I have noticed some people have mentioned the need for some sort of client software for Project Gutenberg.
It just so happens that I thought this same thing some time ago.
I am working on my own GPL'd project called Gutenbook. Right now it is not much, just a rapidly prototyped Perl/GTK application. It downloads and parses the Gutenberg index and allows you to select a title. Once selected, that Etext is downloaded and displayed for you to page through.
As I say, it is only a *rough* prototype right now and I have been too busy to work on it as much as I want. I have plans to port it to Objective-C and C with GTK++. (I think Objective-C *rocks*.)
I have exchanged emails with Michael Hart and some other of the Gutenberg people and have their support. I just need more time! I would love to get feedback on this.
Please check out the link above. The prototype is available for download. Please also take it easy on the server. It is a lowly Sparc 2. It enough people are interested, feel free to make a mirror.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
This article (yes, I read all of it) is really nothing new or even worth getting all excited about.
It has the same amount of information and misinformation we should expect from a mainstream publication (net or otherwise). In fact, it is inane enough not to deserve my own comments.
However, I wanted to say one thing. We have all heard it before. We all know it's true. But a lot of us seem to forget it when these types of articles float to the top of the murkey sea of Linux awareness.
Whatever Linux lacks, it will eventually get. And if Linux does not get it, it is because we did not want Linux to have it. Linux is not stable enough for you? That's okay, we'll make it more stable. Not scalable enough? We'll make it more scalable.
I for one think that we should drop the idea of Linux versus Microsoft or Linux versus FreeBSD or whatever. Instead of asking "How can we make Linux better than NT or Win2K", we should ask "How can we make Linux better, period".
As for making Linux "better" than the BSDs, I think that is irrelevant. The two are so similar that any differences are rapidly becoming more and more meaningless. Whether you use Linux or BSD (or Solaris or *gasp* NT) is simply a matter of choice. Remember choice? Free will? Maybe the choice is carefully made or poorly informed; but it is *your* choice, not mine.
And that is partly what free software is all about: freedom and the opportunity to choose an OS that works best in a given situation.
I know I digressed off topic, but I think these are issues we all need to keep in mind whenever we read any article for or against Linux.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I know that SEAL's go through a *lot* of training and discipline. Heck, before a soldier even *gets* to SEAL training, he or she is among the best, sometimes already a special forces operative of one form or another. The whole program is designed to weed out not only the weak and unadaptive, but also the undisciplined yahoos with poor impulse control problems. So I totally believe you.
My idea was that "contestant 17" is an ex-SEAL who has since developed poor impulse control problems due to years of intense psychological trauma caused by bad TV game shows.:)
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
One slight twist and this show could called "Predator".
Here's how it works:
A bunch of us pool our resources and money. After the show starts, we determine the exact location of the island.
Then we hire one special forces operative, preferably an ex-SEAL with impulse control problems. He can be special contestant number 17!
His job is to eliminate, with extreme prejudice, the contestants, the camera crew, the producers and any other humans on the island. And he gets to keep the grand prize for a job well done.
Now *that's* entertainment.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Sorry, I cannot really give you a recovery time. However, I think you might be able to avoid surgery. I don't know the details and circumstances of your condition (and I am not a doctor); but I think that while carpal tunnel syndrome is not an invention of doctors, your need for surgery might be. Is that the case, or is surgery your idea? Have you gotten second, third opinions?
I know a number of people who do have carpal tunnel to varying degrees, one of whom is my mother. I am fairly certain that my mom's doctor never suggested surgery as a cure. Rather, he suggested a regimen of exercises designed to strengthen and condition the muscles, tendons and ligaments in the hand, wrist and forearms.
I have been coding for a couple years now and am fairly young, so maybe I am not yet displaying symptoms of CTS. However, I like to think that my chances of getting it are greatly decreased because of my activities as a rock climber.
From what I understand, CTS is caused by constant, repetitive stress on the bones and muscles of your hand, wrist and forearm. Your body does not like constant repetitive stress. However, the human body, being the incredible machine that it is, does like a variety of stresses. Ever notice how runners tend to have crappy knees after a number of years of running? Same thing. People who cross train tend to have stronger, healtier bodies on the whole. Frankly, cross training and weight training bore the hell out of me, so I like to mountain bike and rock climb.
