You're right, but in my experience the problem isn't so much with the writer as with the reader. It's not uncommon for me to see someone post something that's obviously satirical or sarcastic only to have some brain-dead luser take it seriously at face value and flame his nose hairs off. Smileys are an invaluable guide to the illiterate.
I remember an electric car with exactly these claims having been invented about 20 years ago. The now-defunct Omni Magazine had a story about it. In that instance, the heart of the "invention" was an elecric motor with some absurdly large number of turns.
It shouldn't shock anyone that this other vehicle was always plagued by "mechanical problems" whenever it came time for a public demonstration as well.
Does anyone else remember the Omni article? I can't remember the name of the "inventor" right now.
While the UK system is not without faults, I think it is better than all the alternatives that I've seen so far.
Perhaps you haven't really looked closely at any of the alternatives. You sure don't seem too famlilar with the American system at any rate.
You need far more transformers in the last mile than Europeans do. America seems often to need transformers in situations where Europeans would use a simple distribution panel or 3-phase supply. When I worked in America I was amazed that the equipment hall where we were working (which had quite a few computers in it) had its own large transformer sitting on the floor for electrical distribution.
Are you absolutely sure that wasn't a power conditioner? I'm only asking because where I work we've got rooms full of PCs, minicomputers and mainframes where the power's provided via a distribtion panel. Power quality being very important for this kind of equipment, we also have power conditioners scattered liberally throughout. I could easily see someone mistaking them for transformers.
You don't see too many electric kettles or Toasters in the US (Do you even know what they are?)
I've lived in the US all my life, and I've never seen a kitchen without an elecric toaster. It's just one of those things everyone has. Since we don't drink nearly as much tea as the Brits there's not the demand here for electric kettles, but they're not hard to find if you want one.
They only go in one way round.
So do modern American plugs. You'll find older houses with unpolarized sockets, and some appliances where the polarity doesn't matter with unpolarized plugs, but either case is pretty rare nowadays. The grounded three-prong plugs only go in one way around too.
All UK plugs contain a fuse. The rating of the fuse should be appropriate to the device. This means that appliances in the UK do not generally catch fire.
You will find that appliances everywhere generally do not catch fire. (Who'd want one in his house if they did?) It takes considerable effort to get even a heating appliance (such as one of those not-so-rare American toasters) to burst into flame. Generally, it requires a considerable amount of effort involving a Pop Tart to get it to happen, and even then you have to purposely defeat the toaster's normal safety mechanism. If an American appliance requires this kind of protection there's either a circuit breaker or a fuse in the appliance itself, not the plug.
Look at it this way: if they'd had a clause like that in their contracts years ago, DEC would have gained ownership of Windows NT. They're probably still kicking themselves over that one at whatever hamburger joint the DEC management of the time is now wielding a spatula...
I don't think it's/. Megatokyo can handle an awful lot of traffic. They just migrated to a new back end, and it looks like they don't have all the bugs out yet.
The resources available on the internet outpace those of a small school library millions of times over in the amount, quality and ease of information provided.
Amount? I don't know about you, but when I research something on the Web I most often find exactly the same information in multiple places when I can find anything at all. I don't think this sort of thing is taken into account when estimates of the total amount of information on the Internet are published, so those figures are by nature inflated. Based on my recollection of my own small high school's library, I don't see how there could possibly be that much more useful information.
Which brings me to my next point. There is at least some quality control on the information that makes it into print, and which books a school library is going to acquire. There are no such controls on the Internet. Any nutcase with an agenda can post pretty much anything he damn well pleases whether it's factually correct or not. I would say there's a much, much lower signal-to-noise ratio on the net than you'll find among the dead-tree publications on a library's shelves.
All in all though, you make a good case for computers in the library, not the classroom, and I can't disagree with that. I also agree about the need for remedial classes for those students who have not used computers before. I was speaking of the general case in my post, but there are always going to be exceptions. A week should be about right, as you say. Too bad that's not how they handle it now, by and large.
This just supports something I've been saying for a long time. We do not need to teach computers to children in the schools! The kids are outpacing their teachers for a reason: They're growing up surrounded by this technology; they're saturated with it; it's far more familiar to them than it is to their teachers. My grandmother grew up with crank telephones and party lines, where you had to listen to the ring pattern to tell whether a call was for you or one of your neighbors. She was utterly baffled in her later years by a cordless phone; she had never even used a touch-tone telephone before. A modern kid, surrounded with CD players, video games and ATMs just isn't going to find a general-purpose PC very intimidating. This overcomes the main barrier to computer use right from the start. How many of us have tried to get a parent online, and one of the main problems we had was getting them to but their hands on the keyboard and mouse in the first place?
