Think about what happens to the bad guy at the end.
Think about where he is when it happens.
Whoops.


I don't think it's a spoiler to say I'm still surprised they have deflector 
shields that will ward off antimatter-based photon torpedoes and 
particle-beam phasers, but they still rip chunks of the hull off when they 
get hit by a passing piece of scrap. Why don't people equip their warships 
with gattling guns and cannons?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I don't think it's a spoiler to say I'm still surprised they have 
> deflector shields that will ward off antimatter-based photon torpedoes 
> and particle-beam phasers, but they still rip chunks of the hull off 
> when they get hit by a passing piece of scrap. Why don't people equip 
> their warships with gattling guns and cannons?

Oh?  I thought the whole point of the deflector shields was to prevent 
the ship from getting hit by space dust and larger bits of rubble as it 
ploughed through the universe at transluminal velocities.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Oh?  I thought the whole point of the deflector shields was to prevent 
> the ship from getting hit by space dust and larger bits of rubble as it 
> ploughed through the universe at transluminal velocities.

It's hard to say about warp speed, but they're certainly supposed to be a 
wartime defense, given how often the captian yells "Shields up!" whenever an 
enemy ship uncloaks or something.  They don't seem to actually work against 
physical attacks in any of the movies, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I don't think it's a spoiler to say I'm still surprised they have
> > deflector shields that will ward off antimatter-based photon torpedoes
> > and particle-beam phasers, but they still rip chunks of the hull off
> > when they get hit by a passing piece of scrap. Why don't people equip
> > their warships with gattling guns and cannons?
>
> Oh?  I thought the whole point of the deflector shields was to prevent
> the ship from getting hit by space dust and larger bits of rubble as it
> ploughed through the universe at transluminal velocities.

They seem to also use the shields for this, at least when it suits the plot!

I always get bothered by the opening credits to Voyager, when the ship flies
through what appears to be a dense dust cloud (supposedly a nebula of some
kind, although what nebula would be that dense?), and the dust sweeps around it
prettily... I always think it must be playing hell with their hull!

Post a reply to this message

Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a 
stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

To a *real* nerd, this is an absolute *must*. Even if it hurts.

If you can't bear the pain of watching it, and can't stand the pressure of
making a fool of yourself in public by dressing in red pyjamas and wearing
pointed ears, then you're not nerdish enough to be one of them... being a nerd
is a privilege, which only the toughest can obtain...

:P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> To a *real* nerd, this is an absolute *must*. Even if it hurts.
> 
> If you can't bear the pain of watching it, and can't stand the pressure of
> making a fool of yourself in public by dressing in red pyjamas and wearing
> pointed ears, then you're not nerdish enough to be one of them... being a nerd
> is a privilege, which only the toughest can obtain...
> 
> :P

WTF-O-Meter: 4.5

Somebody should *frame* this and put it on the wall or something. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700 episodes and
11 movies... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700 episodes and
> 11 movies... ;-)

In a similar way, there must be *somebody* somewhere who watches Oprah. 
[Hard to comprehend as that might be...]

Of course, Star Trek isn't nearly as lame as Oprah. Star Trek is 
actually mildly amusing at times. But I didn't think anybody was that 
fussed about it...

Post a reply to this message

On 5/14/2009 6:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
>> If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700
>> episodes and
>> 11 movies... ;-)
>
> In a similar way, there must be *somebody* somewhere who watches Oprah.
> [Hard to comprehend as that might be...]

Middle-aged white housewives.  My wife's not middle-aged yet, but she 
loves Oprah.

(Actually, in all honesty, the show really isn't that bad).

> Of course, Star Trek isn't nearly as lame as Oprah. Star Trek is
> actually mildly amusing at times. But I didn't think anybody was that
> fussed about it...

