kieron115 @ kieron115 @startrek.website Posts 0Comments 52Joined 1 yr. ago
I drew the line at them dragging Porthos of all beings into it. Like they thought that would legitimize it.
Also it might be the only Trek show with 3-parters? I haven't seen DISCO so someone feel free to correct if I'm wrong.
Look on the bright side, you didn't have to watch the writers hand-wave away the entire series when it got cancelled.
I really enjoy season 4 (except These Are The Voyages... lets not talk about that.) but I think it's definitely fair to say that the sheer adrenaline ride that was season 3 slows down a bit after the Xindi threat is resolved. You end up with a lot of these standalone arcs that, like you said, are focused on building connections with existing Trek (the augment trilogy leading into Affliction/Divergence is a good example) or arcs designed to set up the founding of the UFP. It's clear that they were also leading into the Romulan war which was only ever mentioned in passing in TOS. In that context I think the slightly slower tempo season 4 would have made an excellent breather between the two.
lmfao right?
Naw it was perfectly clear. People just need to read past the first sentence.
Seriously! I know that BLUF is a thing but do that many people seriously not read past the first line before feeling the need to correct someone on the internet? @ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca as a fellow member of the human race let me formally thank you for forming a question, seeking out information that either confirms or denies your question, and informing everyone else who may have had the same misconception.
You know where the door is.
I agree that cybersecurity features should be included. In fact I think they should be included for free. The problem is that Microsoft wanted to charge the Department of Defense and it sounds like they used politics to make sure they could, and if true then they (and maybe also the DoD?) may have violated some federal laws around government procurement and "gifts" from contractors to the government.
Sorry to necro this but I just saw in the latest LTT vid that apparently Microsoft did go through with this plan? They were talking about it in the context of the diskless xbox that just released. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/how-to-transfer-content-licenses/7ac76f4e-c7e4-4153-8824-1e424478b02d
That's their goal. "You'll own nothing and be happy."
Yeah that's more comparable. I was mostly just trying to state the difference between ownership and a perpetual license but I'm thinking I oversimplified lol.
Oh yeah, I understand. I was just trying to describe the difference between ownership and a perpetual license in overly simplified terms. Also, can you think of any examples of digital goods that retain first sale doctrine? With physical disks at least a second hand market still exists for that very reason, but I can't think of any digital media that allow resale. I would love to be wrong!
It depends on your definition of ownership. If having perpetual access to a product is enough then yes. But we aren't allowed to, say, disassemble a game and use it's assets to make something of our own. As opposed to say a spoon. Nobody can tell me how I can and can't use my spoon.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Oh good point. When you nest something into commas like that the sentence is supposed to still make sense when you remove the bit between the commas.