Before the days of the iconic trash can and/or recycle bin, we lived in fear of accidentally deleting an important file. But now, first you are asked, "Are you sure you would like to delete this file?" And if you lose your brain momentarily and say "yes" when you should have said "no", you can pull it right back out of the trash.
This was a great addition to MS-DOS 5.0, the ability to undelete a file that you accidentally deleted (as long as you did it right away).
Petersko also wrote as part of the same post:
Now lets pretend we're designing the control centre for an industrial facility that has to sit in the middle of a lava flow for some reason.
Where exactly would you put the "destroy this facility" button? I mean, if you had the audacity to create one in the first place. Most people would avoid designing a control so sensitive as to turn "stable" into "complete structural failure".
If you're Lucas, apparently you put it right smack in the middle of the console, so that when two people are fighting, they can bump into it and send the structure to a fiery death.
This is one point in favor of Starfleet: they design their ships so that a single individual cannot destroy the ship, it takes three (Star Trek - The Original Series) or two (Star Trek - The Next Generation).
I'm fine with 25- but we have computers now and can figure out percentage contributions to the finished work, which would dictate royalties owed to copyright holders of certain portions of the final work. And before anybody asks- I would have prefered this method to the worthless stock options I got when I was in private industry.
For intellectual property (songs, movies, books, and so on) I'm in support of uniform non-extendable copyright of 100 years from the date the work was created. The reasons for 100 years are that: (1) by that time it is likely that all individuals who had a direct hand in the created work would have passed on and would have received the full benefit for their work during their life, and (2) by that time the item has become part of the world culture, where few people would remember a world where it didn't exist.
Rather than altering the original series, I think a better move would be to start a new Star Trek from ground zero, with nothing retained from any previous series (it could start with Kirk's arrival on the Enterprise as its new captain).
Rather than altering the original series, I think a better move would be to start a new science fiction series from ground zero, with nothing retained from any previous series, and call it something other than Star Trek.
I think the reason for the focus on where to go with a new Star Trek is because there will be a new Star Trek project. The disagreement is with what form the new project should take.
Since there is so much interest in the original series, I've wanted to see a photo-realistic GCI series featuring the original crew as they were in the 1960s, with an accurate recreation of the look and feel of the original series but with original stories.
It might be that the best move for Star Trek for now is to put the series on the shelf for a while. Then, when it returns, take it further into the future (say 500 years after the last episode of Voyager). This would allow Star Trek a fresh start while retaining the old continuity.
But I'm sure there are still many story possibilities for Star Trek. You just need a creative team that can make it work successfully.
Copyright protection isn't the problem- it's a right and good thing when done well. Copyright protection transferable to corporations and exceeding the original quarter-century-or-so protection period is a creeping destruction of our culture.
I agree that proper copyright protection is a good thing since it will reward the creators of the work. A problem that I see with the current situation is that it will eventually lock down the creation of all new works of art since they will be too close to an existing copyrighted work.
Could this be one of the reasons we are seeing an increase in the number of remakes of existing TV shows/movies?
No they don't need a crisis on infinite earths. TOS, TNG, DS9 and even Voyager stuck to a reasonably close continuity. We need a gruesome public excecution of B&B.
I think a problem arose with Star Trek - Enterprise because it was hamstrung by the previously established continuity. I was hoping that, at a point, something so drastic would happen that would completely break it away from the rest of the Star Trek continuity (I thought the Time War would be usable in this way), and allow it to take Star Trek in a new direction, free from previous continuity.
Question: Who are B&B? I think one "B" is Harv Bennett?
I agree that Star Trek - The Original Series should be left unaltered. Although it had its weak points, the series, as is, has resulted in many series and movies without the need for alteration of the original source.
What might be better is for Star Trek, as a whole, to move in a new direction. In the commentary for Star Trek - First Contact the creators commented that what Star Trek might need is its own 'Crisis On Infinite Earths.'
The above was a reference to the DC miniseries which literally destroyed the entire DC comic book multiverse, and replaced it with a single universe. The DC Multiverse had become so convoluted that this was needed to simply things and fix continuity problems.
Rather than altering the original series, I think a better move would be to start a new Star Trek from ground zero, with nothing retained from any previous series (it could start with Kirk's arrival on the Enterprise as its new captain). As has been shown by Battlestar Galatica it would be possible to do this with Star Trek.
Sometimes the limitations of the time cause innovative solutions. For example, the need to save time resulted in the introduction of the transporters (rather taking the time to have the ship land and take off during each episode). Do the advances in special effects technology mean that we will replace the classic transporter scenes with scenes of a shuttlecraft travelling from the ship to the planet and then back? After all, I'm sure we can do a much better job of showing a ship taking off and landing now than was possible in the 1960s.
A phrase comes to mind (I don't remember where I heard it): Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.
I HATE, and I mean HATE the fact that I have to "install" programs on my computer. I would much prefer the old DOS way of putting a binary, ann all the neccesary files into 1 directory, and just finding the binary needed to run it. If I want to uninstall a program I just delete it. No need to worry about my registry, programs leaving parts of themselves all over my computer ect.
I strongly agree. The above method allowed you to completely get rid of a program, with no lingering remnants remaining, and you knew exactly where the program was stored on your hard drive. Also, I've never liked a program to alter a computer's operating system.
