How can you patent something that's already in production and exists?!
To discover that you have to read the patent. Now, lucky for you, this particular patent seems to be devoid of any real distinction, but most of the time you see a story about a patent here on/. the headline says "Apple patented farting!" but the patent itself actually says "Apple patented a valve that makes a user's farts smell like Granny Smith Apples" that few, if any, are likely to infringe on. Unfortunately the former generates more ad-revenue.
What's funny about your comment is that you and the asshole that modded your post up are so ignorant on the topic that you're blissfully unaware of your contribution to the problem you're criticizing.
I know you were going for a cheap laugh but unfortunately you've struck really close to home about how bad economics is understood around here. Some of the upmodded comments around here about supply and demand and markershare are just plain headache inducing.
The use of the hashtag is counted. Those counts are then sorted into trends and sorted again by location. I would say it's less about market research and more about what's happening in the news.
How is something as useless and stupid as Twitter be worth more than $8bn in the first place?
Maybe it's not as stupid as useless as you think. Why wouldn't real-time stats on what people on the internet are talking about be worth some major buckage?
Am I trying to rein it in, or are you trying to make it a valid nitpick? That's the flaw in your rationale, since we both have to bring points of discussion to make out case it ends in stalemate. So, no, I'm not proving your point, in fact you've weakened it. Your nitpick relies on off-screen assumptions, the spirit of those working against the goals of the charactets. No, that's not a valid nitpick, I'm sorry.
I hope Slashdot adds a filter so I can automatically hide comments that contain "SJW". At this point I'm not sure if the real benefit would be the improvement in intelligent discussion or the savings in bandwidth!
There is no plothole in any movie that can't be creatively rationalized.
If I went to great extremes to explain it away you would have a point, but I didn't so you don't. If you really want to set the threshold so low that being able to see the whales is intolerable then the movie would have to have been a great deal longer to make you happy.
Besides that, we both know this is a post-TNG nitpick intended to make a select group of nerds appear fashionably clever.
You're assuming they had steel or deckplates available or that the cargo bay was useful as-is. Allow me to point a couple of things out for you:
1. They already had to use a bunch of their resources to fix battle damage to their ship and it's unlikely Vulcan would have re-supplied them with extras since it was a short jaunt to Earth to.. uh.. be arrested. They also couldn't scrounge up anything to barter, thus relying on selling Kirk's glasses, lending credibility to the idea that they didn't have random valuable crap just lying around.
2. Scotty made a point of having to beam up a lot of water. The less water, the better. Even after shrinking the room he still had uncertainties about whether he'd be able to pull it off.
I wouldn't mind but the movie did spend a significant amount of time setting this up. "It's not just the whales, it's the water!"
Why, so they can watch the whales suffer while still not being able to do anything more about it?
And how would not seeing them be in any way better? There's no reason to assume an all-or-nothing scenario.
And in glorious panorama instead of a porthole?
Heh. In other words: "see more." You really kinda made my point for me with that one.
It has less to do with what they have on hand and more because negotiating with a junk yard dealer for common steel plate is less entertaining than an excuse to interact with a 20th century computer.
What they have on hand they do not have to barter for. Getting steel plating from a junk yard dealer would require just as much effort, possibly more since he wouldn't likely take only information in trade unless it was a sports almanac.
When they are in space this means they become suddenly very resourceful with what they have on hand, but when they need to interact with others, suddenly they are at mercy of having no other options.
They need windows to watch whales, but not windows to see where they are flying?
Yes. The Klingon Bird of Prey has flight sensors integrated into its design to allow it to fly, it's reasonable to assume it doesn't have whale sensors integrated into its cargo bay.
And how much care tending did they actually do between hauling ass to the Sun and back to Earth?
Seeing as how they only traveled in time with one round trip, this question is senseless. Instead you should ask what would Mr. Scott want to plan for? Would he want to verify the whales are safe after beamup? Yes. If the sensors inside showed the whale in distress would he want to at least make a visual account of it? Yes. Would the transparent tank be better for them to have if the time travel jump failed and they were stranded? Yep.
Wouldn't an actual hatch into the area be more appropriate...
