Slashdot Mirror


Star Trek PhD Thesis Wins Academic Prize

An anonymous reader writes "A PhD thesis based on Star Trek has won an Australian university's top academic prize. Dr Djoymi Baker's 90,000 word dissertation 'Broadcast Space: TV Culture, Myth and Star Trek' was awarded the University of Melbourne's Chancellor's Prize for Excellence in the PhD. Dr Baker watched over 700 Star Trek episodes — more than 624 hours — to investigate the relationship between ancient mythology and today's popular culture. American academics thought her research was 'superlative' and suitable for teaching."

348 comments

  1. Slashdot Motto: The Next Generation by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    I'm a doctor, not an editor! Not kill I.

    It's an article, CmdrTaco, but not as we know it. Ahead mod factor five.

    1. Re:Slashdot Motto: The Next Generation by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Heh heh -- that's very logical*.

      There's a lot of good science fiction that becomes science, just as good metaphysics eventually becomes physics. Every breakthrough begins with an idea, and the best ideas have their source in the imagination. A lot of kids who watched Star Trek grew up as engineers and scientists (um, and a few went wierd with golf ball retrievers, but hey -- we're an elite group here)

      *"The Doctor is On", Firesign Theatre, "I think we're all Bozos on this bus".

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Slashdot Motto: The Next Generation by rpbird · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know I'm being just the biggest Star Trek nerd ever, but isn't it "No kill I"?

      My God, Jim, it's a nitpicker!

    3. Re:Slashdot Motto: The Next Generation by moro_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mod him up, Scotty !

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
  2. Finally by mordors9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally Star Trek is gaining the academic recognition it so richly deserves. Having Trekology as an official subject for a BS degree should be coming up soon at all major mail order universities. Live long and prospers.

    1. Re:Finally by Azarael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, there's some good subject matter in Star Trek, especially TNG. In my philosophy of medicine class, we had a medical ethics paper on the episode where Worf has spinal replacement surgery ;-)
       
      It may not be high art, but I bet their aren't that many shows that are worthy of serious academic study.

    2. Re:Finally by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Trekology as an official subject for a BS degree

      The way you Americans abbreviate Bachelor of Science is most appropriate, as your suggestion seems like complete BS ;)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Finally by EvanED · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've heard of "Measure of a Man" used in an ai class or something similar.

      (For those unfamiliar, this was an episode early on in the series. Some random character at a space station wanted to disassemble Data to study him. After talking with this dude, Data decided that he hadn't the proper background knowledge to be able to reassemble him when he was done, so refused to undergo the procedure. The guy got an admiral to order Data from the Enterprise to go with him for the experiments, so Data resigned Starfleet. Starfleet responded by claiming that Data was its property and didn't have the right to resign, so Data went to a trial/hearing type thing so that a judge could decide. Picard argued that Data had the right to resign, and Riker was ordered to take the opposite side. (They didn't have any actual lawyers at this space station, so the top-ranking officials acted, though Riker against his will.) The episode was essentially about what constitutes life.)

    4. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you keep going, there's More of the Same (MS) and Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD). Yes, it's a great educational system we got here.

    5. Re:Finally by Azarael · · Score: 1

      Yep, I recall that episode. I actually brought up that one in class once as another episode that we could have covered, that one would have been better for philosophy of the mind though. Still, a great episode.

    6. Re:Finally by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      The way you Americans abbreviate Bachelor of Science is most appropriate, as your suggestion seems like complete BS ;)

      It gets worse. In the USA there are Registered Nurses with Associate Degrees in Nursing, Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Masters degrees, and Ph.D.s So we have the following:

      1. Another Dumb Nurse
      2. Bull Sh*t Nurse
      3. More of the Same
      4. Pile it Higher and Deeper

      It would be funnier if there wasn't so much anecdotal evidence that this is, to some extent, true.

    7. Re:Finally by Theoden · · Score: 1

      So Star Trek is where all the Evolutionary Science grant money is going.

    8. Re:Finally by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I've heard of "Measure of a Man" used in an ai class or something similar....The episode was essentially about what constitutes life.)

      Not knocking this; but this theme goes back to the very first SF story, Frankenstein (1818). And more recently, Isaac Asimov's robot stories in the 1940s and 50s. Trek is fun, but not highly original in its storylines.

    9. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chick willing to watch Star Trek.

      it even excites the acedemics
        American academics thought her research was 'superlative' and suitable for teaching."

    10. Re:Finally by demallien2 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. I used it to give courses on configuration management when I was the engineer in charge of a radar site in the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the episode where they mod the computer, and everyone in the holodeck gets trapped by a psycopathic virus....

    11. Re:Finally by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was the first really good TNG episode. Unfortunately, it was spoiled somewhat by the final speech of the judge, in which she started to raise the question whether or not Data has a soul. A soul is a metaphysical construct that has nothing to do with the facts that were presented by either Picard or Riker, and does not belong in a court of law. The judge finally awarded victory to Data because she felt she was unable to decide whether or not he has a soul, so she gave him the benefit of the doubt. But think of it: if it could be proven that Data actually has no soul, does that mean he would have been handed over to Starfleet and be dismantled? Urgh.

    12. Re:Finally by volpe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But think of it: if it could be proven that Data actually has no soul, does that mean he would have been handed over to Starfleet and be dismantled?

      You pose that as a rhetorical question, but it seems to me it's a legitimate one. I take it that your answer is "no"? In that case, what other kinds of machines would not be allowed to be dismantled? Suppose you, Flyboy Connor, are the native English speaker carrying out the rules in a Chinese Room Experiment. Someone submits to you a batch of symbols written in Chinese which comprise a question. You carry out the rules and return a batch of symbols that comprise an answer. Except that, unbeknownst to you, the question was,
      "Flyboy Connor is getting sick and tired of this job and wants to go home. Should we let him?"
      And the answer from the Chinese Room was
      "What?!? Have you lost your mind, man? Don't you understand that Flyboy is the neurotransmitter in my synapses? If he leaves, I'll die! I'll cease to be! I'll be an EX-CHINESE-ROOM! Oh, dear God, please don't let him leave!!! I don't want to die! I have my whole life ahead of me! There are so many questions left for me to ponder! You can't do this to me! Flyboy Connor must NEVER be allowed to leave! NEVER, I tell you! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!"


      What say you now, eh Flyboy? Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

      Sorry. It's 3:45 AM and I can't sleep.
    13. Re:Finally by isorox · · Score: 1

      BS degree

      BullShit degree

    14. Re:Finally by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You pose that as a rhetorical question, but it seems to me it's a legitimate one. I take it that your answer is "no"?

      I would say that Picard's argumentation was that Data could not really be distinguished from a living, sentient being, so that the ruling should be in his favor. His vision was that if the judge would allow Data to be "enslaved" because he was ruled not to be sentient, the judge should be very clear about where the line is drawn, because that would open the door to the enslaving of all kinds of races.

      The supposedly rethorical question is not legitimate (in this episode), because the existence of a soul is not brought forth as an issue by either Picard or Riker. It should not play a role in the judge's ruling. The answer should be "no" with or without Data having a soul.

      And if you ask my personal opinion: I do not believe in the concept of a soul as a separate entity that occupies our bodies and can exist after death. So I say that I have no soul. And still I do not wish to be dismantled. The fact that I admit that I have no soul is no reason to dismantle me. The fact that I can express the genuine wish not to be dismantled should secure my rights in that respect.

      But if I was just an entity in a Chinese Room experiment, with no other desires and wishes than just to translate scribbles to different scribbles, it seems to me that I am not sentient. So, if there comes a day that I am reduced to that, please dismantle me.

    15. Re:Finally by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      I understand and pretty much agree with everything you're saying on a practical level -- except that I'm not sure we need define "soul" in as limited fashion as that (something that must perforce survive after death in any sort of identifiable fashion, or something separate from the function of the brain synapses).

      Though Abrahamic religions have conditioned us to be thinking in terms of immortal and indivisible souls, I think one could equally validly consider soul to be the thing in us that thinks of itself as "I", the thing we feel to be as the thing that actually feels, rather than the thing felt. The focal-point of awareness. If this focal point is merely a construct of the brain, and perishes upon death, that doesn't make it any less real, or so it seems to me.

      The judge's speech concerns IIRC the fundamental impossibility to distinguish between the appearance of awareness and actual awareness. A self-diagnosing computer program may be aware of itself in a fashion, but in another way most of us would say that it's not aware of *anything* at all, including itself. A character killed on screen doesn't feel any pain, no matter how realistically the blood splutters on screen. And yet most of us would say that a dog *can* feel pain, every bit as real to it than to humans.

      Wouldn't you say that computer programs currently lack some focal-point of awareness that nonetheless both dogs and humans can be said to have?

    16. Re:Finally by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1
      there's More of the Same (MS) and Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD). Yes, it's a great educational system we got here.
      Then there's the degree I got -- Bachelor of Music -- which can be abbreviated BM. (Or, as we used to call it, the old "#2".)
    17. Re:Finally by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree with what you say, and if I would personally use the term "soul" I would be talking about what you indicate. But the episode in question seems to specifically refer to a "soul" as a metaphysical construct that exists separately from physical matter. The judge asks "Does Data have a soul?" Would she be referring to self-consciousness, then she should have said "Is Data sentient?"