You're talking about the people who violently opposed a video game 
(Starfleet Command 2) because they got the stats on the spaceship 
movement slightly wrong.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a 
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

Nerds watch a movie and enjoy it, potentially analyzing plot holes. Real 
nerds arrive wearing star trek shirts (saw that this time...) and analyze 
why the plot holes in *this* movie interact with the plot holes in other 
movies about the same universe.

This guy has way too much time on his hands:
http://popculturezoo.com/archives/2529
(Lots of spoilers there)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
> 
> 	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.

No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:57:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
>> 
>> 	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.
> 
> No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)

Trek is pretty enjoyable to watch as well.  The thing that both Star Wars 
and Star Trek have in common is that largely the technology used is used 
to support a fairly strong character story - the stories in general 
aren't about the technology.

Particularly in the more resent spin-off series of Trek - DS9 for example.

Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
watched.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
> watched.

  Enterprise was not that bad. In fact, it was getting better and better
with each new season. For some reason, though, they cut it short, when it
was getting really good.

  (Voyager almost suffered the same fate, but the writers were able to save
it with 7 of 9. Good move. I liked the whole series (save a few individual
wallbanger episodes), especially from that point forward. You can never
have too much Borg in Star Trek.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
>> watched.
> 
>   Enterprise was not that bad.

I agree. It's not exactly the most awesome thing that's ever existed, 
but it seems reasonably good to me.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:29:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I
>> watched.
> 
>   Enterprise was not that bad. In fact, it was getting better and better
> with each new season. For some reason, though, they cut it short, when
> it was getting really good.

I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the "hair 
band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll admit to 
that. :-)

>   (Voyager almost suffered the same fate, but the writers were able to
>   save
> it with 7 of 9. Good move. I liked the whole series (save a few
> individual wallbanger episodes), especially from that point forward. You
> can never have too much Borg in Star Trek.)

True, though the problem with an uber-enemy like the Borg is that the 
good guys have to end up with the upper hand at some point - so they go 
from being a really serious threat to being just another bad guy.

I liked Voyager, but it did suffer from "Gilligan's Island" syndrome - 
ie, eventually they have to get "off the island" (ie, get home) so 
there's not much room for variation in the story.

I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a much 
more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left.  With Seven 
you basically had another Data-like character who had to learn what it 
meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think Brent Spiner did a 
much better job of exploring that idea.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

SPOILER (maybe) about the ending of ST:Voyager in this post.


Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I liked Voyager, but it did suffer from "Gilligan's Island" syndrome - 
> ie, eventually they have to get "off the island" (ie, get home) so 
> there's not much room for variation in the story.

  How the Voyager go to the other end of the galaxy was a bit of a Deus ex
Machina, but it was justifiable. After all, if the whole idea is that they
get stranded, they have to get there *somehow*, and in the Star Trek universe
the only possibility is some Deus ex Machina solution to that problem.

  What I feared through the entire series was that they would get home the
same way, making all of what happened in all the 7 seasons pointless. In
other words, they spend 7 whole seasons trying to get back home, traveling
through the galaxy and fighting obstacles on the way, only to get teleported
back to home in the same way as they got there in the first place? That would
have been a downer.

  At least the writers didn't make that mistake, and instead had them find
their own means to get back home. (Of course the actual solution was still
a bit of a stretch and somewhat a Deus ex Machina solution, but at least
it had *some* good ideas in it, and wasn't such a big downer.)

> I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a much 
> more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left.  With Seven 
> you basically had another Data-like character who had to learn what it 
> meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think Brent Spiner did a 
> much better job of exploring that idea.

  I don't think was so much about the character development which was
decisive here... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> the stories in general aren't about the technology.

*Usually* not. Occasionally they are. Of course, McCoy's distaste for the 
transporter is all about the technology. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> the stories in general aren't about the technology.
> 
> *Usually* not. Occasionally they are. Of course, McCoy's distaste for 
> the transporter is all about the technology. :-)

Typically it's "hey, there's this technology that can do X. Man, what 
would that mean for civilisation?"