Teaching students programming or other truly complex or specialized skills related to computers is a good thing, of course, as these subjects are ones that actually require some instruction to acquire in many cases, although not all cases by any means. But basic use of the Internet? Playing games for cryin' out loud? This is a waste of time and resources, especially when American students are falling behind in essential academic subjects like reading and mathematics. You see schools cutting back on subjects deemed "non-essential" simply because they do nothing more than enrich the students physically or culturally, like phys ed and the arts, but making all-out efforts to put computers in every classroom and to string cat5 all over the buildings.
Even in impoverished areas where it cannot be assumed that the students have access to a computer at home, I would argue that we would be better off exposing these kids to music, drama, or the plastic arts rather than putting computers in their classrooms. The Internet -- and especially the part of it most people see, the Web -- is very easy to learn with modern tools, and any moderately intelligent kid can pick it up in a week or so. This is not a "life skill" we need to spend very much time on. And when the students arrive knowing more than the teacher, there's no point in even trying.
Surely you don't expect to be taken seriously. Was this supposed to be funny? Your implication that only conservatives use distasteful tactics is as ad hominem as anything I've heard in conservative talk radio. Talk radio in general is hardly the place to go for reasoned discussion anyway. Callers who agree with the host are fawned upon; callers who disagree have rarely thought out their position well enough to construct a good argument in the time they're allowed, so the host can easily make them sound like idiots. I hear the same tactics with liberal talk show hosts; if anything, the conservative hosts tend to be politer, although they're not universally so.
"Liberal" isn't intended as an insult. It's undeniably intended as a label, and therefore only offensive if you are offended by labelling people in general. It's a shorthand summary of a political point of view. So is "right wing", which is also used in this way.
The media does have a liberal bias. That's no lie; it's supported by a preponderance of the polling data on the subject. I'll admit there are some issues where it's clearer than others, and consequently days where I hear it more than others depending on what's in the news. My main source of news is the radio. There have been days where I've been tempted to write down each example as I hear it, but I'm invariably driving at the time. Often, it would make a long list. It strikes me that we probably don't notice biases that echo our own. The thing is, I don't really mind biased news. Bias is inevitable; it's human nature. The claim that news organizations are unbiased is dishonest on its face.
I have never read or heard a news account of an event or subject where I was personally present or have some expert knowledge that gets the story entirely right. A former co-worker (a Libertarian, as it happens) was attending a charity dinner one evening and found himself sharing a table with a reporter from the San Jose Mercury News. After she had gotten deeply into her cups, he brought up this very observation with her. Her response, more frank than it would have been had she been sober, was that they really don't care about getting the story right. They had deadlines to meet and word counts to fill. Accuracy was the second or third priority when it was even considered at all.
Now I'm supposed to believe that a profession that's so sloppy with the facts is going to be efficient at policing itself for its own biases? I find that difficult. I'd rather they were honest about their biases and got on with their jobs. In the old days, newspapers would often be named for their political slants. I prefer that to the false facade of neutrality that everyone affects now. At least then you knew what you were getting.
All I know is that the one time I listened to him, he pissed me off so badly that I had to change the station. I can't even remember what the issue was anymore -- this was some time ago -- but he sure sounded liberal to me.
Savage is indeed embarrassing at times. He's abrasive, and capable of being extremely simple-minded on some issues. But on other issues he's been the only one I've heard who's given some thought to the matter. So there are times I can't stand listening to him and others when I think he's right on, in about equal proportion.
He's a "liberal who's been mugged" type of conservative. By his account he turned conservative when, despite his academic credentials -- he received the first PhD in ethnobotany Cal Berkeley ever awarded -- and numerous publications, he was unable to secure an academic postion, being passed over for minorities who (he felt) were less qualified. This may account for his abrasiveness.
I can't agree with you about the party line stuff. I hear considerable diversity among the conservative hosts. Rush is practically a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, while Savage hates Republicans with a passion. There are many issues where they are on nowhere near the same side. (I listen to neither regularly anymore.)
