According to SFGate.com/AP, a teen has been arrested for attempting to bootleg the Spider-Man 2 movie, after a projectionist using night-vision goggles spotted him.
I read that as
protectionist initially. I guess that word made sense in the context. It's amazing that someone would volunteer his time to do this. Theaters have to pay exorbitant prices to get reels in the door. So much in fact, that there is little left over to build or maintain a comfortable environment for moviegoers, or to pay their employees. So we go and sit on bolted-down plastic lawn chairs inside a concrete bunker, and we pay some 400% (based on prices for drinks) more than street price at the concessions stand.
The margin is so small theaters can't afford to show anything but the latest reels, and they quickly drop any release that shows weak attendance. The $10 ticket price pretty much insures that moviegoers aren't going to see more than one film in a weekend, so I'm sure this makes for lots of empty seats. Theater operators have almost no room to work with prices if attendance is low, or to maximize their time with a particular reel, since the studios pretty much control it all from pre-production all the way down to DVD release.
Too bad, I'm sure that projectionist needs the money, so he'd probably strip search the crowd if the MPAA gave the order. If that was me, I'd tell them to hire and equip security at their own expense. I'd also be an ex-projectionist in short order, I imagine.
Before that, a man named Mickey (i'm not making this up, the guy's name was Mickey) physcially ran around and attempted (pretty well, from what i hear) and manually lit the fireworks to coincide with the music. Eventually, he started using electrically fired squibs.
Ya, I can see why. It's a lot easier to press a button for the squibs than it is to light a match when you're wearing big, white gloves.
By compressed air tank rupture: (1) By fireworks: (1)
My point is that it takes the same amount of energy, no matter what form it's in. The danger in fireworks is probably more so from fire than from concussion of the charge.
But hey, if we're making assloads of money the way we do things now, why risk something new?
Right! But this type of misunderstanding permeates all types of areas, including politics. Don't touch the status quo! No, not the status quo! It turns out the VHS paid off. It turns out that selling DVDs with
more content, and at half the price than laserdiscs did pay off. But the issue is that it pays off big when they control most creation and almost all distribution channels. This is why I have to drive 30 miles to sit inside a concrete bunker to watch a subpar cliche-and-explosions film, instead of watching a masterpiece at half the price in an ornate, 19th century theater in my own town.
Don't expect change to happen on its own, unless a lot of Warrens get fired and start their own competing business. Help it along by voting with your dollars.
I'm no friend of Moore, but I haven't seen the movie either. Bowling would have been a hilarious spoof, painful at most times, if it weren't for the fact that he was serious. But what I want to know is, how was the movie. I see lots of people either singing it's praises or cursing Moore based solely on his politics. While politics may be part of art, politics is not art. That's the basis for the argument about the quality of judging at Cannes; The judges are being accused of selecting the film based on its political stance.
But how was the movie? Moore's already influenced one copy-cat documentary, so has he created a new genre? How well was the movie done? Was it interesting? Was it easy to follow? Did it have any creative techniques? Was it well written? How about the technical aspects? How was it done? Did Moore use any new and interesting methods of presenting his story?
Coding's the easy part. I'd be more impressed even if the code wasn't that efficient, but there were detailed specs, models, bug tracking and a roadmap. Crappy code can always be revisited and revised. Poor design is forever.
Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong. But...
on
Wired on McBride
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, but McBride came in at a critical juncture. Clearly the solution was to discard the bad business model. But as the article shows, his concern was to exact some type of fast cash from the IP (in a "related field") through threat of litigation, not to build a lasting business model that would benefit the stockholders, employees and customers. In essence, his profession is barratry.
McBride and Anderer are two business world vagrants that made their millions from aquisition bonuses. Neither is particularly adept at actually running a business. The SCO situation blew up in their faces. The end.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. But...
on
Wired on McBride
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Warning: Invective ahead. This post is rated 'R'.
The article contains about a billion inaccuracies, but I'm hoping that at least McBride's quotes haven't been altered, or this fact for that matter: Caldera was spending $4 for every $1 it made. Think about that for a second. Redhat is making money from selling services on top of GNU/Linux. IBM is making money from selling services on top of GNU/Linux. But, Caldera is losing money.
