Personally I don't see a huge reliability factor, here, but maybe I was fortunate enough to purchase one of Logitech's better set ups and it's two years old now. In fact, the only problems/concerns I have are when my mouse needs me to swap in new rechargable batteries, or whether the supplied software 'Lock'/excryption makes it safe enough to enter my credit card number over it;)
As a side note, the keyboard runs out of battery juice maybe once a year. I imagine the mouse would last more than a month or two if the thing wasn't constantly blinking its light 24/7, but I guess that's how it knows if I'm moving it for the first time *Shrug*
"In this light, IBM, Toshiba and the third Cell partner, Sony Corp., are turning to the open-source community to drum up interest in the architecture."
Doesn't sound like they're particularly upset about it.
Out of curiosity... why is it our schools cannot teach children some fundamental facts of life, forced to leave such decisions with the parents, when video game salesmen are permitted to do such a thing? Strange, I would think that parents would feel the need to take such resposibility on themselves and the legislature support them; instead the government seems to believe parents incapable of overseeing their children. In that case may I also posit that the whole school-family separation is equally flawed?
"the Senate version removed the possibility of jail"
And whose bright idea was it to put it in there in the first place? That's just as bad as the Three-Strike policy and sending someone to jail for life because they happen to steal a Video Tape on their third strike. "You're corrupting the innocent minds of our youth. Now you will pay for such underhandedness!" Uh huh, right Legislature, I'm sure we should all jump on the band wagon here with you... right after we scrub sexually suggestive material from the Silver Screen and the Air Waves, crack down on the use of swearing by younger and younger generations, totally nail teenagers/adults to the wall who come to seduce younger kids to trying drugs, etc etc etc... Wait, no, we'll simply try and crack down on video games, because they're the spawn of Satan. Right. Wouldn't you time be better spent encouraging people to teach children/teenagers/adults the separation between Reality and Fantasy? Just because you blow people up in a game doesn't mean you can do it in reality? Maybe offer easier/more useful access to psychologists and reduce the social stigma of meeting such professionals? Or, perhaps, we'll suffice with the blind knee-jerk reaction that legislature is always so willing to produce and say to hell with the actual problem, let's pretend like we know what we're doing.
Fortunately the Senate, in some regards, wasn't so blind. A pity no one was willing to stand up for what was best, too busy worrying about their job! Got to love the system where it isn't liberty that counts, but an image or the appearance of liberty.
My only problem with the PIN idea is that I have enough numbers to remember given our identity-security-needy-and-crazed society. Naturally writing them down would help avoid confusion, but then they're written down and could potentially end up in the wrong hands. Using the same code works, but if one item is compromised then others, if someone knew of those others, might also be in danger. I suppose, however, were one aware of one item being cracked, then a person could change all other codes (if you remember every single one).
Overall, however, I just hope my memory's good enough to remember what handful of PINs I do have right now, and I'm just leaving college! I can just imagine how many more I'll soon possess.
Quote: "execute all the pedophiles, murderers and rapists, problem solved."
What about cases where the convicted are later found innocent of the crime?
As for the incarceration rate, this paper (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles _publications/publications/intl_incarceration_2003 0620/intl_rates.pdf) I discovered generally suffices: "In this regard, the U.S. rate of incarceration of 702 inmates per 100,000 population represents not only a record high, but situates this nation as the world leader in its use of imprisonment. The continuous rise in the prison population in the U.S. has vaulted this country ahead of our old Cold War rival Russia to become the world's leading incarcerator.
"For comparative purposes, the U.S. now locks up its citizens at a rate 5-8 times that of the industrialized nations to which we are most similar, Canada and western Europe. Thus, as seen in the accompanying chart, the rate per 100,000 population is 139 in England/Wales, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, and 85 in France."