      And certainly, computer programs today are not sentient. But, in my opinion, Data should be called sentient. Picard makes excellent arguments in that respect.

    18. Re:Finally by Kancept · · Score: 1

      No Dissassemble!!!!!

    19. Re:Finally by volpe · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you say that computer programs currently lack some focal-point of awareness that nonetheless both dogs and humans can be said to have?

      Yes.....today

    20. Re:Finally by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Bachelor of Music -- which can be abbreviated BM. (Or, as we used to call it, the old "#2".)

      "Two sharp"? ;)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  3. Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... did she successfully pass the Kobayashi Maru exam?

    1. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by opusman · · Score: 1

      You've gotta love Wikipedia. I had no idea what Kobayashi Maru was, but a quick search later and I can read a 5000 word treatise on the subject.

    2. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by schon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had no idea what Kobayashi Maru was

      Heathen!

    3. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by leoboiko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, wpedia is really amazing for pop culture. Traditional encyclopedias choose to ignore pop culture out of cultural bias, but the large amount of pop-related articles on wpedia reflect how much people enjoy the stuff.

      However, I'm now eager to know how were the "Ferengui manners" Nog dealt with the test, and all I can find are those shameful wpedia clones...

      --
      Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
    4. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's due to cultural bias, but rather because paper is more expensive than electrons. Wikipedia can afford to publish 10,000 pages on Trek. If Britannica dedicated as many pages to Harry Potter, Internet Memes and Joss Whedon as Wikipedia did, it would be 10 times the size it is now.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      ... did she successfully pass the Kobayashi Maru exam?
      What the hell are you smoking? You can't "pass" the Kobayashi Maru, it's a no-win scenario. And no, cheating doesn't count either Jim.
    6. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Skater · · Score: 1

      And therein lies the biggest strength of Wikipedia (in my view). Any topic can have as many words or pictures devoted to it as it needs. Yes, Wikipedia has issues with editing and all, but it'd be cool if somehow someone could take a snapshot of pages that are "gold" (in very good condition, with correct information, etc) and use those as an encyclopedia people would trust.

    7. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by croddy · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by GrumpySimon · · Score: 1

      The real problem is whether these things NEED 10,000 words written about them.

    9. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by grim4593 · · Score: 1

      If you read the Wiki there was one person that actually beat the scenario by sacrificing himself in a duel using the Romulan version of the test.

    10. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you smoking?

      Romulans would never participate in a test for their honor. And I doubt there was a Romulan version of the test. It was Klingon all the way until the Federation-Klingon treaty. Then it was no more.

    11. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      So Britannica is crippled by its archaic technology? Yet my understanding is that its online version is limited in many ways when compared to Wikipedia. Maybe the real limiting factor with Britannica is its archaic institutional culture?

    12. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      It's online version is probably simply an online version of their print one - they don't get writers to create whole new articles just for their web version. They don't have an army of fanboys ready to write up pages and pages on their hobby horses like Wikipedia do. Yes, there are disadvantages to having a physical encyclopedia, just as their disadvantages to having an online collaborative one. My point was that the differences are most likely due to inherent limitations of their various media, rather than some "cultural bias" you dreamed up in order to try and put it to the establishment and feel all cool and rebellious.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Coward+the+Anonymous · · Score: 4, Funny
      ... did she successfully pass the Kobayashi Maru exam?


      The fact that I know what you're talking about makes me want to cry.
      --
      -- Jason
    14. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by VE3MTM · · Score: 1

      When your objective is to capture the entirety of human knowledge, "problems" like that aren't important.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
    15. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The real problem is whether these things NEED 10,000 words written about them.

      How is this a "real problem"? It's not like the authors would be curing cancer if they didn't write 10,000 words on Klingon slang; or if they are preventing anyone else from publishing more worthy work.

    16. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      If their objective was to capture the entirety of human knowledge, they wouldn't be deleting articles based on the decisions of a group who literally know nothing of the significance of a certain work within its field.

      grumblegrmbleCheckerboardNightmaregrumbleBleepin gWikipedia.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    17. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      It's online version is probably simply an online version of their print one...

      Uh, that's my point. Britannica has been treating the web as if it were just a new kind of printing press. They don't seem to recognize that the web is an entirely different medium and that the old methods of developing articles need to be reviewed and thoroughly revised.

      While the online version is about twice as large as the print version, it seems that the additional articles are the ones that either didn't make it through the proofing/editing/revising cycle in time to get into print, or were dropped in favor of other articles that were deemed more suitable to the limitations of the paper product.

      There was quite a furor about a year ago, when the journal Nature published research that showed Wikipedia was comparable in accuracy to Britannica wrt scientific articles. The response from Britannica was quite enlightening, and can be summed up thusly: they just don't seem to get it. Not yet.

      I trust that they will get it soon. If they don't, and they fold, it will leave a big void. There is no other authoritative source as easily accessable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. So I'm hoping they can re-invent themselves into something that fits this new age as well as the original encyclopedias fit the latter part of the 1700s.

    18. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Uh, that's my point. Britannica has been treating the web as if it were just a new kind of printing press. They don't seem to recognize that the web is an entirely different medium and that the old methods of developing articles need to be reviewed and thoroughly revised.

      They probably don't care; they're in the print business, not the web business. Their website is just a side show, so of course it's not going to hold a candle to Wikipedia, where the website is the main attraction. I agree that they don't have many pop culture entries in Britannica, all I'm saying is the reasons are more likely due to economics and audience rather than some unreasoning bias against pop culture that the original comment claimed.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    19. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Skater · · Score: 1

      A good first step, but I'd like more - fact checking as well. Someone knowledgable in the field would verify the facts presented before the article went gold.

    20. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      Or someone who managed to escape the deluge, perhaps?

    21. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by VE3MTM · · Score: 1

      Seeing as it's a community project, the obvious problem is that the people who know what is significant in a certain field are not making themselves heard.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
    22. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure how the phrase "archaic institutional culture" that I used in my OP transmogrified into "some unreasoning bias against pop culture that the original comment claimed." This is probably one of those puzzlements of communication between carbon-based life forms. Silicon rulz.

      Among the people I converse with on a daily basis, "institutional culture" is understood to be that part of of a corporation or bureaucracy that is expressed in its mission statements, values, policies and procedures, as well as implicitly through peer pressure. It determines which behaviors are rewarded, which ones are tolerated, and which meet expressions of disapproval. A new employee who doesn't fit the institutional culture will tend to change, or will move on fairly quickly. Please review these posts in with that understanding in mind.

      It has been an interesting conversation. Thank you.

    23. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the OP, sorry, not your OP, who said "Traditional encyclopedias choose to ignore pop culture out of cultural bias". In my mind, at least, that's what this conversation's been about - not saying traditional encyclopedia's are better than wikis, but that they don't ignore pop culture because they hate pop culture.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    24. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      I had to go look it up...now I want to cry.

    25. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      If it was not possible to pass the test, then there would be no Officers in Starfleet. You are correct in that it is a no-win scenario, however, the criterion for passing the test is not whether or not you defeat the scenario. Thus it is still possible to pass the test without winning the scenario. In fact, that is the whole point.

    26. Re:Sure, she got a Ph.D., but . . . by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Oh, we tried. Eric Burns, the Websnark, who many consider to be one of if not the leading voice in webcomic criticism, stepped up to fight it along with a number of others, including myself. Sadly, both his and my votes were discounted, apparently due to a "low post count".

      Ironically, as I look up the relevant Wikipedia pages, I found that it was eventually voted "keep". Guess the system worked out in the end. Apologies for a few of the shots I have taken at Wikipedia. Though discounting votes as was done still bothers me.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  4. SlashScholar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "A PhD thesis based on Star Trek has won an Australian university's top academic prize."

    Now all we need is a PhD thesis based on several years of reading slashdot.

    1. Re:SlashScholar. by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Now all we need is a PhD thesis based on several years of reading slashdot.

      I loved the jSettlers Ph.D. thesis. I even participated. :-)

      all things in moderation .. or meta moderation.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:SlashScholar. by russ1337 · · Score: 1
      I loved the jSettlers Ph.D. thesis. I even participated.
      Nah, While its informitave, its totally overrated and not funny.
    3. Re:SlashScholar. by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I've spent 624 hours reading slashdot in this month alone...

    4. Re:SlashScholar. by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 1

      There you go:
      http://alex.halavais.net/research/diss.pdf

      It's quite close to what you want ;-)

      Michael

    5. Re:SlashScholar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that would get you a doctorate in RTFA?

    6. Re:SlashScholar. by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      I think Cliff Lampe is working on a Slashdot-based Ph.D. (actually on Internet community interaction, but using Slashdot as the primary example.)

  5. His whole thesis sounds like a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    COOOOOOOOOOOON!

    1. Re:His whole thesis sounds like a... by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Dude, you should just say CON, because the long OO sound makes it sound like your putting down our indigenious people.

    2. Re:His whole thesis sounds like a... by CEMM · · Score: 1

      I'm glad it's not just me who thought that!

  6. Today's "true" myths by w33t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is nice to think that at least today we KNOW that our myths are made-up.

    But there are still some people who manage to insist they are real, actual events! - UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.

    Nonetheless, despite the fact that our current mythology is fiction, Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.

