While it was pitched that way it actually dealt heavily with various political and ethical issues. That was what made it great, sure there was technobabble and bits of "space western" mixed in but overall it was speculation about the future and the present.

The "new trek" is just action movies IN SPACE which makes it "sci-fi" in the eyes of Hollywood.

Seriously, if you're still using tables for layout you probably shouldn't be doing web development.

Tables are horrible to work with yet I still see horribly hacked-up amateurish table-based layouts that are almost impossible to modify and work with cranked out by developers who should either consider that HTML has changed since 1999 or stick to writing server-side code.

Based on my experience I suspect you also never use <!DOCTYPE> tags, use deprecated elements, nest your elements in nearly unparseable ways and don't quite grasp how to write even basic JavaScript (I'm not claiming to be a JS expert but the incredibly poor quality of JS that some people with CS degrees and 10+ years of experience come up with makes me wonder how they have jobs in the first place).

Except the UI for GIMP is a pain to work with. Photoshop's UI may not be perfect but it's a lot better than GIMP's UI.

GIMP suffers from having a UI designed by programmers, what it really needs is a complete UI redesign (and it needs to be the default UI for the latest and greatest version, not some GIMP-with-a-decent-UI fork that's two versions behind and suddenly doesn't get updated anymore).

In fact, it needs a UI which is not just almost as good as Photoshop's, it needs to be good enough that an experienced Photoshop user's initial reaction to it is "Huh, this is different but I like it" (right now it's closer to "Why is this user interface such a mess? Why should I take the time to learn this?").

Oh yeah, because double NAT always works so well, especially when the end-user's precious uPnP is no longer a viable option.

There will be a lot more issues with CGNAT than with end-user-controlled NAT (just another example: services which assume "one user = one IP", works fine when your home connection is shared with one or two others, doesn't work so well when you're sharing an IPv4 address with dozens of other users).

Well, if Adobe thought they had real competition they'd probably feel the need to be competitive, one way to do that is by having cheaper and less restrictive licensing.

That said, I think Apple would do a better job, Aperture is downright reasonably priced and IMHO the UI for Aperture is better than Lightroom (not that it doesn't have its flaws, I'm just talking about the general workflow).

I'd say a lot of Adobe CS users are just as locked to Adobe's software as Windows users many times are.

However, this could change quickly if someone decided to put a lot of effort (and money) into developing a viable alternative to Adobe's software (especially Photoshop, while there are currently alternatives on the market Photoshop is definitely the baseline that other software is compared to).

I really wouldn't mind if say, Apple and Autodesk both decided to take a stab at creating their own Photoshop competitors. They both understand the target user to some degree.

Well, it depends on whether you're uploading something which others can see and also whether the persons you've filmed/photographed are clearly the subjects in your video/photo or just random people who happened to be there.

If you stick a camera in someone's face and then upload it for the world to see then yeah, you need permission. If it's a newsworthy event, a celebrity/politician or simply that the person was in the background when your friend did something funny then you don't need permission to upload it.

Here in Sweden you're allowed to photograph or film anyone in public as long as you aren't specifically harassing them. Publishing photos on the other hand...

I started out with SV-BASIC which was really just a BASIC interpreter for the Spectravideo SV-328 MkII I had.

Next up was MS-DOS and PC-DOS, somewhere along the way I installed Windows 3.1 and then 3.11 for workgroups.

Eventually I felt forced to move to Windows 95. Somewhere around the time that Window 98 was released I started using Linux (Initially Red Hat but I seemed to switch distros about once every couple of weeks at the time).

For a while I dual-booted Windows 2000 and FreeBSD. I also had a couple of Indigo^2s with IRIX 6.5, still have them in storage but haven't used them in ages.

I had a laptop that pretty much required Windows XP due to major driver issues but still ran FreeBSD and Debian on other machines.

In 2006 I bought a 24" iMac to use as my main workstation and I've been on OS X ever since (while still running FreeBSD and Debian on other machines as well as having a lab desktop I've run quite a lot of different *nix operating systems on just to check them out. Oh, and a Windows VM for those rare occasions when Windows is actually needed).

Well, the Russian Air Force definitely doesn't have the same readiness that the US Air Force has but AFAIK they should still be able to keep several Il-78 tankers in the air which should be plenty to give their strategic bombers protection (officially they have something like 15 - 20 tankers and even considering the poor shape that parts of the Russian military is in at least half of those should be operational). As for the strategic bombers themselves, both the Tu-95 and the Tu-160 have an operational range in excess of 10,000 km without refueling. I suspect they'd still hurry up and ferry aircraft eastward (if they haven't already started doing so just in case, one of the reasons the conflict in Georgia in 2008 went the way it did was because the Russians had a considerable number of troops ready not far from the border).