Furthermore, according to http://www.prisonstudies.org/ this rate is relatively similar; with "293.66 million at 1.7.2004 (U.S. Census Bureau)" and 2,131,180 held in prison/jail reaches a ratio of 726 per 100,000. If, however, jail is not counted then the ration drops to 486 as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. So, I suppose one would have to settle on including those in jail or not.
Whether it is a result of our culture or not is not so important as how can those people be helped back into society so they wont need to commit criminal acts or feel the compunction to do so (for whatever reason they do it). I imagine the growing wealth gap certainly doesn't help some of those incarcerated, nor the heavy penalties for drug use compared to more violent acts.
Article describes how they want to simply protect Satellites, while also revealing the counter-point regarding how this could turn into a Space Weapon race.
Concerns such as:
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, "This is a military system that is unnecessary and provocative. It will lead other states to pursue military systems to knock out our space-based assets. The rationale of this program is to defend those assets. But this will have the reverse effect."
Kimball said any move by the United States to start developing and testing space-based weapons will be met with very strong international condemnation, from foes and allies alike.
Ironic, isn't it, when our Space Program is slowly falling apart? Three shuttles left...if one of them disappears, no more manned rockets. Why, again, are we claiming what we aren't using or going to be using?
On the other hand a giant laser beam cutting through our atmosphere and slicing up countries does sound amazing...probably best if it were left to comic books and movies.
Breaking treaties isn't exactly a new sport for the American Politic. Remember the American Indians? Yeah... no, really, we wont utterly annihilate anyone in our way using nefarious means. Never. One only hopes to learn from history...
Is there a limit to how many rights they deserve to lose, however? Granted they committed a crime, some more horrible than others, but they're still Human, no matter how far removed society might want them.
If the system is wisely used this might help manage prisons (e.g. escape attempts); if, however, it is unwisely used, then a battle of rights is inevitable.
If that's insightful, then may I ask: have you ever considered why they're there in the first place? Why is it, exactly, that our prisoner to average law abiding John/Jane Doe ratio is so high? Our country can't possibly be mass producing criminals like we do cheeseburgers, and if it is maybe there's something wrong with the system, not the people.
Of course the problem with that is that after the third or so time the threat might not hold the same fervor as it once did. Well, maybe more so for the fans than those whose job depends on it, not to mention some might just try looking up a new job just a little sooner than they really needed to for job security.
Similar methodology to how the Patriot Act was enacted, no?
"This is too important, forget actually debating the issue, pass them damn thing already!"
I suppose it would have taken too much effort to remove the bill in favor of later debate, but that would have clogged up an already full schedule with yet another bill they'd rather not deal with.
There are reasons why the system is slow... and then there became reasons why things like this were permitted, because the system is slow; perhaps too slow for some people who actually have a vote.
Interesting issue.. we'll see how that plays out, then. I take it it was a matter of conversion, not actual agreement to recognize the drivers' licenses?
Lobby. If people actually care, they'll bug the living hell out of Congress until they're forced to remove the legislation in order that society can return to "normal."
Please feel free to bug the living hell out of Congress about Darfur, Colombia, the American Poor, the fact they're rich fat-cats utterly isolated from the rest of the population they're suppose to be representing, etc.
At the same time it has the potential of making it harder to tell. After all, right now you can be suspect of some unknown form of Drivers License, because you honestly can't tell (in theory). A national ID, however, where it's uniform, can be modified/forged and then accepted everywhere without any question at all. A security officer can now take these IDs for granted much more easily than this 50-shot system.
On the other hand, this can work both ways...due to so many, some security might be to lazy to question the fact they don't know the ID style and just give it back. Either way, security isn't improved, just ease of recognition.
As if they listen to the American people. It's hard enough stopping our Great Government from supporting terrorism in favor of our "Allies" doing what we want, let alone stopping them from putting more money into the military when we all know most of it will be wasted because for the life of them they can't efficiently purchase what they need to do the job.
PS: My former comment refers to how Bush intends to ignore the Darfur genocide in favor of the Sudan government doing us favors in the war on terror. That's okay... just shred Human Rights a little bit in favor of "security."
