1 inch thick at the $500ish price point, though, is a pretty favorable thickness/cost proposition
Even then it's not that great -- I've had PDAs that were half the cost and thickness of that! Or what about the Sharp Actius MM10? It was half an inch thick six years ago! Yeah, it cost $1500 back then, but surely you could build the same thing today for $500.
Nah, there was continuity between all movies, including ones played by different actors (until the Daniel Craig ones, which is why it was called a "reboot"). For example, Roger Moore's Bond lays flowers on Tracy Bond's grave in For Your Eyes Only, even though it was George Lazenby's Bond who married her (in On Her Majesty's Secret Service).
Anyways, NCR, just like several other companies didn't pick up and leave for a foreign labor market or anything. They went to another state that had a more friendly tax code, possible cheaper employees (DHL paid the same when it pulled out of Ohio and went to Kentucky), and likely other things like less regulation and taxes like the Kilowatt-hour tax which drives commercial electricity and natural gas costs up.
Yep, they came here to Atlanta (or technically, Duluth) -- thanks, unfriendly Ohio tax code!
As an interesting exercise, does this mean that the President, via treaties, could do things like limit freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, since the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." without mentioning treaties? It may sound far fetched, but I'm not aware of any case that has held the contrary, which would leave us with just Justice Holmes' analysis.
Ratifying a treaty should constitute "making a law." The way I see it, you could write any treaties you wanted but the Senate would not be allowed to ratify them if they conflicted with the Bill of Rights.
It would also work for the President to grow a pair and simply veto everything that touches multiple separate issues. That's what I'd do, anyway, which is why I'll never be President...
Not only that, but speculation is also the root cause of every financial collapse in modern history (except those caused by war), including the one we're going through now. It's not just "jackassery," it's also harmful to society at large!
Unfortunately, the definition of neutral is subjective in all forms of media.
Right, which means it must be based on a consensus determined by multiple parties. The cult of Scientology does everything it possibly can to destroy that consensus and inflict its fucked-up brainwashing on everyone else, which is why it's necessary to go to such extreme lengths to stop it!
On a semi-related note I think it sucks that Brother sells a printer with a separate black cartridge that will STILL use up the color even if all you print in is greyscale. It also does a massive "cleaning cycle" every couple of weeks just in case you aren't using enough ink.
If you print that little color, you should get yourself a laser printer instead. That's what I did -- I got myself a B&W Brother HL-2070N, and don't really miss color at all (most of my printing is either text or throw-away stuff like Google Maps directions anyway). And even color lasers are pretty cheap now.
No, Lieutenant Junior Grade at most, I mean! And even that's a stretch, considering how much more mature and competent younger characters like Ensign Chekov acted in comparison!
Yeah, I thought about that after I submitted the previous post. Don't get me wrong: I think the portrayal of cadet Kirk was spot-on. But as the movie progressed, or at least when he took command, there should have a noticeable change in how he acted. Sort of an "okay, it's getting serious now; I need to act like a responsible adult" epiphany or something.
Yeah, but there's a line. The old Kirk was quick-thinking and unconventional, but he was always in control of himself. This new Kirk is reckless, impulsive, and a danger to himself and others.
Well, maybe not the "next" shot, but at least "later" shots. If nothing else, I'm pretty sure I remember a "roar" whenever it showed ships going through a black hole.
Actually, "Star Trek" and the Daniel Craig "Bond" movies had exactly the same problem: the people who made them completely failed to understand what their respective franchises were supposed to be and thus removed everything important leaving only the superficial bits (like the setting) and trying to fill the gaping void with gratuitous action.
James Bond, for example, was never supposed to be a gung-ho action hero; his cleverness, wit, and charm are equally important (if not more so) than his fighting ability. Older Bond films, such as the Sean Connery and Roger Moore ones, had considerably less action and a slower pace than, say, "Casino Royale" -- and that's exactly how they're supposed to be!
