Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Curious (Score 1) 228

Who at CBS and Paramount is trying so avidly to destroy the Star Trek canon? After all, they released rights to J J Abrams and crew for their completely disruptive "reboot" of the franchise (complete with lens flares). And now that the creators of that canon have decided to try and continue the tradition of Gene Roddenberry, they decide to file suit. Clearly, Dr. Watson the game is a foot.

if you don't defend your patents, you lose them. Ask Bayer about aspirin sometime. Or Xerox.

Comment Re:setting precedent (Score 3, Insightful) 228

If materials science advanced to the point where a starship could get close to the speed of light without the crew becoming a sticky goo on the side of the corridors, remain in geostationary orbit, remain pressurized at one atmosphere even when orbiting a large star, I'd be rather worried if it couldn't handle the pressure increase going deep into the ocean.

Take your average 300 foot tall starship. The water pressure difference form top to bottom is 10 atmospheres. That becomes a rather serious issue in diving.

Comment Re:Nothing surprising.... (Score 1) 349

So that would fit into the category I mentioned in the third paragraph.

There is very little from a commercial productivity standpoint that you can do with Windows that you cannot also do with Linux using different software other than simply being what somebody is used to.

But not everyone wants to be bothered learning something new, so Linux is simply too inconvenient for many people.

While this is a perfectly valid reason to not use Linux, it is worth noting that this is more of a case of the user not being ready to use Linux than Linux not being ready for the end-user.

That's kind of like saying that expecting every car driver to be a garage mechanic is a reasonable proposition.

Comment Re:Hmpf. Probably 90% of the problems also apply . (Score 1) 349

I'm not a Mac user, so maybe I'm mistaken on this, but isn't OS X (and Apple in general) rather infamous for not letting users configure things very much?

A typical user, yeah - the options are plentiful, but not all-encompassing.

However, if you have admin rights on the box, changing any aspect of OSX' behavior is just a text editor and the right .plist file away.

Also with the right commands or hackware a bunch of normally invisible files and folders become visible and ready for your miscreance.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 563

So, Gene, a Hippie on the left, had a dream vision of the future. Laudable, certainly. Peace, brotherhood, and many evils of society worked out.

Except that he wasn't really. He was what's rapidly becoming an extinct breed of Republican... the Nixonian strain which was highly conservative on many social issues, but progressive on others such as environment and a restraint on greed. If you look closely at TOS, the show clearly is dismissive of the counter culture movements of the day, and was strongly supportive of American involvement in IndoChina. Roddenberry's ideals were highly drawn from the white picket fence culture of the 50's... and like many of his generation were put off the 60's radicals. And Roddenberry's TOS... clearly used money in all it's forms.

Keep in mind that by the time TOS is on the air, Roddenberry had already been eased out of being the big decider after the nearly fatal disaster of the production of the first Trek movie. He remained the titular patriarch of the franchise, but was increasingly relegated to a figurehead role. The money-free ideal of Picard's World is a creation of later minds.

Correction on that that should have been TNG instead of TOS in the second paragraph

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 563

So, Gene, a Hippie on the left, had a dream vision of the future. Laudable, certainly. Peace, brotherhood, and many evils of society worked out.

Except that he wasn't really. He was what's rapidly becoming an extinct breed of Republican... the Nixonian strain which was highly conservative on many social issues, but progressive on others such as environment and a restraint on greed. If you look closely at TOS, the show clearly is dismissive of the counter culture movements of the day, and was strongly supportive of American involvement in IndoChina. Roddenberry's ideals were highly drawn from the white picket fence culture of the 50's... and like many of his generation were put off the 60's radicals. And Roddenberry's TOS... clearly used money in all it's forms.

Keep in mind that by the time TOS is on the air, Roddenberry had already been eased out of being the big decider after the nearly fatal disaster of the production of the first Trek movie. He remained the titular patriarch of the franchise, but was increasingly relegated to a figurehead role. The money-free ideal of Picard's World is a creation of later minds.