Anyway, the idea is to help your body by cross-training your hands, wrist and forearms. Get some Chinese excercise balls. Or a high resistance stress ball. There is a device ( I don't remember what it is called ) that uses an internal gyroscope powered by torque provided by your wrist that resists your wrist's attempt to provide more torque. It's a great lower arm workout. The faster you torque it, the harder it gets to hold on to.
So that's my suggestion. Look into it. Consult other physicians. I think spending the time and a few dollars on conditioning your arms would be a lot better than a couple thousand dollars on surgery.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I think we all have a good grasp of why paper is here and why it is so prevalent in whatever office or work environment.
We know paper is simple, convenient and universal. We also know that not everyone can cope as effectively with certain information assimilation tasks on a computer (desktop, laptop or palmtop). We know that the current technology just cannot compete with paper's simple and tactile qualities. Finally, we know that as the amount of information a person has access to increases, their need to absorb that information by traditional, hard-copy means also increases.
However, the one issue that has not been really addressed was not really stated in the question, but more implied. What can we do to reverse the growth of paper consumption? I guess that question assumes that we all have the goal of reducing paper consumption. Is that true? Is it desirable? Is is valuable?
I think it is. The natural resources used in paper production are not easily renewable. While we can recycle paper, we are still consuming natural resources to make new paper. Digital information and its presentation has no bounds, on the other hand. Sure, it may be bounded right now. But it is a matter of time before our technology can compensate for older, more resource intensive, technologies.
For a long time, the mentality of our society has been to push the advancement of technology at the cost of natural resources. Is this trend reversing? Now we have the means to advance our technology without impacting the environment so much. We even have the means to use technology to help conserve our resources.
I think that is the issue here. I think it is our responsibility to adapt to the newer technologies. especially if they directly or indirectly conserve the environment and our resources. Rather than just saying, "we like paper for reasons A, B, and C and that's that" we need to make a concerted effort to work with better alternatives.
But that's just me.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
My mistake entirely. I meant to write 1994. That is how long I have been using Linux. (Boy, is my face red.)
>I make it more like eight.
Well, since Linux is 8 years old, that would mean that 8 is 2 years less than 10 years, and so: barely 10 years old. I stand by that one. It was an approximation to indicate that Linux is not yet 10 years old.
>Advocacy with incorrect facts is a major disappointment for me.
I agree. I appreciate your pointing out my error, but I disagree with your tact and your tone.
You must have been really disappointed by the original article, right?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I have been an avid Linux user since 1990. I think my first ISP used FreeBSD, so I had a shell account on that server. That is the limit of my experience with any sort of BSD. However, as much as I am devoted to Linux, I am still open-minded about BSD. I just really have not had any reason to dual/triple/quad boot my machine.
But I digress. BSD has been around a long time. So of course it is going to be stabler and more robust than Linux in certain applications. I have no problem with that. It is nice that the BSD's are getting more press. More power to us all, I say. But I think the quality of that press is as important as the recognition that BSD (or Linux) gets.
My problem is with articles like these. Aside from a couple token points of recognition to Linux, he lavishes disputable credits to BSD.
For instance, BSD is ported to more architectures. The author sites 22. But I also know for a fact that if you go to the Linux Documentation Project you will see that Linux is ported or being ported to *at least* 22 other architectures, more if you count the various subsets.
His "argument" that BSD developers are more concerned with "correctness" than Linux developers is pure flamebait and unsupported. That is a slap in the face. If this were true, Linus would never have started coding a new kernel nearly a decade ago and it would not have gotten the support it did.
"Businesses are now the driving force in the Linux community." I think this statement is a combination of jealousy over Linux's success and a statement of ignorance of Linux's roots. Ever hear of Debian: one of the stablest distributions with arguably the most advanced package management tools around, owing *nothing* to business? Is he trying to tell me that if IBM and Oracle decided tomorrow to drop their support of Linux and switch to one of the BSD's that the BSD developers would say "no thanks"?
