Well, you have to also focus on the fact that in the 1960's, the cinematic and technical portrayal of Star Trek *was* cutting edge.
Star Trek is an American future-mythology (like Star Wars), and as such, its visual depiction will advance as our culture's "state of the art" advances.
Nitpick, but the original NCC-1701 Enterprise was a Constitution and then a Constellation class starship, not a Galaxy class. The NCC-1701-A was, structurally, just an update of a type that had been in production ( I think I remember there being 12+ other Constitution class starships in TOS, much less by the time period of ST3 )for decades with retrofits.
There were lots of reasons for Starfleet to be pissed at Kirk, though.
Stylization of starships in Star Trek has been pretty consistent (even in TOS the Romulans were painting large bird wings on the bottoms of their hulls). The stylization is intended to project a "feeling" to the audience, not to be ultra-realistic. It's the visual equivalent of stylized names in literature.
Well, that was kinda the thing for me. Pearl was a lot more interesting once she left Deep 13. I wouldn't have wanted to see anyone try to follow up Trace in that setting. I personally quite enjoyed Castle Forrester, myself:D
Yeah, some of the SciFi channel eps I consider to be the pinnacle of Best Brains production, mostly because once Joel was out the way, the jokes got edgier and the skits finally strayed from the (classic, but wearing at the edges) Deep 13 stuff. (though the latter was more due to moving to SciFi I guess).
In any event, the tone of the humor on SciFi was much more to my liking than the frequently relatively "safer" humor of the Comedy Central days. I often explain it as being: Joel was a father figure to the bots, having created them. Mike is "one of the guys".
I think you mean "Werewelf", yaniglotchy... you know, that which runs about on all fours from place to place? Nothing better than a werewolf movie set in the american southwest where the actors are all from eastern europe.
The Sci-Fi channel era had a few Joe Estevez gems. In "Soul Taker" he plays an Angel of Death. Dunno if that one is available on video or not.
I personally have no idea how office workers lived with themselves before the Internet existed. Sitting 8 hours in a cube pushing paper around was a way of life for millions of people for around a century. I would have to do a job that involved "outside" stimulus were it not for the Interbutts (not to mention having a totally different job).
Well, yes, obviously. However, it's not like he's a new player in the industry. He's been around for years. It was a very obvious case of an AG seeing something to prosecute that would get him in the paper.
I forgot to offer an example: I consent to spend 9 hours a day fixing people's computers when I, by and large, don't like them (the people) very much. I do it in exchange for a good income and health benefits. The entire labor force consents to activity in exchange for money (some of which is potentially very hazardous), so how would consenting to money for sex (in a legalized, regulated industry) be any different?
That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?
Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.
So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.
So, like working for Wal-Mart? Restricting whole industries because *some* workers in that industry is stupid. That's why we have labor laws. Another example of redundant laws for no reason. Forcing someone to work against their will is already illegal, so why do we need another law to make a whole industry illegal to stop it? (Furthermore, if the industry is illegal, the number of people in poor working conditions will be much larger than if it is legal and regulated).
Also, organ-selling and prostitution are not in the same neighborhood. You're not going to grow a new eye or kidney, but you can have sex over and over and over again. This ignores the fact that eventually we'll be able to grow organs and selling organs will be a multi-billion dollar industry.
Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.
Doesn't mean he's incorrect.
There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?
There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.
Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.
But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.
Why? People consent to all sorts of other things in order to survive. Wouldn't it be better if they were consenting in a regulated, safe manner instead of a street-level, criminal-element environment?
You cannot prevent people from being exploited in any industry, but once again, just because some people in an industry are engaging in illegal or immortal conduct, doesn't mean the solution is to outlaw the entire industry. If that logically held, there'd be very, very few industries that were still standing.
Max Hardcore (too lazy to look up his real name) got convinced of obscenity in Florida just recently because his videos (which are pretty crazy) ran afoul of FL's obscenity laws. Probably just depends on the AG's desire to make a name for themselves.
On the other hand, Max Hardcore is going to be a goddamn celebrity in prison.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
I can only imagine that with this attitude you are running Windows XP(pre SP1), and IE6 (no updates). Because installing updates "just because". Why?