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> the stories in general aren't about the technology.
>>
>> *Usually* not. Occasionally they are. Of course, McCoy's distaste for 
>> the transporter is all about the technology. :-)
> 
> Typically it's "hey, there's this technology that can do X. Man, what 
> would that mean for civilisation?"

And that's exactly what science fiction is all about. Now if it's actually 
feasible that such a technology could be invented, then it's "hard" science 
fiction. :-)

Anything else is space opera.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

>> Typically it's "hey, there's this technology that can do X. Man, what 
>> would that mean for civilisation?"
> 
> And that's exactly what science fiction is all about. Now if it's 
> actually feasible that such a technology could be invented, then it's 
> "hard" science fiction. :-)
> 
> Anything else is space opera.

Typically the Star Trek episodes tend to end with "but we're leaving 
this planet now" or "this device is too dangerous, so we're going to 
destroy it". I guess that's one way to return to equillibrium.

That's kind of the problem with a series. Every episode has to end with 
roughly the same situation as it started, so that the next one can begin 
from the same premise. (Although occasionally you'll inherit a new 
character permanently, or a new capability or something.) Makes it kind 
of predictable.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's kind of the problem with a series. Every episode has to end with 
> roughly the same situation as it started, so that the next one can begin 
> from the same premise. (Although occasionally you'll inherit a new 
> character permanently, or a new capability or something.) Makes it kind 
> of predictable.

It's only a particular type of series which fits this format (would it 
be called an episodic show?).  There's plenty of shows in which the plot 
follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:39:55 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   At least the writers didn't make that mistake, and instead had them
>   find
> their own means to get back home. (Of course the actual solution was
> still a bit of a stretch and somewhat a Deus ex Machina solution, but at
> least it had *some* good ideas in it, and wasn't such a big downer.)

True, in all counts.  But that is kinda what I mean by the "Gilligan's 
Island" syndrome - the whole idea has to be that ultimately they have to 
get home, or what's the point?  And the limited setting in both 
programmes does make it necessary to depend on the strength of character 
development.

When you do that and you don't do good character development, then it 
becomes a bit of a loss.  The addition of Seven, I guess, could be said 
to add some character development because of her need to grow and to 
understand what it means to be human.  That may well, in retrospect, have 
"saved the show" even though it could've been done better.

Many of the other characters had already stopped being developed and were 
fairly predictable.  Tom was always going to be "the risk taker", 
Chakotay was always going to be "the spiritualist", Janeway was always 
going to be "the decider", Neelix was always going to be "the outsider", 
etc.  There wasn't a lot of growth for those characters, especially 
during the final few seasons.

That doesn't mean I enjoyed it any less, though.

>> I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a
>> much more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left. 
>> With Seven you basically had another Data-like character who had to
>> learn what it meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think
>> Brent Spiner did a much better job of exploring that idea.
> 
>   I don't think was so much about the character development which was
> decisive here... :P

Yeah, that's more or less my point.  No doubt sex sells, and Jeri Ryan is 
not hard to look at at all.  I just wish they had not strayed into such 
shallow waters to make it work.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:55:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> the stories in general aren't about the technology.
> 
> *Usually* not. Occasionally they are. Of course, McCoy's distaste for
> the transporter is all about the technology. :-)

Well, even in the technologically-driven stories, there always seemed to 
be a slant towards the ethics/morals of the technology.  That's something 
that McCoy's distaste of the transporters was always about - he thought 
it was just wrong to take people apart at that level and put them back 
together somewhere else.

And of course IRL that point of McCoy's has spawned (and been included 
in) discussions of modern technological advancement, such as with regards 
to cloning and (for some) embryonic stem cell research.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a
>>> much more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left. 
>>> With Seven you basically had another Data-like character who had to
>>> learn what it meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think
>>> Brent Spiner did a much better job of exploring that idea.
>>   I don't think was so much about the character development which was
>> decisive here... :P
> 
> Yeah, that's more or less my point.  No doubt sex sells, and Jeri Ryan is 
> not hard to look at at all.  I just wish they had not strayed into such 
> shallow waters to make it work.

