So you think it's ideal for the mob to get to decide a 'middle ground?'
If by mob you mean citizens, then yes. You are in the US, anyway, a (supposed) democracy. If you want someplace where the mob has less say, you could try China or North Korea.
Frankly, the biggest problem the Star Trek franchise has is its own fans.
There's a big difference between being respectful of a story and hamstringing yourself to meet some fanboy's idea of "canon." There are long and drawn-out discussions all the time in Trek fandom about how this one inconsequential element of some story doesn't mesh with years of backstory which is itself internally inconsistent. They can't seem to let go of these whiny nitpicks."
May be a troll, but I'll bite.
Star Trek isn't BSG. I like BSG, but Star Trek isn't it. It's also not Star Wars (thank goodness). Star Trek is the most true to being a geek scifi, rather than a Kung-Fu/Military Drama/Pirate show with a scifi theme. What comes with that territory is a strong desire for consistency and depth.
Of all TV, Star Trek is almost undebatably the most deep. From a character's favorite brand of coffee to the names of far off foreign dignitaries, it's more likely than not that it's been defined in Star Trek. As far as consistency, that's a little more troublesome, but at least it's generally been treated as important.
Throwing away all that basically throws away what Star Trek is. What about it is really interesting other than it's back story? If you want to remove all of that, just make another god-damn scifi, you may as well, since all you'd be left with is the name.
Look at the new Battlestar Galactica -- Ronald D. Moore took the old BSG "canon" and completely ignored it. He realized that from a storytelling standpoint it would be too limiting to bother sticking with the old story -- after the destruction of nearly every human being, going to a "casino planet" is a betrayal of what could be an incredible storyline. RDM took the essence of what BSG was -- humanity is on the run against an insidious and implacable enemy and reduced it to its essentials. The result is infinitely better than what came before.
As I said above, ST isn't BSG. There wasn't much to keep from the first BSG, there would have been absolutely no point to carrying over the canon from it. It would have also tied it to a rather cliche and badly aged scifi. Restarting it was great, but you really can't think this would be good for Star Trek.
I hope J.J. Abrams has the pure chutzpah to do just that with Star Trek. Reinvent the franchise. Give it new life. Change things around and craft a story that can attract a new generation of fans rather than appealing to the people who spend all their life studying the minutiae of the shows.
You mean, exactly like Enterprise? They even had nude Vulcans, black ops and sports! Sorry, no. It failed for a reason: if you don't like Star Trek, it's not for you. No amount of 'reboots' can make it for you. Trying to sell it to the masses just annoys the hardcore fans and causes a tank like Ent.
Is it any wonder that Ent is said to have gotten better near the end, when it went back to the old DS9/TNG type story lines, that had a meaning in the canon? Had it been that way from the start, it may still exist today.
If LiveJournal does something that you find intolerably stupid, then quit and go post on their competition's web site.
That doesn't make what they do right. Also, you can use the same argument in support of anything the government does- and many do. That doesn't make them right, why would it make you right?
Being legally acceptable doesn't make it morally acceptable or publicly acceptable, and we shouldn't treat it as if it does, lest we instill the idea that laws = morals and morals = laws.
Except for the fact that you'll get sued if you become too popular doing that. With the majority of music in existence now belonging to the RIAA in some way, I'd be easy for them to argue you violated their "copyright". I read a few stories about this already, and there isn't even any treat to them now.
Well, I do have to agree some things maybe nice- a common basic API interface between code and gnome/KDE/xfce- leaving more complex parts to be handled on a per-desktop basis (maybe not at all, depending on the program). I don't really program apps like that, but as far as I know such does not exist.
Different apps isn't really a problem for most people (you have to remember, most people just use what comes with the computer) but apps acting strange is. There are some cases where an app is only for 1 (or worse, just x directly) and odd things happen when used on another. Some distros are better than others in this area- no problems with Ubuntu, but I had missing taskbar icons and some strange font problems on fedora. Gnome->KDE also seems to work better than KDE->Gnome.
While different GUIs are here to stay and for good reason, we could still treat the negative symptoms better than we are now.
This isn't exactly DRM. Nether has it been adapted by the FSF at all, nor endorsed by any FSF members or important developers that I know of. I'd hardly say that it has been decided that "the GPL needs DRM". This is really little more than someone yelling "hey look what I did!" and a sensational slashdot article toting it as a way to detect "GPL theft".
The world is not ending, what you always predicted is not true. Put down the pitchforks and return to your homes.
While they may claim that, I think the source code part is more about functionality. Since we lack the same development abilities as companies like Microsoft, the best way to develop is the open method; it avoids "dead ends" when a project dies, helps find errors and generate fixes to them, allows more people to help than would normally be 'allowed', allows code reuse and gives free software another selling point (you can change it easily to do whatever you want).
It's more about competition than ideals as far as I (a GPL software developer) care. The fact that it's open is nice, for all of those reasons, but I don't want to keep copyright around just to preserve them; it has many more downsides for everyone.