In all seriousness though firmware updates are usually released for several reasons, here are two major ones:
Security updates(very important),
Bugs in the original firmware (less important but good to have).
Yes, but as I said to another poster, blinding applying firmware updates simply because there is a new version can lead to some nasty surprises (we can all think of them, I'm sure). This wasn't a "I knew of a vulnerability and so got the appropriate firmware to fix the problem," situation, but rather a "it's a higher version number, so it's better!" situation.
1) I wouldn't call "WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0" in plain view. It's not like SecureSpot means anything to me. It has the name Secure so it sounds like something I would want. Now if they named it KickInTheBalls 2.0 or maybe SlapInTheFace 3.2 I would know to avoid it. SecureSpot means nothing to me.
If I'm updating a piece of hardware's firmware, and there's an alternative download that is prominently displayed right next to the link that says "without ", I'm going to wonder what it is and check it out. If you don't have that sort of curiosity, you're in for some pain later down the line.
2) Upgrading firmware on a firewall/router why? Are you kidding me? You're going to be-little people who pro-actively secure their main entry point to the outside world. From now on you should lose your Slashdot posting privs.
Again, this is not "I saw that there were vulnerabilities and so I updated." This was, "Well, I saw that the version number was higher, and higher is better, so I did it!" That sort of blind upgrade practice is dangerous because it can lead to surprises (as it did here, which was thankfully innocuous).
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
Because router firmware upgrades often mean closing security holes.
While one might think this at first, there's no evidence that this is the case for this incident. It's just as likely, without a firmware being released with specific notes about "holes" that it "plugged", that the update created more bugs.
In this case, it was "I felt like upgrading the firmware". The downfalls: User obviously didn't know how the feature set changed (because didn't do research before upgrading the firmware, just saw that one number was larger than the other) and there's always the possibility of bricking your router that is already working just peachy.
So, no, I don't accept your reasoning, even though it seems "sensible" at the start.
What if I want SecureSpot for its useful features?
Then, as an industrious person who was upgrading their own firmware, you could read about it when you downloaded it on D-link's website.
What if I didn't know SecureSpot redirects me like that?
If you didn't know that it did, you most likely would simply think it was another online ad. And as said earlier in this comment list, the thing buggers off the second time you say no.
Hi Brandon,
What you experienced was not an Attempt to "Hijack" your connection. In fact what it is an added feature called "Secure Spot", It is software that is built into the router, which is used to replace or work along with your firewall/Antivirus/Antispam software. It also provides more parental controls.
This feature does require a subscription if you want to use it but it is entirely optional.
This feature replaces a hardware device that we had that did the same tasks. The DSD-150.
You can disable this feature by logging into the router and clicking the Advanced Tab and Secure Spot on the left side.
D-Link Customer Service
So, you can turn it off. Not only that, but as of 9/30 there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0
Should they have included that in a readme/changelog for the firmware? Maybe, but since they were all too happy to tell you how to turn it off, this really doesn't seem like a huge offense to me.
Conclusion? Non-story.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
The thing that keeps me from liking FDE is the probability of drive failure on an end-user machine. Not just the MBR failing, but physical trauma resulting in the need to send the drive to a data recovery firm (or, say, a drive motor burning out). With the number of laptop users I have wandering around beating their laptops, having DHS abuse them at the airport, or people's dog's knocking them over, it's a concern to me.
As far as I know, the available methods won't allow them to recover that data.
(I'd be happy to be wrong)
Re:My favorite... the knife in the KGB woman's sho
on
James Bond Gadgets
·
· Score: 1
I realize they're poisoned, which was why it was good to have them in a place where someone was unlikely to be able to retreat or stay out of legs' reach.
At least with poisoned knitting needles you could throw them or use them in some sort of traditional martial sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're doing us a favor by zapping them so that the government mind-control chemicals will no longer effect us. c.f. "They Live" =D
Bravo.
Just... bravo.
I always liked the idea of Scotty still using physical blueprints, for some reason.
Well, you have to also focus on the fact that in the 1960's, the cinematic and technical portrayal of Star Trek *was* cutting edge.