Then there's the matter of ground-based AA sites, most of North Korea's AA is around Pyongyang, the DMZ and the area just north of the DMZ, what they've got in the north of the country is little more than a token force and the combat readiness of a their equipment seems to be a lot worse than it is for Russia. There's also the fuel and ammunition issue that I mentioned, waging a long-range air war would definitely be costly for the Russians but they could do it, the North Koreans on the other would quickly run out of fuel with small chances of getting more. Combine this with the fact that a large part of the North Korean fleet is made up of planes so old they are just barely capable of carrying air-to-air missiles and I just find it hard to believe they'd stand much of a chance of doing serious damage before Russia strikes back. Admittedly North Korea does have a few S-300-derived SAM launchers but Russia has close to a thousand S-300 launchers as well as a few S-400-equipped battalions, including one stationed near Vladivostok.

I don't doubt that in terms of lost aircraft and soldiers a war with North Korea could easily be more costly for Russia than for the US but I suspect if it did happen the Russians could still do a lot of damage quickly. There's also the political side of things, if it did happen Russia would probably like to occupy a decent-sized chunk of North Korea before the international community intervenes in any way to avoid having a US ally right on their doorstep (I doubt the international community would side with North Korea but from Russia's perspective it'd be better to at least already have their own "peacekeepers" controlling North Hamgyong rather than UN/US forces within spitting distance of the current border).

Of course, I'm just speculating but I just don't see North Korea standing a chance against any of their neighbors in a all-out conventional conflict, were it not for the ROK being a US ally that would probably be their best shot, Russia and China are both capable of hitting them way too hard if North Korea tries anything though I doubt either one really wants to get involved in a war with North Korea precisely because it would be the kind of war that's less about precision strikes and more about taking out large amount of troops, equipment and infrastructure. To be honest I think the risk of a war on the Korean peninsula turning into another Iraq or Vietnam is slim, they have no strong allies like Vietnam and culturally and politically the situation in Iraq was completely different (North Korea's neighbors are a lot more stable than the Iraq and any power vacuum in a conquered North Korea could be dealt with more like Germany post-WWII, a de-juchefication similar to the sometimes overly pragmatic de-nazification of Germany would probably be the way to go).

Even Russia's old gear is more modern than the vast majority of North Korea's gear. North Korea's best fighter is the MiG-29, of which they have 40, it's a downgraded export model at that. The Russians by comparison have more than 200 MiG-29 fighters, many of which have been or are being upgraded with modern hardware. In total the Russians have almost 700 fighters and interceptors, all of which are superior to anything the North Koreans have. On top of this they have close to 150 bombers (mostly Tu-22M bombers but a healthy complement of strategic bombers as well (Tu-95 and Tu-160)).

If North Korea did strike Russia I suspect the Russians would quickly establish air superiority and use their bomber fleet to flatten any North Korean attempts at advancing or defending. Not to mention that while Russia has no problem finding fuel for its aircraft, tanks and other vehicles the North Koreans have a lot of their much-feared artillery placed in the southern parts of the country, with Russian air superiority and barely any fuel I doubt they'd be able to execute any major troop movements.

On top of this are geographical considerations, the land border between North Korea and Russia is something like 20 km long and in order to move troops trough it you pretty much have to have air superiority, in my opinion it would be nearly impossible for North Korea to mount any kind of advance through the narrow corridor north to Vladivostok. In fact, I think it is likely that the Russians would be able to push the North Koreans back beyond the border pretty quickly once they establish air superiority, they can effectively hinder nearly all troop movements by the North Koreans and just use air power to minimize resistance since the North Koreans have nothing worth mentioning to counter the Russians with (unless we're counting their aging MiG-21, F-5, F-6 and F-7 fighters which make up 400+ of their 500 or so fighters, not to mention that a very large portion of their air force is grounded due to poor maintenance (for some plane types I believe it's more than 50% of the planes which are estimated to be completely useless, not that an F-5 with nothing but a cannon is very useful anyway these days)).

In my experience getting a 90+ minute movie down to less than 3 GB @ 1080p leaves too many visible compression artifacts.

Unless you're talking animation it's pretty common to end up with just under 500 MB for a 20-minute episode of a TV show at 720p. Animation will generally compress better though (less than 250 MB per 20-minute episode for 720p is common).

Well, considering that you're looking at ~1 GB per episode for a lot of shows (@720p) it adds up quickly. 10 shows, 20 episodes per season, only the two most recent seasons per show and you're already likely to need a 500 GB drive. Now, let's say you've got five seasons of a couple of these shows, seven of another, one show with 1.5-2 GB episodes...

Then you add a few movies into the mix, 20 movies at 6-8 GB each (1080p) and that's another couple of hundred gigs.

I've actually seen non-swedes try to use variations of it as an insult directed at swedes. They tend to get confused by the lack of reaction...

"Skiten" is "the shit". "Skit" is "shit".

"Jävel/Djävel" means devil or demon so not exactly "motherfucker" but then I've never heard anyone who has Swedish as his/her native language call anyone a "mammaknullare" (I suspect mainly because in Swedish culture insulting someone's mother really isn't that big a deal while for some immigrants coming from cultures with a different view on this it seems like a good insult).