    Amazing: even as culturally advanced as we fancy ourselves, we still retain those ancient urges to believe in the fantastic. But
    perhaps that's because so much in this universe is actually fantastic; far more, in fact, than we ever imagined.

    It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the late, great Dr. Feynman: "Far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the
    past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if
    he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

    1. Re:Today's "true" myths by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.

      Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.

    2. Re:Today's "true" myths by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Amazing: even as culturally advanced as we fancy ourselves, we still retain those ancient urges to believe in the fantastic.

      In the past, myths were used to explain the unexplainable at he time: stars, weather, seasons, etc. Today, I believe myths have a different use. Despite the fact that we know they are made up, fantasy worlds such as star trek, star wars, lotr, help us to escape what amounts to the daily grind. We get up, go to work, go home, make dinner for most of our lives, with a week or two of real vacation worked in per year. I think people enjoy these fantasy worlds so that they can place themselves in the world, and escape this one.

      This is at least one of the reasons I play video games or watch epic movies: I can place myself in the role of the hero in a much more action-packed exciting world.

      --
      I got nothin'
    3. Re:Today's "true" myths by w33t · · Score: 1

      You probably have a "communcator" in your pocket right now - don't you?

      We have now teleported particles - one at a time, albiet ;)

      String theory and loop quantum gravity theory don't seem to mind the idea of warp or hyperspace either - but I will admit that those two theories are both pretty fantastic in and of themselves.

      I agree, Star Trek is not "hard sci-fi" like Stephen Baxter. But nonetheless, there is a scientific basis for the vast majority of their technologies.

    4. Re:Today's "true" myths by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      So Scientology is a "UFO religion"? Heaven's Gate, yeah... but I think that's the first time I've heard of Hubbard's club referred to that way. Who knows, it might catch on?

      Anyway... The scientific references in Star Trek (pick your series) are just as specious and mythological as the two religious movements that you cited. There is nothing, dear Trekkie, NOTHING about Star Trek that is inherently less fantastic, less supernatural, and more scientifically grounded than stories about Xenu, spaceships shaped like DC-10s, and the flying saucer inside Hale-Bopp.

      You wanna argue this? You REALLY want to argue this? Fine. I have ONE LETTER for you:

      Q.

      I win.

    5. Re:Today's "true" myths by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      'UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.'

      You forgot Christianity, Islam, Hindu, and many more religions.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    6. Re:Today's "true" myths by Pesh+Hawksfire · · Score: 1
      We don't "know" our myths to be "made up" more than humans did 10,000 years ago. A myth is just a story that explains something.

      Like the evolutionary narrative.

      The word "myth" does not assign truth value. Evolution is hard science, but putting together the various lines and branches of the evolutionary tree creates a myth. But hey, thanks for playing.

    7. Re:Today's "true" myths by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, because the only reason WE can't redirect the output from the dilithium matrix through the deflector array to close a rift in the space-time continuum and send Q back home is because we didn't build the Superconducting Supercollider.

      Star Trek is space opera. Entertaining? Sure. Scientific? Not so much.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Today's "true" myths by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1
      In the past, myths were used to explain the unexplainable at he time: stars, weather, seasons, etc. Today, I believe myths have a different use. Despite the fact that we know they are made up, fantasy worlds such as star trek, star wars, lotr, help us to escape what amounts to the daily grind. We get up, go to work, go home, make dinner for most of our lives, with a week or two of real vacation worked in per year. I think people enjoy these fantasy worlds so that they can place themselves in the world, and escape this one.
      I expect that anybody living a couple hundred years in the past (or in the third world today, for that matter) would have quite a chuckle at the idea that we need escape from our "daily grind" more than they needed escape from their world. I think if I found myself in a life where I had to spend most of my time and energy just to keep myself fed, I'd need an escape far more than any first-world cubicle monkey needs it to relieve the stress of having 8 bosses. :)
      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    9. Re:Today's "true" myths by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1
      It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.
      Have you ever watched "Star Wars"?
    10. Re:Today's "true" myths by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's mental. My characters in Everquest can run all day and night without pain and suffering or running out of breath on a couple of iron rations and a flask or two of water. I can't do that...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    11. Re:Today's "true" myths by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Star Wars mostly ignores science. Star Trek actively butchers it at every opportunity.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    12. Re:Today's "true" myths by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      You probably have a "communcator" in your pocket right now - don't you?

      That your argument? One device which is in hundreds of science fiction, fantasy and god knows what books and movies?

      We have now teleported particles - one at a time, albiet ;)

      Given that the teleporter was in Star Trek because shuttle landings cost too much money to film you're not making a good case for yourself at all. Again most of fantasy has some teleportation in it.

      String theory and loop quantum gravity theory don't seem to mind the idea of warp or hyperspace either - but I will admit that those two theories are both pretty fantastic in and of themselves.

      Yay to miss the point, have you even watched star trek? The original one was pure space opera, because we all know you'll find gangsters and roman gladiators on every other planet. The other poster got it perfectly regarding the new series, its pure BS wrapped in a light science coating. If you say enough random crap some of it will look almost but not quite like reality, doesn't make it at all scientific just a lot of BS.

      I agree, Star Trek is not "hard sci-fi" like Stephen Baxter. But nonetheless, there is a scientific basis for the vast majority of their technologies.

      There is hard science fiction, there is soft science fiction and then there is star trek.

      Scientific basis requires thinking "science says X, what if I extend it." Star Trek is "I want X to happen, how can I make it look like science" or in some cases "how can I explain X using pseudo-scientific terms" (ie: how to make the original star trek make any sense at all). Or in other cases it's "I read about this cool thing X, let me disregard most of the science behind it or the broad ranging implications of including it and just shove it in as a plot point then forget about it."

    13. Re:Today's "true" myths by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      No, he's just pleased to see Star Trek get mentioned on /.

    14. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, we need some kind of super war so that the origins of Star Trek can be lost and the bulk of its content can live long and prosper as a new religion. Seriously though, it would be way more interesting than Christianity and Islam. Hindu and Buddhism are already kinda cool, but why limit ourselves. I can see it now... the Old Trekstament (TM) and the New Trekstament (TM). Female followers of the Old Trekstament (TM) must wear short skirts and have uber perky breasts... mmmm where do I sign up?

    15. Re:Today's "true" myths by Rimbo · · Score: 1
      It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the late, great Dr. Feynman: "Far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the
      past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if
      he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"


      That's an interesting question, and a good point: Is the "greater truth" not fact itself?

      But there are still some people who manage to insist they are real, actual events! - UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.


      While on the plane today, there was a trivia thing on the video screens called "Cranium." The subject of almost all of the questions were pop-culture related: Celebrities, TV shows, the like. In the airport, the newspapers crow the latest celebrity gossip. And in the in-flight magazine, more "test your knowledge" quizzes ask you about popular ad jingles, movies, TV shows, celebrities. Even the Sudoku puzzle therein boasts, "You don't need to know any math!"

      If you're going to test someone's knowledge, why not test their knowledge about something valuable? Why not ask them things about math, science, and arts that actually matter?

      Is it any wonder that people have trouble separating fact from reality?
    16. Re:Today's "true" myths by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Bash religion on Slashdot. Get your free mod points TODAY!

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    17. Re:Today's "true" myths by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do the poets of the present not speak of it?

      The Horses Name was Physics

      The Horse's name was Physics,
      and they rode it well.
      The only difference was this:
      Some chose to flog the horse,
      some flogged themselves.

      A book of poems about the development of atomic theory from WWI to the atomic bomb, although it deals mostly with the personalities involved and not the atom itself.

      KFG

    18. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So Scientology is a "UFO religion"? Heaven's Gate, yeah... but I think that's the first time I've heard of Hubbard's club referred to that way. Who knows, it might catch on?

      Scientologists believe all the world's problems are caused by the spirits of dead aliens that were imprisoned on the Earth by an evil galactic overlord. So they are a UFO religion.

    19. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Brin once wrote an interesting article about this. Here's what it really boils down to:

      Bearing in mind that you're going to be a peon and not a starship captain or a Jedi knight, would you rather live in Star Trek or Star Wars?

      I wouldn't want to be in the Star Wars universe unless I could be an Imperial minion... at least there you could get rapidly promoted when your superior officer was executed for his incompetence.

      The Star Trek universe doesn't have the promotion opportunities, but the medical and dental plans sorta make up for the slow career advancement. My biggest objection would be having to travel via being disintegrated and, with any luck, re-integrated somewhere else.

    20. Re:Today's "true" myths by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Star Wars was never billed as science fiction - it's a space fantasy/serial movie.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    21. Re:Today's "true" myths by IIJamesII · · Score: 1
      It is nice to think that at least today we KNOW that our myths are made-up. But there are still some people who manage to insist they are real, actual events! - UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.
      Don't forget themainstream religions...
    22. Re:Today's "true" myths by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yeah, because the only reason WE can't redirect the output from the dilithium matrix through the deflector array to close a rift in the space-time continuum and send Q back home is because we didn't build the Superconducting Supercollider.

      It's interesting that you picked the SSC for your example.

      John Cramer (a physics professor at the University of Washington) wrote a book entitled Einstein's Bridge. It's what he calls "hard science fiction", about how the SSC was actually built and resulted in an invasion by a hostile intelligence. The protagonists somehow travel back in time and manipulate the political process so that the SSC is never built.