Why is that? Could it be that Caldera's business model was boxing and and selling software through regular retail channels? Could it be that Caldera wasted a lot of development effort trying to take ownership of a product that was mostly GNU (read: industry standard) at the core by attempting to build proprietary extensions on it? I've reserved personal judgment about McBride up until this point: He's a shithead, pure and simple. No one will ever be able to convince him of that, but perhaps SCO shareholders could convince him that he's not working for fucking Microsoft, so that business model doesn't apply to his company. Attention dumbfuck McBride: Pick a business model that's profitable!
Let's imagine for a moment some other famous CEO reacted the same way when the status quo began to crumble. Let's take Andy Grove on example. When Intel was losing ground the Japanese memory manufacturers, did they fold up shop, cancel R&D, and refuse change while suing both makers and buyers or foreign memory chips? Sure they dabbled in some protectionist tactics, but eventually they just changed their focus to something that the Japanese could not readily produce cheaply in mass quantities.
I'd predicted last year that SCO's purpose was not a stock pump-and-dump scheme, but an attempt destroy open source, specifically those projects that fall under the GPL; An attack on the common infrastructure of the "enemy". The article contains, in McBride's own words, an admission of such.
I'd assume this happens to any competitor rushing products to market in the face of fierce competition. Or was it AMD's master plan to suddenly push s940 boards onto the desktop along with s754, killing the supply of Opteron server motherboards, and requiring users to buy [slower] registered memory, then releasing chips based on the new s939 within a year that don't require registered memory. I must have missed that one in their product roadmap.
It happens. Intel and AMD's struggle for the desktop market isn't perfect competition, but I'll take some missteps if it means I have my choice of cheap Athlon 64s.
It doesn't blue-screen as much, because it doesn't use that method to communicate errors, (you get pop-up windows now). I still have applications crash left and right under XP, and occasionally one leaves the machine in an unstable state (usually ends in a hang). Most of the time XP just reboots when it gets into real trouble. It's anyone's guess why XP is doing this to me. My Slackware box sitting to the left of it is almost exactly identical (CPU, mboard chipset, RAM brand), and it has no problems. If anything, the Linux box should crash, because the CPU fan keeps seizing up.
I'm not doing this to keep beating a dead horse. XP is still miles ahead of any previous operating system Microsoft has released, and it's slowly but surely getting better with every patch.
To be fair, you're comparing a complete IDE for MS Windows, built by the makers of MS Windows, to a cross-platform compiler that is not closely associated with anything but basic system calls. But yes, VC++ is a swell product. And since it's the defacto standard for MS software development, it integrates nicely with all the various extensions to the basic win32 APIs.
I'm sure there would be an explosion of development for GNU/Linux if there was such a tool where everything was at the developer's fingertips like Visual Studio. Imagine that for a minute: A developer Linux "distro", where all the components were collected and put into a package for a single maintainer. Where a developer could grab a PHP plug-in for example, or a wxWidgets module, and install it into an extensible IDE. An IDE that can interface with a code revision management system seamlessly.
That's still trimming off a good portion of the whole in order to force-fit it to the argument. If the widget in question doesn't render as expected in the presence of tables, one of two things is at fault: The developer, for not understanding the spec (see the article's beginning section). Or, the specification, for being ambiguous. Either way something is broken, and it very rarely is the specification.
I'm losing my patience for this type of weasel-y behavior from developers. It would not fly in the manufacturing industry. Software developers break the standard (either on purpose or out of ignorance), and then send PR people on a world-wide, media-weasel word-mincing tour in the hope that if they seriously damage the public's understanding of the issue, the public will eventually abandon its quest for answers.
No, because in order for that to happen, the government would have to be able to tell fixed from broken. And even if they could, their fix will likely end up being shortsighted, or will have far-reaching, and undesirable consequences. Direct government intervention in industry is almost always bad.
The better solution would be to tweak the market so that it is easier or more profitable to make and support secure products. The problem here is that MS and Mozilla.org are both distributing free-as-in-beer competing products, so what is the incentive to pick the better one? Awareness of the problems is really low. I've had people argue with me that they won't have problems, because of spyware blockers, etc. Or that changing registry key 'X' will disable whatever feature. I have to explain to them very slowly that if... the... attacker... can... execute... arbitrary... code... on... your... machine,... those... things... aren't... protecting... you.