So what GUI do we pick? This is always the question when it comes to "Can't we just agree on something" arguments. And really, theres only 1 kernel only because only that kernel is Linux. Compare the BSDs, that do very similar things to Linux, and you'll see that the kernel and GUI state of affairs aren't much different.
It seems the folks on/. have a problem with Java for the very reason that it is accepted by businesses. There is a strong anti-business, anti-management sentiment here, to the point that anything actually liked by business (i.e. PHBs) must by definition be bad.
Not too long ago, C++ was the most accepted. It's still accepted as the best for many tasks. I haven't been here that long, nor on the internet, but I don't think there was a mass dislike of C/C++ when it was 'king'.
Re:We have everything we need... almost
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
You mean, like bit-torrent was blocked? It's not that complex to bypass 99% of ISP blocks, simple random port usage and weak encryption (strong SHOULD already exist in such a program) will get right past those. I don't personally see a way ISPs could block such a program, short of requiring certs of some kind for every out-going connection, and I still have enough faith in Americans to think that this would be killed within the first week.
Starting with the the assumption that it is OK to take stuff without paying for it from "evil corporations", it isn't that far from saying it is OK to take your stuff without paying for it as well. If I can get away with it as easily as I can take music and movies.
You seem to be confusing a few things.
"Taking" something requires you remove that item from someone else. If I walk into best buy and steal a CD, I am illegally taking (stealing) that CD. However, violating copyright is very different.
When I download the contents off the internet, they are not removed from anyone. The closest that can be argued is that the uploader has possibly deprived the copyright holder of a possible sale. Sane legal systems and laws generally are not built around speculation and fake senses of entitlement.
It cannot be reasonably said that this is stealing, even if you don't agree with it. I don't like bank robbery, but I don't call it murder just because I dislike it. To call it stealing is ether proof you don't understand what stealing is, or are so bias to the control of information that you really see someone reproducing bits as stealing them from you. Also, saying that copyright violation is stealing only stands to trivialize real stealing.
Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."
Actually it's a whole lot more simple: understand what you are using. Many times I have had people with no technical sense ask me if links I sent them on IM programs, to jpgs or gifs (clearly so in the link) were "viruses". At worst, if you are not using crap to look at the internet, they could have been the last measure... and that's easily handled if you have enough technical knowledge. Most problems people encounter on the internet aren't because they are too open, but because they do things not technically advisable; use IE, run exes that randomly start downloading, install known spyware, etc.
The same people with the fortress mentality have messaged me once or twice (after I encountered their paranoia) asking me how to remove viruses or spyware. Just proof paranoia != security, and security != paranoia.
You probably would be. Until you lost your job because the economy died there. Removing a large part of any economy is a bad idea in most cases, regardless of how much you dislike it.
Maybe if you spent the time to not leave your system open to everyone on the internet, that wouldn't be a problem. Maybe if you had the sense to unplug the webcam, that wouldn't have happened.
In any case, getting hacked and getting trolled are 2 different things, equating them shows you don't understand the definition of one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
But they can turn right around and blow a few million on a landing strip for their personal jets. Yeah Google is really short on cash.
Star Trek isn't BSG. I like BSG, but Star Trek isn't it. It's also not Star Wars (thank goodness). Star Trek is the most true to being a geek scifi, rather than a Kung-Fu/Military Drama/Pirate show with a scifi theme. What comes with that territory is a strong desire for consistency and depth.
Of all TV, Star Trek is almost undebatably the most deep. From a character's favorite brand of coffee to the names of far off foreign dignitaries, it's more likely than not that it's been defined in Star Trek. As far as consistency, that's a little more troublesome, but at least it's generally been treated as important.
Throwing away all that basically throws away what Star Trek is. What about it is really interesting other than it's back story? If you want to remove all of that, just make another god-damn scifi, you may as well, since all you'd be left with is the name. As I said above, ST isn't BSG. There wasn't much to keep from the first BSG, there would have been absolutely no point to carrying over the canon from it. It would have also tied it to a rather cliche and badly aged scifi. Restarting it was great, but you really can't think this would be good for Star Trek. You mean, exactly like Enterprise? They even had nude Vulcans, black ops and sports! Sorry, no. It failed for a reason: if you don't like Star Trek, it's not for you. No amount of 'reboots' can make it for you. Trying to sell it to the masses just annoys the hardcore fans and causes a tank like Ent.
Is it any wonder that Ent is said to have gotten better near the end, when it went back to the old DS9/TNG type story lines, that had a meaning in the canon? Had it been that way from the start, it may still exist today.
Personally I find it fascinating, Jim. May I call you Jim?
Being legally acceptable doesn't make it morally acceptable or publicly acceptable, and we shouldn't treat it as if it does, lest we instill the idea that laws = morals and morals = laws.
Threat, not treat. Funny how 1 letter can totally change the meaning of a sentence...