    23. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past, myths were used to explain the unexplainable at he time

      That's a myth of the current time. It serves the technological culture by diverting attention from all the cultures that place very little value on gadgets compared to other quality of life issues.

      You maybe need to talk with a zennist or something. Or read that book about motorcycle maintenance maybe.

      --
      That sole singularity that pre-existed all the chaos was the chao.
      The Sacred Chao.
      But that was zen, this is tao.

    24. Re:Today's "true" myths by drsquare · · Score: 1

      None of the concepts or technology behind mobile phones was ever conceived or even mentioned on Star Trek. I could make a TV series involving a working fusion reactor, but it wouldn't mean I could take credit for it when one was eventually invented.

    25. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonetheless, despite the fact that our current mythology is fiction, Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.

      I maybe alone here but, I'm going to come out and admit as many times as I've tried to perform a mind meld I just can't seem to get my fingers in the right position.

    26. Re:Today's "true" myths by SageMusings · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well,

      We did have one episode where Kirk built a gunpowder cannon to survive the Gorn....

      Okay, okay...I'll shut up.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    27. Re:Today's "true" myths by chrisb33 · · Score: 1

      I'm currently reading Unweaving the Rainbow, by Richard Dawkins which makes the same argument: Newton "unweaving the rainbow" (understanding its formation) should only increase our poetic sense of wonder.

    28. Re:Today's "true" myths by Chrononium · · Score: 1

      You know a pretty neat myth that has absolutely no way of being tested? Causality. But like other people here have commented, a myth is simply a way to explain a story. The details don't always have to be right, but the greater truth is the most significant aspect. Ya know, like causality.

    29. Re:Today's "true" myths by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

      Maybe because it's hard to get poetic about something that, when described, sounds like a gargantuan fart.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    30. Re:Today's "true" myths by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Star Wars mostly ignores science. Star Trek actively butchers it at every opportunity."

      I'm having trouble spotting the difference, here. The Millineum Falcon can travel from planet to planet without FTL drive, but Star Trek is the real bastard for having scientific proof that phasers could be fired at warp speed.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    31. Re:Today's "true" myths by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I meant NOT having scientific proof that phasers could be fired... blah I shoulda hit preview. Sorry.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    32. Re:Today's "true" myths by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I'm having trouble spotting the difference, here.

      Star Wars is fantasy, the Force, etc; but Trek presents itself as science fiction. The most annoying thing about recent Trek for me is the blatant nonsense presented as science. For instance, chemistry: a meteor is radioactive, instead of being uranium or another real element that would have worked plotwise, it's some made-up substance "beresium". On another episode, there are "deuterium miners" on a desert planet. There are radioactive space storms that travel FTL. There are... innumerable plot devices made up by writers who barely remember science learnt in primary school. I know in SF you're allowed to bend real science, but Trek writers use fake science not because they need to to advance the plot, but because they're ignorant.

      Why do I watch it? Optimism; perhaps nostalgia. Not mental stimulation.

    33. Re:Today's "true" myths by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      You're right; Star Trek was never meant to be hard science fiction. Star Trek was a space opera serving as a platform for Roddenberry's ideals. The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were, at their very best, character dramas. The Star Trek universe just serves as a backdrop for studies in human nature. Anyone who says different is deluding themselves.

      Just to be clear, I don't mean this is a bad thing. The best and deepest moments had little to do with the sci-fi or the action. It is the personal struggles of the characters that defines Star Trek. Kirk's coming to terms with the passing of time. Data's search for humanity. Sisko exploring the dark sides of both himself and the war. For me, the defining moment of Star Trek will be the finale of TNG ("All good things..."), with Picard sitting down at the poker table with his crew, his friends. In my personal opinion, that is what Star Trek is. Friends together reaching for the unknown and finding themselves within it.

      And that, I think, is what the recent incarnations lack. The heart. The writers (and by this, I mean those "creatively" in charge, not necessarily the writers themselves (I'm looking at you, Berman)) seem to have put their attention on the sci-fi. The alien enemy of the week. What technology will get them out of the impossible dilemma. Any real character growth seems just tossed on out of obligation. It was starting to become about sticking $HOT_ALIEN_CHICK with $SOME_DUDE in a decontamination chamber rubbing each other down with antimicrobial gel for the ratings. That's not Star Trek, and honestly it disgusts me to call it Star Trek.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    34. Re:Today's "true" myths by SpeakerForTheLiving · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as perpetually happy people or perpetually unhappy people. Everyone uses the means on their disposal to search happy moments and avoid unhappy ones. From that point of view, people from now and people from centuries ago are equal, as are people from every "world" be it first, second or third.

    35. Re:Today's "true" myths by MrHanky · · Score: 1
      You don't understand what a myth is, yet your comment is steeped in it:
      Amazing: even as culturally advanced as we fancy ourselves, we still retain those ancient urges to believe in the fantastic.
      This is mythology of the Star Trek generation. A myth isn't a story necessarily believed to be factually true (although it can be), it's rather believed to exemplify truth (and further, that "truth" doesn't need to be wrong). In Star Trek's case, you have plenty of stories that tell us about what, fundamentally, it is to be human (linked mainly to discovery, or to the difference man vs machine (Data), etc.), or to history as a journey from darkness to enlightenment. The fact that you believe Star Trek to be more truthful than Homer's Odyssey just shows that you're completely unaware of how myths work.
    36. Re:Today's "true" myths by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      One letter? Q Who?


      Oh well, perhaps I'm just being Q-pid..

      Logically I should perhaps Hide and Q, suddenly dissapearing with a spectacular flash like a True Q!

      To make matters worse, I've got a Deja Q while typing this post! :S

    37. Re:Today's "true" myths by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      'Amazing: even as culturally advanced as we fancy ourselves, we still retain those ancient urges to believe in the fantastic.'

      Khidir beneath Momouteh.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    38. Re:Today's "true" myths by Shadowmist · · Score: 1


      One of the biggest myths is that shows like Star Trek are pure "science fiction" in the idea that the show encompasses actual theory or testable idea.

      Unfortunately it's far from true. Much of Trek is not science, but actually fantasy magic redressed and given a chrome/plastic packaging. Many people mistake some of the more exotic ideas of quantum physics as bridges to actual engineering. Moreover much of Trek isn't even based on any real theory at all. There is no real theory for a practical warp drive and no engineer worth his salt is going to give you a timeline on a personal ground to orbit to FTL spacecraft that you can park in a somewhat larger version of the family garage. As for the transporter and antimatter carried around about as casually as gasoline plug in 100 kilograms or so into Einstein's E=mc(squared) equation and see how much energy you'd have to fool around with.

      Or on a more subtle level, decades of research have yet to get us any closer to a true cybernetic self aware sentience and there is growing field of thought that perhaps it's not the right tree to bark up on when it comes to AI.

      While much of SF deserves it's credits for prophecy, it should also be noted on the promises it hasn't delivered on and seems not likely to. Who remembers these Space Age and Atomic Age promises?

      1. The 4 day (or less) work week. And remember this was coded during an age which still envisioned only one breadwinner per family.

      2. Radio tube trains

      3. The elimination of paper work

      4. Mass enlightenment of mankind due to increased access to data.

      5. Power so cheap you wouldn't have to meter it.

      This list is far from exhaustive, but I've made my point.
      Trek is what much of present science fiction has become, wish fulfillment fantasy.

    39. Re:Today's "true" myths by stefanvt · · Score: 1
      Why do I watch it? Optimism; perhaps nostalgia. Not mental stimulation.


      Maybe it's simply amusement? Not to be taken serious?
    40. Re:Today's "true" myths by f1055man · · Score: 1

      I saw documentary on Trek, and Shatner basically said they just made stuff up, not a whole lot of thought went into it. Like the teleporters were developed because they didn't have space in their budget(the studio's not the federation's) for a shuttle craft.

    41. Re:Today's "true" myths by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      Hey...stop that.
      Star Trek is good science!...and Creationism too!

    42. Re:Today's "true" myths by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Maybe it's simply amusement?

      Yes, but I would be amused a lot more if it was a bit smarter.

    43. Re:Today's "true" myths by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Those religions might be fictional but only that Sitchin guy(or Stargate, but that admits its fictionality) claims that they were caused by aliens.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    44. Re:Today's "true" myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question is why do people, in this modern age, believe the myth that all truth is verifiable. Have you not read Godel? Even the statement "all truth is verifiable" is not verifiable. Believing this myth makes science into a religion.

    45. Re:Today's "true" myths by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      What? And make people feel as stupid as they really are? Nonsense....

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    46. Re:Today's "true" myths by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Oh ok, I see how it is. Bash alien believeing religions, that's just good clean fun. Bash all religion, get bitched out. I seem to remember some crazy 'outer space' Star of Bethlehem from some religion.. maybe I should have mentioned that and hinted at aliens and I'd be sitting at +5.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    47. Re:Today's "true" myths by sjames · · Score: 1

      Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.

      There's a spectrum all the way from Hard sci-fi on one end where the author actually calculates trajectories and orbits and scours papers on theoretical physics through sci-fi where the technology is a black box (perhaps with techno babble) but seems like something we might well invent given enough time to fantasy where things exist that categorically don't and can't in our world.