With the amount of hard drive space available, I see little reason that the same program file must be shared among several programs. It might have been an issue when hard drives were small, but when a 100GB hard drive is considered small I doubt having 20 or 30 copies of the same 1MB file would even be an issue. It is is similar to the reason that Fast Find is no longer needed: modern hard drive speeds nullified the need for it.
What if apple had followed your advice? We would have never seen an ipod. As the old saying goes, its better to try and fail rather than not try at all.
I think a way to look at is that you can move away from your core competency, but you are taking a greater risk of failure. But I don't view the iPod as a move away from their core business. When you strip it down to the basics, the iPod is simply a small, limited-use computer, well designed for a specific task. Much like a PDA, which is good for tasks it is designed for.
In the same way, just because a new product is an extension of your core competency does not mean you will succeed. Since it is part of their business, Sony should have been able to make a successful high-capacity compressed audio player that can compete with the iPod, yet they have struggled to do so.
At this point it will be difficult for any company to compete with the iPod because of what has already been established for it. It is not just the player itself, but it is also the established infrastructure (cases and accessories among them) that a new player will need. You can easily purchase items to make the iPod much more usable for yourself.
I agree that at $5 a CD, they would be much more of an impulse buy. One complaint I've had with CD prices is that I can understand a brand new CD being more expensive because its new (to pay for things like production costs and so on). But we are also paying the same price for CDs of albums that are decades old? (when the costs of making the album were paid off a LONG time ago, and the only additional cost from the original album is to pay for converting it to CD).
The only way to make DVD's viable as a music platform IMHO would be to increase the amount of real content (i.e. music) which was on the thing.
As someone mentioned, you can cram up to 40 albums on a DVD without even getting to the higher capacity setups.
Back when a new digital audio format was being proposed (the end result was CD), one proposal was to use the laserdisc format. One of the reasons it was rejected is cost (who could afford to pay for 12 hours of music on one disc?). Consider that a standard CD can hold over 10 hours of music in the form of 128kbs MP3 tracks.
Of course studios would never do this because then you could buy , for instance, every Beatles album on one dvd. PERIOD. Either they would have to charge both arms and a leg for it (how much is the Beatles CD collection complete again?) which people wouldn't normally pay in one drop. Or they'd have to admit that larger collections of media aren't proportionally worth more than single new albums.
This is another problem for the recording studios: already existing CDs. Using the Beatles example, I think that most people who are Beatles fans have already bought all of the Beatles CDs that they want. How many more Beatles albums are they going to purchase. Also, those CDs will be passed on to their children and grandchildren, eliminating some future sales.
I think this is one of the major factors in the drop in CDs sales, much more than piracy. You can only sell the same person the same music a limited number of times.
Not to mention several artists would struggle to put together a DVD worth of real solid content without videos.
I've heard an artist describe a problem called "the third album syndrome." Many bands/performers have enough already-existing material for one or two good albums. But by the time for the third album, the band/performer must come up with new material for the album, while still having to support the previous albums.
Now, on the other hand a DVDA car stereo which could play DVD's I cram full of music? I'm on that. But easier to just get a 30g ipod with a car hookup. So no reason to push that technology either.
End result, music companies are struggling because they don't want to accept that the consumer is deciding the path of the industry and they aren't.
This is the biggest problem any new audio format is going to have to overcome: existing infrastructure. In the more-than-20 years since CD was established, it has become firmly established in all realms. Readily available and moderately priced players for the home, car, and for portable use are available to everyone in just about every location.
Added to this is that CD audio has become essentially the audio equivalent of ASCII, the one basic audio format that everyone understands and can make use of. Without the ability to use and modify audio files in that format, I think it is unlikely that MP3 would have quickly risen.
I don't see any locked-down format for audio being able to supplant CD with the public. People are used to being able to use their audio files where ever they choose and I don't think they are going to give up that freedom. You can market a great sounding format all you want, but if the people reject it because of issues like copy protection, they have rejected it despite the higher sound quality.
Added to this is the fact that CDs have a fairly good sound quality. Some early discs might have been a bit rough sounding, but the recording industry has gotten a handle on the format, and now CD is a mature format. For the general public the sound quality of CD is good enough.
A final problem I see for a new higher quality (HQ) format is related to the above issue: As shown with the public embrace of compre
It doesn't actually delete your data, just flag the space as free. The problem is that undeletion in that matter is unrelaible at best. A fiel is at any time subject to partial or complete overwrite, even if there's ample free space on the drive. When it's flagged as free the OS sees it as free period. There's no prioritisng the free space to not overwrite newley delete files (DOS was the same way).
The guide I followed when deleting a file via this method is that if I want to recover it, for example due to an accidental deletion, I should undelete it immediately. Otherwise, I could expect the file to soon be overwritten.
I think that instead of having a system-wide delete, a better way might be to have an organized system for handling file deletions. For example, it could be set up in the system that when a file is deleted it will be undelete-able for a certain period of time. When that time expires, the file is freed for deletion/overwriting, and at that point it can be expected to be gone (the company could set the system to do a complete free-space wipe as part of its maintenance procedure).
A problem I can see with keeping old files that I don't think has been mentioned is the problem of files generated by old programs. For example, how many people can still accurately open a word processing file created with Wordstar 3? From what I've read, even files created by old versions of Microsoft Word can be a problem to open.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a company is required to maintain files for legal reasons for a long time, it would also be required to have the programs available to accurately open those files too.
