You have no right to go through life being unoffended.
This is absurd. Granted, it is unlikely that you will be able to live your entire life and NOT be offended, but you have every right to try. If you direct/write/produce a movie that offends me, I have the right to not see it...or not see the parts that offend me.
The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, but I don't remember reading the part that gives you the right to be HEARD...
WOW...I'm not a Mormon, but I'm amazed by some of the replies in this thread. These replies are coming from the same group that time and time again on Slashdot has advocated the consumer's right to do *anything they want* with something that they have purchased and own...apparently that *doesn't* cover the removal of material from a movie that the person happens to find offensive...on the grounds that it is "destroying the artist's original vision and meaning of the movie"??? Now who is supposed to the hypocrite here again?
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak, but I don't remember reading the part where it gives you the right to be HEARD. You are not entitled to the right to cram your worldview down anyone else's throat...whether that be your religious or political views...or yes, even your particular style of "art".
Incidentally, when was the last time you saw a movie where a sex scene or a shot of some poor guy graphically getting his head blown off or something was ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL to the plot or meaning of the movie?
I had nightmares about what kind of video games a truly christian university would focus on.
Yeah, the possibility of games where your character is rewarded for something other than stealing, killing, or picking up prostitutes...that terrifies me too...
Just scribble something to the effect of "Lab sample #U185-S" on the container. Or even better, see if you can get some of those stickers with the biohazard symbol on them from your biology lab.
Code Complete is fantastic (and has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft, by the way, other than the fact that they currently publish it). In fact, new hires at our shop are required to read it before they write a single line of production code.
Regarding comments, the author Steve McConnell would be quick to point out that the best comments are no comments...that good code should flow almost like English and therefore document itself. Comments should be reserved for the (hopefully rare) cases where, for one reason or another, this isn't possible.
I didn't check on this theory, so I could be wrong, but they might be ordered by airdate instead of production date for the DVD release. I seem to remember the first season of TNG in particular having some airdate/production date weirdness...resulting in the spontaneous reincarnation of Tasha Yar if you watch the episodes in production order.:)
They probably mean the overloaded function call syntax...a.k.a. functor. That being said, I think I've used functors twice in my life and never in production code, so the omission of these isn't going to ruffle my feathers too much.
I am a professional developer, a Linux user, and an AOL member. I've used AOL for years because it is actually fairly fast (for dial-up) in my area and it is nation-wide (great for travel). I've dual-booted Linux and Windows for quite awhile, but because of the lack of a Linux AOL client, I can't make a 100% switch to Linux...something that I'd like to try.
I wish AOL would at least entertain the idea of opening their protocol to third-party clients.
...hook it up to the Infinite Improbability Generator, and off it goes! Of course, this method of propulsion does occasionally have the side-effect of causing the mission specialist's underwear to spontaneously leap 1 meter to the right.
Speaking from experience, the people running computers and networks in school districts are usually teachers. In most cases, it is not their primary responsibility.
...because, IMHO, the next worse thing after plagiarism or cheating is accusing someone of them without cause.
One of my C.S. professors back at college accused me of cheating on a programming assignment one time without any real evidence or proof and despite the fact that I offered to completely rewrite the program while he watched.
It was extremely embarrasing for me, so I complained. That professor is not longer teaching there.
I'm not going to reiterate the finer points of why this entire story is a bunch of misinformed, opinionated, and sensationalized CRAP, because it has all already been said in previous comments.
Instead, I'll cut right to the chase: the next story I read on Slashdot like this one will be my last.
Obviously he has written some fantastic fiction ("The City on the Edge of Forever" is arguably the best Star Trek episode ever), but the man is a few DLLs short of a Windows app, if ya know what I mean.
It took him forever to write "City on the Edge". One of the Star Trek producers had to lock the guy in his office overnight to get the thing finished. Harlan proceeded to *eat* a houseplant out of the office in protest.
If I remember correctly, there was a scene in the first movie where Decker shows Ilia (the bald chick) a picture of all the ships named Enterprise. There is the Enterprise (NCC-1701) that we all know and love, as well as the space shuttle, aircraft carrier, and one other space-ish looking vessel that really never gets identified. I wonder if this is the Enterprise that will be featured in the new series?