Well, you're going to have to deal with two things before the switch: The MS Javascript error that says "Your browser is not Win32 compatible", and the fact that Microsoft somehow got pieces of the #$&$*#^$ Windows registry into HTML. Those two are the most annoying to deal with in MS HTML(tm).
I often wonder what is the best way to transparently handle MS HTML. I think the best way is sort of a miniature proxy server built-in, or attached to Mozilla-based browsers. Whenever it's talking to an IIS box, it misreports its platform information (maybe with a bizarre version so we can spot it in statistics). Also, whenever it encounters an "embed" tag with CLSIDs, it would rewrite the code block so that your browser would instead spawn an instance of your media player of choice.
What IE really needs is to be sandboxed. That's would probably be the most effective quick fix (until the privilege-elevation exploits come along). Is there any reason that iexplore.exe can't be set-UID restricted user? Has anyone played with this idea already?
I just tried out Firefox on one of our older (7 years) machines at work yesterday. I'm impressed! Not only was the interface clean and neat -Mozilla 1.7 still defaults to a broken version of the new Netscape theme- but it was fast. Faster than that Gtk browser that used Mozilla's rendering engine (can't recall the name). It also apparently supports all of those nifty "privacy" options that Mozilla does, so I can block images from other servers (there goes most obnoxious ads), or selectively block images, or even annoying flash animations (?).
However, you have to wonder what the agenda was for the people who set up the tainted box mentioned in the article. It's non-trivial to set up something like that, regardless of how trivial it is to exploit IE's vulnerabilities. Unless, of course, this is some new automated exploit for IIS that we've yet to identify.
OK, I've got some questions, and maybe you've got the answers:
* Why is a public school system involved with a settlement about monopoly pricing? That has nothing to do with consumers!
* Since when is donation at the discretion of the "guilty" party an acceptable remedy for price fixing, even if the donated items were in BillBoard's Top 10?
I really don't get it. I think the RIAA is the head of a cartel, but if the gov't was accepting this as a remedy, then they really deserved to get cow dung as a settlement. Just like with the tobacco company settlements, it was done "in the name of...", but it was mainly about the transfer of wealth to someone other than the [allegedly] represented parties. Well, this time it backfired. This is why it's better to indirectly set up the market to fix the issue instead of trying to do it directly. In other words, if you can't fix it, then get the hell out of the way. The RIAA is powerful because they've got a big, fat revenue stream from people who do buy legal copies of the music. That's the problem, and there isn't a way to fix it as long as people think a $20 CD is a good deal. And since the RIAA is so powerful in the US, they can bury a tax in the cost of CD-Rs. It'd be nice if the tax was listed separately on a CD-R package, like the phone company did with the USF tax.
I have no idea why anyone wants to use only one of these IM services. My game clan used ICQ, so I had GnomeICU for a while. I just stopped using it (not as easy as IRC), and went back to IRC again. Pretty soon, a lot of people are going to realize that it doesn't take a genius to write a messaging program. Hell, any one of us at Slashdot could whip out a beta in less than a week. I know I could, I already am writing something similar in Tcl.
Anyway, website 'X' will have their own chat protocol, and account registration, and then so will websites 'Y' and 'Z'. Pretty soon it'll be a a service expected of a domain owner, like e-mail. And when that happens, there's going to be the need to interconnect these chat networks. After that, the above will no longer be an issue.
Slashdotters reading the press releases seem to assume that their cost for bandwidth to the backbone will be nearly free, yet a T-1 (1.5 Mbps, a tenth of what the article is about) is still realistically several hundred dollars a month. Yeah, if you buy a T-3 or OC-whatever that peers to the Internet then it gets cheaper in volume, but not by a whole lot.
I've actually questioned our local telco rep about this. His reply was: You're paying for the level of service, not necessarily the bandwidth. But, the level of bandwidth that's shown is what you actually will get, unlike residential DSL services, where it varies.
So a DS1 circuit may have the bandwidth of basic DSL, but does your local provider guarantee a service tech will be onsite before 9am the next morning to fix a problem with it? And no, there is a huge difference between a T1 and a T3 in terms of cost per bandwidth. In my area, DS1 is 1.544 Mbps at $500/mo, and DS3 is 45 Mbps at $1500/mo (roughly). A DS3 is loads cheaper in volume. The prices I've shown are for guaranteed throughput, there are also less expensive fractional lines.