Similarly, Star Trek was never supposed to be about action either. It's supposed to be about exploring the unknown -- and not just literally, but socially (e.g. "The Undiscovered Country" as allegory for the fall of the Soviet Union, Kirk and Uhura's interracial kiss, etc.), morally (e.g. episodes dealing with the Prime Directive, etc.) and intellectually/philosophically (e.g. all the classic "what if?"-type sci-fi episodes, such as "All Good Things..."). All the superficial cliches that non-Trekkies like Abrams mistakenly thought were important got shoveled in by the truckload: redshirts, funny accents, references to previous Trek stories (e.g. the "centaurian slug" or whatever = the "ceti eel" from "The Wrath of Khan"), technobabble, the setting and characters themselves, but the essence of Trek got completely left out!
I specifically DIDN'T go see this movie because all the trailers made it look like a CGI-driven action-fest (a la Michael Bay). I hate those kind of movies. If this movie is NOT that, then its trailers did it a grave disservice.
No, I'm sorry to say that the trailers showed exactly the kind of movie this was.
Exactly. In a movie that was overall had pretty tight editing, that scene stood out as completely unnecessary.
I dunno, I can think of at least a couple of other scenes that were equally gratuitous (most notably, the one with the fucking CORVETTE!).
The biggest "aw yeah!" moment for me was in the opening battle scene when the ship takes a hit, and they show inside a corridor where the hull is breached and an officer(I think she was a blue shirt) runs from the big fireball -- which then retracts as the air (and the officer) are sucked out. Cut to outside, where we see the poor woman flying off into space, against a background of phaser banks firing like mad, all in complete silence.
Now that was cool -- at least, until the next exterior shot, which did have (unrealistic) sound.
So long as you don't have any actual experience with engineering spaces. Real ones do tend to be cramped, but they aren't random - the ones in the movie look exactly like what they are, factories pressed into service as 'engineering spaces'.
What makes you think that particular part of engineering wasn't a factory? Who's to say that the Enterprise doesn't process/refine it's own fuel, or manufacture it's own spare parts? It is designed for long-duration deep-space missions, after all, and I don't think the reboot changed that.
One of my pet peeves is the tendency of SF to ignore how real-world combat vessels operate - ship control and combat control functions are separated. On a surface warship of any size, they are physically separated. Even on a submarine (lacking room for physical separation) they are functionally grouped. On US submarines, ship systems and control are traditionally on the port side and sensors and combat control on the starboard.
I'm pretty sure that's the case on the Enterprise, too: Chekov's console operated the sensors and weapons, while Sulu's operated the engines. Granted, they squeezed them closer together at the front of the bridge to make room for the extra communications, science, etc. stations around the back side that a submarine wouldn't have (remember, in at least pre-reboot Trek the Enterprise wasn't only for combat...), but they were still two different stations. Heck, even the traditional order (weapons [Chekov's console] on starboard, control [Sulu's console] on port) that you mention was maintained!
I could be mistaken, but I think the whole earth-saving thing is something they want to encourage in Star Fleet. That, you know, if you SAVE THE EARTH, the normal rules of promotion might become slightly more flexible.
Even then, that should only have been enough to cancel out his three different court-martials (cheating, stowing away on the ship, and insubordination)! If he had to be promoted, it should have been to ensign or lieutenant at most. If nothing else, he sure as Hell needs the time at lower rank to learn to quit being such a reckless idiot -- and even saving the Earth doesn't make up for that!
...And who had just been kicked off the ship by his superior officer for insubordination!
Kirk had racked up about three different court-martial-worthy offenses by the end of the movie. He shouldn't have been allowed to remain a damn cadet, let alone a Captain -- whether he saved Earth or not!
The storyline pissed me off both as a Trekker (destruction of Vulcan, Kirk as a whiny bitch, Spock and Uhura as an item)
Even as a Trekkie, I can accept those things (except maybe the "whiny Kirk" one). Knowing that it's explicitly a "reboot," I could have even accepted all the changes even without the need to rationalize them with time travel!
Now, what I couldn't accept (as a Trekkie) was the complete lack of science fiction depth. Where was the social commmentary? Where was the intellectualism? Where was the "What If?"
As a Trekkie, I was hoping (but not expecting, since seeing the previews) for something comparable to the likes of "The City on the Edge of Forever" (TOS) or "The Undiscovered Country" or "Who Watches the Watchers?" (TNG) or "Captive Pursuit" (DS9), or, yes, "In the Pale Moonlight" (DS9) -- that's a good one. Something that makes you think. Instead, what we got was a generic action movie, with no real sci-fi in it at all. In terms of its "Star-Trekness," it was a travesty!