Star Trek is an American future-mythology (like Star Wars), and as such, its visual depiction will advance as our culture's "state of the art" advances.
Nitpick, but the original NCC-1701 Enterprise was a Constitution and then a Constellation class starship, not a Galaxy class. The NCC-1701-A was, structurally, just an update of a type that had been in production ( I think I remember there being 12+ other Constitution class starships in TOS, much less by the time period of ST3 )for decades with retrofits.
There were lots of reasons for Starfleet to be pissed at Kirk, though.
Stylization of starships in Star Trek has been pretty consistent (even in TOS the Romulans were painting large bird wings on the bottoms of their hulls). The stylization is intended to project a "feeling" to the audience, not to be ultra-realistic. It's the visual equivalent of stylized names in literature.
Well, that was kinda the thing for me. Pearl was a lot more interesting once she left Deep 13. I wouldn't have wanted to see anyone try to follow up Trace in that setting. I personally quite enjoyed Castle Forrester, myself :D
Yeah, some of the SciFi channel eps I consider to be the pinnacle of Best Brains production, mostly because once Joel was out the way, the jokes got edgier and the skits finally strayed from the (classic, but wearing at the edges) Deep 13 stuff. (though the latter was more due to moving to SciFi I guess).
In any event, the tone of the humor on SciFi was much more to my liking than the frequently relatively "safer" humor of the Comedy Central days. I often explain it as being: Joel was a father figure to the bots, having created them. Mike is "one of the guys".
There's no doubt that Prince of Space was more funny than Manos, simply because Manos was god awful.
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies was far, far worse, though.
("let's use bare hands!")
I remember watching the first runs of the KTMA episodes for MST3k and finding them funny. (I was quite young).
In recent years I searched and obtained some KTMA episodes through the MST3k DAP, and man... they were not very good.
Writing scripts starting on comedy central was a very good idea.
I think you mean "Werewelf", yaniglotchy... you know, that which runs about on all fours from place to place? Nothing better than a werewolf movie set in the american southwest where the actors are all from eastern europe.
The Sci-Fi channel era had a few Joe Estevez gems. In "Soul Taker" he plays an Angel of Death. Dunno if that one is available on video or not.
Yeah, but Rifftrax is routinely funnier than Cinematic Titanic, so I'm willing to overlook that Mike and the Bots aren't actually on screen.
I personally have no idea how office workers lived with themselves before the Internet existed. Sitting 8 hours in a cube pushing paper around was a way of life for millions of people for around a century. I would have to do a job that involved "outside" stimulus were it not for the Interbutts (not to mention having a totally different job).
Well, yes, obviously. However, it's not like he's a new player in the industry. He's been around for years. It was a very obvious case of an AG seeing something to prosecute that would get him in the paper.
I forgot to offer an example: I consent to spend 9 hours a day fixing people's computers when I, by and large, don't like them (the people) very much. I do it in exchange for a good income and health benefits. The entire labor force consents to activity in exchange for money (some of which is potentially very hazardous), so how would consenting to money for sex (in a legalized, regulated industry) be any different?
That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?
Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.
So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.
So, like working for Wal-Mart? Restricting whole industries because *some* workers in that industry is stupid. That's why we have labor laws. Another example of redundant laws for no reason. Forcing someone to work against their will is already illegal, so why do we need another law to make a whole industry illegal to stop it? (Furthermore, if the industry is illegal, the number of people in poor working conditions will be much larger than if it is legal and regulated).
Also, organ-selling and prostitution are not in the same neighborhood. You're not going to grow a new eye or kidney, but you can have sex over and over and over again. This ignores the fact that eventually we'll be able to grow organs and selling organs will be a multi-billion dollar industry.
Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.
Doesn't mean he's incorrect.
There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?
There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.
Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.
But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.
Why? People consent to all sorts of other things in order to survive. Wouldn't it be better if they were consenting in a regulated, safe manner instead of a street-level, criminal-element environment?
You cannot prevent people from being exploited in any industry, but once again, just because some people in an industry are engaging in illegal or immortal conduct, doesn't mean the solution is to outlaw the entire industry. If that logically held, there'd be very, very few industries that were still standing.
