Don't judge the whole series based on the second episode.
It's come a long way since then. Keep watching, and you'll see the quality of the show get better with each subsequent episode.
I used to pay Comcast $39.95 a month for Internet and TV service bundled for basic TV, which I barely used. So, I dropped the TV service which saved me all of $5.00.
When I moved to New Jersey, Optimum Online now charges me $54.95 a month for Internet only. Thinks $119.95 for "Triple Play" is a bargain (I already get a year of Skype for $60 which works out to $5.00 a month), and I could get Netflix or Amazon Plus for much less for the differential between $59.95 and $119.95.
If they don't want people to cut the cords. LOWER PRICES! This is marketing 101. It's obvious that people are cutting the cord because we can get a lot of the same content cheaper over the air with an antenna, over the internet, or by some other method without paying such high prices.
Cable companies have to make money by VOLUME, not by trying to squeeze every penny from a dwindling number of subscribers. You charge LESS to MORE users, not MORE to LES and LESS users. What business school did these geniuses go to?
They used to offer me triple play at $89.95 a month. You mean to tell me rhat yers later, with more users to spread the costs out over, you need to charge $119.95 a month to keep doors open?
I think that we should use solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and hydro-electric power as much as we can, where we can.
It doesn't matter if it isn't 100% available.
Every bit we can cut coal and other from-the-ground sources of generating power seems like a good idea to me.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not a greenie, but I think technology is a great answer to problems.
Someday, we'll find a power source better than anything we know today. Until then, we should experiment with different things and see how far we can push those technologies we already have.
I think solar panels on homes is a good idea. Distributed generation just seems smart to me.
Batteries, or using an electric car as a battery to load balance also seems smart to me.
As we try new ways to power our homes, the technology will mature and become cheaper and more efficient.
I wish all that money blown on Solyndra and other boondoggles was instead made available to home owners as low cost loans to add solar panels and/or a wind turbine to their homes.
Where I live on the New Jersey shore, such a combination along with a good battery system should be sufficient to meet a homes needs.
I've been trying to get in to one of those programs that say they will lease a set of panels to me, but my roof is just a bit too tiny for it to be cost effective.
I'm hoping solar panel efficiency will rise just a bit in the next few years to make it feasible.
Linux needs to have a UI that regular people want, not what some programmers want.
Linspire had the right idea. Make Linux look and work like what people are used to.
There can be one distribution that looks and works like Windows, including WINE. And, another that looks and works like MacOS X.
These should be packaged and sold in stores, with tech support. As well as bundled with hardware.
There can still be all the current distributions with their different UIs for the Power-users.
But if you want to sell Linux to desktop users (who don't care about the 'coolness' of Linux) it simply has to run the software they need to run, in a way they're familiar with.
People are going to have to give up the egotistical stand that says Linux shouldn't work like Windows.
If a car manufacturer made their cars as different from other cars as Linux is from other OSes, they'd have very few sales too.
If you've never authored a work and had it pirated (I have and bought a copy of my work on eBay, expecting it to be a genuine copy and received a Xeroxed manual and a copied disk.), you don't know what it's like.
DC is within it's rights to enforce their copyright on the car. They have to, because after decades of wrangling, they got all the ownership issues sorted out and have been releasing toy cars and models.
In order to have a license to sell to toy and model companies, they have to defend it in all arenas.
You're exaggerating. Paramount did "sue" ALL the producers of fan made merchandise
A "Cease and Desist" letter isn't a lawsuit.
And Star Trek is far from dead. The sequel to the 2009 movie is currently filming, and several fan based shows are in production.
Star Trek: Phase II is about to release "The Child." Based on a script written for the aborted second series in 1979. The script was adapted for a TNG episode, but this will be as originally conceived and directed by Jon Povil who wrote it.
Not going to happen. We've seen about a tenth of a degree warming in the first half of the 20th Century (now reversed), that occurred LONG before the rise of automobiles and factories adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Every prediction I've read about how much temperature change that the draconian measures would reverse are similarly in fractions of a degree over a period of a century.