Except for the fact that you'll get sued if you become too popular doing that. With the majority of music in existence now belonging to the RIAA in some way, I'd be easy for them to argue you violated their "copyright". I read a few stories about this already, and there isn't even any treat to them now.
I've been in 3 different places with comcast, all blocked port 25. 2 in Pennsylvania and one in Maryland.
Well, I do have to agree some things maybe nice- a common basic API interface between code and gnome/KDE/xfce- leaving more complex parts to be handled on a per-desktop basis (maybe not at all, depending on the program). I don't really program apps like that, but as far as I know such does not exist.
Different apps isn't really a problem for most people (you have to remember, most people just use what comes with the computer) but apps acting strange is. There are some cases where an app is only for 1 (or worse, just x directly) and odd things happen when used on another. Some distros are better than others in this area- no problems with Ubuntu, but I had missing taskbar icons and some strange font problems on fedora. Gnome->KDE also seems to work better than KDE->Gnome.
While different GUIs are here to stay and for good reason, we could still treat the negative symptoms better than we are now.
This isn't exactly DRM. Nether has it been adapted by the FSF at all, nor endorsed by any FSF members or important developers that I know of. I'd hardly say that it has been decided that "the GPL needs DRM". This is really little more than someone yelling "hey look what I did!" and a sensational slashdot article toting it as a way to detect "GPL theft".
The world is not ending, what you always predicted is not true. Put down the pitchforks and return to your homes.
And I am sure as soon as we have a global language, someone will have that answer.
While they may claim that, I think the source code part is more about functionality. Since we lack the same development abilities as companies like Microsoft, the best way to develop is the open method; it avoids "dead ends" when a project dies, helps find errors and generate fixes to them, allows more people to help than would normally be 'allowed', allows code reuse and gives free software another selling point (you can change it easily to do whatever you want).
It's more about competition than ideals as far as I (a GPL software developer) care. The fact that it's open is nice, for all of those reasons, but I don't want to keep copyright around just to preserve them; it has many more downsides for everyone.
So what GUI do we pick? This is always the question when it comes to "Can't we just agree on something" arguments. And really, theres only 1 kernel only because only that kernel is Linux. Compare the BSDs, that do very similar things to Linux, and you'll see that the kernel and GUI state of affairs aren't much different.
Just be glad they didn't find this on Uranus.
Yep, looks like your Linux has been cracked. Someone sunk in and installed Windows over it. Bastards, why couldn't they just take credit card numbers?
itz jut dat u old ppl cnt get wut uz yung ppl r sain lik omg u dun even no wut nob meenz lol
/myspaceianese
I may not be him, but theres a lot of info here: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng
You mean, like bit-torrent was blocked? It's not that complex to bypass 99% of ISP blocks, simple random port usage and weak encryption (strong SHOULD already exist in such a program) will get right past those. I don't personally see a way ISPs could block such a program, short of requiring certs of some kind for every out-going connection, and I still have enough faith in Americans to think that this would be killed within the first week.
You seem to be confusing a few things.
"Taking" something requires you remove that item from someone else. If I walk into best buy and steal a CD, I am illegally taking (stealing) that CD. However, violating copyright is very different.
When I download the contents off the internet, they are not removed from anyone. The closest that can be argued is that the uploader has possibly deprived the copyright holder of a possible sale. Sane legal systems and laws generally are not built around speculation and fake senses of entitlement.
It cannot be reasonably said that this is stealing, even if you don't agree with it. I don't like bank robbery, but I don't call it murder just because I dislike it. To call it stealing is ether proof you don't understand what stealing is, or are so bias to the control of information that you really see someone reproducing bits as stealing them from you. Also, saying that copyright violation is stealing only stands to trivialize real stealing.
Actually it's a whole lot more simple: understand what you are using. Many times I have had people with no technical sense ask me if links I sent them on IM programs, to jpgs or gifs (clearly so in the link) were "viruses". At worst, if you are not using crap to look at the internet, they could have been the last measure... and that's easily handled if you have enough technical knowledge. Most problems people encounter on the internet aren't because they are too open, but because they do things not technically advisable; use IE, run exes that randomly start downloading, install known spyware, etc.
The same people with the fortress mentality have messaged me once or twice (after I encountered their paranoia) asking me how to remove viruses or spyware. Just proof paranoia != security, and security != paranoia.
Would be a middle-aged Scottish man to sit in the middle of it with an intercom to say "She canna' take it any more!" when usage gets high.
...That America still believes in exporting freedom, even if it hurts them.
[/Sarcasm]
You probably would be. Until you lost your job because the economy died there. Removing a large part of any economy is a bad idea in most cases, regardless of how much you dislike it.
50$ in the right person's pocket.
Maybe if you spent the time to not leave your system open to everyone on the internet, that wouldn't be a problem. Maybe if you had the sense to unplug the webcam, that wouldn't have happened.
In any case, getting hacked and getting trolled are 2 different things, equating them shows you don't understand the definition of one of them.