I think the author also tries to capitalize on the whole GNU/Linux debacle by stating that Linux users neglect what Linux owes to BSD and GNU and that Linus "cobbled" the OS together. I think this is a diversionary tactic. What do you think GNU is for? GNU was envisioned as a non-Unix unix. How could it be inappropriate that the Linux kernel work with GNU software? Or BSD software for that matter? I may not *say* GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux-with-BSD-utilities, but I know where Linux came from, and I support GNU and BSD. I don't appreciate the author labeling Linux users/developers as essentially code thieves and ingrateful hacks.
Finally, the author gives no attention to how old Linux is compared to BSD. Sure, he sites a book proclaiming BSD's 20 year vintage. But does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old? He seems to neglect the astonishing rate at which Linux has developed, with or without the support of business. Let's wait another 10 years and see how mature and stable and secure Linux is then.
If he wants to caution businesses about implementing Linux, that is fine. Any business *should* weight all the alternatives. Linux does have a long way to go, but it has also come a long way in a short time. It can *only* get better.
I think the author himself should have weighed all the evidence before writing such a flagrantly biased piece.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I just wish they would end the Star Trek franchise.
Don't get me wrong, I have been a big fan for many, many years. I grew up with Spock's pointy eared logic and Kirk's unfettered libido. I watched STNG religiously all through high school and college. When STNG was in production and syndication, a lounge in my dorm transformed into 10-Forward *every day* at 6:00.
When STNG ended, I was sad, but it was a great end to a *great* show. Think about how STNG started and how it ended. Things were starting to get stale and formulaic, but STNG still had the bang. As I say, I was sad to see the end, but relieved too. I was happy to see STNG end on a high note. And Babylon-5 was just around the corner. It was nice to see well done sci-fi that was not Star Trek.
But then they came out with DS9. Hmm, I thought. Seems similar to B-5. Or maybe the other way around. I don't know for sure, but I gave it a chance, and it did not hold me. I am not saying it was a bad show, because I know it was a good show. Many episodes blew me away. But the magic, as they say, was gone. B-5 held my interest. It may have been campy, but it was new and fresh and cool as hell. DS9 was cool as hell, but not new and fresh.
Then they came out with STV. I gave that a chance too. And I have to say that I passionately dislike that show. Half the plots and conflicts and issues have been recycled from 3 decades worth of Star Trek. The rest are predictable and half baked. The writing is pedestrian. The direction and acting has improved with time, but a good director/actor can only do so much with a crufty script. I stopped watching. I was bored and offended by the decline of the quality of the Star Trek standard. If I ever watched, it was because I decided to give the show one more chance, much in the same way we might give a relationship with a codependent soul-sucking ex another chance. I was nearly always disappointed, except when Seven of Nine trotted her sweet-sweet can-can across the set. Ay Carumba! Indeed, Star Trek had to resort to pure sex appeal to keep the ratings up. That was disappointing. Mmmmmmmm, Seven of Nine.
*ahem*
So now we have Star Trek: Excellent? Can't they give it a break? Out of simple curiosity I would watch it; but I have to say, I am just tired of Star Trek. Why? Because Star Trek is getting tired.
Is not Science Fiction and/or SciFi and/or Star Trek itself supposed to be about exploring the unknown? When was the last time Star Trek really went "where no one has gone before"? It is my firm belief that Star Trek is not going anywhere any more. It is getting stale and predictable and cliche. In short, Star Trek is becoming not much different than the hoard of other mediocre SciFi shows we have been bombarded with over the past decade. I say to Star Trek: move over; your time is past. I want something new and fresh. I want to explore *other* universes.
I wish I could hear Harlan Ellison's take on this.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I have noticed some people have mentioned the need for some sort of client software for Project Gutenberg.
It just so happens that I thought this same thing some time ago.
I am working on my own GPL'd project called Gutenbook. Right now it is not much, just a rapidly prototyped Perl/GTK application. It downloads and parses the Gutenberg index and allows you to select a title. Once selected, that Etext is downloaded and displayed for you to page through.
