Well...it's economic, but I guess not in the way one might immediately think. The number of grandma's that change ISPs for said benefit may or may not be low. HOWEVER, much like US eDiscovery law strategies, sometimes it is far far far safer for a company to keep nothing (or very little) based upon a company policy, rather than get sued for an email from 9 years ago.

Actually, just got started with one - IT compliance for a fairly large entity. Oddly, the CIP standards are vaguely comforting. They are at least a stationary target.

I came from six years in the financial sector--GLBA is more like trying to find a black cat at the bottom of a coal mine. Totally subjective, with examiner skill level ALL over the map.

Anyway, send me an email if you want to commiserate sometime. jbaxter at my website domain name.

Not a bot...just deal with the CIP standards daily. NERC is walking a tightrope between a calcified industry and FERC power grabs.

Uh...don't believe everything that FERC says, either to you or to Congress...

What no Vista jokes yet? Must be the Slashdot holiday skeleton crew...

I'm not interested until they make one that goes to eleven.

Yeah...but...this one goes to eleven.

You know, seems like only the guilty flee when no one pursues--I'm like you, I didn't get any particular preachiness in the Ender series. And here I thought I was just enjoying a novel.

Wholly carp!

Awesome on the D.

My poorly-constructed main point was that, although it well-documented now, there didn't seem to be a consensus among the original writers as to the way warp worked. I tried to find some reference points, but I couldn't--which may simply mean that I'm mistaken. :)

I do remember the big deal that was made of making a warp turn in "Balance of Terror" (I *think*) as though it were some crazy new thing...of course, that could just be because the Romulans didn't have warp capability. Anyway, my impression is that the concept started out very broadly and has been narrowed down over the years to a fairly "well-explained" set of rules.

You win.

My thought is that the concept of warping space and then moving at a sub-light speed (relative) was too hard for the average viewer to understand, so they had to *become* engines...

I don't understand why you think *I* think there's a dichotomy. *I* get how the ship supposedly works. I was ONLY trying to get across in my original post the notion that early on and even in later days there has been a bit of confusion about it between the various script writers.

Seriously. I can't remember a time that I didn't watch and enjoy ST, even from my birth in '72. I even have a beaten up die-cast 1701 to prove it...

I wish you luck with your continued efforts!

Which is precisely why I said that most subsequent writers have not subscribed to that notion. :)

I think most of the original logs were based upon TOS plots (maybe four episodes per book?). Although as the Log numbers climbed into the teens they may have gotten into the Animated Series.

My thought is that the concept of warping space and then moving at a sub-light speed (relative) was too hard for the average viewer to understand, so they had to *become* engines... My main point simply being that a lot of the ST technical manual is fairly revisionistic.

Actually, I think the hydrogen was for the impulse engines...the matter/antimatter reactor was to generate enough power to energize the warp field. One of the old "Log" paperbacks even made a big deal that calling the warp nacelles "engines" was incorrect because they didn't have any motive power--they just created a warp field and the normal impulse engines moved the ship through it. This has obviously not been the take most of the writers had on the subject...