I really don't think "Deep Space Nine" sucked...I think it broke a lot of new ground dramatically, and flew in the face of the critics who said that Trek (especially DS9's predecessor "Next Generation") took itself too seriously. DS9 bent the rules of Trek and was a success, critically and IMHO.
As for the new series, I think it has the opportunity to do the same thing. Based on the information that the series is going to be set in the not-so-distant future (relative to the other series at least), it sounds like the characters might be more identifiable and real.
In any case, I'll have the chance to get back into a Trek series from the beginning...I've totally lost track of (and to a certain degree, interest in) "Voyager".
One last thing: I've heard that they are pushing to get it on the air sometime this fall...that seems a bit optimistic for me, given the strikes taking place in Hollywood right now. I hope they don't rush things like casting just to get it out there sooner.
One word: inflation. A budget increase of 3% is meaningless if inflation has increased by more than that amount over the past seven years (the time span since their last budget increase).
Nearly all the comments so far have basically asked the question "why shouldn't we clone human beings?". I think in this case the more relevant question is "why *should* we?". Is there some missing piece of society that we feel can be filled by cloning? Is there some pressing need to do so? Is it worth the potential risk? No, I don't know *what* risk at this point, but to quote "Jurassic Park": "we were so worried about whether we *could* that we didn't stop to think whether we *should*..."
Here is what I see happening...once Napster gets bumped up to "legitimate" status, the precedent will have been set and Gnutella and all of the other various free Napster workalikes immediately become the next target of the RIAA. I wouldn't count on the "oh, I can just use OpenNap" fallback...I see those as only temporary alternatives...
We worked on Nachos for the undergrad OS course at Louisiana Tech as well. I don't think many real world operating systems are programmed in C++, but as a learning tool, I feel like (in retrospect) it did the job: C++ is the language we used in most of our coursework, so it was well-covered ground. We were more comfortable learning concepts like virtual memory and task switching (and implementing them) without getting bogged down in a lot of low level C and assembler.
The underlying principle behind this has actually been discussed for quite awhile; this is the first time I have seen anyone propose a practical use for it.
I wish I could remember the article where I originally read this, but it is called the holographic theory of quantum physics, so named because something about the photographic qualities of holograms allows them to be non-local, i.e. one small element of a hologram can be developed into the entire image. Apparently this has a quantum physics analogue...electrons are also non-local, and therefore one electron could theoretically contain all the information of the universe. (Can you tell I'm not a physicist?:>). This aspect of quantum physics is, I believe, called the theory of non-locality.
So if this is true, the amount of information stored wouldn't really be infinite, just very large...unless you consider the universe itself to be infinitely large.
I've been a fan of the show for a long time now, and I've steadily become less interested as the years have gone by -- to the point where I really just don't care anymore. I feel like Star Trek is still *capable* of doing extraordinary shows (on par with some of the original, TNG, and DS9 classics), but they need to undergo a paradigm shift to do so.
First of all, I would give the show a rest. There are so many syndicated episodes out there that there really isn't any *need* for new shows. The downtime of the 70's proved that in the absence of new material, the popularity of the show will only increase. Let the franchise run on reruns for a few years...maybe more than a few years if necessary.
Secondly, when the show does return (and it will return...you can't get rid of Star Trek:>), it needs a dramatically new approach. Voyager claimed to represent a new concept: a Federation starship, light-years from home having to fend for themselves in the unknown reaches of space. Um, sounds good on paper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how that applies to the current series...the ship still looks like it was just launched, the crew doesn't seem to be having any difficulty coping with life away from the Federation, and the stories seem like they could have been done on any of the other series. There just isn't anything NEW there. A new show would also need new writers and new producers...and at the same time, would need to bring back some of the old writers and producers who have jumped ship over the years: Ron D. Moore and Peter Allan Fields immediately come to mind. These guys have proven their ability to be flexible, in addition to their writing ability.
Star Trek is far from dead, but it is in a downward spiral...and the only way to pull it out is to make it unique again. It needs people who care.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no right to go through life being unoffended.
This is absurd. Granted, it is unlikely that you will be able to live your entire life and NOT be offended, but you have every right to try. If you direct/write/produce a movie that offends me, I have the right to not see it...or not see the parts that offend me.
The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, but I don't remember reading the part that gives you the right to be HEARD...