As I say, it is only a *rough* prototype right now and I have been too busy to work on it as much as I want. I have plans to port it to Objective-C and C with GTK++. (I think Objective-C *rocks*.)
I have exchanged emails with Michael Hart and some other of the Gutenberg people and have their support. I just need more time! I would love to get feedback on this.
Please check out the link above. The prototype is available for download. Please also take it easy on the server. It is a lowly Sparc 2. It enough people are interested, feel free to make a mirror.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
cp doom-1.8.wad /usr/local/games/xdoom/doom1.wad
I patched and compiled fine. My problem is I get a seg fault when trying to run it.
Anyone else?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
The computing-by-datajack is conceivable to many. Take a comp-skilled Shadowrunner , and givie him a deal gone bad w/ a corp.
Hmmm, the scenario you just described has already been done.
The book is called 'Neuromancer' and the movie will have the same title.
And it's been around longer than Shadowrunner. I believe that all of Shadowrunner's hacker and cyberspace references are borrowed from Gibson's ideas.
And yes, Pi kicked ass.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
This article (yes, I read all of it) is really nothing new or even worth getting all excited about.
It has the same amount of information and misinformation we should expect from a mainstream publication (net or otherwise). In fact, it is inane enough not to deserve my own comments.
However, I wanted to say one thing. We have all heard it before. We all know it's true. But a lot of us seem to forget it when these types of articles float to the top of the murkey sea of Linux awareness.
Whatever Linux lacks, it will eventually get. And if Linux does not get it, it is because we did not want Linux to have it. Linux is not stable enough for you? That's okay, we'll make it more stable. Not scalable enough? We'll make it more scalable.
I for one think that we should drop the idea of Linux versus Microsoft or Linux versus FreeBSD or whatever. Instead of asking "How can we make Linux better than NT or Win2K", we should ask "How can we make Linux better, period".
As for making Linux "better" than the BSDs, I think that is irrelevant. The two are so similar that any differences are rapidly becoming more and more meaningless. Whether you use Linux or BSD (or Solaris or *gasp* NT) is simply a matter of choice. Remember choice? Free will? Maybe the choice is carefully made or poorly informed; but it is *your* choice, not mine.
And that is partly what free software is all about: freedom and the opportunity to choose an OS that works best in a given situation.
I know I digressed off topic, but I think these are issues we all need to keep in mind whenever we read any article for or against Linux.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Hey, quibble on!
:)
I know that SEAL's go through a *lot* of training and discipline. Heck, before a soldier even *gets* to SEAL training, he or she is among the best, sometimes already a special forces operative of one form or another. The whole program is designed to weed out not only the weak and unadaptive, but also the undisciplined yahoos with poor impulse control problems. So I totally believe you.
My idea was that "contestant 17" is an ex-SEAL who has since developed poor impulse control problems due to years of intense psychological trauma caused by bad TV game shows.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
One slight twist and this show could called "Predator".
Here's how it works:
A bunch of us pool our resources and money. After the show starts, we determine the exact location of the island.
Then we hire one special forces operative, preferably an ex-SEAL with impulse control problems. He can be special contestant number 17!
His job is to eliminate, with extreme prejudice, the contestants, the camera crew, the producers and any other humans on the island. And he gets to keep the grand prize for a job well done.
Now *that's* entertainment.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Instead of "Survivor" it should be called "The Real World", or "Road Rules".
Oh wait, those are taken.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Sorry, I cannot really give you a recovery time. However, I think you might be able to avoid surgery. I don't know the details and circumstances of your condition (and I am not a doctor); but I think that while carpal tunnel syndrome is not an invention of doctors, your need for surgery might be. Is that the case, or is surgery your idea? Have you gotten second, third opinions?
I know a number of people who do have carpal tunnel to varying degrees, one of whom is my mother. I am fairly certain that my mom's doctor never suggested surgery as a cure. Rather, he suggested a regimen of exercises designed to strengthen and condition the muscles, tendons and ligaments in the hand, wrist and forearms.
I have been coding for a couple years now and am fairly young, so maybe I am not yet displaying symptoms of CTS. However, I like to think that my chances of getting it are greatly decreased because of my activities as a rock climber.