      Star Trek falls right into that middle area.

    48. Re:Today's "true" myths by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Yep. Stars in outer space. That be crazy talk!

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    49. Re:Today's "true" myths by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Try to rig the inertial damper into current scientific theory and we're talking. Without them, warp is of not much use, at least, if you don't like the crew to be splattered on the walls everytime entering warp.

    50. Re:Today's "true" myths by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Trekkies generally don't pretend their myth is real.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  7. Is it published? by Associate · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I did a cursory search for it, but only found references. Wether you like ST or not, it might be interesting given the title.

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
    1. Re:Is it published? by joshdick · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I tried searching for it, too. If anybody knows of a preprint for this, I'd be much obliged.

    2. Re:Is it published? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Doesn't look like it. This is remotely relevant: http://www.refractory.unimelb.edu.au/journalissues /vol6/DBaker.html

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Is it published? by shimage · · Score: 1

      Theses generally aren't published. Usually, only your committee reads those things. I imagine that the only way you'll get a copy is if you ask the author or the advisor for a pdf version of it, but that might get annoying if too many people do it.

    4. Re:Is it published? by SourKAT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd imagine it would be annoying.
      So maybe slashdot could request it for the whole trek-lovin' ( and bashin') slashdot crowd?

    5. Re:Is it published? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA says "Since finishing her thesis last year, the 34-year-old has had a daughter and is turning her thesis into an academic text." So it probably will be published.

    6. Re:Is it published? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      Actually, in general ALL theses are published. It is just a very small print, and copies are available from the author, usually for free or for a nominal fee. If there is anything an academic wants, it is to get noticed. So, almost ALL theses are found on the web somewhere in PDF format. The only reason why someone would not do that, is when they want to turn their thesis into a book.

    7. Re:Is it published? by shimage · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. You get a copy for each of your committee members (to do otherwise is rude) and maybe a couple for your advisor, and maybe a couple for yourself, and if anyone wants it you give them the pdf. My point was that it isn't published the same way that journal articles are; it doesn't get anywhere near that kind of circulation, and you don't expect it to. Like I said, no one reads these things (except for whomever continues the project you were on).

      Oh I'm sure many do put it on their professional website, if they have one, but I'm also sure many don't bother. Personally, I have never found a thesis online; usually I go to the advisor and ask for a copy (pdf) if I'm interested. Besides, most of the useful information is published elsewhere (i.e. in journals) in easier to digest forms (i.e., not in a 150-page book). But maybe I'm completely wrong here, because I know this stuff is field-dependent, and I'm in a totally different field.

    8. Re:Is it published? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      know this stuff is field-dependent

      Yeah, I forgot that in my post. I am in computer science, and literally every thesis written since the advent of the Internet is found online somewhere. But, of course, computer science is a pretty extreme research area in that respect.

      Besides, most of the useful information is published elsewhere (i.e. in journals) in easier to digest forms

      Actually, I have found that journal articles published after the thesis came out are usually way better than the thesis itself. After the whole circus of writing, publishing, and defending the thesis, the fresh doctor finally gets the insights on what he or she should have written in the thesis. And that is what gets in the papers.

  8. The only thing that seems odd... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...is the idea that you could learn much about the relationship between anything and today's popular culture from the Star Trek TV franchise, which had been struggling to remain viable on any basis but nostalgia for years before it finally died.

    1. Re:The only thing that seems odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first, your supposition that:

      the Star Trek TV franchise, which had been struggling to remain viable on any basis but nostalgia for years before it finally died

      is incorrect...plenty of new fans of the show were comming along...Enterprise was cancelled more by corporate machinery than a lack of an audience. Basically, Paramount's parent company got a new CEO, Les Moonves, who hated sci-fi. Also, its network, UPN, was marketed to the um... 'urban' audience, and shortsighted businesspeople didn't think it 'fit'. It was a huge blunder, business-speaking, b/c Star Trek has what all marketing people want (IAAMP)...a clearly defined, well-understood audience to advertise to.

      second, Star Trek in any incarnation, had a major theme of presenting a human future, not too far off, where many of humanity's contemporary problems were corrected. This was a central theme to the whole franchise, and has been expounded upon much. Racism being one of the first, and most successfully done in the Original Series in the late '60s. Besides all the aliens and whathaveyou, it presented a vision of earth's future that was attainable, or that could be strived for. By analyzing what contemporary problems the Star Trek writers chose to make anologies to, and how they were solved, and then comparing that to the last 40 years of human history, one could draw valid conclusions about media and its effect on society (and vice versa).

  9. I didn't believe it... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    But it is possible. There are (courtesy of tv.com)
    79 Original Trek Episodes
    178 Next Gen Episodes
    176 Deep Space Nine Episodes
    172 Voyager Episodes
    98 Enterprise Episodes

    Which totals 703 episodes. He didn't even need the 22 Animated Series episodes.

    Wow.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:I didn't believe it... by thesupermikey · · Score: 1

      i didnt realize that there were that many episodes of Voyager or Enterprise.

      Star Trek still sucks.

      /doest like Star Wars either
      //yes i know i post at Fark far to much.
      ///nothing to see here.  move along

      --
      Mikey
      I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
    2. Re:I didn't believe it... by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative

      She, if you can believe it.

      -Peter

    3. Re:I didn't believe it... by Otter · · Score: 1
      79 Original Trek Episodes

      Not 79 episodes, dumbass, there were, uh...

      Sorry, I'm not enough of either a Star Trek or a South Park dork to remember how that goes.

    4. Re:I didn't believe it... by N1EY · · Score: 1

      What about the Time Team? They are reporting on every single hour of Doctor Who. They have been working on the column in DWM for YEARS! Bill

    5. Re:I didn't believe it... by psxman · · Score: 2, Informative

      72/73, says Wikipedia

    6. Re:I didn't believe it... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Funny

      And a cute one too

      I'm sure I will go to that special hell for reducing a PhD to a sexist remark. :-)

    7. Re:I didn't believe it... by EonBlueTooL · · Score: 1

      "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes and thirty seasons worth of television." according to wikipedia

    8. Re:I didn't believe it... by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      All every woman really wants, be it mother, senator, nun, is some serious deep-dickin'.
      --Banky Edwards (Chasing Amy)


      I'll see you there!

      -Peter
    9. Re:I didn't believe it... by mochan_s · · Score: 1

      I love the animated series.

      Remember that one where Kirk meets the devil.

      The sort of thesis that came out of it was that there is no good and evil; just something else. I wonder how that fits with ancient mythology.

    10. Re:I didn't believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a PhD, you know why she's smiling. I mean she's probably not even wrong!

    11. Re:I didn't believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This counts the 22 episodes of the animated series, the original Cage pilot, and may count the Menagerie from TOS as two episodes.

    12. Re:I didn't believe it... by Kaemaril · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wonder which ones she couldn't stand to watch?

      I'd wager 500 quatloos one of them was Spock's Brain :)

    13. Re:I didn't believe it... by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      I'm sure I will go to that special hell for reducing a PhD to a sexist remark.
      Just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the subtle Firefly reference. :-)
      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    14. Re:I didn't believe it... by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 4, Informative

      To further that, something I calculated when Enterprise went off the air:

      Now that Star Trek's over, it's interesting to see exactly how much Star Trek there is (canon only, add 660 minutes/11 hours if you include The Animated Series):

      Movies:

      The Motion Picture: 132 minutes
      The Wrath of Khan: 113 minutes
      The Search for Spock: 105 minutes
      The Voyage Home: 119 minutes
      The Final Frontier: 107 minutes
      The Undiscovered Country: 113 minutes
      Generations: 118 minutes
      First Contact: 106 minutes
      Insurrection: 103 minutes
      Nemesis: 116 minutes

      Episodes:

      The Original Series: 79 (3713 minutes @ 47 minutes/episode)
      The Next Generation: 178 (8010 minutes @ 45 minutes/episode)
      Deep Space Nine: 176 (7920 minutes @ 45 minutes/episode)
      Voyager: 172 (7740 minutes @ 45 minutes/episode)
      Enterprise: 98 (4116 minutes @ 42 minutes/episode)

      Movies Total: 1132 minutes (18 hours, 52 minutes)
      Episodes Total: 31499 minutes (524 hours, 59 minutes)
      Grand Total: 32631 minutes (543 hours, 51 minutes)

      That's 22 days, 15 hours and 51 minutes of Star Trek. Not bad...

    15. Re:I didn't believe it... by gatzke · · Score: 1

      Feature length films?

    16. Re:I didn't believe it... by ameline · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      She's smokin hot, and has a PhD. in Nerdology.

      which makes her way out of the league of pretty much every slashdotter. :-)

      --
      Ian Ameline
    17. Re:I didn't believe it... by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, but I daresay she'd be hotter still once she hosts her Trill symbiote. Va-va-voom!

    18. Re:I didn't believe it... by gone_bush · · Score: 1

      Yes there is - it's called /.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less travelled by. (Robert Frost, 1916)
    19. Re:I didn't believe it... by SinGunner · · Score: 2, Funny

      given your skewed perception of reality in calling the picture of that girl cute, i think you have nothing to worry about with the afterlife thing. whether you go up or down, i don't believe you'll be able to tell the difference.