If you want to point out plot holes, why *does* a Borg drone need such 
considerably developed mammary glands, exactly? :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > That's kind of the problem with a series. Every episode has to end with
> > roughly the same situation as it started, so that the next one can begin
> > from the same premise. (Although occasionally you'll inherit a new
> > character permanently, or a new capability or something.) Makes it kind
> > of predictable.
>
> It's only a particular type of series which fits this format (would it
> be called an episodic show?).  There's plenty of shows in which the plot
> follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.

Staying in the SF genre, Babylon5 is one of the superior examples of this. It
begins with an episodic format much like Trek, exploring the show's universe
and developing the characters, then starts introducing the greater story arcs,
until by the final season the governments and equilibria that were described in
the earlier seasons have been transformed by the events of the story. Cracking
stuff.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:51:35 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a
>>>> much more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left.
>>>> With Seven you basically had another Data-like character who had to
>>>> learn what it meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think
>>>> Brent Spiner did a much better job of exploring that idea.
>>>   I don't think was so much about the character development which was
>>> decisive here... :P
>> 
>> Yeah, that's more or less my point.  No doubt sex sells, and Jeri Ryan
>> is not hard to look at at all.  I just wish they had not strayed into
>> such shallow waters to make it work.
> 
> If you want to point out plot holes, why *does* a Borg drone need such
> considerably developed mammary glands, exactly? :-P

That was more or less my point at that point. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> It's only a particular type of series which fits this format (would it
>> be called an episodic show?).  There's plenty of shows in which the plot
>> follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.
> 
> Staying in the SF genre, Babylon5 is one of the superior examples of this. It
> begins with an episodic format much like Trek, exploring the show's universe
> and developing the characters, then starts introducing the greater story arcs,
> until by the final season the governments and equilibria that were described in
> the earlier seasons have been transformed by the events of the story. Cracking
> stuff.

I was thinking of Bablyon 5 too -- great show.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you want to point out plot holes, why *does* a Borg drone need such 
> considerably developed mammary glands, exactly? :-P

  Why would the Borg remove them if they are not an impediment? She grew
up like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Staying in the SF genre, Babylon5 is one of the superior examples of this.

  I wouldn't say Deep Space 9 was so much episodic in nature. It had
long-spanning storyarcs which developed during entire seasons (even if
individual episodes were more or less independent).

  Of course Voyager also advanced a bit during the different seasons, which
is natural, as they were traveling through the galaxy after all. But it was
certainly a lot more episodic in nature.

  TNG was rather episodic, with very few things remembered for more than
one episode. (Still a great show, though.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> There's plenty of shows in which the plot 
> follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.

There's also things like Big Bang Theory, where each episode is self 
contained, but they make references back to earlier shows. Fred does a favor 
for Mary, and calls in the favor ten episodes later. Jokes make references 
to what happened a dozen shows ago.  Etc.   The characters develop, slowly, 
and are relatively predictable in a stereotyped sense, but the series 
definitely has an order in which it should be watched.  Lots of books do 
that sort of thing too, with (say) serious injuries from the first book 
impeding the hero in the third book, etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the "hair 
> band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll admit to 
> that. :-)
> 

Why does everyone hate the music? Mind, it would have been nice to see 
something more "original", but the opening music matched the whole, 
"This is just one more step in a long progression.", kind of idea.