WOW...I'm not a Mormon, but I'm amazed by some of the replies in this thread. These replies are coming from the same group that time and time again on Slashdot has advocated the consumer's right to do *anything they want* with something that they have purchased and own...apparently that *doesn't* cover the removal of material from a movie that the person happens to find offensive...on the grounds that it is "destroying the artist's original vision and meaning of the movie"??? Now who is supposed to the hypocrite here again?
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak, but I don't remember reading the part where it gives you the right to be HEARD. You are not entitled to the right to cram your worldview down anyone else's throat...whether that be your religious or political views...or yes, even your particular style of "art".
Incidentally, when was the last time you saw a movie where a sex scene or a shot of some poor guy graphically getting his head blown off or something was ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL to the plot or meaning of the movie?
I had nightmares about what kind of video games a truly christian university would focus on.
Yeah, the possibility of games where your character is rewarded for something other than stealing, killing, or picking up prostitutes...that terrifies me too...
I'm really glad that I wasn't the only one that thought of that...
Just scribble something to the effect of "Lab sample #U185-S" on the container. Or even better, see if you can get some of those stickers with the biohazard symbol on them from your biology lab.
Code Complete is fantastic (and has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft, by the way, other than the fact that they currently publish it). In fact, new hires at our shop are required to read it before they write a single line of production code.
Regarding comments, the author Steve McConnell would be quick to point out that the best comments are no comments...that good code should flow almost like English and therefore document itself. Comments should be reserved for the (hopefully rare) cases where, for one reason or another, this isn't possible.
The product that, as advertised, would double your available RAM using "software memory", but was later discovered to do absolutely nothing?
The really sad part of that already-tragic tale is that hundreds of thousands of copies of it were sold...
I didn't check on this theory, so I could be wrong, but they might be ordered by airdate instead of production date for the DVD release. I seem to remember the first season of TNG in particular having some airdate/production date weirdness...resulting in the spontaneous reincarnation of Tasha Yar if you watch the episodes in production order. :)
It also says "()" (I assume meaning cast)
They probably mean the overloaded function call syntax...a.k.a. functor. That being said, I think I've used functors twice in my life and never in production code, so the omission of these isn't going to ruffle my feathers too much.
I am a professional developer, a Linux user, and an AOL member. I've used AOL for years because it is actually fairly fast (for dial-up) in my area and it is nation-wide (great for travel). I've dual-booted Linux and Windows for quite awhile, but because of the lack of a Linux AOL client, I can't make a 100% switch to Linux...something that I'd like to try.
I wish AOL would at least entertain the idea of opening their protocol to third-party clients.
...hook it up to the Infinite Improbability Generator, and off it goes! Of course, this method of propulsion does occasionally have the side-effect of causing the mission specialist's underwear to spontaneously leap 1 meter to the right.
May 25th: do you know where YOUR towel is?
Speaking from experience, the people running computers and networks in school districts are usually teachers. In most cases, it is not their primary responsibility.
Well, by that argument, the Original Series must've sucked too...because 1 isn't a prime number.
...because, IMHO, the next worse thing after plagiarism or cheating is accusing someone of them without cause.
One of my C.S. professors back at college accused me of cheating on a programming assignment one time without any real evidence or proof and despite the fact that I offered to completely rewrite the program while he watched.
It was extremely embarrasing for me, so I complained. That professor is not longer teaching there.
As someone pointed out, computing the ballistics for something like this would be the hard part.
;)
This type of weapon popped up in Heinlen's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"...but they had the advantage of a massive intelligent computer.
I'm not going to reiterate the finer points of why this entire story is a bunch of misinformed, opinionated, and sensationalized CRAP, because it has all already been said in previous comments.
Instead, I'll cut right to the chase: the next story I read on Slashdot like this one will be my last.
Obviously he has written some fantastic fiction ("The City on the Edge of Forever" is arguably the best Star Trek episode ever), but the man is a few DLLs short of a Windows app, if ya know what I mean.
It took him forever to write "City on the Edge". One of the Star Trek producers had to lock the guy in his office overnight to get the thing finished. Harlan proceeded to *eat* a houseplant out of the office in protest.