The problem probably isn't so much with this bill itself, but future bills/acts/decisions that will modify this system to whatever some future individual/group/organization wants it to include. Somehow I doubt the measure included a paragraph stating 'No Future Modifications to the National ID Card.'
Real ID was passed as part of Emergency Funding, if I remember correctly. Whether Senators read the bill or not actually doesn't matter, in this case, because the only way they'd have blocked it from being passed would be for them to block the entire spending bill. So because our system allows riders in the first place (good, bad, you decide), situations like these pop up. Smile and nod, Congress, smile and nod.
Bush is the Anti-Christ, but Real ID is not the mark of the beast. That'll be implanted identity recognition hardware (which exists and can be easily tied into the GPS, see Mexican leader in fear of being kidnapped). A card, after all, can be thrown away or burned (granted you wont be able to fly any more or drive a car).
It's called the Media, now days, and it likes pretty pictures. Look at the pretty pictures! Look at the pretty pictures! *Gently sweeps a great majority of the inspiring or informative stories out the back door* Pictures!
The more identification it requires simply to buy a can of peas at a local store only increases the ease that Thieves will have at stealing your identity. Oh this'll vainly try to expediate the red-tape of identities alright, maybe give that Cop an extra ten seconds back in his day as he reads over your by-the-book ID, but what, exactly, is this doing for us, again?
"name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address"
That's great. Now our planes will be that much more protected from the non-White-20-to-30-year-old-Male who likely doesn't sport a bear, but does wear a suit, looking for a way to destroy our buildings and blow up our planes. Or, perhaps, it'll do no such thing, because that information does nothing to indicate just who the person is who is boarding that plane, only that they're this numeric number of registered (theoretically) citizens of the United States. *Shrug* No maybe, *maybe* had this little gem of theirs included things like criminal background or psychological evaluation (which wouldn't be possible under privacy laws, more than likely) then it might actually mean a hill of beans. As it is, I don't see why they had to append it to a document where no one would dare refute it. Maybe it has to do with the fact they couldnt get it pass otherwise because it is not necessary, at all, except to zoom in on those "evil" and "dirty" little immigrants coming across our borders, "stealing" our jobs (which are getting sent over seas, but who cares about that, blame the immigrants please).
Do I mind a universally recognized ID? No. But if the government intends to take this "Real ID" scheme to its extent, they'll need just a little more on there other than what's already proposed. If, in fact, this is their idea, then brushing this issue off will come to bite us in the butt just like Global Warming or the Hole in the Ozone (let's avoid the 'Those Don't Exist' tangents for relevence's sake). On the other hand, if this is just our government *hard* at work, yet again, then I'd like to ask just why we put up with their disgusting use of our money, hm? I especially loved how we put up the money to buy back the Presidential Yaucht a year or two ago. Pure brilliance. Good use of money. Go Congress.
Perhaps if our Schools actually bothered to talk about religion, rather suppress it as some horribly fundamentalist ideology that would only serve to retard society, things might not be so bad. It's like sex education: maybe if we actually talked about these issues rather than promoting only one ideology as *the* absolute and unerring way, then maybe we'd have an atmosphere of discussion rather than that of "I'm right, you're wrong, shut the hell up."
Granted, I wont say everyone would play by the rules, some would still feel they're right and the rest of the world should conform, but if the majority were to open up to new ideas (I'm not just talking Evolution v. Christianity, but evolution, christianity, hindu, buddhist, islamic, judaic thoughts all given their due consideration as real modes of life in this world and fundamental basis for civilization every where) then this whol tug-of-war for ideological dominance might not have nearly as much sway over our legal, educational, and social system.
Promoting religious and scientific awareness is also necessary. (Though I could say the same about hetero- and homo-sexuality). Granted, parents want their children to continue their legacy and tradition, but we need to open up childrens' minds to the diversity of the world, rather than streamlining them down a beaten path, thus encouraging this sort of dichotomy of "Right" v. "Wrong."