Admit though, the mess on board the "new" Enterprise in the movie, for 
the larger ship, makes the "experimental" original ship look futuristic. 
Spent a lot of time thinking, "Good lord, did they go back 100 years to 
build this thing out of parts of a factory?" lol

Mind, I figured the explanation could be a case of having to glue a lot 
of stuff together to make a lot of ships, instead of "carefully" 
building it, due to the events at the start of the movie, and the more 
"high techie" look of the bridge, which is crammed full of junk the 
original ships from the original Trek, to the movies, etc., wouldn't 
have had in them, is a similar side effect. Cram every instrument and 
display into the thing you can, in hopes it will help in the next 
situation. I get the sense that losing a ship so fast and so completely 
may have "spooked" Starfleet. Especially if you figure the events in 
Enterprise where also a "shift" into the same alternate timeline path, 
since we can presume that there was no temporal cold war, or Xindi 
attacks in the "original" path of time. Lot of minor variations get 
introduced, and a few fairly big ones, even if the "general" course of 
events tend to follow the same trajectory.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I wouldn't say Deep Space 9 was so much episodic in nature. It had
> long-spanning storyarcs which developed during entire seasons (even if
> individual episodes were more or less independent).
>
>   Of course Voyager also advanced a bit during the different seasons, which
> is natural, as they were traveling through the galaxy after all. But it was
> certainly a lot more episodic in nature.

I must admit, I've not watched much from the later series of Voyager or DS9. But
those I have seen definitely demand more knowledge of recent events than most
TNG episodes.

>   TNG was rather episodic, with very few things remembered for more than
> one episode. (Still a great show, though.)

Agreed. It remains my favourite - I'm watching it at the moment, it's on one of
our free digital channels every day at the moment. Just started season 6!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:34:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the
>> "hair band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll
>> admit to that. :-)
>> 
>> 
> Why does everyone hate the music? Mind, it would have been nice to see
> something more "original", but the opening music matched the whole,
> "This is just one more step in a long progression.", kind of idea.

I think largely the reason I disliked it so intensely was it was kinda a 
throwback to the 80's (not a happy time for me) and the idea of Star Trek 
theme music with a vocal was just unappealing to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
>>
>>     I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.
> 
> No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)

	*SACRILEGE!*

-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On 5/14/2009 1:09 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's kind of the problem with a series. Every episode has to end with
> roughly the same situation as it started, so that the next one can begin
> from the same premise. (Although occasionally you'll inherit a new
> character permanently, or a new capability or something.) Makes it kind
> of predictable.

The episodic nature of Star Trek is one of my biggest complaints about it.

"Man, we just had this totally amazing experience, invented some funky 
new technology, and met some really cool people!  Now let's forget all 
about it so we can get on with next week's episode!"

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> "Man, we just had this totally amazing experience, invented some funky 
> new technology, and met some really cool people!  Now let's forget all 
> about it so we can get on with next week's episode!"

Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)

The other complaint is the technology combinations that just don't make 
sense.  "The away team is freezing. Let's beam them down some blankets."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)

  But the lack of cloaking devices on the USS ships has been explained
many times in the series.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)
> 
>   But the lack of cloaking devices on the USS ships has been explained
> many times in the series.

Has it? I never heard. What was the explanation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:16:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)
>> 
>>   But the lack of cloaking devices on the USS ships has been explained
>> many times in the series.
> 
> Has it? I never heard. What was the explanation?

A treaty that the UFP didn't violate and the Romulans did, IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:16:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> > Warp wrote:
> >> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>> Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)
> >> 
> >>   But the lack of cloaking devices on the USS ships has been explained
> >> many times in the series.
> > 
> > Has it? I never heard. What was the explanation?

> A treaty that the UFP didn't violate and the Romulans did, IIRC.

  It was most prominently explained in the very episode where USS Enterprise
got temporarily the (illegal) Federation cloak device.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:16:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> > Warp wrote:
>> >> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> >>> Yeah. When was the second time the Enterprise cloaked? :-)
>> >> 
>> >>   But the lack of cloaking devices on the USS ships has been
>> >>   explained
>> >> many times in the series.
>> > 
>> > Has it? I never heard. What was the explanation?
> 
>> A treaty that the UFP didn't violate and the Romulans did, IIRC.
> 
>   It was most prominently explained in the very episode where USS
>   Enterprise
> got temporarily the (illegal) Federation cloak device.