But yeah, it seems like the [inflation-adjusted] prices stayed the same for 20+ years. The serviceable areas are also surpisingly patchy. Bottom line is that dial-up still rules the roost, because ISPs don't want to budge. I say fsck 'em, let's build wireless networks and let the ISP only provide the dedicated high-speed line. Now if we could only explain to LinkSys the concept of a "duplexer" and this thing called "simultaneous, two way communication", we'd see some 802.11g equipment worthy of its theoretical bandwidth rating.
Hope Microsoft keeps it up. And I hope it keeps GPL software authors on their toes as well. If MS keeps tweaking things, it will get painful for vendors of -pardon my expression- "shitty" software. It will raise the bar, so that those who don't properly design or maintain their software will end up without customers (because it just won't run).
If Outlook no longer uses the file types in the registry or the vanilla shell execute calls to handle e-mail attachments, then I'll know they're really serious.
Yeah, but that's what makes Star Trek stand apart as a sci-fi franchise. If it wasn't like that, it wouldn't be Star Trek. If it was a dim, post-apocalyptic world, it'd be more along the lines of a Terry Gilliam creation. If it was philosophical, it would be a Phil K. Dick story. If it reflected a [WWII] war-time atmosphere, it'd be Star Wars. If it involved politics, it'd be Asimov.
There's only so much that can go on in space ships. I think the entertainment industry has just about exhausted all the major themes and plots. I vote that Star Trek be retired.
Slashdot Mirror
Before that, a man named Mickey (i'm not making this up, the guy's name was Mickey) physcially ran around and attempted (pretty well, from what i hear) and manually lit the fireworks to coincide with the music. Eventually, he started using electrically fired squibs.
Ya, I can see why. It's a lot easier to press a button for the squibs than it is to light a match when you're wearing big, white gloves.
Interesting, but statistically invalid facts...
People killed in my town last year:
By compressed air tank rupture: (1)
By fireworks: (1)
My point is that it takes the same amount of energy, no matter what form it's in. The danger in fireworks is probably more so from fire than from concussion of the charge.
But hey, if we're making assloads of money the way we do things now, why risk something new?
I'm exploit intolerant.
No, I was actually looking for answers. Thanks. ;o)
I'm no friend of Moore, but I haven't seen the movie either. Bowling would have been a hilarious spoof, painful at most times, if it weren't for the fact that he was serious. But what I want to know is, how was the movie. I see lots of people either singing it's praises or cursing Moore based solely on his politics. While politics may be part of art, politics is not art. That's the basis for the argument about the quality of judging at Cannes; The judges are being accused of selecting the film based on its political stance.
But how was the movie? Moore's already influenced one copy-cat documentary, so has he created a new genre? How well was the movie done? Was it interesting? Was it easy to follow? Did it have any creative techniques? Was it well written? How about the technical aspects? How was it done? Did Moore use any new and interesting methods of presenting his story?
Coding's the easy part. I'd be more impressed even if the code wasn't that efficient, but there were detailed specs, models, bug tracking and a roadmap. Crappy code can always be revisited and revised. Poor design is forever.
No, but McBride came in at a critical juncture. Clearly the solution was to discard the bad business model. But as the article shows, his concern was to exact some type of fast cash from the IP (in a "related field") through threat of litigation, not to build a lasting business model that would benefit the stockholders, employees and customers. In essence, his profession is barratry.
Summary:
McBride and Anderer are two business world vagrants that made their millions from aquisition bonuses. Neither is particularly adept at actually running a business. The SCO situation blew up in their faces. The end.
Warning: Invective ahead. This post is rated 'R'.
The article contains about a billion inaccuracies, but I'm hoping that at least McBride's quotes haven't been altered, or this fact for that matter: Caldera was spending $4 for every $1 it made. Think about that for a second. Redhat is making money from selling services on top of GNU/Linux. IBM is making money from selling services on top of GNU/Linux. But, Caldera is losing money.
Why is that? Could it be that Caldera's business model was boxing and and selling software through regular retail channels? Could it be that Caldera wasted a lot of development effort trying to take ownership of a product that was mostly GNU (read: industry standard) at the core by attempting to build proprietary extensions on it? I've reserved personal judgment about McBride up until this point: He's a shithead, pure and simple. No one will ever be able to convince him of that, but perhaps SCO shareholders could convince him that he's not working for fucking Microsoft, so that business model doesn't apply to his company. Attention dumbfuck McBride: Pick a business model that's profitable!