I'm not sure Savage's real surname has anything to do with anything. It's not necessarily Jewish. My very Protestant college fencing coach had the same last name. Savage's opinion on the Israel/Palestine issue echoes the Christian Right. Well, not my section of the Christian Right, but rather the mainstream Falwell/Robertson crowd. His inability to consider the subtleties of this issue is one of the things I find irritating about him.
KGO. Gene Burns is libertarian, and he doesn't seem to be on much any more. All the other hosts are as liberal as they come, epecially Bernie Ward and Ray Taliaferro.
I don't really think that, but it's just as fair a statement as Jenkins' claim that what he experienced on Donahue are typical conservative tactics. What he's experienced there are typical talk show tactics. You might not realize this if you don't listen to or watch anything other than the nationally syndicated radio talk shows. Here in the SF Bay Area, the top-rated radio station is a liberal news/talk station, and I can assure you that the hosts there use the exact same tactics that you hear on the conservative side. If anything, they're even ruder. (With the possible exception of Michael Savage. That is to say, the politest liberal talk hosts are politer than Savage is. But the rudest ones are even ruder than him, if you can believe it.)
For a liberal Donahue equivalent, see Rosie O'Donnel. Or Sally Jessie Raphael, or whatever her name was. Jerry Springer can hardly be thought of as pushing a conservative agenda; I assure you that conservatives despise him as much as liberals do. (I'm not wrong in assuming that liberals find his show despicable, am I? I hope not.)
Why did he feel the need to politicize this? I'm very conservative myself -- slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I believe -- yet I play and enjoy video games and expect my kids will too. So where does that leave me?
The basic conflict here wasn't conservative vs. liberal, it was sensationalism vs. intellectualism. Only someone harboring the basest prejudices against conservatives could make that mistake, IMO.
It's nice that they want engineers to be more balanced in their educations. My alma mater does this as well. You earn an engineering degree in 4 years -- 5 if you can't hack the intense program -- and you were required to take 3 credits each semester in the humanities. I had courses in history, philosophy, English lit, and psychology. You also had to take Physical Education each semester. There was no getting out of that unless you were on a varsity team, and even then you only got a bye for one semester. Only the engineering education should be well-rounded; there's no reason the engineers themselves have to be!
Naturally all this came at a price. I was carrying more than 20 credits in my busiest semester, and that was for a Comp Sci degree which was heavily math oriented and for which I needed to take many classes that were otherwise graduate level in order to fulfill the requirements. (At only 2.5 credits instead of 3.) Students in the more traditional engineering disciplines carried an even heavier courseload. It builds character, or so I was told...
At Stevens, students often found themselves working in teams. Even outside the classroom, it proved helpful to use a team approach in studying for exams in the more challenging subjects, but besides that I can recall no lab course where I was working alone. In many of the engineering curricula, a major feature of the Senior year was "Superlab", where teams of students would work on individual projects of their own design. I don't imagine a team-based approach to labs and major projects can be all that uncommon in engineering schools. In RL, engineers almost never work alone. An engineer trained to go solo would be woefully unprepared for the working world.
So the only thing we are left with that's actually unique about the Olin curriculum is the practical approach to every technical subject. This, IMO, cannot work. Not every technical subject can be approached this way. Much of mathematics is just too abstract to monkey with in concrete terms, and many physics concepts can't be directly experimented with at all without large-scale, very expensive equipment. That means the resources to teach some subjects will be extremely limited. In either case, they will have to fall back on traditional methods -- methods, by the way, that we know are effective. Which makes me wonder why the Olin faculty believes they need to be discarded in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not altogether confident they know what they're doing. They debated for 2 months on what an engineer is? Puh-leeze!
I have the 660. I had to re-chip mine to remove region encoding because it was an early model with and EPROM instead of Flash ROM. The Flash ROM models could be reprogrammed with a CD! And if you're not afraid to resolder a jumper or two on the main board -- it's SMT, which makes it a bit more difficult than usual -- it's possible to convert an EPROM model to a Flash ROM. But unless there's a bug in the software for the mod, there's not much reason to bother.
This model is highly modular. The drive itself is nothing but a standard PC DVD drive connected to the board with an IDE cable. The drive itself can be flashed if necessary by hooking it up to your PC. Should it go south, you can just chuck a new drive in there. It also can handle either PAL or NTSC without any trouble. I bought it by accident -- that is, not for these features but because it was cheap -- and I've never had any reason to be displeased with it.