Yep, that's the episode I'm thinking of, just don't remember all the 
details.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:34:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the
>>> "hair band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll
>>> admit to that. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Why does everyone hate the music? Mind, it would have been nice to see
>> something more "original", but the opening music matched the whole,
>> "This is just one more step in a long progression.", kind of idea.
> 
> I think largely the reason I disliked it so intensely was it was kinda a 
> throwback to the 80's (not a happy time for me) and the idea of Star Trek 
> theme music with a vocal was just unappealing to me.
> 
> Jim

Hmm. Interestingly I read something recently that stated that the 
problem many "older people" have with new things involves nostalgia. 
They see/hear things that remind them of how they felt "before", and as 
a result, depending on those feelings, they may avoid them, or seek them 
out, and in the process, ignore everything else from the same time 
period. This was in the context of explaining the idea of why people 
constantly whine about everything "today" being a mess, but the past 
"perfect". As the article writer put it, 90% of everything ever made is 
crap, but history tends to filter out most of the bad stuff, and, 
unfortunately, some of the good, leaving behind a badly skewed 
perspective on just how good or bad things are now, compared to how they 
where before.

Had a recent example of that even. Some guy saying, "Well, some obscure 
village decided to lock themselves in, in kindness to the plague 
infected, so those infected could walk the streets for a bit in peace, 
but would anyone do that today?" Well, maybe not, but its *choosing* to 
ignore the other millions of things people in the same period did to 
each other on a daily basis that where "not" good, just to make some 
lame point about the "charity" of modern people. And, its not 
necessarily even an accurate example of how things have changed.

My father might be the opposite sort. His perspective is that things 
have always been, on some level, bad, and filled with crazy people, so 
today is no different. He can't see the point of *trying* to change 
things. And what changes he does allow himself to see involve movies he 
doesn't like, because they are not like "his", music he hates, because 
its just noise, unlike his, etc.

We can choose to see reality, or to see the past as a great place where 
nice things happened to us, or to see it as one where bad things did. In 
the end, both of the later are purely self delusion, and prevent you 
living in the current time, without your perspective of the past one 
undermining the truth of what is happening "now". Both live in the past, 
and can't see either the problems, or the progress, that exists "now".

It presents me with a need to remind myself that, when something crops 
up I don't like too much, I need to ask myself, "Is this for a good 
reason, or just because its either, 'from a time I don't remember a lot 
of good things from', or, 'similar to something that happened when I 
felt good about the world', but, never the less, "not" as good or bad as 
I want to perceive it to be.

Its very hard to remember the positives of some time you where having 
problems, or the bad in times you where doing well. But, its important 
to consider both, if you can, otherwise, you end up being some 70 year 
old man whining about how everything you see on TV, or at the movies, is 
crap, unlike 90% of everything you ever saw 50 years ago. ;) lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. Interestingly I read something recently that stated that the
> problem many "older people" have with new things involves nostalgia.
> They see/hear things that remind them of how they felt "before", and as
> a result, depending on those feelings, they may avoid them, or seek them
> out, and in the process, ignore everything else from the same time
> period. 

In my own case, there were certainly happy times, but they largely did 
not involve hanging out with kids my own age (I can think of maybe 3 or 4 
kids I would hang out with regularly during that time period).

But sure, visual/auditory and even olfactory sensations can bring back 
bad memories.  I can't listen to The Beatles at all because of the 
memories it triggers (hell, just talking about it brings the memories 
flooding back).

> We can choose to see reality, or to see the past as a great place where
> nice things happened to us, or to see it as one where bad things did. In
> the end, both of the later are purely self delusion, and prevent you
> living in the current time, without your perspective of the past one
> undermining the truth of what is happening "now". Both live in the past,
> and can't see either the problems, or the progress, that exists "now".

