If you only saw an episode here and there, you'd probably find it disjointed and hard to follow. Farscape was a serial rather than a series, in that the story continued from week to week, and changes in the characters relationships (or mortality) were developed over time and maintained. Dialog in one show referred to events in others. This is in direct contrast to shows like Star Trek, where you could re-run episodes in all sort of order and no one really cared (Borg episodes notwithstanding).
The other thing that attracted me to Farscape was the dry wit and the pure humanity of the hero (John Crichton). He screwed up on several occasions and had to figure his way out of jams. Or maybe something didn't go the way it "should have," and plans were shot. No phasers from space or transporters to get them out of trouble. Occasionally fistfights broke out, often among the main characters.
This isn't to say that the show was all violence. Romance showed up a lot, and the bounds of friendships were tested (some failed, some didn't). Many times, characters weren't either "bad guys" or "good guys," but just had their own way of getting through life. The character of Scorpius was played brilliantly as one who is evil on so many levels that you can't keep track of them all, but in certain situations can be trusted to be true to his word. Others, like Chiana (what a babe), were good at heart but sometimes did bad things. I'm reminded of Jessica Rabbit ("I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.")
So, if you have a chance, watch Farscape for several episodes in a row. It starts to make sense after a while, and then you're addicted.
While I understand what you're saying, I have to disagree with you in one respect:
There is a huge movement afoot to create marketshare for Linux, and unification of the two leading desktops would help that movement along immeasurably. Now, don't confuse "marketshare" with "profits." The intent is to gain as much penetration into the OS market as possible for Linux. For every Windows desktop or Solaris server or WinCE handheld that is displaced by a Linux instance, Linux as a whole gets stronger. For every user that says, "Yeah, I use Linux now," Linux gets stronger. And the stronger it gets, the more useful it gets, not only to average end users but to those of us who like it for all the reasons we've adopted it early.
Last I knew ("info" dated pre-1990), Special Ops and other tactical teams used throat mics, which date back to WWII or Korea (I forget which). I suspect their size and usability has improved over the years, but I heard anecdotally from one of our squadron's pilots who had been around when they used them that had excellent clarity. They evidently cut out all ambient noise.
Actually, I've encountered this theme in quite a few sci-fi novels by a wide variety of authors. Two that haven't been mentioned are Daniel Keys Moran (Emerald Eyes, The Long Run, etc.) and Michael Flynn (Dawnstar, Rogue Star, etc.). Didn't Kim Stanley Robinson use it as well?
I always wondered about this technology and if it would be feasable. It seems like a stellar way to get around the whole keyboard thing. Now we need heads-up display sunglasses with nifty little earbuds built in and we'll be on our way to the eradication of Repetetive Stress Disorder and other cube-based problems. (Messy desks will ensue, though.)
It doesn't always work that way. I just bought SuSE Personal Edition for my new laptop, mostly based on rave reviews I read around the net. I'm not so happy with it so far. It would be fine if I was content to stick with just what they gave me, but God forbid I should want to do something radical like upgrade to KDE 3.2 or use KOffice instead of OO.org. Things start breaking, and Support says, "Sorry, not within the scope of the free installation support." WTF? I installed the packages from their website.
When they said "portable TV," I was thinking of the 13" travel-trailer models that are so popular. Still, if something that fits in my pocket could combine a Stowaway keyboard and contain all the functionality of a stripped-down laptop (think current high-end handheld with maybe 5 GB of storage) and include the full-size keyboard that the Stowaway provides, as well as a projected 13" screen (rollup?), I'd be tickled.
Sorry for the hellish run-on sentance. You know how it goes when an idea (dream) strikes...
I recently went laptop shopping, and had decided that it was going to run Linux exclusively (no dual boot to Windows). I started by deciding which distro I wanted to use (SuSE was the end choice after much deliberation), then looking at their "supported hardware" page under notebooks. Lo and behold, SuSE has only certified IBM notebooks with their latest version, 9.0 (more brands to follow, I'm sure).
Reading the certification results (example), I found that the internal WLAN card wasn't supported. Not to be deterred, I searched IBM's web site and found this, along with several other documents, that puts me right on the path.
Unfortunately, a lot of research is required to find info when doing something like this. Don't be deterred by just one source.
Nothing, unless you learned the term "hacker" either out of the U.S. Executive Branch's lexicon or from some stupid Hollywood movie that featured a "computer guy." I think this guy was just heading off any negative connotations by the INS, which probably got doses of both the above input streams.
Bravo. As another long time veteran of Software QA and Change Management, I can say that I find both of those things lacking in most (not all) OSS projects that I've observed.
It has been my experience as well that people often confuse "testing for defects" with "quality assurance." The former is doing something to figure out if what you made (note the past tense) is ready for release. The latter is a process or set of processes that assures (or attempts to) that the output of your development cycle has quality. Testing is really only a phase of the entire quality assurance process.
However, since this deals with hardware configuration, you have to give the code access to the actual hardware.
Okay, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I didn't really get that out of the paper. It seemed to me that the idea (and at this point, that's about all they've got) is to exchange capabilities for communication. So, component A send code to component B to tell B how to talk to A, including new capabilities that A hadn't necessarily thought about. This doesn't necessarily compromise A or any of its peripherals, but gives it instructions for building a conduit to B. It can do what it wants with the code, but it should be able to be successful at constructing a conduit without loading the code into its innards.
Now, having said that, I'll offer that I often don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Being a Slashdotter, though, that doesn't stop me from posting.
Slashdot Mirror
Missed that episode. :-( In his place, though, I'd be doing the same thing. And would've had the same response, at that.