1. Offer DRM-free music downloads at inflated prices
2. Profit!
3. Wait for said DRM-free music to be traded on p2p networks
4. Sue all your customers for copyright infringement
5. (more?) profit!!1
Err, wait a minute. There are no missing steps this time. This may be Sony's best idea ever!
The following might be a missing step:
6. Music sales drop through the floor as buyers, en mass, turn away from music released by the suing companies due to fear of lawsuits.
That's not entirely true. Even songs you purchase through the service have DRM that expires every year. You still need to have your lease renewed once a year (I think, not sure on the exact timeframe as support was vague on this) by calling home to the master blaster. You never truly own it.
This is one of my strongest reasons for avoiding DRMed music. No matter how long you own a track, it is only playable as long as you have a player that can play that specific DRM scheme. If that specific DRM scheme is not available (for example because of "upgrades" or the company went out of business), the tracks that you have legitimately paid for are worthless. With a non-DRM CD, I have music that I can listen to for life and hard proof that I actually brought the music.
I ahve the above experience with laserdisc (LD). I have a large number of movies in the format and a player for the discs. But once my LD wears out I doubt I will be able to purchase another player, rendering my collection unusable. I think that those with large collection of DRM music files may face the same problem in the future.
Concerning falling record sales, I think one of the biggest factors is the CD itself. In the past all audio formats eventually wore out, leading to a replacement purchase. This is one of the factors that led to Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon to stay on the charts for over a decade.
It was possible to extend the life of a recording by copying it for your own use, but eventually you would still have to rebuy the original. Again, this led to more sales. It also increased sales of blank media.
But with CD, you buy it once and it is good for life. My first CDs, that I bought 20 years ago, are just as playable today as they were when I bought them. There is no need to rebuy the same music again and again. In the same way, if DRMed compressed files are not acceptable to the consumer, buying the CD and making your own files avoid the entire issue and you can choose both the format and bitrate yourself and the player that you want to use.
Now the CD has matured, and people have rebought as much of their old catalog in the CD format as their are going to. I think this, more than anything else, is what has led to the drop in CD sales. If you already own every Beatles song on CD, how many more Beatles CDs will you be willing to buy? How much Beatles music at all (not counting releases of unreleased material)?
If the Record Industry wants to increase music sales, there are two things I can think of that would help:
Release more previously unreleased music. There are many artists who did great albums but only have a single greatest hits collection available. Get out more of the music that we don't already have.
Release better, and more diverse, music that we actually want to buy. It is telling that recent top albums on the charts include an album of bluegrass music (the soundtrack for O Brother, Where Art Thou), and a collection of 1950s music from Barry Manilow.
I look forward to the "good taste" DRM that refuses to play music of questionable quality - maybe we can call it peril sensitive?
The problem comes with the words "good taste" and "questionable." For every person who absolutely loves an artist, there is likely to be another one who detests that same artist. I'm a fan of the Carpenters, but they have received a great number of knocks over the years about their music.
It's easy to put up a web page that looks the SAME in all browsers: USE NO FORMATTING. There you go. Make it "my_perfect_rendering_page.txt". It'll look the same in all browsers.
I think that one of the biggest complaints with HTML is that webpages look different on different types of computers. The problem is that HTML was designed to do a simple job: provide basic non-specific formatting to text that will appear on a computer screen.
But I view that flexibility as a strength. If I wish to use a larger font for viewing the text on my computer screen I can do it myself. The problem with trying to set a webpage to look the same on all computer screens is that it will only please a small number of individuals ("But I can't read body text in 10 Point Vivaldi!").
It is much like the Palm Markup Language (used to create ebooks for the Palm Reader). It is a simple markup language, and it makes ebooks that look good on the small Palm screen and on the Palm Reader on your computer. But I doubt people would be happy with it for other uses such as web pages. It's good for its specific job.
This could be the biggest problem with HTML, not with the language itself but the attempt to make it do things it was not designed for. Due to its limitations, I don't think that HTML is suited for complicated pages layouts for printing. But it could be suitable for simple printed documents, with the browser providing the page formatting.
What might make things better for web page design are a small number of simple formatting rules for the various tags that all browsers adhere to without exception. An example of a rule (I know it's pretty obvious but I'm using it to provide a clear example): There will be a single blank line following a block of text marked with a paragraph mark.
Doing this will provide formatting consistency on webpages, but still allow users the flexibility to adjust their browsers for their own viewing comfort. If the formatting of a document is important, there is the option of using PDF.
I don't see a problem with web pages looking different when using basic HTML, because its supposed to be adaptable based on the user preference. But it has been made more problematic web pages using proprietary tags that only work in one or limited number of browsers.
But this should not be the case when CSS is used. Unfortunately, I doubt the full potential of CSS will be released unless:
Every browser maker, without exception, agrees to fully implement the CSS standard, and render pages in the same way.
Only tags supported by all browsers are allowed on web pages which utilize CSS.
To me, CSS is a very good idea but it will only succeed in its goals if all browser makers allow it to succeed.
Why can't MS just work with a stinkin open document format? If the current open doc format doesn't have all the features that MS Office wants/needs, then MS can expand the spec and work _with_ the open format instead of against it.