If I remember correctly, there was a scene in the first movie where Decker shows Ilia (the bald chick) a picture of all the ships named Enterprise. There is the Enterprise (NCC-1701) that we all know and love, as well as the space shuttle, aircraft carrier, and one other space-ish looking vessel that really never gets identified. I wonder if this is the Enterprise that will be featured in the new series?
<>
I really don't think "Deep Space Nine" sucked...I think it broke a lot of new ground dramatically, and flew in the face of the critics who said that Trek (especially DS9's predecessor "Next Generation") took itself too seriously. DS9 bent the rules of Trek and was a success, critically and IMHO.
As for the new series, I think it has the opportunity to do the same thing. Based on the information that the series is going to be set in the not-so-distant future (relative to the other series at least), it sounds like the characters might be more identifiable and real.
In any case, I'll have the chance to get back into a Trek series from the beginning...I've totally lost track of (and to a certain degree, interest in) "Voyager".
One last thing: I've heard that they are pushing to get it on the air sometime this fall...that seems a bit optimistic for me, given the strikes taking place in Hollywood right now. I hope they don't rush things like casting just to get it out there sooner.
One word: inflation. A budget increase of 3% is meaningless if inflation has increased by more than that amount over the past seven years (the time span since their last budget increase).
Nearly all the comments so far have basically asked the question "why shouldn't we clone human beings?". I think in this case the more relevant question is "why *should* we?". Is there some missing piece of society that we feel can be filled by cloning? Is there some pressing need to do so? Is it worth the potential risk? No, I don't know *what* risk at this point, but to quote "Jurassic Park": "we were so worried about whether we *could* that we didn't stop to think whether we *should*..."
Here is what I see happening...once Napster gets bumped up to "legitimate" status, the precedent will have been set and Gnutella and all of the other various free Napster workalikes immediately become the next target of the RIAA. I wouldn't count on the "oh, I can just use OpenNap" fallback...I see those as only temporary alternatives...
We worked on Nachos for the undergrad OS course at Louisiana Tech as well. I don't think many real world operating systems are programmed in C++, but as a learning tool, I feel like (in retrospect) it did the job: C++ is the language we used in most of our coursework, so it was well-covered ground. We were more comfortable learning concepts like virtual memory and task switching (and implementing them) without getting bogged down in a lot of low level C and assembler.
The underlying principle behind this has actually been discussed for quite awhile; this is the first time I have seen anyone propose a practical use for it.
:>). This aspect of quantum physics is, I believe, called the theory of non-locality.
I wish I could remember the article where I originally read this, but it is called the holographic theory of quantum physics, so named because something about the photographic qualities of holograms allows them to be non-local, i.e. one small element of a hologram can be developed into the entire image. Apparently this has a quantum physics analogue...electrons are also non-local, and therefore one electron could theoretically contain all the information of the universe. (Can you tell I'm not a physicist?
So if this is true, the amount of information stored wouldn't really be infinite, just very large...unless you consider the universe itself to be infinitely large.
I've been a fan of the show for a long time now, and I've steadily become less interested as the years have gone by -- to the point where I really just don't care anymore. I feel like Star Trek is still *capable* of doing extraordinary shows (on par with some of the original, TNG, and DS9 classics), but they need to undergo a paradigm shift to do so.
:>), it needs a dramatically new approach. Voyager claimed to represent a new concept: a Federation starship, light-years from home having to fend for themselves in the unknown reaches of space. Um, sounds good on paper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how that applies to the current series...the ship still looks like it was just launched, the crew doesn't seem to be having any difficulty coping with life away from the Federation, and the stories seem like they could have been done on any of the other series. There just isn't anything NEW there. A new show would also need new writers and new producers...and at the same time, would need to bring back some of the old writers and producers who have jumped ship over the years: Ron D. Moore and Peter Allan Fields immediately come to mind. These guys have proven their ability to be flexible, in addition to their writing ability.
First of all, I would give the show a rest. There are so many syndicated episodes out there that there really isn't any *need* for new shows. The downtime of the 70's proved that in the absence of new material, the popularity of the show will only increase. Let the franchise run on reruns for a few years...maybe more than a few years if necessary.
Secondly, when the show does return (and it will return...you can't get rid of Star Trek
Star Trek is far from dead, but it is in a downward spiral...and the only way to pull it out is to make it unique again. It needs people who care.