See, this is one of my pet peeves. (The irritation, not the poltergeist.) The American publishers should have come up with an entirely different title -- if it was indeed necessary to retitle the book -- rather than change the name of the artifact in question. There's no such thing as a Sorcerer's Stone. OK, there's no such thing as a Philosopher's Stone either, but the point is that medieval alchemists thought there was, and that is in fact the name of the object they were trying to create. Nicholas Flamel is a genuine historical figure, a bookseller, scribe and alchemist of the 14th century, and one of the few who was reputed to have been successful.
The irony is that the American publisher of the Harry Potter series, Scholastic Books, mainly publishes educational books. Yet they miss out on this genuine bit of medieval history in the most popular children's series of all time.
I used to like it. It was the first online comic I ever read, and I'm glad it was there because it introduced me to a whole new creative world. But over the past couple of years it's gotten really stale and there are many, many other webcomics I read that are a lot funnier. Maybe we should be trying to figure out when it jumped the shark.
Hell, in my day, we didn't even have watches! We had to figure our stardates with a sundial! And let me tell you, when the Sun's 3,000 light years away, THAT AIN'T EASY!!!
I grew up with ST:TNG -- this is part of my long-lost childhood they're cutting goddamnit.
Ahhh, you kids don't know nuthin! How do you young whippersnappers think us old folks who grew up with ST:TOS felt, huh? Waitin' ten gol-dang years from the time the series was cancelled to the release of the first movie. And what did we get? ST:TMP. A pastel-colored bridge! Everyone wearing dental assistant's uniforms! Kirk with an obvious girdle holding his gut in and an alien hairpiece of some kind! Now that's pain! BUT WE WERE THANKFUL FOR IT!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the passage is easy. You cut it as you're building the pyramid. It's nowhere near as imponderable as the pyramid itself.
Come on, someone must have written one!
You're right, but in my experience the problem isn't so much with the writer as with the reader. It's not uncommon for me to see someone post something that's obviously satirical or sarcastic only to have some brain-dead luser take it seriously at face value and flame his nose hairs off. Smileys are an invaluable guide to the illiterate.
Mind you, this would all have been cheaper by an order of magnitude if it had been done 30 years ago, so your point is still well taken.
Well thank God somebody said it!
It shouldn't shock anyone that this other vehicle was always plagued by "mechanical problems" whenever it came time for a public demonstration as well.
Does anyone else remember the Omni article? I can't remember the name of the "inventor" right now.
Perhaps you haven't really looked closely at any of the alternatives. You sure don't seem too famlilar with the American system at any rate.
You need far more transformers in the last mile than Europeans do. America seems often to need transformers in situations where Europeans would use a simple distribution panel or 3-phase supply. When I worked in America I was amazed that the equipment hall where we were working (which had quite a few computers in it) had its own large transformer sitting on the floor for electrical distribution.
Are you absolutely sure that wasn't a power conditioner? I'm only asking because where I work we've got rooms full of PCs, minicomputers and mainframes where the power's provided via a distribtion panel. Power quality being very important for this kind of equipment, we also have power conditioners scattered liberally throughout. I could easily see someone mistaking them for transformers.
You don't see too many electric kettles or Toasters in the US (Do you even know what they are?)
I've lived in the US all my life, and I've never seen a kitchen without an elecric toaster. It's just one of those things everyone has. Since we don't drink nearly as much tea as the Brits there's not the demand here for electric kettles, but they're not hard to find if you want one.
They only go in one way round.
So do modern American plugs. You'll find older houses with unpolarized sockets, and some appliances where the polarity doesn't matter with unpolarized plugs, but either case is pretty rare nowadays. The grounded three-prong plugs only go in one way around too.
All UK plugs contain a fuse. The rating of the fuse should be appropriate to the device. This means that appliances in the UK do not generally catch fire.
You will find that appliances everywhere generally do not catch fire. (Who'd want one in his house if they did?) It takes considerable effort to get even a heating appliance (such as one of those not-so-rare American toasters) to burst into flame. Generally, it requires a considerable amount of effort involving a Pop Tart to get it to happen, and even then you have to purposely defeat the toaster's normal safety mechanism. If an American appliance requires this kind of protection there's either a circuit breaker or a fuse in the appliance itself, not the plug.
Look at it this way: if they'd had a clause like that in their contracts years ago, DEC would have gained ownership of Windows NT. They're probably still kicking themselves over that one at whatever hamburger joint the DEC management of the time is now wielding a spatula...