Let's imagine for a moment some other famous CEO reacted the same way when the status quo began to crumble. Let's take Andy Grove on example. When Intel was losing ground the Japanese memory manufacturers, did they fold up shop, cancel R&D, and refuse change while suing both makers and buyers or foreign memory chips? Sure they dabbled in some protectionist tactics, but eventually they just changed their focus to something that the Japanese could not readily produce cheaply in mass quantities.
I'd predicted last year that SCO's purpose was not a stock pump-and-dump scheme, but an attempt destroy open source, specifically those projects that fall under the GPL; An attack on the common infrastructure of the "enemy". The article contains, in McBride's own words, an admission of such.
I'd assume this happens to any competitor rushing products to market in the face of fierce competition. Or was it AMD's master plan to suddenly push s940 boards onto the desktop along with s754, killing the supply of Opteron server motherboards, and requiring users to buy [slower] registered memory, then releasing chips based on the new s939 within a year that don't require registered memory. I must have missed that one in their product roadmap.
It happens. Intel and AMD's struggle for the desktop market isn't perfect competition, but I'll take some missteps if it means I have my choice of cheap Athlon 64s.
It doesn't blue-screen as much, because it doesn't use that method to communicate errors, (you get pop-up windows now). I still have applications crash left and right under XP, and occasionally one leaves the machine in an unstable state (usually ends in a hang). Most of the time XP just reboots when it gets into real trouble. It's anyone's guess why XP is doing this to me. My Slackware box sitting to the left of it is almost exactly identical (CPU, mboard chipset, RAM brand), and it has no problems. If anything, the Linux box should crash, because the CPU fan keeps seizing up.
I'm not doing this to keep beating a dead horse. XP is still miles ahead of any previous operating system Microsoft has released, and it's slowly but surely getting better with every patch.
To be fair, you're comparing a complete IDE for MS Windows, built by the makers of MS Windows, to a cross-platform compiler that is not closely associated with anything but basic system calls. But yes, VC++ is a swell product. And since it's the defacto standard for MS software development, it integrates nicely with all the various extensions to the basic win32 APIs.
I'm sure there would be an explosion of development for GNU/Linux if there was such a tool where everything was at the developer's fingertips like Visual Studio. Imagine that for a minute: A developer Linux "distro", where all the components were collected and put into a package for a single maintainer. Where a developer could grab a PHP plug-in for example, or a wxWidgets module, and install it into an extensible IDE. An IDE that can interface with a code revision management system seamlessly.
That's still trimming off a good portion of the whole in order to force-fit it to the argument. If the widget in question doesn't render as expected in the presence of tables, one of two things is at fault: The developer, for not understanding the spec (see the article's beginning section). Or, the specification, for being ambiguous. Either way something is broken, and it very rarely is the specification.
I'm losing my patience for this type of weasel-y behavior from developers. It would not fly in the manufacturing industry. Software developers break the standard (either on purpose or out of ignorance), and then send PR people on a world-wide, media-weasel word-mincing tour in the hope that if they seriously damage the public's understanding of the issue, the public will eventually abandon its quest for answers.
No, because in order for that to happen, the government would have to be able to tell fixed from broken. And even if they could, their fix will likely end up being shortsighted, or will have far-reaching, and undesirable consequences. Direct government intervention in industry is almost always bad.
... the ... attacker ... can ... execute ... arbitrary ... code ... on ... your ... machine, ... those ... things ... aren't ... protecting ... you.
The better solution would be to tweak the market so that it is easier or more profitable to make and support secure products. The problem here is that MS and Mozilla.org are both distributing free-as-in-beer competing products, so what is the incentive to pick the better one? Awareness of the problems is really low. I've had people argue with me that they won't have problems, because of spyware blockers, etc. Or that changing registry key 'X' will disable whatever feature. I have to explain to them very slowly that if
Well, you're going to have to deal with two things before the switch: The MS Javascript error that says "Your browser is not Win32 compatible", and the fact that Microsoft somehow got pieces of the #$&$*#^$ Windows registry into HTML. Those two are the most annoying to deal with in MS HTML(tm).