Human activity just isn't affecting the climate all that greatly.
Any predictions of climate change on the level of several degrees is just scare-mongering.
It's not supportable based on what we've observed thus far. In fact atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 8 percent or so since the mid-1990s. According to climate alarmists, this should have caused measurable global warming. But none has been observed.
Human activity may indeed affect global climate, but it's like pouring a thimbleful of dye into a swimming pool.
Since I googled to verify the data is still there, and it is...
I can only assume the whole point of your replies is to troll this thread.
I've long learned not to get into pissing matches with people who are either too intellectually dishonest, or too lazy to go look up easily found facts.
Do you realize that you said that 2011 TIED 1998? The year the cooling started?
You didn't provide any actual numbers. You just made an assertion that 2011 tied 1998. If 1998 was cooler than 1997, just how does that prove that there's warming?
And remember, the observed warming was a fraction of a degree. My house differs in temperature MUCH more than that from the sunlit side to the shady side of the house.
You are repeating stuff without applying critical thinking skills to it.
You have yet to prove I fabricated anything. I simply repeated the conclusion from data gathered by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that showed that between 1998 and 2005, global temperatures didn't increase, but in fact slightly decreased. Enough in fact to reverse the fraction of a degree rise observed previously.
Just so. How do we know that any set of conditions in the climate is optimal?
Maybe optimal is a degree warmer. Maybe not.
Squandering trillions of dollars in wealth and productivity just to maintain the status quo seems silly.
I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach which is to spend that money on clean water, medical care, and feeding the hungry instead. As well as simply moving people out of areas that might be impacted.
We can save more lives, and vastly improve the quality of lots of poor that way, rather than chasing a fraction of a degree of temperature rise.
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
The assertion that the calm Sun activity won't reverse the warming is true only in that there is no longer any warming to reverse.
Bush didn't push a "every family stimulus bill." He did a banbk bailout that was mostly repaid.
It was Obama that pushed a "stimulus" bill that failed to stimulate anything but Democrat donors.
But, I agree that I'd rather see tax benefits and grants to upgrading the grid to be more efficient than funding ethanol, or other wasteful things.
I'm having panels installed next month at no cost to me via a program here in NJ. I only pay a montlhy lease payment (20 year term) around $50US. I get all the power, I don't get the tax incentives. Sounds like a good deal to me!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't judge the whole series based on the second episode. It's come a long way since then. Keep watching, and you'll see the quality of the show get better with each subsequent episode.
DC has already sold an exclusive license to another firm, Fiberglass Freaks.
I used to pay Comcast $39.95 a month for Internet and TV service bundled for basic TV, which I barely used. So, I dropped the TV service which saved me all of $5.00. When I moved to New Jersey, Optimum Online now charges me $54.95 a month for Internet only. Thinks $119.95 for "Triple Play" is a bargain (I already get a year of Skype for $60 which works out to $5.00 a month), and I could get Netflix or Amazon Plus for much less for the differential between $59.95 and $119.95. If they don't want people to cut the cords. LOWER PRICES! This is marketing 101. It's obvious that people are cutting the cord because we can get a lot of the same content cheaper over the air with an antenna, over the internet, or by some other method without paying such high prices. Cable companies have to make money by VOLUME, not by trying to squeeze every penny from a dwindling number of subscribers. You charge LESS to MORE users, not MORE to LES and LESS users. What business school did these geniuses go to? They used to offer me triple play at $89.95 a month. You mean to tell me rhat yers later, with more users to spread the costs out over, you need to charge $119.95 a month to keep doors open?
I think that we should use solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and hydro-electric power as much as we can, where we can.
It doesn't matter if it isn't 100% available.
Every bit we can cut coal and other from-the-ground sources of generating power seems like a good idea to me.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not a greenie, but I think technology is a great answer to problems.
Someday, we'll find a power source better than anything we know today. Until then, we should experiment with different things and see how far we can push those technologies we already have.
I don't care about all the B.S. in this thread.