From what I understand, CTS is caused by constant, repetitive stress on the bones and muscles of your hand, wrist and forearm. Your body does not like constant repetitive stress. However, the human body, being the incredible machine that it is, does like a variety of stresses. Ever notice how runners tend to have crappy knees after a number of years of running? Same thing. People who cross train tend to have stronger, healtier bodies on the whole. Frankly, cross training and weight training bore the hell out of me, so I like to mountain bike and rock climb.
Anyway, the idea is to help your body by cross-training your hands, wrist and forearms. Get some Chinese excercise balls. Or a high resistance stress ball. There is a device ( I don't remember what it is called ) that uses an internal gyroscope powered by torque provided by your wrist that resists your wrist's attempt to provide more torque. It's a great lower arm workout. The faster you torque it, the harder it gets to hold on to.
So that's my suggestion. Look into it. Consult other physicians. I think spending the time and a few dollars on conditioning your arms would be a lot better than a couple thousand dollars on surgery.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I think we all have a good grasp of why paper is here and why it is so prevalent in whatever office or work environment.
We know paper is simple, convenient and universal. We also know that not everyone can cope as effectively with certain information assimilation tasks on a computer (desktop, laptop or palmtop). We know that the current technology just cannot compete with paper's simple and tactile qualities. Finally, we know that as the amount of information a person has access to increases, their need to absorb that information by traditional, hard-copy means also increases.
However, the one issue that has not been really addressed was not really stated in the question, but more implied. What can we do to reverse the growth of paper consumption? I guess that question assumes that we all have the goal of reducing paper consumption. Is that true? Is it desirable? Is is valuable?
I think it is. The natural resources used in paper production are not easily renewable. While we can recycle paper, we are still consuming natural resources to make new paper. Digital information and its presentation has no bounds, on the other hand. Sure, it may be bounded right now. But it is a matter of time before our technology can compensate for older, more resource intensive, technologies.
For a long time, the mentality of our society has been to push the advancement of technology at the cost of natural resources. Is this trend reversing? Now we have the means to advance our technology without impacting the environment so much. We even have the means to use technology to help conserve our resources.
I think that is the issue here. I think it is our responsibility to adapt to the newer technologies. especially if they directly or indirectly conserve the environment and our resources. Rather than just saying, "we like paper for reasons A, B, and C and that's that" we need to make a concerted effort to work with better alternatives.
But that's just me.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
>Impressive. Linus started writing it in 1991.
My mistake entirely. I meant to write 1994. That is how long I have been using Linux. (Boy, is my face red.)
>I make it more like eight.
Well, since Linux is 8 years old, that would mean that 8 is 2 years less than 10 years, and so: barely 10 years old. I stand by that one. It was an approximation to indicate that Linux is not yet 10 years old.
>Advocacy with incorrect facts is a major disappointment for me.
I agree. I appreciate your pointing out my error, but I disagree with your tact and your tone.
You must have been really disappointed by the original article, right?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I have been an avid Linux user since 1990. I think my first ISP used FreeBSD, so I had a shell account on that server. That is the limit of my experience with any sort of BSD. However, as much as I am devoted to Linux, I am still open-minded about BSD. I just really have not had any reason to dual/triple/quad boot my machine.
But I digress. BSD has been around a long time. So of course it is going to be stabler and more robust than Linux in certain applications. I have no problem with that. It is nice that the BSD's are getting more press. More power to us all, I say. But I think the quality of that press is as important as the recognition that BSD (or Linux) gets.
My problem is with articles like these. Aside from a couple token points of recognition to Linux, he lavishes disputable credits to BSD.
For instance, BSD is ported to more architectures. The author sites 22. But I also know for a fact that if you go to the Linux Documentation Project you will see that Linux is ported or being ported to *at least* 22 other architectures, more if you count the various subsets.
His "argument" that BSD developers are more concerned with "correctness" than Linux developers is pure flamebait and unsupported. That is a slap in the face. If this were true, Linus would never have started coding a new kernel nearly a decade ago and it would not have gotten the support it did.
