Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What a nightmare (Score 1) 324

There's too much retcon in Trek to suggest that the canon might be immutable.

Not gonna lie .. had to look up retcon.

Vulcan was destroyed by time traveling angry Romulans. There is no 'ret' to 'con' ... they wiped out the future history of pretty much everything about James T Kirk, Spock, The Federation ,,, the canon was burned so completely they have a lot of room to do anything they want.

Like, for example, the theme song to Enterprise

LOL, I didn't see Enterprise until it was in syndication ... and once you got over 'nipple Vulcan' and up to at least the middle of season two I actually started to like it. But, yeah. It wasn't for everybody, and took a while to find its footing.

They made exciting movies, but I don't want to watch them again, because they had no substance.

Well, I won't argue the point. It was escapism and action since I'm a fan of both. However, the market wants that, and it sells tickets ... because most people have no substance.

But, sooner or later, we can hope that someone will remember they're making a Star Trek, and that Roddenberry had some really great vision, and to try to stick with that.

In the meantime, I will accept a romantic relationship between Spock and Uhura as a placeholder, and some really good action sequences.

Yes, I want Trek to tackle big issues. But, dammit, I want action sequences, and sex with green chicks. And the first two have done that.

The third is now so completely freed from specific expectation that they (hopefully) will make an awesome movie which satisfies a lot of people. If they don't ... well, then Star Trek has pretty much turned into Star Wars, and will be driven into the ground in the same way.

So, I liked the first two of the reboot, and they're still in the process of establishing the "new" Trek universe. But look at where that took Marvel with both the Avengers and X-Men. They have all the room they need to define it and run with it. We have Earth, and we have Klingons in a now very explicitly alternate universe ... and that's a *lot*.

If you put it in the hands of people who are fans, they'll make good movies if you let them. So while I'm afraid Star Trek movies will become simply action/space opera ... I really hope they do something more. But, if the best they do is some action films ... well, I might buy them in the sale bin of DVDs.

Comment: Re:No, not "in other words" ... (Score 1) 290

by gstoddart (#48661647) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

I guess I disagree that they are "acting like assholes" by regulating resources on their property to benefit their business.

Except communications spectrum and devices aren't their fucking resources to regulate or control.

And the FCC has long said you can't block someone else's signal, especially just to boost your own business.

In your car analogy ... this isn't Ford's stall. Marriott do not own the airwaves. Marriott has to use it under the same damned terms as the rest of us.

And those terms explicitly don't allow what they're trying to do.

Comment: Re:What a nightmare (Score 3, Insightful) 324

Dude, you're far too wedded to the canon you've built up as something immutable.

As a long time Trek geek ... I like the fact that they basically burned the canon and made it so they can do anything they want to.

Because now they can focus on making (hopefully good) movies without every nerd in the world going apeshit and whining that something isn't consistent with the original series or some bit of fanboi Trek porn they read.

Comment: Re:No, not "in other words" ... (Score 3, Insightful) 290

by gstoddart (#48661213) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

We don't live in a Socialist State.

No, entrenching the right for corporations to act like assholes to maximize their profits means you live in an oligarchy.

Which is far worse than living in a socialist state.

You sure as hell don't live in the free market state most Americans seem to believe in either.

Perhaps this is "Corporate Assholes" trying to monetize their investment in their hotel property and make money as most businesses are created to do?

Basically they want an exemption from FCC regulations in order to get customer lock in. They want to be able to block competing services so customers have no choice but to pay them money.

There's a huge difference between wanting to have their own service, and wanting the ability to block someone else's.

But, hey, enjoy your corporate douchebag overlords.

Comment: Re:Goatse filtering is a feature (Score 3, Insightful) 285

by gstoddart (#48661115) Attached to: BT, Sky, and Virgin Enforce UK Porn Blocks By Hijacking Browsers

Actually its the mark of a statist/totalitarian masquerading as a Conservative

Yawn, whatever. This is the same "no true Scottsman" crap, because there is no universal definition, and I suspect among themselves 'conservatives' can't agree on a definition.