Why don't you go into a little more detail here? Produce a diagram for showing that they could have safely cut a hole between decks without, say, cutting through main power lines or something and that it would have been done in roughly the same amount of time. Bonus points if you can show us their parts manifest that shows they had the hatch already pre-fabbed and the metal for the walls ready to be installed for just such a purpose.
You most certainly can. It makes sense from a "show the audience what's happening" point of view AND it makes sense from a "if I'm responsible for the safety of the beasties then I need to be able to see them" point of view. If you have a problem with the time travel element or the origin of the probe then you are, pardon the expression, lightyears away from judging the quality of the movie based on the mistaken impression that Klingon sensors negate the need for a transparent tank.
holy crap, you're picking at the pointlessness of putting windows in the tanks?!
No, I'm nitpicking at the nitpicking of the pointlessness of putting the windows in the tanks. It wasn't a valid complaint.
You don't have a problem believing mankind being embarrassed when SPACE WHALES drop by to check in on their far distant relatives?!
Nope. You see, I went in without missing the point of going to a movie. For example: I can totally buy that the crew of a stolen alien starship decided to spend a few months repairing it so they can fly home cloaked to turn themselves in for blowing up a more valuable ship that they had also stolen only to be side tracked by a time-travel excursion to save the whales. However I have trouble believing that the radiation shielding of a nuclear reactor on board an American aircraft carrier was weak enough jam a Klingon disruptor without affecting the crew aboard. The difference? I wanted to go see a movie about a crew repairing a stolen alien ship returning home to face justice but were side-tracked by a time travel excursion to save the whales along the way, but was not interested in lazy writing about how shitty a weapon from an advanced space-faring warrior civilization is.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I can't wait to hear how this is spun I to a tale of how great OSS is.
He's asking if 2x the electricity means you get 2x the speed.
How can you patent something that's already in production and exists?!
To discover that you have to read the patent. Now, lucky for you, this particular patent seems to be devoid of any real distinction, but most of the time you see a story about a patent here on /. the headline says "Apple patented farting!" but the patent itself actually says "Apple patented a valve that makes a user's farts smell like Granny Smith Apples" that few, if any, are likely to infringe on. Unfortunately the former generates more ad-revenue.
Since you and your wife already have a careers elsewhere and would be supporting them, shouldn't they have moved closer to you?
Iddn't that kinda none of your fucking business? Not everybody can move to where the internet doesn't suck, that's the end of the discussion.
Yes, they very noisily don't care.
What's funny about your comment is that you and the asshole that modded your post up are so ignorant on the topic that you're blissfully unaware of your contribution to the problem you're criticizing.
Yeah, that must be it. The entire United States looks like Portland.
Just to be clear, we're all joking about Apple only being popular with hipsters, but in main-stream numbers. Correct?
So with a six-core Snapdragon and a slightly tamer Adreno 418 graphics engine on board...
Fantastic! So does this mean we'll finally get smooth scrolling?
Hey everybody, Anonymous Coward is having a bad day. Could you all be a little extra nice to him?
I know you were going for a cheap laugh but unfortunately you've struck really close to home about how bad economics is understood around here. Some of the upmodded comments around here about supply and demand and markershare are just plain headache inducing.
The use of the hashtag is counted. Those counts are then sorted into trends and sorted again by location. I would say it's less about market research and more about what's happening in the news.
How is something as useless and stupid as Twitter be worth more than $8bn in the first place?
Maybe it's not as stupid as useless as you think. Why wouldn't real-time stats on what people on the internet are talking about be worth some major buckage?
What kind of multi-touch screen are you running on your PC?
Mr. Curtis, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
Am I trying to rein it in, or are you trying to make it a valid nitpick? That's the flaw in your rationale, since we both have to bring points of discussion to make out case it ends in stalemate. So, no, I'm not proving your point, in fact you've weakened it. Your nitpick relies on off-screen assumptions, the spirit of those working against the goals of the charactets. No, that's not a valid nitpick, I'm sorry.
I hope Slashdot adds a filter so I can automatically hide comments that contain "SJW". At this point I'm not sure if the real benefit would be the improvement in intelligent discussion or the savings in bandwidth!
There is no plothole in any movie that can't be creatively rationalized.