    20. Re:I didn't believe it... by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      A least I know that you'd agree that Firefly could have been as much fun as ST, would have it lived longer. Or is it poised for a come back?

    21. Re:I didn't believe it... by syousef · · Score: 1

      I think it may be the first time he's seen a female.

      Which episode of ST:TOS was that? Where the kid had never seen a girl before and he's got superpowers and has to be disciplined by his parent? See if I'd done a PhD. in Star Trek I'd know these things...

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    22. Re:I didn't believe it... by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      the thing that strikes me is that episodes got shorter when years passed by. Is this because then they can squeeze in more commercials? Like, with the original series 13 minutes of commercials, 2 more for TNG, DS9 and VOY, and then a couple of years later again 3 minutes more for ENT...

      Just wondering.

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    23. Re:I didn't believe it... by Shadowmist · · Score: 1


      Technically not the "Devil" just an other-dimensional alien remembered as such. The Animated Series was astonishingly mature for a children's morining show. And just to bait the Trekkies, I'll go out on a limb and say the reason Roddenberry hated it so much is that the writing was good enough to show how much the orginal series was marginal by comparison. And the Aniimated Enterprise was the only truely multi-racial starship in the entire suite of series to a degree that would not be matched until Farscape.

    24. Re:I didn't believe it... by Shadowmist · · Score: 1


      Actually I believe the moral is that most of our ideas of evil come from the fear and/or misunderstanding of the unknown. Then again if Lucien's people had their own idea of a Prime Directive, they probably wouldn't have gotten into so much trouble.

    25. Re:I didn't believe it... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Yes, the number of commericals on TV has been increasing. This is not news.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  10. I think I going for my Pschology or Sociology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Ph.D.

    Djoymi Baker watched 700 episodes - 624 hours without ads - of Star Trek and its spin-offs, dating from 1966 to 2005, in the name of research.

    But for me it would be:

    Anonymous Coward watched 700 episodes - 624 hours without ads - of pornography and its cum-shots, dating from 1966 to 2005, in the name of research.

  11. Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...sounds like BS to me!

  12. Too Much Work... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Dr Baker watched over 700 Star Trek episodes -- more than 624 hours -- to investigate the relationship between ancient mythology and today's popular culture.

    Wouldn't reading Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces been easier? This guy must've been a major slacker in school to watch that much Star Trek and still get a degree.

    1. Re:Too Much Work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girl, not guy.

    2. Re:Too Much Work... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Vulcans, either female or male, are refer to as "Mister" (i.e., a guy). :P

    3. Re:Too Much Work... by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Heh, and it's even longer than you could possibly imagine, I saw an interview with her yesty (I'm Australian) and she said she had to watch most episodes 3 or 4 times... Imagine how goddamn ANNOYING that would be!

  13. WAY TO GO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This motivates so much - I'm off to continue thinking about how to transform 300 gigs of finest pr0n into my master thesis (Computer Science ) RIGHT now!

    1. Re:WAY TO GO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mind is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised.

  14. Myth and Star Trek??? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't get it. There was like NO embedded myth in Star Trek, especially when compared to the ORIGINAL Battlestar or to Babylon 5. Those two shows actually had a backstory foundation to sit on. Star Trek? Not a chance, unless you count the Eugenics Wars.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Watch closer. The whole of ST:TOS was an exploration of the Human Condition. It just happened to take place in space, ergo it was "Sci Fi".

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Randseed · · Score: 1

      Even the new Battlestar Galactica has more mythology and philosophy than any of the Star Trek series.

    3. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was nearly no over-arching Myth, but many of the episodes had mythic elements, some altogether too literally. (Remember when our intrepid crew encountered the actual, factual Greek God Apollo?)

      But you miss the main point, which is thanks to the magic of Deconstruction, you can read anything you want into anything you want. So of course Star Trek has embedded myth, any embedded myth you want. It also contains deep wisdom about how post-feminist transgendered dialogs can be resolved in a quasi-imperialist milieu steeped in the rhetoric of oppressive patriarchial systemic dynamics in a quantum mechanical universe, if you look hard enough.

      Isn't literary criticism fun?

    4. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Deconstruction has serious issues and there are very few people who live by it at all -- its interesting from an academic perspective but not at all useful in the real world.

      "That stop sign might mean to stop blinking ... I'll drive right through it"

      The nearly static meanings of things within a language and region allows for the development of culture at all. Sure, reinterpretation takes place, but its still very slow compared to say the changes in fashion culture.

      PS. Star Trek contains many overarching myths that are in the background and understood by all those who watch the show. Ask someone who grew up watching Star Trek whether they believe in, for example, the right to a fair trial. Many things were communicated in Star Trek as normative without being necessarily overbearing and influenced those who watched it.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Star Trek contains many overarching myths that are in the background and understood by all those who watch the show.

      Yeah, I realized as soon as I hit "submit" that that was a bit strong.

      What I meant was that there was no overarching "story" that was this one gigantic myth. Star Trek, being written by a lot of people with a lot of beliefs over a lot of time, certain does have recurring themes, but for any given overarching theme you can find an episode that seems to contradict it.

      It had strong tendencies but is actually fairly incoherent if you really watch what the shows are saying. (While I'm normally really critical of Star Trek, I don't mean that as a critism; reality is incoherent too.)

    6. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This continued in ST:TNG with Data.

    7. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a fucking break, when did Wikipedia links replace reasoning? Your logic is Flawed.

    8. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by *s.panzer* · · Score: 1

      Thats part of the point. The study is meant to connect modern culture and myth, not modern television shows and the made up myth that comes with them.

    9. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Perey · · Score: 1

      It seems we've been spoiled by continuity in sci-fi and (especially) fantasy (since that's often more overtly myth-building). Ancient myths had no overarching story either. They were diverse traditions, often passed on orally, that embodied certain cultural values. Far from coherent. Some of the sources that have come down to the modern day have strung together (or at least tied in) several myths, but even they don't agree with each other. (Often it comes out resembling modern comics, in the way they have endless crossovers and reboots and Wold Newton families. C'mon, the Argonauts were the ultimate comic-book "League" of heroes.)

      Star Trek has a much more coherent, "overarching" quality that the word myth should suggest. (The great-great-grandparent made an even bigger mistake: the "myth" is not the "backstory". It's the values of the culture and how they're embedded in the story.) I've naturally not read this thesis, unfortunately, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that some mention is made of the difference between TV myth and ancient, oral myth. (I did catch the news story last night, which featured a tubby guy in Starfleet uniform for no apparent reason, as well as some actual discussion from the author on what her thesis was about. She said she chose Star Trek because its production spanned forty years of culture.)

    10. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea isn't that Star Trek contains myth, but that Star Trek is myth. A much bigger statement IMHO.

    11. Re:Myth and Star Trek??? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      (Remember when our intrepid crew encountered the actual, factual Greek God Apollo?)
      That comes nowhere near the Goa'uld who are almost all "Gods".
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  15. She could have saved herself 157 hours... by spagetti_code · · Score: 1, Interesting

    by using mythtv and having the
    ads stripped out. A typical show, sans ads and theme music,
    can be watched in 40 minutes reducing her watching time from
    624 hours to 466 hours.

    1. Re:She could have saved herself 157 hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      703 hour long episodes probably already had the ads cut out to give the 624 hour total.
      Myth tv is cool, and so is at least passing a remedial math class.

  16. Star Trek Thesis Wins Academic Award? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How horrible.

    That's just horrible.

    1. Re:Star Trek Thesis Wins Academic Award? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Next thing they'll be making J.R.R. Tolkien the foremost author of the 20th century.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Star Trek Thesis Wins Academic Award? by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      grr, rtfa.
      It's a thesis on how storytelling and mythology has changed over time from what I've gathered, and the reason star trek was an obvious choice is that it's a fictional story-telling show that's been running since 1966.
      That's a LOT of data. (no pun)

    3. Re:Star Trek Thesis Wins Academic Award? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    4. Re:Star Trek Thesis Wins Academic Award? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      Depends on how amusing you find watching the academic guardians of high culture fall in to a fit of gibbering apoplexy.

      I suppose it beats TP-ing the Dean's front yard.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Re:I think I going for my Pschology or Sociology.. by Flodis · · Score: 1

    Did you watch them with Rosey Palm? In that case, you have earned your tagline; "To go bald where no man has gone bald before..."

  18. In other news by LSD-OBS · · Score: 3, Funny

    Popular bittorrent sites have noted a huge spike in Star Trek episode downloads over the last 12 months...

    --
    Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  19. Proof by elgee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This just proves that PhD stands for "piled higher and deeper." Next year someone will win a prize for a dissertation on The Simpsons and how Homer embodies the best and worst of American men.

    1. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this any less valid than a PhD surrounding the works of Shakespeare? It could be reasonably argued that the collected episodes of Star Trek represent a far larger body of work, that they do indeed influence pop culture substantially and serve as a superb mirror for the social attitudes of contemporary society.

      Mind, my PhD is in Computer Science, so all that humanities stuff is more or less the same to me. If you can't code it, it isn't good enough!

    2. Re:Proof by graystar · · Score: 1

      I agree. What a waste of someones creative energy. When there are so many problems in the world this person goes and writes a Phd on star trek. Worst thing is all the rest of the academics agreed and awarded the prize.