Max Hardcore (too lazy to look up his real name) got convinced of obscenity in Florida just recently because his videos (which are pretty crazy) ran afoul of FL's obscenity laws. Probably just depends on the AG's desire to make a name for themselves.
On the other hand, Max Hardcore is going to be a goddamn celebrity in prison.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
I can only imagine that with this attitude you are running Windows XP(pre SP1), and IE6 (no updates). Because installing updates "just because". Why? In all seriousness though firmware updates are usually released for several reasons, here are two major ones: Security updates(very important), Bugs in the original firmware (less important but good to have).
Yes, but as I said to another poster, blinding applying firmware updates simply because there is a new version can lead to some nasty surprises (we can all think of them, I'm sure). This wasn't a "I knew of a vulnerability and so got the appropriate firmware to fix the problem," situation, but rather a "it's a higher version number, so it's better!" situation.
1) I wouldn't call "WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0" in plain view. It's not like SecureSpot means anything to me. It has the name Secure so it sounds like something I would want. Now if they named it KickInTheBalls 2.0 or maybe SlapInTheFace 3.2 I would know to avoid it. SecureSpot means nothing to me.
If I'm updating a piece of hardware's firmware, and there's an alternative download that is prominently displayed right next to the link that says "without ", I'm going to wonder what it is and check it out. If you don't have that sort of curiosity, you're in for some pain later down the line.
2) Upgrading firmware on a firewall/router why? Are you kidding me? You're going to be-little people who pro-actively secure their main entry point to the outside world. From now on you should lose your Slashdot posting privs.
Again, this is not "I saw that there were vulnerabilities and so I updated." This was, "Well, I saw that the version number was higher, and higher is better, so I did it!" That sort of blind upgrade practice is dangerous because it can lead to surprises (as it did here, which was thankfully innocuous).
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
Because router firmware upgrades often mean closing security holes.
While one might think this at first, there's no evidence that this is the case for this incident. It's just as likely, without a firmware being released with specific notes about "holes" that it "plugged", that the update created more bugs.
In this case, it was "I felt like upgrading the firmware". The downfalls: User obviously didn't know how the feature set changed (because didn't do research before upgrading the firmware, just saw that one number was larger than the other) and there's always the possibility of bricking your router that is already working just peachy.
So, no, I don't accept your reasoning, even though it seems "sensible" at the start.
What if I want SecureSpot for its useful features?
Then, as an industrious person who was upgrading their own firmware, you could read about it when you downloaded it on D-link's website.
What if I didn't know SecureSpot redirects me like that?
If you didn't know that it did, you most likely would simply think it was another online ad. And as said earlier in this comment list, the thing buggers off the second time you say no.
People that can't figure out how to turn this off, most likely won't be upgrading their own firmware.
Exactly. And they won't care about securespot, thinking its just another advertisement.
Hi Brandon, What you experienced was not an Attempt to "Hijack" your connection. In fact what it is an added feature called "Secure Spot", It is software that is built into the router, which is used to replace or work along with your firewall/Antivirus/Antispam software. It also provides more parental controls. This feature does require a subscription if you want to use it but it is entirely optional. This feature replaces a hardware device that we had that did the same tasks. The DSD-150. You can disable this feature by logging into the router and clicking the Advanced Tab and Secure Spot on the left side. D-Link Customer Service
So, you can turn it off. Not only that, but as of 9/30 there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0
Should they have included that in a readme/changelog for the firmware? Maybe, but since they were all too happy to tell you how to turn it off, this really doesn't seem like a huge offense to me.
Conclusion? Non-story.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
The thing that keeps me from liking FDE is the probability of drive failure on an end-user machine. Not just the MBR failing, but physical trauma resulting in the need to send the drive to a data recovery firm (or, say, a drive motor burning out). With the number of laptop users I have wandering around beating their laptops, having DHS abuse them at the airport, or people's dog's knocking them over, it's a concern to me.
As far as I know, the available methods won't allow them to recover that data.
(I'd be happy to be wrong)
I realize they're poisoned, which was why it was good to have them in a place where someone was unlikely to be able to retreat or stay out of legs' reach.
At least with poisoned knitting needles you could throw them or use them in some sort of traditional martial sense.