I think solar panels on homes is a good idea. Distributed generation just seems smart to me.
Batteries, or using an electric car as a battery to load balance also seems smart to me.
As we try new ways to power our homes, the technology will mature and become cheaper and more efficient.
I wish all that money blown on Solyndra and other boondoggles was instead made available to home owners as low cost loans to add solar panels and/or a wind turbine to their homes.
Where I live on the New Jersey shore, such a combination along with a good battery system should be sufficient to meet a homes needs.
I've been trying to get in to one of those programs that say they will lease a set of panels to me, but my roof is just a bit too tiny for it to be cost effective.
I'm hoping solar panel efficiency will rise just a bit in the next few years to make it feasible.
How about simply using something like the Apple Magsafe Power jack as a USB port connector? Maybe that would be feasible.
Linux needs to stop being a laboratory.
Linux needs to have a UI that regular people want, not what some programmers want.
Linspire had the right idea. Make Linux look and work like what people are used to.
There can be one distribution that looks and works like Windows, including WINE. And, another that looks and works like MacOS X.
These should be packaged and sold in stores, with tech support. As well as bundled with hardware.
There can still be all the current distributions with their different UIs for the Power-users.
But if you want to sell Linux to desktop users (who don't care about the 'coolness' of Linux) it simply has to run the software they need to run, in a way they're familiar with.
People are going to have to give up the egotistical stand that says Linux shouldn't work like Windows.
If a car manufacturer made their cars as different from other cars as Linux is from other OSes, they'd have very few sales too.
To DC, it's stealing money. From them.
If you've never authored a work and had it pirated (I have and bought a copy of my work on eBay, expecting it to be a genuine copy and received a Xeroxed manual and a copied disk.), you don't know what it's like.
DC is within it's rights to enforce their copyright on the car. They have to, because after decades of wrangling, they got all the ownership issues sorted out and have been releasing toy cars and models.
In order to have a license to sell to toy and model companies, they have to defend it in all arenas.
Since there IS a licensed Batmobile maker, your post is wrong.
http://www.fiberglassfreaks.com/
There is a limited market for Batmobile replicas. And every car Towle sells means one less sale by the licensee.
So yes, DC is being damaged. They lose the per-car licensing fee from each car sold by a non-licensee.
That should be "didn't sue".
You're exaggerating. Paramount did "sue" ALL the producers of fan made merchandise
A "Cease and Desist" letter isn't a lawsuit.
And Star Trek is far from dead. The sequel to the 2009 movie is currently filming, and several fan based shows are in production.
Star Trek: Phase II is about to release "The Child." Based on a script written for the aborted second series in 1979. The script was adapted for a TNG episode, but this will be as originally conceived and directed by Jon Povil who wrote it.
Paramount served every maker of replica Star Trek Props with Cease and Desist orders in the mid 90's.
Even Richard Coyle who was negotiating in good faith for a license, and Paramount denied. Richard made many of the props used in the Star Trek movies.
Today, fans can make their own replicas. There are several companies with licenses to make replica props.
And there are still several garage kit companies selling kits of various qualities and accuracy that just fly under the radar.
DC Comics licensed one guy named Mark Racop to build these cars.
Mark Towle however, made the prototype for the licensed Speed Racer Mach V that was sold some time back (based on a Corvette chassis.)
Mark Towle does great work, his cars are really top notch!
But, unfortunately DC Comics believes there's only room for one licensee for Batmobiles in the market.
Making replica Futuras would be a great idea. But, that would be a very tiny market, even compared with Batmobiles.
Towle does good work, many famous people own his cars.
I hear your planet exiles it's Enviro-wackos to interstellar space.
In fact, we got this guy who adopted the Earth name
"Al Gore" who is from your planet. Can you take him with you on your way out?
And don't let the asteroid belt hit you in your thrusters as you accelerate to a significant portion of C!
At our technological level, we pose no danger to anything off this planet.
It would be like saying you'll sterilize a grain of sand to protect the planet.