The first question is a very good one, and I can think of two simple ways to handle unsupported features:
When saving the file let the user know what feature is not supported and ask what type of replacement should be used. It would be much like using a replacement font if the actual font is not available in the new format.
Simply not include the unsupported feature and let the user know what was dropped. The user then touches up the resulting file.
"Except that in those instances, they were not given a choice. Those users, when they went to buy a new computer, no longer had the option of buying an Intel PC without Windows,"
Bull - it has always been an option to buy a PC without an OS. Maybe buying a coprorate (I.E. Dell, Gateway) without an OEM OS is more difficult, but it is still possible. Hell, I bought a Dell last year with no OS on it and saved $50 or so. As a matter or fact, my last 3 home PCs were all purchased without an OS - so don't say it isn't possible, just not as probable. I just it funny that not a single/. users thinks it is even possible for a user to want to use Windows - not just that they are forced to use Windows...
I think a factor in this is the extra work you must go through to purchase a computer without an OS. It is extremely easy to purchase a computer with an OS (and much software) preloaded. But based on what I've heard, you have to jump through a large number of hoops to purchase a computer without an OS.
Although I've not looked into it, the only option that comes to mind for purchasing a computer without an OS is to have a custom system built where I specify every component in the computer. In fact, that is my plan when my current computer wears out: I'm going to have a system made that has components that will work well with Linux, and to ensure that I don't have to pay for a copy of Windows that I will not use.
But I'm a relic of the DOS era, when I had to configure my system myself. For example, I remember a time when print drivers were an issue, and I was happy to find a word processor that included a program that actually let you write your own custom print driver for use with the program.
Now computers are approaching the status of an appliance: buy it, put it on a table, turn it on, and use it. Whatever your feelings are about Windows, that is generally what Windows gives you. Added to this is the sheer amount of hardware and software support for Windows. These are factors that cause people to stay with Windows, along with inertia.
So, IMO, if you don't have documents that are very heavily formatted (which judging by the fact that you're still using 97, I don't think so), and money is an issue, move yourself out of MS 97 and go with OO.O 2.
actually, oo.org handles large documents (like heavy style usage, master documents etc) much, much better than microsot office.
bigger problems might arise if somebody would want to move complex documents oo.orgmsowrd, but hell, that is a problem big enough for different mso versions - and even for the same version on different machines.
I'm a StarOffice 8.0 user, and I've found Writer to be a very usable program. One thing I noticed when I installed StarOffice is that I didn't have to go through 10 minutes of modifying the settings, like I have to with each new copy of MS Word, to get it to work the way that I want it and to turn off unwise features like Fast Save.
Writer has a number of features that I've found easier to use than in MS Word. One is headers/footers, which are much easier to work with because you edit them in the document just like any other text. A feature that I've found to be very useful is Writer's ability to generate fairly clean HTML (by setting the HTML version to version 3.2), something that I've not had much success with in MS Word.
For me, transitioning from MS Word to Writer was fairly painless. From what I've read about the upcoming version of Office, it is going to have a massive interface change. This could be an advantage for OpenOffice.org/StarOffice since not much relearning would be required.
I would jump over to Linux if I could run my games on it efficiently and with reliability. As it is, Cedega/Wine/WineX and whatnot, just don't support enough games and are not reliable enough to get me to switch entirely over.
I have a Linux box, and I love the new Fedora Core 5. But it's too much of a pain to run some games to make it worth my time.
Let me know when developers start making games designed to run on Linux, and I'll buy em and switch completely. Until then, no matter how much I hate it, M$ is still gonna be getting my money.
Due to the problems I've had with running games on my off-the-rack system (due to factors like memory, processor speed, and so on) I've simply chosen to do my gaming on a console system (I use a PS2) and using my computer system for the other computer work.
Although the PS2 doesn't have near the power of a full computer system, it does have one major advantage: If I put a PS2 game in my PS2 system I know that it will work. Due to this, the difficulty in running games on Linux is not much a factor to me.
Before I'd heard about WGA I'd already decided to move to Linux with my next computer system. If I do get a message that my copy of Windows XP will shut down in 30 days unless I install the software, I will simply purchase a copy of Linux, install it, and say goodbye to the Windows world. Although it will take me time to learn Linux, I will simply make the effort and move to it.
I think that, although many individuals will not do so, I think that a larger number of Windows users will be willing to move away from Windows than many people think. This, in turn, will increase the demand for native Linux games.
In my humble opinion, I think that what will help Linux in the realm of gaming is if there are outstanding games that are only available for Linux. One of the factors in Nintendo's favor is that if you want to play a Mario or Zelda game you must buy a Nintendo system. In the same way, an outstanding game that is only available for Linux would help gain the OS support.
Why not have a handy context menu option, "Redact selection"
Because management and clueless users will demand that there be an "unredact selection" menu option, also. I'll let you sort out the implications of that. Either that or original copies of documents everywhere will have text permanently blocked out by the above-mentioned clueless users and management types.
A simple way around the problem is to design the software so that when you use the "redact selection" option it does not affect the original document. It first creates a copy, closes the original, and then redacts the information on the copy, which remains open. The text in the copy is not mearly made unviewable, it is actually replaced with redaction text/characters/symbols/graphics.
