Quote:three million years ago, a radiation leak killed the crew of the mining ship, Red Dwarf. The only survivor was Dave Lister, the chicken soup machine repairman. He spends his time on the ship with a holographic projection of Arnold Rimmer (his dead bunkmate), Cat (a life-form that evolved from Dave's cat), Holly (the ship's senile computer), and Kryten (a service mechanoid). Written by Garrett Hobbs
The year is 2077. Dave Lister is a Liverpudlian caretaker working on-board "Red Dwarf" a gigantic space freighter traveling to Earth, the ship is commanded by Captain Ed Hollister. Lister is obsessed with eating curries and he irritates his pompous and cowardly boss and bunk-mate Arnold "Judas" Rimmer. Lister is sentenced to 6-months in suspended animation for smuggling his pet cat Frankenstine on-board. Lister awakes from suspended animation, only to find the crew have been wiped out in a radioactive disaster, he has been frozen for 3 million years and Red Dwarf is lost in the middle of deep space. But Lister is not alone on-board Red Dwarf. Also on-board Red Dwarf is: Holly, the ship's computer who has lost his intelligence after not being used for so long, A hologram simulation of Rimmer (A electronic ghost), The Cat, a humanoid that evolved from Lister's pet cat Frankenstine and Kryten, robot butler rescued from the American space cruiser 'Nova 5'.
Some old 1980's British sci-fi comedy I never heard of until this month, Sci-fi comedy has never really managed to gain acceptance on American tv, The only successful American made sci-fi comedies I can think of is futurama and 3rd Rock from the Sun (meh).
Red Dwarfs tacky low budget set and props make it even more funny, There is a number of episodes that paraody sci-fi films and shows, My favorite episode thus far is the season 3 premier " Backwards".
Quote:Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
Font size
Print
E-mail
Share
510 comments
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.
More proof, I suppose, that Americans were so drunk on this HOPE bullshit that they would have voted for Vladmir Putin if he ran on the Democrat ticket last November. Is this the CHANGE you wanted?
Apparently, it's unofficially announced. Nintendo Power might announce it in the next issue. Based on what was said previously from Nintendo:
"I think it wasn't as lucrative a venture to give third parties the responsibilities of our franchises in some cases. (Starfox, F-Zero)"
...that this next installment of the rail-shooter saga will come straight from Nintendo. My thoughts on it are that it's going to be multiplayer savvy and this might be the title that showcases Wiispeak and possibly a smoother online experience, which may mean this game will be branded with a T for teen especially if Krystal shows up and starts bouncing those furry ears of hers.
I also have a sneaky suspicion that on-foot krap will make an appearance but judging by the Landmaster appearance in SSB:B I think we'll see a lot of updates to older levels. Starfox 64 is, to this day, the best out of all of them and is the highest selling. So hopefully that shows Nintendo exactly where they need to focus.
If I find any blurbs or news i'll post it here, otherwise regard this as rumor.
I'm really hoping that health care/insurance reform can happen despite this... chances for it already seemed quite bad, but this might kill it. That just can't happen, it's far, far too important, and that would be disastrous. :(
I forgot about it, mostly because the ONSP hasn't been relevant since Clinton was in office, but the 13th marked the site's tenth birthday. Not that the site itself matters, but I met a fair number of you because of it, and I suppose that's something worth a little e-celebration.http://www.tcforums.com/guestbook.htm
Fanboys a side, the Wii is in trouble. And more so than it already was.
Right now, the 250 dollar Myfirstconsole that is the Wii has hit its ceiling and not in terms of graphics or gameplay. We've yet to see what the system that is "2.5" a Gamecube can do when the Gamecube can still impress with TP, RE4 and etc and I suspect by this time next year Zelda will give us that insight but I can tell you who wont be bringing it.
Any third party.
Why is that you may ask, with all the install base and the ability to cash in on something that brought two ii's in to our collective language.
Rip music, store and stream movies and download full games to its 60gig hard drive off a huge exclusive network, play proscan DVDs, jump in to the world's largest online gameplaying community with the option to actually interact with your friends and enemies and enjoy the best graphics to be seen since... ever and put it all in a package that's 50 bucks more than a Wii. Who are you going to develop for?
Sony said two years ago "oops" in regards to its PS3 and vowed to make it right and push the system back on track (read: not suck). After releasing the PSPGo and intelligently removing the ridiculously useless UMD feature and lining up software for it instead of just hoping that people want a second ipod, Sony unveiled the PS3Slim which amazingly enough is still the size of 4 Dreamcasts yet actually looks like a console now instead of a sunroof from a 89' Toyota.