On the other hand, it was a pretty great action movie -- I like it a lot, as long as I pretend it's not "Star Trek." It had plenty of both action and character-driven drama, and awesome special effects. I was also amused by some of the allusions to previous Trek instances, such as the wordplay between Kirk and the cadet he was fighting (recalling Sulu in Star Trek 3: "Don't call me Tiny"), although others were annoyingly cliched, such as Checkov saying "Wictor."
But in the end, I'd have gladly traded all of allusions, along with the special effects and action -- heck, even the whole "Star Trek" setting itself -- in return for a decent sci-fi plot!
apparently it's such a hard problem to solve sending data direct to my PC via a bluetooth dongle. I don't know what it is about the problem that's so hard. I'd love to hear of a technical description of it all.
It's hard for telcos to figure out how to charge you for it, so they cripple the phone instead.
Timing stoplights is a good counterpoint to your example. In my experience, stop lights have horrible timing most places I go. It's almost like they're intentionally designed to make you stop at every single light, unless you drive at > 80mph on surface streets. Why is such poor performance accepted from our traffic lights? Because they're run by the government, and we the people don't have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Even then it's not that great -- I've had PDAs that were half the cost and thickness of that! Or what about the Sharp Actius MM10? It was half an inch thick six years ago! Yeah, it cost $1500 back then, but surely you could build the same thing today for $500.
No they didn't; they could have called it "KDE 3.99 Alpha 2!"
For we know, that's because their abstract thinking skills were never exercised until college!
Nah, there was continuity between all movies, including ones played by different actors (until the Daniel Craig ones, which is why it was called a "reboot"). For example, Roger Moore's Bond lays flowers on Tracy Bond's grave in For Your Eyes Only, even though it was George Lazenby's Bond who married her (in On Her Majesty's Secret Service).
Yep, they came here to Atlanta (or technically, Duluth) -- thanks, unfriendly Ohio tax code!
Ratifying a treaty should constitute "making a law." The way I see it, you could write any treaties you wanted but the Senate would not be allowed to ratify them if they conflicted with the Bill of Rights.
It would also work for the President to grow a pair and simply veto everything that touches multiple separate issues. That's what I'd do, anyway, which is why I'll never be President...
Not only that, but speculation is also the root cause of every financial collapse in modern history (except those caused by war), including the one we're going through now. It's not just "jackassery," it's also harmful to society at large!
Right, which means it must be based on a consensus determined by multiple parties. The cult of Scientology does everything it possibly can to destroy that consensus and inflict its fucked-up brainwashing on everyone else, which is why it's necessary to go to such extreme lengths to stop it!
If you print that little color, you should get yourself a laser printer instead. That's what I did -- I got myself a B&W Brother HL-2070N, and don't really miss color at all (most of my printing is either text or throw-away stuff like Google Maps directions anyway). And even color lasers are pretty cheap now.
No, Lieutenant Junior Grade at most, I mean! And even that's a stretch, considering how much more mature and competent younger characters like Ensign Chekov acted in comparison!
Yeah, I thought about that after I submitted the previous post. Don't get me wrong: I think the portrayal of cadet Kirk was spot-on. But as the movie progressed, or at least when he took command, there should have a noticeable change in how he acted. Sort of an "okay, it's getting serious now; I need to act like a responsible adult" epiphany or something.
Yeah, but there's a line. The old Kirk was quick-thinking and unconventional, but he was always in control of himself. This new Kirk is reckless, impulsive, and a danger to himself and others.
Not to mention, couldn't Chekov have simply picked a password without a "V" in it?!
Well, maybe not the "next" shot, but at least "later" shots. If nothing else, I'm pretty sure I remember a "roar" whenever it showed ships going through a black hole.
Actually, "Star Trek" and the Daniel Craig "Bond" movies had exactly the same problem: the people who made them completely failed to understand what their respective franchises were supposed to be and thus removed everything important leaving only the superficial bits (like the setting) and trying to fill the gaping void with gratuitous action.