A weakness I can see of the above is that a user might end up with many copies of the same document as redactions are added to the document. But at least it would ensure that the original would not be affected.
What I've wanted to see as an option is a PDA that functions as the main CPU of a computer system when placed in the cradle on your desk (rather than being an attachment to a computer). The user can designate the files that will be on the PDA for travel, and the rest of the components will remain on the desk.
An advantage I can see to this is that upgrading the system is as simple as replacing the PDA for a more powerful one, rather than having to replace the entire system. Also, you could seemlessly transition from working on your desk to working on the go (for example, you are working on a document at your desk. Then you remove the PDA and the document is available exactly as you left it.)
There are WYSIWYG xml editors out there - so you don't have to delve down into the ugly details unless you really want to -- and you can modify the online look via CSS, and use other filters to generate PDF, and other formats as needed.
This could also be said about WYSIWYG HTML editors, which offer you the advantage of being able to directly edit the text in the tool of your choice or let the WYSIWYG HTML editor do it for you. This is one nice feature of StarOffice: you can choose the HTML version you want to use, and it produces fairly clean HTML.
A sidebar question: Some have mentioned that word processors don't do a good job of typesetting a document. If your word processor has a PDF export function, does the PDF version of the document provide better typesetting?
Returning to the original topic of the thread, my favorite writing tool (that is readily available) is the Uni-Ball 0.3mm Roller Ball Pen. It provides a good smooth line.
I respectfully disagree. For many tasks I found DOS much easier to work with than Windows and it didn't require near the amount of computing power that the graphical environments do. It allowed me to customize my system in a way that works efficiently for me (such as accessing any program on my system with two keystrokes). Also, actions that take me many mouse clicks to accomplish in a graphical environment can be accomplished with a single command via batch files.
Oh sure, DOS was easy to work with. Do you remember trying to free "conventional memory" so you could run a certain app? Or trying to get access to any RAM beyond 1M? Some programs used "extended memory." Some wanted "expanded memory." Some wouldn't run with EMM386 loaded. Some required it. It is a good thing that DOS 5.0 (I think) introduced multiple boot configurations, because I needed them. I had to reboot my computer differently depending on what I wanted to do with it that day. And talk about braindead shells.. COMMAND.COM? WTF? Somebody wrote that in like 1981 and it was never updated since. Granted, I kinda got a kick out of "hacking" DOS back in the day. But I'd hardly call it easy to work with.
Yes I do remember having to configure my system to free up conventional memory, and one of the great things about MS-DOS 5.0 was that it reduced the amount of conventional memory that the OS needed. One of the best things about DOS was that I, myself, was able to go in and configure my system the way that I want it to run. I didn't need special programs for the job and I didn't have to worry about destroying my system if I made a single mistake in changing a system file.
Memory limitations were a problem, but I think if DOS had continued development the memory limitations would have been dealt with to the point where there is no distinction in the type of memory in a system. Sadly, it was not to be.
One thing I hope that is added to Windows is a full and complete command-line interface as an alternative to the graphical interface. This is one of the reasons that I'm considering moving to Linux; I can choose (1) the way I want to interface with the system and (2) the look and feel of the graphical interface.
Well, if DOS is your model for an ideal system, Linux will be heaven for you. I'm surprised you haven't moved to Linux already.
Actually, I'm planning to do it once my current system wears out. I tried Linux a few years ago and I liked what I saw and I'm sure I will enjoy working with it. I'm already using StarOffice 8.0 so transitioning to Linux will be much easier when the time comes. Plus, my current system does an OK job of running Windows XP, but I doubt it will be able to run the next version of Windows.
Sometimes a command-line interface is easier for some tasks than a graphical interface. When using Windows 3.1, I would often go back to DOS because it was easier and faster to accomplish a specific task. For example, I wrote a DOS batch file that, with one command, allowed me to backup only the data files on my hard drive without having to select the individual data files.
Slashdot Mirror
Petersko wrote as part of a post:
This was a great addition to MS-DOS 5.0, the ability to undelete a file that you accidentally deleted (as long as you did it right away).
Petersko also wrote as part of the same post:
This is one point in favor of Starfleet: they design their ships so that a single individual cannot destroy the ship, it takes three (Star Trek - The Original Series) or two (Star Trek - The Next Generation).
CrazyTalk wrote:
Blade Runner
Marxist Hacker 42 wrote as part of a post:
For intellectual property (songs, movies, books, and so on) I'm in support of uniform non-extendable copyright of 100 years from the date the work was created. The reasons for 100 years are that: (1) by that time it is likely that all individuals who had a direct hand in the created work would have passed on and would have received the full benefit for their work during their life, and (2) by that time the item has become part of the world culture, where few people would remember a world where it didn't exist.
pedroloco wrote and included with a post:
I think the reason for the focus on where to go with a new Star Trek is because there will be a new Star Trek project. The disagreement is with what form the new project should take.
Since there is so much interest in the original series, I've wanted to see a photo-realistic GCI series featuring the original crew as they were in the 1960s, with an accurate recreation of the look and feel of the original series but with original stories.
It might be that the best move for Star Trek for now is to put the series on the shelf for a while. Then, when it returns, take it further into the future (say 500 years after the last episode of Voyager). This would allow Star Trek a fresh start while retaining the old continuity.
But I'm sure there are still many story possibilities for Star Trek. You just need a creative team that can make it work successfully.