      --
      -- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
    3. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for ruining my PhD dissertation... Now I'll have to throw away my half-finished paper and make up for the 300 hours lost watching The Simpsons.

    4. Re:Proof by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Culture is culture. If no one looks at culture of the present day, we lose a lot of valuable information. You're basically saying it's OK to abolish the study of culture at the university level. And while I am not personally interested in Star Trek, I do think that it has had an amazing influence over a large portion of the general population, and studying that effect is definitely worth the effort. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't look at the effect of the Simpsons on our civilization. Ignoring the mundane details that describe our culture means ignoring the essence of culture as a whole.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    5. Re:Proof by theskipper · · Score: 1

      All facets of culture? My sympathies to the poor researcher that has to view every "Saved by the Bell" episode to get his thesis.

      *shudders*

    6. Re:Proof by Quaoar · · Score: 1
      And I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't look at the effect of the Simpsons on our civilization.


      I meant would, not wouldn't.
      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    7. Re:Proof by anagama · · Score: 1
      In her context, it makes perfect sense.

      Djoymi Baker is a PhD candidate in Cinema and New Media at the University of Melbourne ...


      Be realistic, most jobs contribute in their way. If everyone researched cancer, we'd all starve to death and swim around in our sewage. If people didn't have a few moments to sit back and relax with a book or a show, we'd all be the poorer for it -- not just in quality of life but how often does it happen that a random thing seen or read, of no apparent value, will spark an important thought? Ms. Baker will be teaching people how to make movies or videos. That has value, just as the farmer growing food, or the plumber fixing toilets, or the researcher solving a cancer puzzle, each have value in their own way. Everything is inter-related and inter-dependant.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Proof by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      Well guess what. Harvard has a course in analyzing the simpsons, or so I've heard.

    9. Re:Proof by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention Shakespeare and coding ...

    10. Re:Proof by Proney · · Score: 1

      Tom: What's he doin?
      Droz: He's finishing his senior thesis. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine-Hackman theory. No matter what time it is, 24 hours a day, you can find a Michael Caine or Gene Hackman movie playing on TV.
      Tom: That's his thesis?
      Droz: Yes! That's the beauty of college these days, Tommy! You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit.

      Reference: PCU

      --
      require "something.clever";
    11. Re:Proof by hey! · · Score: 1

      Next year someone will win a prize for a dissertation on The Simpsons and how Homer embodies the best and worst of American men.

      Well duh.

      Of course he does. The problem is that the creators of the Simpsons make it look easy to create such a character. Which it is not.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Proof by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't disagree more. Star Trek hasn't just been a passive part of our culture, it has had a distinct impact on the development of our society. Many new technologies that we are realizing today were at one point fictional devices that existed only in the Star Trek universe (think communicators/cell phones). Star Trek has been credited for inspiring some researchers down the path that eventually lead or is leading towards making those technologies a reality. Watching the Enterprise go to warp 9 was enough to convince some impressionable youths to become physicists and study how to make warp travel possible. It has raised the interest of several generations for space exploration. To act as if there is no value to studying the social impact of Star Trek is extremely ignorant. (and this is coming from someone who is more of a Star Wars fan.)

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

    13. Re:Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fair enough or a PhD, but I think we should really move towards separating professional degrees like Doctors of Engineering from those in the arts. Not because there's nothing to what they do in the arts, but there really isn't anything in common between an arts and a sciences PhD, beyond the fact that they both involved spending way too long in school.

    14. Re:Proof by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      This just proves that PhD stands for "piled higher and deeper."

      Nonsense! Everybody knows it stands for "Permanent Head Damage" =)

    15. Re:Proof by john83 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  20. Not yet, but maybe soon by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally Star Trek is gaining the academic recognition it so richly deserves. Having Trekology as an official subject for a BS degree should be coming up soon at all major mail order universities. Live long and prospers.

    Maybe some day those who embrace the Federation's Ideals can be accepted on a jury or even in public office.

    stardate 2006.828 i've successfully been elected to the town school board. the squabbling is terrible and nothing ever gets done. i've never felt in need of a phaser so much in my life.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  21. In before... by brouski · · Score: 0, Troll

    In before CleverNickname.

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  22. ObBones by bloobloo · · Score: 1

    I'm a doctor, damnit, not a Star Trek addict!

    1. Re:ObBones by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a doctor, damnit, not a Star Trek addict!

      And only Bones could fix the brain-melt she must be suffering after 624 hours of Trek. It must have been like a dagger in the mind.

      Crap, I'm a nerd.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  23. Star Trek vs Star Gate on mythology. by MavEtJu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to investigate the relationship between ancient mythology and today's popular culture.

    Star Trek? My bet would be that the first few seasons of Star Gate would give much more away on that.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:Star Trek vs Star Gate on mythology. by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      This is a total OT rant, but it amazes me when someone who claims enough knowledge of a show to say it can be used to connect ancient myth and pop culture can't spell the title of the show.

    2. Re:Star Trek vs Star Gate on mythology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stargate? Terminated and already traded off to the Ancient Studies department.

      May be I could do a PH.D. thesis on "The Bikini Summer Series and the many American Mass Migrations"? Maybe I could combine this with my volunteer Camel-Toe studies.

    3. Re:Star Trek vs Star Gate on mythology. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Old Mythology is used as a plot device in Stargate, not the episodes itself are "modern mythology". I assume she wanted to compare the old mythology with the "new mythology" = "scifi".

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Star Trek vs Star Gate on mythology. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      He probably took the title from the Uncyclopedia article, which does call it "Star Gate".

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  24. Whats with the title? by Fei_Id · · Score: 1, Informative

    Man even /. is getting sensationalized.

    First the news media is about to soil it's collective shorts about some Tropical Storm Ernesto which no one seems to know where its going.

    And now we see a title in an article about a "Star Trek PhD Thesis"

    Isn't this kind of stupid? The paper was NOT about star trek. Star Trek episodes were nothing but a research tool used to access a much deeper level of human culture.

    What's next? Someone writes a thesis on psychological and physiological symptoms and causes of game addiction and uses WoW as a study medium? I can see the headlines: "World of Warcraft PhD Thesis roxxors my boxxors"

    1. Re:Whats with the title? by Perey · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what definition you're using to gauge what a thesis is "about". If WoW was the study medium for a thesis on game addiction, I would say it's equally accurate to describe the thesis as "about WoW and how it relates to game addiction", or as "about game addiction, using WoW as a research tool to approach the problem".

      Same deal here. The thesis is titled "Broadcast Space: TV Culture, Myth and Star Trek". The thesis is about Star Trek.

    2. Re:Whats with the title? by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

      If it were truly a thesis about StarTrek, it'd be on slashdot for a different reason: "for the dumbest thesis paper ever submitted" It uses StarTrek as a tool of research to examine cultural change; like a form of anthropology. Medical Anthropologists studying for their PhDs don't submit papers on a particular medicine...

  25. Futurama called the whole mythology thing by w33t · · Score: 4, Funny

    Star Trek "priest": "And Scotty beamed them to the Klingon ship, where there would be no tribble at all"
    Crowd chants: "All power to the engines!"

  26. Text/script analysis vs. watching? by pacalis · · Score: 1

    Why watch them - why didn't she do a text analysis of the scripts/director nots and compare this to other texts? Watching seems subjective and a tremendous time suck. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Text/script analysis vs. watching? by Alicat1194 · · Score: 1
      Why watch them - why didn't she do a text analysis of the scripts/director nots and compare this to other texts? Watching seems subjective and a tremendous time suck. Am I missing something?

      I'm guessing it's because a lot can be conveyed through body language and actor interaction that can't adequately be described on the page (That and it's way easier than reading :)

      --
      You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    2. Re:Text/script analysis vs. watching? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      Reading isn't subjective?

    3. Re:Text/script analysis vs. watching? by pacalis · · Score: 1

      Reading could be as subjective as watching which is why I refered to text analysis. For example, there are a number of highly reproducible techniques, often from antrhopology, sociology or linguistics, that can be used to compare text correlates. Think for example, how Google serves search results or provides Adword estimates, or how Amazon identifies its concordance or unique statement book data.

  27. Superlative? by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

    It is correct... but the first definition that came to my mind, given the 624 hours of Star Trek, was "Excessive."

    Superlative.

    --
    Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
  28. Darn, must now go for my second choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    Mirror of human values by Anonymous Cowards

    Abstract: In the spirit of the best human qualities, Anonymous Cowards seeking public yet anonymous recognition show formidable selflessness. By doing away with the link between benevolent exposure of ideas and karma gratification they elevate public commentary to a social reinforcement of Insightful, Interesting and Funny: all essential components of high achievements. This in turn strengthens the Blog medium with not only cohesive forces but justifies the Anonymous Cowards with legitimacy beyond what have been observed throughout the history of the Internets. Their willingness to start from scratch over and over yet still earn the respect of their peers hardly justifies the "coward" epithet and proves that comments, even at -1, are a gold mine for those seeking understanding of TFA.

    We will show that Anonymous Corwardiness is alive and well and that despite sometime adverse moderation, this modern tradition offers by its unique qualities a look inside the human soul.