James Bond, for example, was never supposed to be a gung-ho action hero; his cleverness, wit, and charm are equally important (if not more so) than his fighting ability. Older Bond films, such as the Sean Connery and Roger Moore ones, had considerably less action and a slower pace than, say, "Casino Royale" -- and that's exactly how they're supposed to be!
Similarly, Star Trek was never supposed to be about action either. It's supposed to be about exploring the unknown -- and not just literally, but socially (e.g. "The Undiscovered Country" as allegory for the fall of the Soviet Union, Kirk and Uhura's interracial kiss, etc.), morally (e.g. episodes dealing with the Prime Directive, etc.) and intellectually/philosophically (e.g. all the classic "what if?"-type sci-fi episodes, such as "All Good Things..."). All the superficial cliches that non-Trekkies like Abrams mistakenly thought were important got shoveled in by the truckload: redshirts, funny accents, references to previous Trek stories (e.g. the "centaurian slug" or whatever = the "ceti eel" from "The Wrath of Khan"), technobabble, the setting and characters themselves, but the essence of Trek got completely left out!
No, I'm sorry to say that the trailers showed exactly the kind of movie this was.
I dunno, I can think of at least a couple of other scenes that were equally gratuitous (most notably, the one with the fucking CORVETTE!).
Now that was cool -- at least, until the next exterior shot, which did have (unrealistic) sound.
What makes you think that particular part of engineering wasn't a factory? Who's to say that the Enterprise doesn't process/refine it's own fuel, or manufacture it's own spare parts? It is designed for long-duration deep-space missions, after all, and I don't think the reboot changed that.
I'm pretty sure that's the case on the Enterprise, too: Chekov's console operated the sensors and weapons, while Sulu's operated the engines. Granted, they squeezed them closer together at the front of the bridge to make room for the extra communications, science, etc. stations around the back side that a submarine wouldn't have (remember, in at least pre-reboot Trek the Enterprise wasn't only for combat...), but they were still two different stations. Heck, even the traditional order (weapons [Chekov's console] on starboard, control [Sulu's console] on port) that you mention was maintained!
Even then, that should only have been enough to cancel out his three different court-martials (cheating, stowing away on the ship, and insubordination)! If he had to be promoted, it should have been to ensign or lieutenant at most. If nothing else, he sure as Hell needs the time at lower rank to learn to quit being such a reckless idiot -- and even saving the Earth doesn't make up for that!
...And who had just been kicked off the ship by his superior officer for insubordination!
Kirk had racked up about three different court-martial-worthy offenses by the end of the movie. He shouldn't have been allowed to remain a damn cadet, let alone a Captain -- whether he saved Earth or not!
Even as a Trekkie, I can accept those things (except maybe the "whiny Kirk" one). Knowing that it's explicitly a "reboot," I could have even accepted all the changes even without the need to rationalize them with time travel!
Now, what I couldn't accept (as a Trekkie) was the complete lack of science fiction depth. Where was the social commmentary? Where was the intellectualism? Where was the "What If?"
As a Trekkie, I was hoping (but not expecting, since seeing the previews) for something comparable to the likes of "The City on the Edge of Forever" (TOS) or "The Undiscovered Country" or "Who Watches the Watchers?" (TNG) or "Captive Pursuit" (DS9), or, yes, "In the Pale Moonlight" (DS9) -- that's a good one. Something that makes you think. Instead, what we got was a generic action movie, with no real sci-fi in it at all. In terms of its "Star-Trekness," it was a travesty!
On the other hand, it was a pretty great action movie -- I like it a lot, as long as I pretend it's not "Star Trek." It had plenty of both action and character-driven drama, and awesome special effects. I was also amused by some of the allusions to previous Trek instances, such as the wordplay between Kirk and the cadet he was fighting (recalling Sulu in Star Trek 3: "Don't call me Tiny"), although others were annoyingly cliched, such as Checkov saying "Wictor."
But in the end, I'd have gladly traded all of allusions, along with the special effects and action -- heck, even the whole "Star Trek" setting itself -- in return for a decent sci-fi plot!
It's hard for telcos to figure out how to charge you for it, so they cripple the phone instead.
Wow, that's really asinine!
See XKCD, and be enlightened.