I'm sorry, fans deserved a series that was incapable of retaining its viewer base because, from what I hear, only in the end did the B Brothers "Get it"? Pardon me for disagreeing with you, and Mr. Card, in general, but things would be considerably different had Star Trek (that dribble that Card seems to reject so quickly) not come along? Of course it's scripts could get bad at times and I wont try and hold it up as the height of Science Fiction, but do try and give credit where credit is due! It popularized Science Fiction, putting it into almost every aspect of society, along with Star Wars; the two of them turned the concepts of those Mega-SciFi books into visual images, sparking the imaginations of millions of people!
Would you, rather, Star Trek not have produced its Hollywood images? In that case would people have been any more likely to have read those SciFi books of their time or, instead, would they merely have busied themselves with some other show that didn't have half the moral story behind it?
No, the real solution would have been fo Star Trek to become what you and Card would have wanted it to be (though a thorough analysis of what you're looking for would be needed), rather than pray for its demise. After all, with Star Trek gone, the symbol of SciFi, you now need to ask yourself what will take its place. What will carry the torch and keep SciFi alive with people? Stargate and Battlestar Galatica are the two major hardcore SciFi shows out there. (I must admit I don't watch much TV, myself, so I'll leave the list of other shows to other people to fill in for me). Fortunately Star Gate has a broad fan-base of its own with a popular spin-off, nevertheless I wonder just how Mr. Card feels about Star Gate. Is it, also, not good enough or does it hold a quality Star Trek lacked?
Personally I think Star Trek encouraged more people to read SciFi books than it did to stunt their growth, even if others remained too glued to their TVs to read you can at least take comfort in knowing some of those were getting a good story from some of the best Star Trek made (the point of the series being to deliver a moral).
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I don't see a huge reliability factor, here, but maybe I was fortunate enough to purchase one of Logitech's better set ups and it's two years old now. In fact, the only problems/concerns I have are when my mouse needs me to swap in new rechargable batteries, or whether the supplied software 'Lock'/excryption makes it safe enough to enter my credit card number over it ;)
As a side note, the keyboard runs out of battery juice maybe once a year. I imagine the mouse would last more than a month or two if the thing wasn't constantly blinking its light 24/7, but I guess that's how it knows if I'm moving it for the first time *Shrug*
"Instead, IBM has set up a team in its engineering services division to help others custom-design versions of Cell that could be made in IBM's fabs."
You're right, they're looking for people to help in developing spin offs of Cell, not actually making a product, other than the PS3, for Cell.
"In this light, IBM, Toshiba and the third Cell partner, Sony Corp., are turning to the open-source community to drum up interest in the architecture."
Doesn't sound like they're particularly upset about it.
Out of curiosity... why is it our schools cannot teach children some fundamental facts of life, forced to leave such decisions with the parents, when video game salesmen are permitted to do such a thing? Strange, I would think that parents would feel the need to take such resposibility on themselves and the legislature support them; instead the government seems to believe parents incapable of overseeing their children. In that case may I also posit that the whole school-family separation is equally flawed? "the Senate version removed the possibility of jail" And whose bright idea was it to put it in there in the first place? That's just as bad as the Three-Strike policy and sending someone to jail for life because they happen to steal a Video Tape on their third strike. "You're corrupting the innocent minds of our youth. Now you will pay for such underhandedness!" Uh huh, right Legislature, I'm sure we should all jump on the band wagon here with you... right after we scrub sexually suggestive material from the Silver Screen and the Air Waves, crack down on the use of swearing by younger and younger generations, totally nail teenagers/adults to the wall who come to seduce younger kids to trying drugs, etc etc etc... Wait, no, we'll simply try and crack down on video games, because they're the spawn of Satan. Right. Wouldn't you time be better spent encouraging people to teach children/teenagers/adults the separation between Reality and Fantasy? Just because you blow people up in a game doesn't mean you can do it in reality? Maybe offer easier/more useful access to psychologists and reduce the social stigma of meeting such professionals? Or, perhaps, we'll suffice with the blind knee-jerk reaction that legislature is always so willing to produce and say to hell with the actual problem, let's pretend like we know what we're doing. Fortunately the Senate, in some regards, wasn't so blind. A pity no one was willing to stand up for what was best, too busy worrying about their job! Got to love the system where it isn't liberty that counts, but an image or the appearance of liberty.