50 bucks more than a Wii gets you in (80gig hdd), just like 360 and the kick in the pants for PS3 is that their constantly evolving Home network is finally getting off on both its legs, even though it still needs the wheelchair for long trips it's getting better and by this time next year will be a fully fledged contender for XBox's network. Laugh at it's inability to play PS2 games which doesn't matter since you already own a PS2 and raise an eyebrow to its Bluray instead and believe me once people get a look at what a Bluray movie looks like in comparison to old DVD a Bluray player with a built in videogame console will attract even mom and dad. Throw in a handful of exclusives, the same ports from 360 and all the set top box fun of an all-in-one entertainment hub and where do you want to spend your money?
The last fat nail in the coffin is motion control. All 3 contenders have it now. The coming '362', built in Bluray and "Natal" included in box and a PS3Slim with Eye2 and Bluray. Both asking you to spend a monthly bill for its services and both poised to rid your boredom. Mind you, either of those systems with their motion upgrades are going to be more expensive than Wii by at least $100 and probably more for launch supporters, but in a year from launch that wont be the case.
Wii is winning by a good margin and the world proved that it would rather spend 10 minutes playing Mario Kart (ignoring the superior Excitebots) or a quick game of Resort than play anything the PS3 or 360 can muster on its best day. Nintendo proved without a doubt that players want to expand and the market has grown but dont look at demographics or percentages here, there's Wii's in hospitals and not for the cancer patients, its for physical therapy and it works. It's daycares for children and the elderly a like and people that would have never picked up a controller bought Wii Fit in numbers to rival any Zelda release. How many consoles did you see on talk shows, news discussions, etc in a positive light in the last 4 years? Wii. And recently the 360 made its rounds with its motion controller and the PS3 is only mentioned in passing among people who buy gold tooth caps but is finally making some right decisions.
So that's great, Nintendo's 'Fitness machine' has grabbed the heart of millions at the cost of alienating everyone else in gaming. There's only one plausible outcome: The people who purchased Wii will want to expand and if Nintendo doesn't deliver on an expansion beyond that little cube at the end of the Wiimote they're going to upgrade to a 360 or PS3 and play some high def, 7.1 photo realistic archery and tennis while talking to their out of state girlfriend live on cam who's downloading the original Pacman that they'll play online together after the Blueray Watchmen live discussion all on the same damn machine that's only slightly more expensive than the Wii.
Nintendo is about to get their ass handed to them, or so it seems. But there's something to keep in mind: Nintendo knew all of his was coming and they're the reason we even throw around terms like in-game avatars, motion control and (dare i say it), market expansion. When they cleaned up their mess from Gamecube and unleashed shiny white hell on the masses they said upfront "We're going to reinvent the industry." and they did, there's no doubt and that's not with sarcasm. They're killing Ms and Sony with both hands tied behind their back and forcing both companies to blatantly admit defeat and formulate their own brand of Wii for their infinitely more powerful consoles and not only that, but a better version of what's capable on Wii that promises even more interactivity and you dont even need to hold a fucking controller.
This is beyond the typical Nintendo fix; Release a flagship IP. Nintendo can throw down new Zelda and Metroid in the face of 360's and PS3's motion controller, they can drop to $150, cut the Wii mote down to $30 with MotionPlus built in and beyond a few months of salvation and kicking NPD numbers, it will fall in comparison eventually because the absolute best the Wii can do is only a 10th of what either PS3 or 360 can do with its new toys (and its other features). Nintendo can unleash a new Balanceboard game that captures our hearts/wallets and grab those same people who pick up on weight loss fads but again, give it a year and it loses steam. Let's face it: Microsoft and Sony are about to give us everything and more the Wii can do and do so without cutting back on what Nintendo calls 'core' titles which roughly translates to 'actual video games'.
The only thing that makes sense is that Nintendo has stored its nuts these past years as it collects money off DS and Wii and now waits to attack when the others show off their improvements. Unless Nntendo has some forehead slapping genius of something we never expected my prediction is that Nintendo is about to make two playing fields. Further the Wii and then offer the option of WiiPlus. Slowly fading out the Wii as WiiPlus gains momentum.
WiiPlus would have the statement of 'I'm the next step' at a higher price than Wii, but would it be a set top box? Streaming movies, playing DVD's and music? I dont know. Those things are just icing on the cake, a much more powerful HD cake. A cake that is probably poised to be the necessary home accessory to the Facebook and ipod crowd and something that can handle a multi-console release of Resident Evil 6. I think it's going to be an attachment to the Wii at first, I think this attachment will either have a hard drive or a 50gig (or more) flash drive to steady itself for the coming onslaught of digital distro. And I think 2 years down the road, we'll be trading in our upgraded modulated Wii's with its modular upgrades with WiiPlus for the WiiPlusLite.
But all of this culminates in to one ominous question. What will Nintendo have to separate itself from Ms and Sony and warrant a purchase over the two, when each system is going to be available at similar price points and offer the same brand of motion focused gaming?
Right this moment, if this were a horse race, the bets are being taken now for the event that starts in about 6 months to a year from today and the Wii, who's won every event for 3 years, has a broken leg. Neither consumer nor developer is going to bet on it and unless there's a miracle, it's going to be dog food.