If I went to great extremes to explain it away you would have a point, but I didn't so you don't. If you really want to set the threshold so low that being able to see the whales is intolerable then the movie would have to have been a great deal longer to make you happy.
Besides that, we both know this is a post-TNG nitpick intended to make a select group of nerds appear fashionably clever.
You're assuming they had steel or deckplates available or that the cargo bay was useful as-is. Allow me to point a couple of things out for you:
1. They already had to use a bunch of their resources to fix battle damage to their ship and it's unlikely Vulcan would have re-supplied them with extras since it was a short jaunt to Earth to .. uh.. be arrested. They also couldn't scrounge up anything to barter, thus relying on selling Kirk's glasses, lending credibility to the idea that they didn't have random valuable crap just lying around.
2. Scotty made a point of having to beam up a lot of water. The less water, the better. Even after shrinking the room he still had uncertainties about whether he'd be able to pull it off.
I wouldn't mind but the movie did spend a significant amount of time setting this up. "It's not just the whales, it's the water!"
Why, so they can watch the whales suffer while still not being able to do anything more about it?
And how would not seeing them be in any way better? There's no reason to assume an all-or-nothing scenario.
And in glorious panorama instead of a porthole?
Heh. In other words: "see more." You really kinda made my point for me with that one.
It has less to do with what they have on hand and more because negotiating with a junk yard dealer for common steel plate is less entertaining than an excuse to interact with a 20th century computer.
What they have on hand they do not have to barter for. Getting steel plating from a junk yard dealer would require just as much effort, possibly more since he wouldn't likely take only information in trade unless it was a sports almanac.
When they are in space this means they become suddenly very resourceful with what they have on hand, but when they need to interact with others, suddenly they are at mercy of having no other options.
Getting a little ahead of your self, there.
Actually nobody in this thread said they used transparent aluminum.
They need windows to watch whales, but not windows to see where they are flying?
Yes. The Klingon Bird of Prey has flight sensors integrated into its design to allow it to fly, it's reasonable to assume it doesn't have whale sensors integrated into its cargo bay.
And how much care tending did they actually do between hauling ass to the Sun and back to Earth?
Seeing as how they only traveled in time with one round trip, this question is senseless. Instead you should ask what would Mr. Scott want to plan for? Would he want to verify the whales are safe after beamup? Yes. If the sensors inside showed the whale in distress would he want to at least make a visual account of it? Yes. Would the transparent tank be better for them to have if the time travel jump failed and they were stranded? Yep.
Wouldn't an actual hatch into the area be more appropriate...
Why don't you go into a little more detail here? Produce a diagram for showing that they could have safely cut a hole between decks without, say, cutting through main power lines or something and that it would have been done in roughly the same amount of time. Bonus points if you can show us their parts manifest that shows they had the hatch already pre-fabbed and the metal for the walls ready to be installed for just such a purpose.
I stand corrected, thank you.
You most certainly can. It makes sense from a "show the audience what's happening" point of view AND it makes sense from a "if I'm responsible for the safety of the beasties then I need to be able to see them" point of view. If you have a problem with the time travel element or the origin of the probe then you are, pardon the expression, lightyears away from judging the quality of the movie based on the mistaken impression that Klingon sensors negate the need for a transparent tank.
holy crap, you're picking at the pointlessness of putting windows in the tanks?!
No, I'm nitpicking at the nitpicking of the pointlessness of putting the windows in the tanks. It wasn't a valid complaint.
You don't have a problem believing mankind being embarrassed when SPACE WHALES drop by to check in on their far distant relatives?!
Nope. You see, I went in without missing the point of going to a movie. For example: I can totally buy that the crew of a stolen alien starship decided to spend a few months repairing it so they can fly home cloaked to turn themselves in for blowing up a more valuable ship that they had also stolen only to be side tracked by a time-travel excursion to save the whales. However I have trouble believing that the radiation shielding of a nuclear reactor on board an American aircraft carrier was weak enough jam a Klingon disruptor without affecting the crew aboard. The difference? I wanted to go see a movie about a crew repairing a stolen alien ship returning home to face justice but were side-tracked by a time travel excursion to save the whales along the way, but was not interested in lazy writing about how shitty a weapon from an advanced space-faring warrior civilization is.