It sounds like this article was full of pop-psychology nonsense to me.  
Dismissing past experiences is denying the things that make you who you 
are and prevent you from learning from past mistakes.  It is human nature 
to want to avoid things that remind us of painful times and events.  It's 
a self-preservation mechanism.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> It sounds like this article was full of pop-psychology nonsense to me.  
> Dismissing past experiences is denying the things that make you who you 
> are and prevent you from learning from past mistakes.  It is human nature 
> to want to avoid things that remind us of painful times and events.  It's 
> a self-preservation mechanism.
> 
> Jim

Well, a lot of that is my interpretation. But, even I am not saying, 
"Deny your past.", just, "Be aware of why you have the reaction." In 
point of fact, I am not even specifically talking about the contents of 
the original article the post was made to. I don't remember what it was, 
but I think it was some tirade being made by some wacko about how chat 
rooms where all evil, because it wasn't a church social. The comment I 
referred to was someone else mentioning the statement made in someone's 
book, that in the authors opinion, most of anything made in any given 
time period isn't worth much, and that history shows a tendency for 
people to filter out most of the bad things, except when they 
can't/don't, and then they tend to, instead, filter out the good things. 
This means, in a practical sense, that, for example, Mozart may have 
written some brilliant unknown composition, only it got lost in 
someone's attic, while some piece of total junk written in the same 
period survived, purely do to having been included in someone's play. 
History loses some things it shouldn't, and keeps some it shouldn't. 
People tend to help this, by mis-associating things. For example, this 
hypothetical lost work of Mozart may have landed in the attic due to 
some big event that just "happened" to cast a negative light on music 
for the only person that had an intact copy.

Its possible that you may be missing out on something because you are 
allowing a real issue you had to prevent you enjoying something that had 
nothing at all to do with it. And its hardly pop-psychology. Fact is, 
its key to some techniques used to rid people of phobias as well, since, 
if you think about it, this is a form of phobia and/or obsession. And in 
such cases, "getting past it", requires disassociating the original 
event from the unconnected trigger. This is harder to manage with 
"positive" associations, but.. I don't think you would disagree that 
some such things can be unhealthy too, if they detract from ones ability 
to deal objectively with something new. You certainly wouldn't likely 
disagree if I was talking about someone insisting on wearing their 
"lucky jock strap" in a ball game, because they formed some irrational 
association between wearing it and winning, but this is hardly different 
than calling 100% of everything on TV "bad", because its not a 1960s 
western, or an old war movie.

The point is, not to deny your experience, just... don't let it turn you 
into the grumpy old man that hates everything new, because that "new 
thing" reminds you of The Beatles, instead of some other band you 
actually liked. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:35:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The point is, not to deny your experience, just... don't let it turn you
> into the grumpy old man that hates everything new, because that "new
> thing" reminds you of The Beatles, instead of some other band you
> actually liked. ;-)

I wasn't saying that it reminded me of The Beatles, I was using The 
Beatles as an example of something I can't listen to because it brings up 
painful memories.  I know why it does, but the memories are painful 
enough that I would rather not remember them.

But at the same time, I'm perfectly fine listening to The Eagles because 
(a) I like them, and (b) because I associate happy memories with them.

Similarly, I can listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons and bring back 
extremely vivid memories of being in Puerto Vallarta when I was in 9th 
grade - sitting in the hotel lobby listening to a cassette I'd purchased 
and reading the Foundation books.  That was a school trip, and while I 
ended up spending most of the time by myself, the memories were still 
good.

What the Enterprise music evokes for me is riding on the bus home from 
school and being taunted by other kids on the bus.  It's not an 
excruciatingly bad memory, but it was typical of how I spent most of my 
days at school - being teased and picked on by the bullies at the school.

That's not exactly something I wish to remember in great detail.  I dealt 
with it then, I lived through it, and I moved on to better things.

That's not to say there weren't good memories associated with school 
(performing in the orchestra, for example, or performing solos in the 
solo and ensemble "contests" the district held).

But I've also learned over the years (only 38 of them so far) that being 
a curmudgeon has its uses, too. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message