If you only saw an episode here and there, you'd probably find it disjointed and hard to follow. Farscape was a serial rather than a series, in that the story continued from week to week, and changes in the characters relationships (or mortality) were developed over time and maintained. Dialog in one show referred to events in others. This is in direct contrast to shows like Star Trek, where you could re-run episodes in all sort of order and no one really cared (Borg episodes notwithstanding).
The other thing that attracted me to Farscape was the dry wit and the pure humanity of the hero (John Crichton). He screwed up on several occasions and had to figure his way out of jams. Or maybe something didn't go the way it "should have," and plans were shot. No phasers from space or transporters to get them out of trouble. Occasionally fistfights broke out, often among the main characters.
This isn't to say that the show was all violence. Romance showed up a lot, and the bounds of friendships were tested (some failed, some didn't). Many times, characters weren't either "bad guys" or "good guys," but just had their own way of getting through life. The character of Scorpius was played brilliantly as one who is evil on so many levels that you can't keep track of them all, but in certain situations can be trusted to be true to his word. Others, like Chiana (what a babe), were good at heart but sometimes did bad things. I'm reminded of Jessica Rabbit ("I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.")
So, if you have a chance, watch Farscape for several episodes in a row. It starts to make sense after a while, and then you're addicted.
Real people? Real spaceship? Um, were they using a real warp drive to get around the galaxy?
Maybe it's running on that Altair simulator.
Nor as well funded.
At least he's not part of a boy band.
While I understand what you're saying, I have to disagree with you in one respect:
There is a huge movement afoot to create marketshare for Linux, and unification of the two leading desktops would help that movement along immeasurably. Now, don't confuse "marketshare" with "profits." The intent is to gain as much penetration into the OS market as possible for Linux. For every Windows desktop or Solaris server or WinCE handheld that is displaced by a Linux instance, Linux as a whole gets stronger. For every user that says, "Yeah, I use Linux now," Linux gets stronger. And the stronger it gets, the more useful it gets, not only to average end users but to those of us who like it for all the reasons we've adopted it early.
Last I knew ("info" dated pre-1990), Special Ops and other tactical teams used throat mics, which date back to WWII or Korea (I forget which). I suspect their size and usability has improved over the years, but I heard anecdotally from one of our squadron's pilots who had been around when they used them that had excellent clarity. They evidently cut out all ambient noise.
You've never met my ... (what was that, dear? Oh, I thought you were talking to me...)
I always wondered about this technology and if it would be feasable. It seems like a stellar way to get around the whole keyboard thing. Now we need heads-up display sunglasses with nifty little earbuds built in and we'll be on our way to the eradication of Repetetive Stress Disorder and other cube-based problems. (Messy desks will ensue, though.)
"Wonder twin powers, activate!"
I think in the latest rev of the rules it's been changed to Greater Globe of Encrypted Invulnerability (Geek-3/Nerd-4).
Well, here's a definite winner:
"...SSL connectivity for added security and inline spell checking."
The things you learn by reading brochures...
It doesn't always work that way. I just bought SuSE Personal Edition for my new laptop, mostly based on rave reviews I read around the net. I'm not so happy with it so far. It would be fine if I was content to stick with just what they gave me, but God forbid I should want to do something radical like upgrade to KDE 3.2 or use KOffice instead of OO.org. Things start breaking, and Support says, "Sorry, not within the scope of the free installation support." WTF? I installed the packages from their website.
Okay, I'll turn off "bitter mode" now...
It is.
Does it run under WINE?
So, we're looking toward Star Trek-like medical scanners? Combine that with something like this and you'd REALLY have something...
Agreed. Wish I had some mod points left, I like subtle humor.
When they said "portable TV," I was thinking of the 13" travel-trailer models that are so popular. Still, if something that fits in my pocket could combine a Stowaway keyboard and contain all the functionality of a stripped-down laptop (think current high-end handheld with maybe 5 GB of storage) and include the full-size keyboard that the Stowaway provides, as well as a projected 13" screen (rollup?), I'd be tickled.
Sorry for the hellish run-on sentance. You know how it goes when an idea (dream) strikes...
Reading the certification results (example), I found that the internal WLAN card wasn't supported. Not to be deterred, I searched IBM's web site and found this, along with several other documents, that puts me right on the path.
Unfortunately, a lot of research is required to find info when doing something like this. Don't be deterred by just one source.
Nothing, unless you learned the term "hacker" either out of the U.S. Executive Branch's lexicon or from some stupid Hollywood movie that featured a "computer guy." I think this guy was just heading off any negative connotations by the INS, which probably got doses of both the above input streams.
It has been my experience as well that people often confuse "testing for defects" with "quality assurance." The former is doing something to figure out if what you made (note the past tense) is ready for release. The latter is a process or set of processes that assures (or attempts to) that the output of your development cycle has quality. Testing is really only a phase of the entire quality assurance process.
What is it with /.'ers not being able to spell animal names today? It's "koalas."
I think you mean "llamas."
Okay, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I didn't really get that out of the paper. It seemed to me that the idea (and at this point, that's about all they've got) is to exchange capabilities for communication. So, component A send code to component B to tell B how to talk to A, including new capabilities that A hadn't necessarily thought about. This doesn't necessarily compromise A or any of its peripherals, but gives it instructions for building a conduit to B. It can do what it wants with the code, but it should be able to be successful at constructing a conduit without loading the code into its innards.
Now, having said that, I'll offer that I often don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Being a Slashdotter, though, that doesn't stop me from posting.