Marxist Hacker 42 wrote:
I agree that proper copyright protection is a good thing since it will reward the creators of the work. A problem that I see with the current situation is that it will eventually lock down the creation of all new works of art since they will be too close to an existing copyrighted work.
Could this be one of the reasons we are seeing an increase in the number of remakes of existing TV shows/movies?
monopole wrote:
I think a problem arose with Star Trek - Enterprise because it was hamstrung by the previously established continuity. I was hoping that, at a point, something so drastic would happen that would completely break it away from the rest of the Star Trek continuity (I thought the Time War would be usable in this way), and allow it to take Star Trek in a new direction, free from previous continuity.
Question: Who are B&B? I think one "B" is Harv Bennett?
What might be better is for Star Trek, as a whole, to move in a new direction. In the commentary for Star Trek - First Contact the creators commented that what Star Trek might need is its own 'Crisis On Infinite Earths.'
The above was a reference to the DC miniseries which literally destroyed the entire DC comic book multiverse, and replaced it with a single universe. The DC Multiverse had become so convoluted that this was needed to simply things and fix continuity problems.
Rather than altering the original series, I think a better move would be to start a new Star Trek from ground zero, with nothing retained from any previous series (it could start with Kirk's arrival on the Enterprise as its new captain). As has been shown by Battlestar Galatica it would be possible to do this with Star Trek.
Sometimes the limitations of the time cause innovative solutions. For example, the need to save time resulted in the introduction of the transporters (rather taking the time to have the ship land and take off during each episode). Do the advances in special effects technology mean that we will replace the classic transporter scenes with scenes of a shuttlecraft travelling from the ship to the planet and then back? After all, I'm sure we can do a much better job of showing a ship taking off and landing now than was possible in the 1960s.
A phrase comes to mind (I don't remember where I heard it): Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.
manno wrote:
I strongly agree. The above method allowed you to completely get rid of a program, with no lingering remnants remaining, and you knew exactly where the program was stored on your hard drive. Also, I've never liked a program to alter a computer's operating system.
With the amount of hard drive space available, I see little reason that the same program file must be shared among several programs. It might have been an issue when hard drives were small, but when a 100GB hard drive is considered small I doubt having 20 or 30 copies of the same 1MB file would even be an issue. It is is similar to the reason that Fast Find is no longer needed: modern hard drive speeds nullified the need for it.
vivek7006 wrote and included with a post:
I think a way to look at is that you can move away from your core competency, but you are taking a greater risk of failure. But I don't view the iPod as a move away from their core business. When you strip it down to the basics, the iPod is simply a small, limited-use computer, well designed for a specific task. Much like a PDA, which is good for tasks it is designed for.
In the same way, just because a new product is an extension of your core competency does not mean you will succeed. Since it is part of their business, Sony should have been able to make a successful high-capacity compressed audio player that can compete with the iPod, yet they have struggled to do so.
At this point it will be difficult for any company to compete with the iPod because of what has already been established for it. It is not just the player itself, but it is also the established infrastructure (cases and accessories among them) that a new player will need. You can easily purchase items to make the iPod much more usable for yourself.
I agree that at $5 a CD, they would be much more of an impulse buy. One complaint I've had with CD prices is that I can understand a brand new CD being more expensive because its new (to pay for things like production costs and so on). But we are also paying the same price for CDs of albums that are decades old? (when the costs of making the album were paid off a LONG time ago, and the only additional cost from the original album is to pay for converting it to CD).
Churla wrote (indented text):
Back when a new digital audio format was being proposed (the end result was CD), one proposal was to use the laserdisc format. One of the reasons it was rejected is cost (who could afford to pay for 12 hours of music on one disc?). Consider that a standard CD can hold over 10 hours of music in the form of 128kbs MP3 tracks.
This is another problem for the recording studios: already existing CDs. Using the Beatles example, I think that most people who are Beatles fans have already bought all of the Beatles CDs that they want. How many more Beatles albums are they going to purchase. Also, those CDs will be passed on to their children and grandchildren, eliminating some future sales.
I think this is one of the major factors in the drop in CDs sales, much more than piracy. You can only sell the same person the same music a limited number of times.
I've heard an artist describe a problem called "the third album syndrome." Many bands/performers have enough already-existing material for one or two good albums. But by the time for the third album, the band/performer must come up with new material for the album, while still having to support the previous albums.
This is the biggest problem any new audio format is going to have to overcome: existing infrastructure. In the more-than-20 years since CD was established, it has become firmly established in all realms. Readily available and moderately priced players for the home, car, and for portable use are available to everyone in just about every location.
Added to this is that CD audio has become essentially the audio equivalent of ASCII, the one basic audio format that everyone understands and can make use of. Without the ability to use and modify audio files in that format, I think it is unlikely that MP3 would have quickly risen.
I don't see any locked-down format for audio being able to supplant CD with the public. People are used to being able to use their audio files where ever they choose and I don't think they are going to give up that freedom. You can market a great sounding format all you want, but if the people reject it because of issues like copy protection, they have rejected it despite the higher sound quality.
Added to this is the fact that CDs have a fairly good sound quality. Some early discs might have been a bit rough sounding, but the recording industry has gotten a handle on the format, and now CD is a mature format. For the general public the sound quality of CD is good enough.