I don't think it's /. Megatokyo can handle an awful lot of traffic. They just migrated to a new back end, and it looks like they don't have all the bugs out yet.
The resources available on the internet outpace those of a small school library millions of times over in the amount, quality and ease of information provided.
Amount? I don't know about you, but when I research something on the Web I most often find exactly the same information in multiple places when I can find anything at all. I don't think this sort of thing is taken into account when estimates of the total amount of information on the Internet are published, so those figures are by nature inflated. Based on my recollection of my own small high school's library, I don't see how there could possibly be that much more useful information.
Which brings me to my next point. There is at least some quality control on the information that makes it into print, and which books a school library is going to acquire. There are no such controls on the Internet. Any nutcase with an agenda can post pretty much anything he damn well pleases whether it's factually correct or not. I would say there's a much, much lower signal-to-noise ratio on the net than you'll find among the dead-tree publications on a library's shelves.
All in all though, you make a good case for computers in the library, not the classroom, and I can't disagree with that. I also agree about the need for remedial classes for those students who have not used computers before. I was speaking of the general case in my post, but there are always going to be exceptions. A week should be about right, as you say. Too bad that's not how they handle it now, by and large.
Teaching students programming or other truly complex or specialized skills related to computers is a good thing, of course, as these subjects are ones that actually require some instruction to acquire in many cases, although not all cases by any means. But basic use of the Internet? Playing games for cryin' out loud? This is a waste of time and resources, especially when American students are falling behind in essential academic subjects like reading and mathematics. You see schools cutting back on subjects deemed "non-essential" simply because they do nothing more than enrich the students physically or culturally, like phys ed and the arts, but making all-out efforts to put computers in every classroom and to string cat5 all over the buildings.
Even in impoverished areas where it cannot be assumed that the students have access to a computer at home, I would argue that we would be better off exposing these kids to music, drama, or the plastic arts rather than putting computers in their classrooms. The Internet -- and especially the part of it most people see, the Web -- is very easy to learn with modern tools, and any moderately intelligent kid can pick it up in a week or so. This is not a "life skill" we need to spend very much time on. And when the students arrive knowing more than the teacher, there's no point in even trying.
Ever since that strip came out, I can't walk by a DDR machine without thinking about how much better it could be...
"Liberal" isn't intended as an insult. It's undeniably intended as a label, and therefore only offensive if you are offended by labelling people in general. It's a shorthand summary of a political point of view. So is "right wing", which is also used in this way.
The media does have a liberal bias. That's no lie; it's supported by a preponderance of the polling data on the subject. I'll admit there are some issues where it's clearer than others, and consequently days where I hear it more than others depending on what's in the news. My main source of news is the radio. There have been days where I've been tempted to write down each example as I hear it, but I'm invariably driving at the time. Often, it would make a long list. It strikes me that we probably don't notice biases that echo our own. The thing is, I don't really mind biased news. Bias is inevitable; it's human nature. The claim that news organizations are unbiased is dishonest on its face.
I have never read or heard a news account of an event or subject where I was personally present or have some expert knowledge that gets the story entirely right. A former co-worker (a Libertarian, as it happens) was attending a charity dinner one evening and found himself sharing a table with a reporter from the San Jose Mercury News. After she had gotten deeply into her cups, he brought up this very observation with her. Her response, more frank than it would have been had she been sober, was that they really don't care about getting the story right. They had deadlines to meet and word counts to fill. Accuracy was the second or third priority when it was even considered at all.
Now I'm supposed to believe that a profession that's so sloppy with the facts is going to be efficient at policing itself for its own biases? I find that difficult. I'd rather they were honest about their biases and got on with their jobs. In the old days, newspapers would often be named for their political slants. I prefer that to the false facade of neutrality that everyone affects now. At least then you knew what you were getting.
All I know is that the one time I listened to him, he pissed me off so badly that I had to change the station. I can't even remember what the issue was anymore -- this was some time ago -- but he sure sounded liberal to me.
He's a "liberal who's been mugged" type of conservative. By his account he turned conservative when, despite his academic credentials -- he received the first PhD in ethnobotany Cal Berkeley ever awarded -- and numerous publications, he was unable to secure an academic postion, being passed over for minorities who (he felt) were less qualified. This may account for his abrasiveness.
I can't agree with you about the party line stuff. I hear considerable diversity among the conservative hosts. Rush is practically a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, while Savage hates Republicans with a passion. There are many issues where they are on nowhere near the same side. (I listen to neither regularly anymore.)