My only problem with the PIN idea is that I have enough numbers to remember given our identity-security-needy-and-crazed society. Naturally writing them down would help avoid confusion, but then they're written down and could potentially end up in the wrong hands. Using the same code works, but if one item is compromised then others, if someone knew of those others, might also be in danger. I suppose, however, were one aware of one item being cracked, then a person could change all other codes (if you remember every single one).
Overall, however, I just hope my memory's good enough to remember what handful of PINs I do have right now, and I'm just leaving college! I can just imagine how many more I'll soon possess.
Quote: "execute all the pedophiles, murderers and rapists, problem solved."
s _publications/publications/intl_incarceration_2003 0620/intl_rates.pdf) I discovered generally suffices: "In this regard, the U.S. rate of
What about cases where the convicted are later found innocent of the crime?
As for the incarceration rate, this paper (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/article
incarceration of 702 inmates per 100,000 population represents not only a record high,
but situates this nation as the world leader in its use of imprisonment. The continuous
rise in the prison population in the U.S. has vaulted this country ahead of our old Cold
War rival Russia to become the world's leading incarcerator.
"For comparative purposes, the U.S. now locks up its citizens at a rate 5-8 times
that of the industrialized nations to which we are most similar, Canada and western
Europe. Thus, as seen in the accompanying chart, the rate per 100,000 population is 139
in England/Wales, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, and 85 in France."
Furthermore, according to http://www.prisonstudies.org/ this rate is relatively similar; with "293.66 million at 1.7.2004 (U.S. Census Bureau)" and 2,131,180 held in prison/jail reaches a ratio of 726 per 100,000. If, however, jail is not counted then the ration drops to 486 as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. So, I suppose one would have to settle on including those in jail or not.
Whether it is a result of our culture or not is not so important as how can those people be helped back into society so they wont need to commit criminal acts or feel the compunction to do so (for whatever reason they do it). I imagine the growing wealth gap certainly doesn't help some of those incarcerated, nor the heavy penalties for drug use compared to more violent acts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7896613/
Article describes how they want to simply protect Satellites, while also revealing the counter-point regarding how this could turn into a Space Weapon race.
Concerns such as:
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, "This is a military system that is unnecessary and provocative. It will lead other states to pursue military systems to knock out our space-based assets. The rationale of this program is to defend those assets. But this will have the reverse effect." Kimball said any move by the United States to start developing and testing space-based weapons will be met with very strong international condemnation, from foes and allies alike.
Ironic, isn't it, when our Space Program is slowly falling apart? Three shuttles left...if one of them disappears, no more manned rockets. Why, again, are we claiming what we aren't using or going to be using?
On the other hand a giant laser beam cutting through our atmosphere and slicing up countries does sound amazing...probably best if it were left to comic books and movies.
Breaking treaties isn't exactly a new sport for the American Politic. Remember the American Indians? Yeah... no, really, we wont utterly annihilate anyone in our way using nefarious means. Never. One only hopes to learn from history...
Is there a limit to how many rights they deserve to lose, however? Granted they committed a crime, some more horrible than others, but they're still Human, no matter how far removed society might want them.
If the system is wisely used this might help manage prisons (e.g. escape attempts); if, however, it is unwisely used, then a battle of rights is inevitable.