A final problem I see for a new higher quality (HQ) format is related to the above issue: As shown with the public embrace of compre
Sycraft-fu wrote as part of a post:
The guide I followed when deleting a file via this method is that if I want to recover it, for example due to an accidental deletion, I should undelete it immediately. Otherwise, I could expect the file to soon be overwritten.
I think that instead of having a system-wide delete, a better way might be to have an organized system for handling file deletions. For example, it could be set up in the system that when a file is deleted it will be undelete-able for a certain period of time. When that time expires, the file is freed for deletion/overwriting, and at that point it can be expected to be gone (the company could set the system to do a complete free-space wipe as part of its maintenance procedure).
A problem I can see with keeping old files that I don't think has been mentioned is the problem of files generated by old programs. For example, how many people can still accurately open a word processing file created with Wordstar 3? From what I've read, even files created by old versions of Microsoft Word can be a problem to open.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a company is required to maintain files for legal reasons for a long time, it would also be required to have the programs available to accurately open those files too.
xevocius wrote:
The following might be a missing step:
br0k_sams0n wrote:
This is one of my strongest reasons for avoiding DRMed music. No matter how long you own a track, it is only playable as long as you have a player that can play that specific DRM scheme. If that specific DRM scheme is not available (for example because of "upgrades" or the company went out of business), the tracks that you have legitimately paid for are worthless. With a non-DRM CD, I have music that I can listen to for life and hard proof that I actually brought the music.
I ahve the above experience with laserdisc (LD). I have a large number of movies in the format and a player for the discs. But once my LD wears out I doubt I will be able to purchase another player, rendering my collection unusable. I think that those with large collection of DRM music files may face the same problem in the future.
Concerning falling record sales, I think one of the biggest factors is the CD itself. In the past all audio formats eventually wore out, leading to a replacement purchase. This is one of the factors that led to Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon to stay on the charts for over a decade.
It was possible to extend the life of a recording by copying it for your own use, but eventually you would still have to rebuy the original. Again, this led to more sales. It also increased sales of blank media.
But with CD, you buy it once and it is good for life. My first CDs, that I bought 20 years ago, are just as playable today as they were when I bought them. There is no need to rebuy the same music again and again. In the same way, if DRMed compressed files are not acceptable to the consumer, buying the CD and making your own files avoid the entire issue and you can choose both the format and bitrate yourself and the player that you want to use.
Now the CD has matured, and people have rebought as much of their old catalog in the CD format as their are going to. I think this, more than anything else, is what has led to the drop in CD sales. If you already own every Beatles song on CD, how many more Beatles CDs will you be willing to buy? How much Beatles music at all (not counting releases of unreleased material)?
If the Record Industry wants to increase music sales, there are two things I can think of that would help:
askegg wrote:
The problem comes with the words "good taste" and "questionable." For every person who absolutely loves an artist, there is likely to be another one who detests that same artist. I'm a fan of the Carpenters, but they have received a great number of knocks over the years about their music.
seek31337 wrote as part of a post:
I think that one of the biggest complaints with HTML is that webpages look different on different types of computers. The problem is that HTML was designed to do a simple job: provide basic non-specific formatting to text that will appear on a computer screen.
But I view that flexibility as a strength. If I wish to use a larger font for viewing the text on my computer screen I can do it myself. The problem with trying to set a webpage to look the same on all computer screens is that it will only please a small number of individuals ("But I can't read body text in 10 Point Vivaldi!").
It is much like the Palm Markup Language (used to create ebooks for the Palm Reader). It is a simple markup language, and it makes ebooks that look good on the small Palm screen and on the Palm Reader on your computer. But I doubt people would be happy with it for other uses such as web pages. It's good for its specific job.
This could be the biggest problem with HTML, not with the language itself but the attempt to make it do things it was not designed for. Due to its limitations, I don't think that HTML is suited for complicated pages layouts for printing. But it could be suitable for simple printed documents, with the browser providing the page formatting.
What might make things better for web page design are a small number of simple formatting rules for the various tags that all browsers adhere to without exception. An example of a rule (I know it's pretty obvious but I'm using it to provide a clear example): There will be a single blank line following a block of text marked with a paragraph mark.
Doing this will provide formatting consistency on webpages, but still allow users the flexibility to adjust their browsers for their own viewing comfort. If the formatting of a document is important, there is the option of using PDF.
I don't see a problem with web pages looking different when using basic HTML, because its supposed to be adaptable based on the user preference. But it has been made more problematic web pages using proprietary tags that only work in one or limited number of browsers.
But this should not be the case when CSS is used. Unfortunately, I doubt the full potential of CSS will be released unless:
To me, CSS is a very good idea but it will only succeed in its goals if all browser makers allow it to succeed.
JimDaGeek wrote as part of a post:
The first question is a very good one, and I can think of two simple ways to handle unsupported features:
Mister Whirly wrote:
I think a factor in this is the extra work you must go through to purchase a computer without an OS. It is extremely easy to purchase a computer with an OS (and much software) preloaded. But based on what I've heard, you have to jump through a large number of hoops to purchase a computer without an OS.
Although I've not looked into it, the only option that comes to mind for purchasing a computer without an OS is to have a custom system built where I specify every component in the computer. In fact, that is my plan when my current computer wears out: I'm going to have a system made that has components that will work well with Linux, and to ensure that I don't have to pay for a copy of Windows that I will not use.
