurling obscenities into the air, I might call the men in the little white coats to come take them away. If he was hurling them at passers-by, I might call the cops.
And finally - I never once mentioned religion or nutjobs in any of my posts. I was asking about your own reactions to a particular scene you related to us. I want to get down to *why* exactly you were offended (or whatever you wish to call your reaction). I ask again - was it the words that offended you or the actions.. the emotions behind those words?
Again I suggest that a personal affront directed to someone without any "cussing" can be just as hurtful as one with.
It just happens that there is often a correlation between hateful invective and offensive language.
What was more offensive to you : the words they used or the violent emotions the actors were portraying ?
I can write "fuck" here with no emotional content. Are those four letters offensive to you ?
If I were to tell you that I thought your comment moronic and that you obviously have the mental capacity of one of the fish you used to catch, would that not be more personally insulting?
It's not the bad words - it's the intent behind them. The most rational and polite discussion of the virtues of Nazism would still chill me to the bone. Calling your best friend "you old cunt" might be a term of endearment.
Yep - and the funniest thing was that you could always tell when a line was about to be censored, because they couldn't get the real Bruce to do his own over-dubbing. Some poor schmuck who sounded almost exactly unlike Mr Bruce Willis was relegated to the unenviable role of "Mister Falcon" speaker.
But have you ever listened to Beverly Hills Cop when they used the [bleepa-dilla-ding-dong] technique ? My ears got sore from all the shrill whistles and bell-ringing.
I'm sorry, but to whomever advocates this sort of censorship just has to get over it. People in real life do swear. If you don't care to associate with these people because you feel insulted, then perhaps you'd be better off avoiding movies that contain coarse language, in just the same way you avoid coarse people.
But where do you get off telling the rest of us what we can say, let alone what we can listen to ?
Now *I* find *that* insulting.
Riiight.
Reality shows are popular because they're just like reality ?
So you spent 3 months on a desert island competing for a million dollars ?
Reality shows are popular because the people on them are just as petty and vindictive as everyone else and the situations are contrived to hi-light this.
They're comedies and dramas just like regular TV, but the producers don't have to hire writers or actors.
I think a lot is made in both camps about the dangers (environmental and otherwise) of the other sides preferred energy source.
From the studies I've read, it appears to me that Fission is better choice in the mid term than coal burning. Furthermore, compared to renewable sources, such as Solar, Hydroelectric and Wind, it's possibly *more* environmentally friendly (short and long term) when one accounts for the energy and materials costs of manufacture (for solar and wind) and immediate impact (Dams aren't really very nice to their surrounding ecosystem, especially when you consider how many dams might be required to eliminate non-renewable sources altogether).
The whole thing is a gigantic cost-benefit-analysis.
If, for every X MW of energy I get from Solar, I need to cover Y sq ft with panels that require materials I've strip mined from the ground, and require Z MW of energy to produce, how does that compare with the uranium I require for my Fission power plant ?
When I also take into account that solar cells wear out and have to be disposed of
Sure that waste is a heavy metal, carrying it's own hazards, but is it more hazardous than many other industrial by-products that are routinely produced and disposed of all over the world today ?
Would it be produced in sufficient quantities (for the same energy output) to preclude it as a viable energy source ?
Since Optical uses lasers which run at the speed of light, it's obvious to me that it must be 'c'.
I always hear how Uranium mining is so environmentally unfriendly. Is it so much more unfriendly than other kinds of mining ? Coal for example, comes from somewhere. So not only do you have to burn the coal, but you have to mine it too, right ?
What am I missing?
How is taking someones existing model and shoving a computer in it cooler than creating a custom case from scratch ?
I mean, it's definitely a challenge to fit a mobo inside an model starship and get everything working and all.. But really, it's not exactly stretching your creative legs now is it.
it's asking to be rebooted
Don't you mean re-formatted ?
Anything sitting on that much propellant is "dangerous".
I'd have to say that anything that "dangerous" which *never* exploded and destroyed half of Forida qualifies as "safe" under most acceptable definitions.
My biggest problem with some of the HTML editors was that they used to muddy the markup with annoying things.
I haven't used Dreamweaver in ages, so I don't know if it does this.
I find that a simple document with most of the display directives in CSS files is far easier to maintain than a lot of embedded <font> tags and so forth that is often generated by many GUI-based editors.
When you can speak corba with netcat, i'll be impressed, but HTML was never a terribly hard problem, and it doesn't really ring my bell to try to make it one.
Agreed. But it's the people who use Dreamweaver because *they can't understand markup* that many people disdain. It is these people one wishes to dissociate from when one claims "real programmers use vi/emacs/whatever". In those days where everyone and their dog was in the dotCom boom and half of them thought HTML Programmer was a valid title, those of us with actual degrees and/or experience in actual programming must distinguish ourselves somehow.
Of course, some of us do it through being good at what we do, but others use vi.
But you have to agree that none of these characters are "musclebound idiots". Characterizing the entire swath of fiction in this manner is a generalization of the worst kind. Most "heroes" throughout time display a wide variety of traits. I happened to pick a few examples where the heroes were mentally capable. That they were also physically capable doesn't invalidate my argument - which was to point out that musclebound idiots are not the be all and end all of our heroic icons.
Actually if you could permanently achieve 1) first, you might find the reverse order is also applicable, provided you sleep with someone powerful in Show Business(4).
Strangely, I never once thought of the different skin colours in Star Trek. Unlike many contemporary shows (especially sit coms) which seem almost completely homogenous, Star Trek manages (to me) to integrate all these humans of many different colours without making any issue of it.
Humans (in Star Trek), being one of many species, don't seem to hilight their own internal differences all that much. One might even say that humans seem to treat other species in almost the same manner (which is pretty easy since they all look like humans with make up on).
A "token" representative of other races in a movie is really only there as a nod of the head to multi-culturalism and serves no other purpose.
Contrast this with the Star Trek universe where a characters rank (in star fleet) and importance to the story is completely unrelated to his race, gender, even species. Examples : A woman captains Voyager. Sisko commander of DS9, is black. There are others.
I do agree that ST has tried to tackle issues of racial bias within the context of the show (such as the episodes where Sisko dreamed he was a black sci-fi writer in the 50s, or the other numerous humans vs racially insensitive aliens etc). Furthermore, I also agree that this sort of moralizing can be heavy-handed and detract from otherwise enjoyable viewing.
But I disagree that the actors are chosen as "token" representatives of their race.
Except for Doc Savage, Buckaroo Banzai, Batman and probably a couple of others.
Seems like you missed the point.
1/ Yes breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. Where did he say otherwise ?
2/ You arguments about speed are completely fallacious. Say the posted speed limit is 10 miles per hour, but it's a straight road, there's no traffic or pedestrians. Are you saying I can't drive safely at 30 miles per hour ? What if the speed limit is 70 miles per hour but it's a peasoup fog out ? Is it still ok for me to drive at 70 miles per hour ?
Statistics show exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Speed is not the cause of tailgating, passing on the right or other such behaviour. There is certainly a correlation between such reckless driving and exceeding the ambient speed of the surrounding traffic (or the limit set by the driving conditions, such as visibility etc), but that is completely irrespective of the posted limits.
There are plenty of average people who drive at over 160 kilometers an hour or more on the German autobahnen. The number of accidents per capita on these roads is actually less than that on US roads.
I will agree with you on one point - and probably the only good reason for speed limits : accidents which do occur at high speed are usually much more dramatic and likely to result in fatalities than at lower speeds. But speed is not usually the cause of the accident, it merely contributes to the harm caused *when* an accident occurs.
Remember : ignorance kills.