"Businesses are now the driving force in the Linux community." I think this statement is a combination of jealousy over Linux's success and a statement of ignorance of Linux's roots. Ever hear of Debian: one of the stablest distributions with arguably the most advanced package management tools around, owing *nothing* to business? Is he trying to tell me that if IBM and Oracle decided tomorrow to drop their support of Linux and switch to one of the BSD's that the BSD developers would say "no thanks"?
I think the author also tries to capitalize on the whole GNU/Linux debacle by stating that Linux users neglect what Linux owes to BSD and GNU and that Linus "cobbled" the OS together. I think this is a diversionary tactic. What do you think GNU is for? GNU was envisioned as a non-Unix unix. How could it be inappropriate that the Linux kernel work with GNU software? Or BSD software for that matter? I may not *say* GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux-with-BSD-utilities, but I know where Linux came from, and I support GNU and BSD. I don't appreciate the author labeling Linux users/developers as essentially code thieves and ingrateful hacks.
Finally, the author gives no attention to how old Linux is compared to BSD. Sure, he sites a book proclaiming BSD's 20 year vintage. But does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old? He seems to neglect the astonishing rate at which Linux has developed, with or without the support of business. Let's wait another 10 years and see how mature and stable and secure Linux is then.
If he wants to caution businesses about implementing Linux, that is fine. Any business *should* weight all the alternatives. Linux does have a long way to go, but it has also come a long way in a short time. It can *only* get better.
I think the author himself should have weighed all the evidence before writing such a flagrantly biased piece.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I just wish they would end the Star Trek franchise.
Don't get me wrong, I have been a big fan for many, many years. I grew up with Spock's pointy eared logic and Kirk's unfettered libido. I watched STNG religiously all through high school and college. When STNG was in production and syndication, a lounge in my dorm transformed into 10-Forward *every day* at 6:00.
When STNG ended, I was sad, but it was a great end to a *great* show. Think about how STNG started and how it ended. Things were starting to get stale and formulaic, but STNG still had the bang. As I say, I was sad to see the end, but relieved too. I was happy to see STNG end on a high note. And Babylon-5 was just around the corner. It was nice to see well done sci-fi that was not Star Trek.
But then they came out with DS9. Hmm, I thought. Seems similar to B-5. Or maybe the other way around. I don't know for sure, but I gave it a chance, and it did not hold me. I am not saying it was a bad show, because I know it was a good show. Many episodes blew me away. But the magic, as they say, was gone. B-5 held my interest. It may have been campy, but it was new and fresh and cool as hell. DS9 was cool as hell, but not new and fresh.
Then they came out with STV. I gave that a chance too. And I have to say that I passionately dislike that show. Half the plots and conflicts and issues have been recycled from 3 decades worth of Star Trek. The rest are predictable and half baked. The writing is pedestrian. The direction and acting has improved with time, but a good director/actor can only do so much with a crufty script. I stopped watching. I was bored and offended by the decline of the quality of the Star Trek standard. If I ever watched, it was because I decided to give the show one more chance, much in the same way we might give a relationship with a codependent soul-sucking ex another chance. I was nearly always disappointed, except when Seven of Nine trotted her sweet-sweet can-can across the set. Ay Carumba! Indeed, Star Trek had to resort to pure sex appeal to keep the ratings up. That was disappointing. Mmmmmmmm, Seven of Nine.
*ahem*
So now we have Star Trek: Excellent? Can't they give it a break? Out of simple curiosity I would watch it; but I have to say, I am just tired of Star Trek. Why? Because Star Trek is getting tired.
Is not Science Fiction and/or SciFi and/or Star Trek itself supposed to be about exploring the unknown? When was the last time Star Trek really went "where no one has gone before"? It is my firm belief that Star Trek is not going anywhere any more. It is getting stale and predictable and cliche. In short, Star Trek is becoming not much different than the hoard of other mediocre SciFi shows we have been bombarded with over the past decade. I say to Star Trek: move over; your time is past. I want something new and fresh. I want to explore *other* universes.
I wish I could hear Harlan Ellison's take on this.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.