Hate the sin, NOT the sinner

See, the problem is you still define it in terms of your own damned religion.

So, I'll go with "hate the religious idiot, not the religion".

Any 'Conservative' or religious person who wishes to outlaw stuff on the basis of their religion is worthy of as much contempt as the Taliban, and are little different in my opinion. They're just someone who thinks their religious beliefs should be entrenched in law, and who want reality to be defined in terms of their beliefs.

But, unmistakably, a lot of people who are 'conservatives' (whatever the heck that means) are opposed to government restricting rights, unless it's to impose their own beliefs. And then they're totally fine with it.

So, to exercise my freedom of speech ... to hell with your religion. You are free to believe what you like in private, but leave the rest of us alone.

Comment: In other words ... (Score 3, Insightful) 290

by gstoddart (#48660915) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi


"We need rent seeking and the ability to limit outside competition so we can maximize profits."

Sorry, but this is just corporate assholes asking to be treated as special.

And, of course, government will hand it right over to them, because all politicians worship at the altar of corporate profits being entrenched into law. Even the ones who claim to be in favor of free markets.

The only free market is how much the fucking lobbyists pay to buy laws. Because that avoids public scrutiny.

Comment: Re:Goatse filtering is a feature (Score 2) 285

by gstoddart (#48660155) Attached to: BT, Sky, and Virgin Enforce UK Porn Blocks By Hijacking Browsers

Conservative parents might disagree.

Well, then why don't Conservative parents fuck off, do their own parenting, and not insist on foisting laws on the rest of us to keep care of their children?

Outlawing everything you find personally objectionable or that you don't want your children to see if the mark of an asshole.

United Kingdom

BT, Sky, and Virgin Enforce UK Porn Blocks By Hijacking Browsers 285

Posted by timothy
from the big-enough-to-give-you-what-you-want dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this story at Ars Technica, excerpting: BT, Sky, and Virgin Media are hijacking people's web connections to force customers to make a decision about family-friendly web filters. The move comes as the December deadline imposed by prime minister David Cameron looms, with ISPs struggling to get customers to say yes or no to the controversial adult content blocks. The messages, which vary by ISP, appear during browser sessions when a user tries to access any website. BT, Sky,TalkTalk and Virgin Media are required to ask all their customers if they want web filters turned on or off, with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children. But the measures being taken by ISPs have been described as "completely unnecessary" and "heavy handed" by Internet rights groups. The hijacking works by intercepting requests for unencrypted websites and rerouting a user to a different page. ISPs are using the technique to communicate with all undecided customers. Attempting to visit, for example, could result in a user being redirected to a page asking them about web filtering. ISPs cannot intercept requests for encrypted websites in the same way.

Comment: Re:And who will collect the trash? (Score 1) 434

by gstoddart (#48659971) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

They wont need to collect the trash since they will be floating in international waters with no regulations, they will just throw it overboard and let us deal with it.

And they will claim that if the free market desires cleaning this stuff up, it will find an optimal solution.

Because they'll be just as deluded on their floating Ayn Rand Utopia as they are in real life.

Ayn Rand ... providing a manual and justification for being an epic douchebag and a rabid moron for decades.

Comment: Re:Hollywod Accounting (Score 3, Insightful) 161

by gstoddart (#48659931) Attached to: 'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

Ah, but remember, it cost a lot to make a massively profitable movie look like it lost money. A small independent film might not have the resources to commit fraud on such a scale as the Hollywood guys do.

It's like Wall Street, the small player lacks the ability to rob people nearly as efficiently as the big players do.

Remember, this movie might not be a "major blockbuster", so there might not have been as much money allocated to the "hide the money" campaign.

Comment: Re:What's next? (Score 1) 188

by gstoddart (#48659749) Attached to: An Automated Cat Litter Box With DRM

The Keurig 2.0 has the "only drink liquids specified by the manufacturer" part down already.

Well, technically they only control the container which creates a solution from whatever liquid you put into the coffee maker.

You would, for example, be perfectly free to put beer in your Keurig to brew coffee with.

Or pee in someone else's.