Comment Piece of irony.... (Score 1) 563

.

Money's article shows a picture of TOS Kirk and Spock. Back in those days the Federation was clearly STILL using money as Spock was about to give Kirk a figure for the cost of their training down to the tenth-credit before Kirk stopped him, when he was replying to Kirk's rhetorical question.

.

The money thing was still an issue as Roddenberry was a diehard capitalist back in the day, a firm believer in Big Buisness, when David Gerrold was firmly told that his idea of a corporation for the Big Bad in "Trouble With Tribbles" was a no-go. It's really hard to imagine how the Federation of TOS could have evolved into the self-righteous Utopia of Picard's time, other than admitting it's all due to a different generation of authors..

Comment Re:Unlimited Energy (Score 1) 563

That's stated but never really supported or fully explored. None of the obvious implications of it seem to really exist in Trek. One glaring example is how a brilliant legacy candidate could not easily get into Starfleet academy on the first try, or why people even bother with Starfleet to begin with.

Yet oddly enough a misfit like Barclay somehow made it in. People should know better by now that Trek will throw versimilitude, logic, or consistency to the wind in order to admit next week's mediocre plot.

Comment Re:relative wealth (Score 5, Insightful) 563

No, we really aren't. If anything, basic necessities in the western world are getting more expensive.

And you base this on what? Adjusted for inflation, food is cheaper than it's ever been. Luxury items (for example, smartphones, computers, big screen televisions) are affordable by basically everybody now. 100 years ago, poverty meant you were starving because you couldn't afford to eat.

Today poverty means you have a house, plenty of food, and can afford your own means of transportation (in less urbanized areas, that means owning your own car) and probably a few (though not necessarily many) luxury items. The biggest thing separating poor from rich these days is how expensive your house and/or your car is.

You base it on the fact that the costs of basic necessities is a greater percentage of a working income than it ever has been. 20 years ago, a working man could pay for his rent with one week's salary. Now on the average it costs 2 weeks or more... and that's before you've paid for other necessties such as food, utilities, and car payments and gasoline. The upscale are paying much less of a percentage... but that's only because their grab of the pie has gotten so much larger. Poverty in modern America means that you're skipping behind in health maintenance, and you're not saving for retirement because the alternative is that you and your kids don't eat. And you're more likely to either not have health insurance, or have a plan which fail you when you need it most. There is much less upward mobility than there used to be a generation ago. And while food is cheaper than it used to be... it's of a much more long-term toxic variety for the lower classes who can't afford to shop at boutique grocery stores.

The future isn't Star Trek.... it's Shadowrun.... without the magic

Comment Re:Yet another proprietary API... (Score 1) 415

Anybody else think that Apple should ditch Metal in favour of Vulkan? If they want the latest games ported to Mac then they should use an open API that is used on other platforms.

But I am starting to think that maybe ports is not Apple's game... Maybe they want there to be almost only Apple-specific titles on Mac so that people wouldn't compare performance on Mac to that on PC or consoles. Now that they are known mostly for laptops and their desktop machines are also having laptop-grade internals then they are not going to be able to compete on graphics performance anyway.

Ports means you're writing to least common denominator. The point of Metal is to make use of the iPhone and Mac hardware. And big companies like Blizzard are already sigining up to do Metal games. What exactly would be the point to ditch Metal to use some kind of compromise multi-platform alternative that ... IS NOT EVEN OUT THE DOOR YET?

Comment Re:24/7 Live Global Radio (Score 2) 415

And why do the macbook pro laptops come out every year but the mac mini every two years or so? Maybe Apple should outsource low-profit products like mac mini to outside OEM's.

This was already tried in the days of the Mac clones. The clone makers had no interest in the low profit zone and instead tried to poach the high end customers instead. This was why the first thing Jobs did when he came back was to end the clone experiment.

Slashdot Top Deals

HOLY MACRO!

Working...