I'm not sure Savage's real surname has anything to do with anything. It's not necessarily Jewish. My very Protestant college fencing coach had the same last name. Savage's opinion on the Israel/Palestine issue echoes the Christian Right. Well, not my section of the Christian Right, but rather the mainstream Falwell/Robertson crowd. His inability to consider the subtleties of this issue is one of the things I find irritating about him.
KGO. Gene Burns is libertarian, and he doesn't seem to be on much any more. All the other hosts are as liberal as they come, epecially Bernie Ward and Ray Taliaferro.
For a liberal Donahue equivalent, see Rosie O'Donnel. Or Sally Jessie Raphael, or whatever her name was. Jerry Springer can hardly be thought of as pushing a conservative agenda; I assure you that conservatives despise him as much as liberals do. (I'm not wrong in assuming that liberals find his show despicable, am I? I hope not.)
Why did he feel the need to politicize this? I'm very conservative myself -- slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I believe -- yet I play and enjoy video games and expect my kids will too. So where does that leave me?
The basic conflict here wasn't conservative vs. liberal, it was sensationalism vs. intellectualism. Only someone harboring the basest prejudices against conservatives could make that mistake, IMO.
Naturally all this came at a price. I was carrying more than 20 credits in my busiest semester, and that was for a Comp Sci degree which was heavily math oriented and for which I needed to take many classes that were otherwise graduate level in order to fulfill the requirements. (At only 2.5 credits instead of 3.) Students in the more traditional engineering disciplines carried an even heavier courseload. It builds character, or so I was told...
At Stevens, students often found themselves working in teams. Even outside the classroom, it proved helpful to use a team approach in studying for exams in the more challenging subjects, but besides that I can recall no lab course where I was working alone. In many of the engineering curricula, a major feature of the Senior year was "Superlab", where teams of students would work on individual projects of their own design. I don't imagine a team-based approach to labs and major projects can be all that uncommon in engineering schools. In RL, engineers almost never work alone. An engineer trained to go solo would be woefully unprepared for the working world.
So the only thing we are left with that's actually unique about the Olin curriculum is the practical approach to every technical subject. This, IMO, cannot work. Not every technical subject can be approached this way. Much of mathematics is just too abstract to monkey with in concrete terms, and many physics concepts can't be directly experimented with at all without large-scale, very expensive equipment. That means the resources to teach some subjects will be extremely limited. In either case, they will have to fall back on traditional methods -- methods, by the way, that we know are effective. Which makes me wonder why the Olin faculty believes they need to be discarded in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not altogether confident they know what they're doing. They debated for 2 months on what an engineer is? Puh-leeze!
More like a modern Alexandria. At least we know Alexandria is real...
There's also the Koolance and Sen Fu product lines at Plycon Computers
Those are the ones I knew about. A Google search turned up a whole bunch more. Man, I'm glad I don't subscribe -- ads are unavoidable, it seems.
This model is highly modular. The drive itself is nothing but a standard PC DVD drive connected to the board with an IDE cable. The drive itself can be flashed if necessary by hooking it up to your PC. Should it go south, you can just chuck a new drive in there. It also can handle either PAL or NTSC without any trouble. I bought it by accident -- that is, not for these features but because it was cheap -- and I've never had any reason to be displeased with it.
The irony is that the American publisher of the Harry Potter series, Scholastic Books, mainly publishes educational books. Yet they miss out on this genuine bit of medieval history in the most popular children's series of all time.
I used to like it. It was the first online comic I ever read, and I'm glad it was there because it introduced me to a whole new creative world. But over the past couple of years it's gotten really stale and there are many, many other webcomics I read that are a lot funnier. Maybe we should be trying to figure out when it jumped the shark.
Hell, in my day, we didn't even have watches! We had to figure our stardates with a sundial! And let me tell you, when the Sun's 3,000 light years away, THAT AIN'T EASY!!!
Ahhh, you kids don't know nuthin! How do you young whippersnappers think us old folks who grew up with ST:TOS felt, huh? Waitin' ten gol-dang years from the time the series was cancelled to the release of the first movie. And what did we get? ST:TMP. A pastel-colored bridge! Everyone wearing dental assistant's uniforms! Kirk with an obvious girdle holding his gut in and an alien hairpiece of some kind! Now that's pain! BUT WE WERE THANKFUL FOR IT!!!