If that's insightful, then may I ask: have you ever considered why they're there in the first place? Why is it, exactly, that our prisoner to average law abiding John/Jane Doe ratio is so high? Our country can't possibly be mass producing criminals like we do cheeseburgers, and if it is maybe there's something wrong with the system, not the people.
Of course the problem with that is that after the third or so time the threat might not hold the same fervor as it once did. Well, maybe more so for the fans than those whose job depends on it, not to mention some might just try looking up a new job just a little sooner than they really needed to for job security.
Similar methodology to how the Patriot Act was enacted, no?
"This is too important, forget actually debating the issue, pass them damn thing already!"
I suppose it would have taken too much effort to remove the bill in favor of later debate, but that would have clogged up an already full schedule with yet another bill they'd rather not deal with.
There are reasons why the system is slow... and then there became reasons why things like this were permitted, because the system is slow; perhaps too slow for some people who actually have a vote.
Interesting issue.. we'll see how that plays out, then. I take it it was a matter of conversion, not actual agreement to recognize the drivers' licenses?
Lobby. If people actually care, they'll bug the living hell out of Congress until they're forced to remove the legislation in order that society can return to "normal."
Please feel free to bug the living hell out of Congress about Darfur, Colombia, the American Poor, the fact they're rich fat-cats utterly isolated from the rest of the population they're suppose to be representing, etc.
At the same time it has the potential of making it harder to tell. After all, right now you can be suspect of some unknown form of Drivers License, because you honestly can't tell (in theory). A national ID, however, where it's uniform, can be modified/forged and then accepted everywhere without any question at all. A security officer can now take these IDs for granted much more easily than this 50-shot system.
On the other hand, this can work both ways...due to so many, some security might be to lazy to question the fact they don't know the ID style and just give it back. Either way, security isn't improved, just ease of recognition.
As if they listen to the American people. It's hard enough stopping our Great Government from supporting terrorism in favor of our "Allies" doing what we want, let alone stopping them from putting more money into the military when we all know most of it will be wasted because for the life of them they can't efficiently purchase what they need to do the job. PS: My former comment refers to how Bush intends to ignore the Darfur genocide in favor of the Sudan government doing us favors in the war on terror. That's okay... just shred Human Rights a little bit in favor of "security."
The problem probably isn't so much with this bill itself, but future bills/acts/decisions that will modify this system to whatever some future individual/group/organization wants it to include. Somehow I doubt the measure included a paragraph stating 'No Future Modifications to the National ID Card.'
Real ID was passed as part of Emergency Funding, if I remember correctly. Whether Senators read the bill or not actually doesn't matter, in this case, because the only way they'd have blocked it from being passed would be for them to block the entire spending bill. So because our system allows riders in the first place (good, bad, you decide), situations like these pop up. Smile and nod, Congress, smile and nod.
Bush is the Anti-Christ, but Real ID is not the mark of the beast. That'll be implanted identity recognition hardware (which exists and can be easily tied into the GPS, see Mexican leader in fear of being kidnapped). A card, after all, can be thrown away or burned (granted you wont be able to fly any more or drive a car).
It's called the Media, now days, and it likes pretty pictures. Look at the pretty pictures! Look at the pretty pictures! *Gently sweeps a great majority of the inspiring or informative stories out the back door* Pictures!
The more identification it requires simply to buy a can of peas at a local store only increases the ease that Thieves will have at stealing your identity. Oh this'll vainly try to expediate the red-tape of identities alright, maybe give that Cop an extra ten seconds back in his day as he reads over your by-the-book ID, but what, exactly, is this doing for us, again?
"name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address"
That's great. Now our planes will be that much more protected from the non-White-20-to-30-year-old-Male who likely doesn't sport a bear, but does wear a suit, looking for a way to destroy our buildings and blow up our planes. Or, perhaps, it'll do no such thing, because that information does nothing to indicate just who the person is who is boarding that plane, only that they're this numeric number of registered (theoretically) citizens of the United States. *Shrug* No maybe, *maybe* had this little gem of theirs included things like criminal background or psychological evaluation (which wouldn't be possible under privacy laws, more than likely) then it might actually mean a hill of beans. As it is, I don't see why they had to append it to a document where no one would dare refute it. Maybe it has to do with the fact they couldnt get it pass otherwise because it is not necessary, at all, except to zoom in on those "evil" and "dirty" little immigrants coming across our borders, "stealing" our jobs (which are getting sent over seas, but who cares about that, blame the immigrants please).