I often wonder what is the best way to transparently handle MS HTML. I think the best way is sort of a miniature proxy server built-in, or attached to Mozilla-based browsers. Whenever it's talking to an IIS box, it misreports its platform information (maybe with a bizarre version so we can spot it in statistics). Also, whenever it encounters an "embed" tag with CLSIDs, it would rewrite the code block so that your browser would instead spawn an instance of your media player of choice.
What IE really needs is to be sandboxed. That's would probably be the most effective quick fix (until the privilege-elevation exploits come along). Is there any reason that iexplore.exe can't be set-UID restricted user? Has anyone played with this idea already?
I just tried out Firefox on one of our older (7 years) machines at work yesterday. I'm impressed! Not only was the interface clean and neat -Mozilla 1.7 still defaults to a broken version of the new Netscape theme- but it was fast. Faster than that Gtk browser that used Mozilla's rendering engine (can't recall the name). It also apparently supports all of those nifty "privacy" options that Mozilla does, so I can block images from other servers (there goes most obnoxious ads), or selectively block images, or even annoying flash animations (?).
However, you have to wonder what the agenda was for the people who set up the tainted box mentioned in the article. It's non-trivial to set up something like that, regardless of how trivial it is to exploit IE's vulnerabilities. Unless, of course, this is some new automated exploit for IIS that we've yet to identify.
Hey, you could always tell him your pants exploded.
OK, I've got some questions, and maybe you've got the answers:
* Why is a public school system involved with a settlement about monopoly pricing? That has nothing to do with consumers!
* Since when is donation at the discretion of the "guilty" party an acceptable remedy for price fixing, even if the donated items were in BillBoard's Top 10?
I really don't get it. I think the RIAA is the head of a cartel, but if the gov't was accepting this as a remedy, then they really deserved to get cow dung as a settlement. Just like with the tobacco company settlements, it was done "in the name of...", but it was mainly about the transfer of wealth to someone other than the [allegedly] represented parties. Well, this time it backfired. This is why it's better to indirectly set up the market to fix the issue instead of trying to do it directly. In other words, if you can't fix it, then get the hell out of the way. The RIAA is powerful because they've got a big, fat revenue stream from people who do buy legal copies of the music. That's the problem, and there isn't a way to fix it as long as people think a $20 CD is a good deal. And since the RIAA is so powerful in the US, they can bury a tax in the cost of CD-Rs. It'd be nice if the tax was listed separately on a CD-R package, like the phone company did with the USF tax.
I have no idea why anyone wants to use only one of these IM services. My game clan used ICQ, so I had GnomeICU for a while. I just stopped using it (not as easy as IRC), and went back to IRC again. Pretty soon, a lot of people are going to realize that it doesn't take a genius to write a messaging program. Hell, any one of us at Slashdot could whip out a beta in less than a week. I know I could, I already am writing something similar in Tcl.
Anyway, website 'X' will have their own chat protocol, and account registration, and then so will websites 'Y' and 'Z'. Pretty soon it'll be a a service expected of a domain owner, like e-mail. And when that happens, there's going to be the need to interconnect these chat networks. After that, the above will no longer be an issue.
And your machine doesn't have a Microsoft Windows registry, click here to download it.
If that's the way it will really look when I play it, I will buy it and play at 5 frames per second just to see it.
Hope Microsoft keeps it up. And I hope it keeps GPL software authors on their toes as well. If MS keeps tweaking things, it will get painful for vendors of -pardon my expression- "shitty" software. It will raise the bar, so that those who don't properly design or maintain their software will end up without customers (because it just won't run).
If Outlook no longer uses the file types in the registry or the vanilla shell execute calls to handle e-mail attachments, then I'll know they're really serious.
Yeah, but that's what makes Star Trek stand apart as a sci-fi franchise. If it wasn't like that, it wouldn't be Star Trek. If it was a dim, post-apocalyptic world, it'd be more along the lines of a Terry Gilliam creation. If it was philosophical, it would be a Phil K. Dick story. If it reflected a [WWII] war-time atmosphere, it'd be Star Wars. If it involved politics, it'd be Asimov.
There's only so much that can go on in space ships. I think the entertainment industry has just about exhausted all the major themes and plots. I vote that Star Trek be retired.