But I'm a relic of the DOS era, when I had to configure my system myself. For example, I remember a time when print drivers were an issue, and I was happy to find a word processor that included a program that actually let you write your own custom print driver for use with the program.
Now computers are approaching the status of an appliance: buy it, put it on a table, turn it on, and use it. Whatever your feelings are about Windows, that is generally what Windows gives you. Added to this is the sheer amount of hardware and software support for Windows. These are factors that cause people to stay with Windows, along with inertia.
richlv wrote and included with a post:
I'm a StarOffice 8.0 user, and I've found Writer to be a very usable program. One thing I noticed when I installed StarOffice is that I didn't have to go through 10 minutes of modifying the settings, like I have to with each new copy of MS Word, to get it to work the way that I want it and to turn off unwise features like Fast Save.
Writer has a number of features that I've found easier to use than in MS Word. One is headers/footers, which are much easier to work with because you edit them in the document just like any other text. A feature that I've found to be very useful is Writer's ability to generate fairly clean HTML (by setting the HTML version to version 3.2), something that I've not had much success with in MS Word.
For me, transitioning from MS Word to Writer was fairly painless. From what I've read about the upcoming version of Office, it is going to have a massive interface change. This could be an advantage for OpenOffice.org/StarOffice since not much relearning would be required.
Deliverator80 wrote:
Due to the problems I've had with running games on my off-the-rack system (due to factors like memory, processor speed, and so on) I've simply chosen to do my gaming on a console system (I use a PS2) and using my computer system for the other computer work.
Although the PS2 doesn't have near the power of a full computer system, it does have one major advantage: If I put a PS2 game in my PS2 system I know that it will work. Due to this, the difficulty in running games on Linux is not much a factor to me.
Before I'd heard about WGA I'd already decided to move to Linux with my next computer system. If I do get a message that my copy of Windows XP will shut down in 30 days unless I install the software, I will simply purchase a copy of Linux, install it, and say goodbye to the Windows world. Although it will take me time to learn Linux, I will simply make the effort and move to it.
I think that, although many individuals will not do so, I think that a larger number of Windows users will be willing to move away from Windows than many people think. This, in turn, will increase the demand for native Linux games.
In my humble opinion, I think that what will help Linux in the realm of gaming is if there are outstanding games that are only available for Linux. One of the factors in Nintendo's favor is that if you want to play a Mario or Zelda game you must buy a Nintendo system. In the same way, an outstanding game that is only available for Linux would help gain the OS support.
Thanks for reading.
gEvil wrote and included with the post:
A simple way around the problem is to design the software so that when you use the "redact selection" option it does not affect the original document. It first creates a copy, closes the original, and then redacts the information on the copy, which remains open. The text in the copy is not mearly made unviewable, it is actually replaced with redaction text/characters/symbols/graphics.
A weakness I can see of the above is that a user might end up with many copies of the same document as redactions are added to the document. But at least it would ensure that the original would not be affected.
What I've wanted to see as an option is a PDA that functions as the main CPU of a computer system when placed in the cradle on your desk (rather than being an attachment to a computer). The user can designate the files that will be on the PDA for travel, and the rest of the components will remain on the desk.
An advantage I can see to this is that upgrading the system is as simple as replacing the PDA for a more powerful one, rather than having to replace the entire system. Also, you could seemlessly transition from working on your desk to working on the go (for example, you are working on a document at your desk. Then you remove the PDA and the document is available exactly as you left it.)
Lodragandraoidh wrote as part of a post:
This could also be said about WYSIWYG HTML editors, which offer you the advantage of being able to directly edit the text in the tool of your choice or let the WYSIWYG HTML editor do it for you. This is one nice feature of StarOffice: you can choose the HTML version you want to use, and it produces fairly clean HTML.
A sidebar question: Some have mentioned that word processors don't do a good job of typesetting a document. If your word processor has a PDF export function, does the PDF version of the document provide better typesetting?
Returning to the original topic of the thread, my favorite writing tool (that is readily available) is the Uni-Ball 0.3mm Roller Ball Pen. It provides a good smooth line.
misleb wrote and included with the post:
Yes I do remember having to configure my system to free up conventional memory, and one of the great things about MS-DOS 5.0 was that it reduced the amount of conventional memory that the OS needed. One of the best things about DOS was that I, myself, was able to go in and configure my system the way that I want it to run. I didn't need special programs for the job and I didn't have to worry about destroying my system if I made a single mistake in changing a system file.
Memory limitations were a problem, but I think if DOS had continued development the memory limitations would have been dealt with to the point where there is no distinction in the type of memory in a system. Sadly, it was not to be.
Actually, I'm planning to do it once my current system wears out. I tried Linux a few years ago and I liked what I saw and I'm sure I will enjoy working with it. I'm already using StarOffice 8.0 so transitioning to Linux will be much easier when the time comes. Plus, my current system does an OK job of running Windows XP, but I doubt it will be able to run the next version of Windows.
Sometimes a command-line interface is easier for some tasks than a graphical interface. When using Windows 3.1, I would often go back to DOS because it was easier and faster to accomplish a specific task. For example, I wrote a DOS batch file that, with one command, allowed me to backup only the data files on my hard drive without having to select the individual data files.