Do I mind a universally recognized ID? No. But if the government intends to take this "Real ID" scheme to its extent, they'll need just a little more on there other than what's already proposed. If, in fact, this is their idea, then brushing this issue off will come to bite us in the butt just like Global Warming or the Hole in the Ozone (let's avoid the 'Those Don't Exist' tangents for relevence's sake). On the other hand, if this is just our government *hard* at work, yet again, then I'd like to ask just why we put up with their disgusting use of our money, hm? I especially loved how we put up the money to buy back the Presidential Yaucht a year or two ago. Pure brilliance. Good use of money. Go Congress.
Was that in support of opening up debate...?
Perhaps if our Schools actually bothered to talk about religion, rather suppress it as some horribly fundamentalist ideology that would only serve to retard society, things might not be so bad. It's like sex education: maybe if we actually talked about these issues rather than promoting only one ideology as *the* absolute and unerring way, then maybe we'd have an atmosphere of discussion rather than that of "I'm right, you're wrong, shut the hell up." Granted, I wont say everyone would play by the rules, some would still feel they're right and the rest of the world should conform, but if the majority were to open up to new ideas (I'm not just talking Evolution v. Christianity, but evolution, christianity, hindu, buddhist, islamic, judaic thoughts all given their due consideration as real modes of life in this world and fundamental basis for civilization every where) then this whol tug-of-war for ideological dominance might not have nearly as much sway over our legal, educational, and social system. Promoting religious and scientific awareness is also necessary. (Though I could say the same about hetero- and homo-sexuality). Granted, parents want their children to continue their legacy and tradition, but we need to open up childrens' minds to the diversity of the world, rather than streamlining them down a beaten path, thus encouraging this sort of dichotomy of "Right" v. "Wrong."
I'm sorry, fans deserved a series that was incapable of retaining its viewer base because, from what I hear, only in the end did the B Brothers "Get it"? Pardon me for disagreeing with you, and Mr. Card, in general, but things would be considerably different had Star Trek (that dribble that Card seems to reject so quickly) not come along? Of course it's scripts could get bad at times and I wont try and hold it up as the height of Science Fiction, but do try and give credit where credit is due! It popularized Science Fiction, putting it into almost every aspect of society, along with Star Wars; the two of them turned the concepts of those Mega-SciFi books into visual images, sparking the imaginations of millions of people! Would you, rather, Star Trek not have produced its Hollywood images? In that case would people have been any more likely to have read those SciFi books of their time or, instead, would they merely have busied themselves with some other show that didn't have half the moral story behind it? No, the real solution would have been fo Star Trek to become what you and Card would have wanted it to be (though a thorough analysis of what you're looking for would be needed), rather than pray for its demise. After all, with Star Trek gone, the symbol of SciFi, you now need to ask yourself what will take its place. What will carry the torch and keep SciFi alive with people? Stargate and Battlestar Galatica are the two major hardcore SciFi shows out there. (I must admit I don't watch much TV, myself, so I'll leave the list of other shows to other people to fill in for me). Fortunately Star Gate has a broad fan-base of its own with a popular spin-off, nevertheless I wonder just how Mr. Card feels about Star Gate. Is it, also, not good enough or does it hold a quality Star Trek lacked? Personally I think Star Trek encouraged more people to read SciFi books than it did to stunt their growth, even if others remained too glued to their TVs to read you can at least take comfort in knowing some of those were getting a good story from some of the best Star Trek made (the point of the series being to deliver a moral).