Such a silly scenario...
If we ever develop interstellar travel that is fast, cheap and practical, maybe then this scenario starts to have legs.
Not going to happen. We've seen about a tenth of a degree warming in the first half of the 20th Century (now reversed), that occurred LONG before the rise of automobiles and factories adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Every prediction I've read about how much temperature change that the draconian measures would reverse are similarly in fractions of a degree over a period of a century.
Human activity just isn't affecting the climate all that greatly.
Any predictions of climate change on the level of several degrees is just scare-mongering.
It's not supportable based on what we've observed thus far. In fact atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 8 percent or so since the mid-1990s. According to climate alarmists, this should have caused measurable global warming. But none has been observed.
Human activity may indeed affect global climate, but it's like pouring a thimbleful of dye into a swimming pool.
Sorry, but I trust my sources. Like Dr. Roy Spencer and others.
His data is based on much more accurate satellite data, not tree rings, or meteorological stations placed inside heat islands like cities.
You might want to investigate that, as well as the Center for Climate Research at East Anglia University.
Data is only as good as the sources. And the data set you showed me has a lot of bias in it.
I trust satellite data much more.
Do let me know when you'll stop attacking me personally, and start discussing this subject intelligently?
And, applying critical thinking skills would be wonderful!
I said that because that's what the facts say.
What you have posted is unsupported hearsay.
I've told you where to find some of the data. You obviously are ignoring it, as you are getting a lot more mileage out of calling me a liar.
That's not how adult, intelligent people have a discussion.
And they are the people I take the time to produce data for.
All others are welcome to do their own research.
Since I googled to verify the data is still there, and it is...
I can only assume the whole point of your replies is to troll this thread.
I've long learned not to get into pissing matches with people who are either too intellectually dishonest, or too lazy to go look up easily found facts.
Find someone else to pester.
LOL!!
You seem to think that ad hominem attacks are a valid way to have discussions.
It's obvious you never took the time to actually research the data yourself.
You'd be red-faced and apologetic if you had, rather than just being a troll.
Fabricate?
Do you realize that you said that 2011 TIED 1998? The year the cooling started?
You didn't provide any actual numbers. You just made an assertion that 2011 tied 1998. If 1998 was cooler than 1997, just how does that prove that there's warming?
And remember, the observed warming was a fraction of a degree. My house differs in temperature MUCH more than that from the sunlit side to the shady side of the house.
You are repeating stuff without applying critical thinking skills to it.
You have yet to prove I fabricated anything. I simply repeated the conclusion from data gathered by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that showed that between 1998 and 2005, global temperatures didn't increase, but in fact slightly decreased. Enough in fact to reverse the fraction of a degree rise observed previously.
Tell me again I fabricated it.
Just so. How do we know that any set of conditions in the climate is optimal?
Maybe optimal is a degree warmer. Maybe not.
Squandering trillions of dollars in wealth and productivity just to maintain the status quo seems silly.
I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach which is to spend that money on clean water, medical care, and feeding the hungry instead. As well as simply moving people out of areas that might be impacted.
We can save more lives, and vastly improve the quality of lots of poor that way, rather than chasing a fraction of a degree of temperature rise.
I suggest you use your preferred search engine to do your own research.
Someone like you who so quickly jumps to nasty ad hominem attacks as a first response, would probably not trust any data I posted.
I suggest you do your own research.
I won't be holding my breath for an apology,
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
The assertion that the calm Sun activity won't reverse the warming is true only in that there is no longer any warming to reverse.
Bush didn't push a "every family stimulus bill." He did a banbk bailout that was mostly repaid. It was Obama that pushed a "stimulus" bill that failed to stimulate anything but Democrat donors. But, I agree that I'd rather see tax benefits and grants to upgrading the grid to be more efficient than funding ethanol, or other wasteful things. I'm having panels installed next month at no cost to me via a program here in NJ. I only pay a montlhy lease payment (20 year term) around $50US. I get all the power, I don't get the tax incentives. Sounds like a good deal to me!