    1. Re:Darn, must now go for my second choice by zenhkim · · Score: 1

      > We will show that Anonymous Corwardiness is alive and well

      Uh, you *were* trying to type "Cowardliness", right? Or "Cowardice" would work, too. Not sure which of those words is the best choice, though. :)

      --
      "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
    2. Re:Darn, must now go for my second choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh, you *were* trying to type "Cowardliness", right? Or "Cowardice" would work, too. Not sure which of those words is the best choice, though. :)
      ACs are one thing, but who will be brave enough to state the case for the intellectual defence of the spelling Trolls!?
    3. Re:Darn, must now go for my second choice by ph43thon · · Score: 1

      nah.. it's "cowardiness" ...like "truthiness".

    4. Re:Darn, must now go for my second choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We will show that Anonymous Corwardiness is alive and well and that despite sometime adverse moderation, this modern tradition offers by its unique qualities a look inside the human soul.

      In defense of the adverse moderation, it must be said that sometimes this modern tradition offers a look inside other, how shall we say, more corporeal human parts.
  29. You're validating his point. by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    Outside of his role he should be addressed as WILLIAM SHATNER, not KIRK.

    1. Re:You're validating his point. by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      By the third or fourth movie there wasn't much difference between the two, except that only one really got to fly spaceships.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  30. Not necessarily. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A myth is just a story that explains something.
    Myths are also used to pass on the culture, norms, values, mores and ethics from one generation to the next.

    And to reinforce those in each generation.

    Myths tell us what is "good" and what is "bad".
  31. ST:TOS? by kybred · · Score: 1
    Star Trek: Terms of Service? I guess I missed that series.

    (Yes, I know it's 'The Original Series')

    1. Re:ST:TOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Us authentic Trekkies just call it Star Trek. Since that was the name. Everything else has a sub-title.

      On a related note, the biggest scifi movie of 1977 was titled Star Wars. Not Episode IV, not A New Hope, and certainly not Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope. It was just Star Wars.

  32. Don't Beleive It by HiddenL · · Score: 1

    While there are 703 episodes, that doesn't translate into 703 hours or Trek because of commercials. In order for her to watch 624 hours, each episode has to be at least 53.26 minutes long. Although the amount of commercials shown in an hour varies by time and station, it almost undoubtably is more than 7 minutes/hour.

    1. Re:Don't Beleive It by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      There were also ten movies and 22 animated episodes.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  33. No movies? by vain+gloria · · Score: 1
    It is correct... but the first definition that came to my mind, given the 624 hours of Star Trek, was "Excessive."

    Excessive? No! This is how I define "unwarranted"!
    1. Re:No movies? by dgenr8 · · Score: 1


      I bestow this thesis highest honors in my "boondoggle" category.

  34. Re:Next up by Tyir · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, your point would be a little more effective if the quote you gave was actually from Shatner, rather than a Saterday Night Live skit.

    The website you gave *was* http://snltranscripts.jt.org/

  35. Literally, in fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Star Trek based on science? Muahahahah, *wipes eye* that was hilarious. It's like the definition of unrealistic and unscientific sci-fi, a fantasy series with a weak blanket of "science" shoved on top.
    I seem to recall that weak blanket playing the monster in one episode of TOS.
  36. What's Truly Amazing Here by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's really amazing here is that Djoymi Baker is female. Die-hard ST fans weren't known often for being of the fairer sex.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:What's Truly Amazing Here by mochan_s · · Score: 1
      What's really amazing here is that Djoymi Baker is female. Die-hard ST fans weren't known often for being of the fairer sex.

      Until Voyager came along ...

    2. Re:What's Truly Amazing Here by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Die-hard ST fans weren't known often for being of the fairer sex.
      True. But it's clear that she had to come from the subset of ST fans who are able to string words together into complete sentences, a skill that is almost unheard of among the majority of ST fans of the less fair sex.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:What's Truly Amazing Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some women are fans - I've always watched them and was obsessed when I was younger (maybe still am a little). However, talking to me for the first or even hundreth time, you wouldn't know it unless it came up specifically - I never appreciated throwing around cultutural trivia like it was conversations and it isn't the best way to connect with most people, which might be why less people know I'm a fan than some of my more outhere male friends.

  37. Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Trek's been mined for college papers since Chekhov was in diapers. With -- what, 4, 5, six series, how many movies? -- from which to draw, you could prolly choose a thesis premise via a dartboard and still find enough material in the Star Trek mythos to hang it all on.

    The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

    And I know from pop culture pseudo-scholarship: I once got an "A" in my "Structuralism and Semiotics" class with an exegesis of an Elric of Melnibone short story.

    Ahhhh, college...

  38. That's why they call it academic... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    Please check items 3 and 4 in a dictionary for academic.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  39. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end of time, there was a man who knew the road, and the writing was written on the stone...

    In the ancient time, an artist led the way, but no one seemed to understand...

    In his heart he knew, the artist must be true, But the legend of the rent was way past due

    Rim dim dim dim dim dim dim dim doodit doo doo dit doo rim rim dim dim dim dim dim dim doodit doo doo dit doo

    Well you think you'll be just fine, withuot me but your mine, you think you can kick me out of the band

    rair rair rair ree rer rair rair reeree rair

    Well there's just one problem there, the band is Mine!

    How can you kick me out of what is mine? Shigga Jigga Jigga Jigga Jigga

    O your not hardcore (no your not hardcore) unless you live hardcore ( unless you live hardcore

    But the legend of the rent was way harcore

  40. Read This Where? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    And where can this thesis be read?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  41. Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uncut ST:TOS episodes run about 50 minutes. There were fewer ads per hour back then.

  42. Re:Star Trek by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, no, no. Not 'shitty'. The term you're looking for is 'Shatty'.

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  43. Please lean to spell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct spelling is, "KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!"

    1. Re:Please lean to spell... by schon · · Score: 1, Informative

      Shouldn't that be KHAAAN!!!?

    2. Re:Please lean to spell... by mantar · · Score: 1

      Bloody brilliant! A trekkie who can spell Khan correctly, but can't spell 'learn'.

      Genius...

      --
      # man tar
  44. My next thesis by Kamineko · · Score: 1

    My next thesis:

    "A Contemporary Study of The Effects of the Application of Sensationalist Material into Specialist Media Channels"

    1. Re:My next thesis by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

      Put me on the review board; I'll make sure you get your doctorate!

    2. Re:My next thesis by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      I already have a doctorate, it's from the PR3SITIGOUS MIT OF TECHNOLOGY ONLINE. It only cost me $250! Bargain!

  45. check out the others... by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Informative

    This just proves that PhD stands for "piled higher and deeper."

    Not all PhD's. But in this case...I'm a little inclined to agree. No offence to the talented and fetching Dr. Baker, but here are the other three winners of the U of Melbourne's Chancellor's Prize of Excellence:

    (1) "Penelope Smith (Social Sciences), who used economic modeling to better understand business cycles in Australia and large Group of 7 economies - drawing information which is critical for setting fiscal and monetary policy."

    (2) "Martin de Jonge (Science and Engineering) whose work will lead to more incisive synchrotron x-ray studies that are 100 times more accurate than current levels."

    (3) "Christopher Smith (Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences) who identified the cell which encourages the body's immune system to fight the herpes simplex virus."

    Seems like a wee bit more serious and useful work. On the other hand, clearly Baker is a right clever jane, having figured out how to get the yeomanry of 'Stralia pay her a handsome stipend for five years while she watches her favorite TV show and takes notes. Well done, lass! You have to admire that kind of panache.

    1. Re:check out the others... by Quaoar · · Score: 1

      Not saying that those competitors don't deserve the prize, but obviously Dr. Baker's work scored higher on the metric they use. I would guess the scale has more to do with the quality of the work than the topic of the work.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    2. Re:check out the others... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, clearly Baker is a right clever jane, having figured out how to get the yeomanry of 'Stralia pay her a handsome stipend for five years while she watches her favorite TV show and takes notes.

      Five years? Most PhD scholarships in Australia are only for 3.5. No wonder she won a prize if she had an extra 1.5 years to do her research.

    3. Re:check out the others... by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno, your analysis seems to dismiss Dr. Baker (who is a fox) and her research just because it is in a modern cultural field. Yes, something like a medical advance is extremely useful to humanity, but when he isn't studying immunological facotrs relating to the herpes virus, what does Dr Christopher Smith watch on TV while he relaxes? Why does he watch it, and what does it say about the greater cultural forces surrounding him? If he responds to the Borg, for instance, as effective villains, why is that? Is it because they are ugly and their mechanical elements makes them intimidating, or is it because they represent the polar opposite of the Thatcher-esque mode of thinking that has come to define modern capitalist nations? (Thatcher once said there is no society, only individuals. The Borg are the exact opposite.)

      I could go on a rant about how medicine may allow us to live, but culture makes life worth living, but it would be a stretch to say that Dr Baker is producing culture. What she is doing is helping us understand our own culture. When we foster a society that can engage critically with its own culture and media, we have a culture that is less susceptble to the influence of those who would use media to control the public. We gain understanding, or at least perspective, on the other cultures surrounding is and the cultures that preceded us, and we also open doorways to a brighter future. How many people do you think became engineers or scientists thanks to watching Star Trek as children? Couldn't Jules Verne and Meliés deserve some credit for inspiring certain elements of our journeys to the mood and beneath the oceans?

      As someone currently in college, currently studying animation (but finding myself drawn away from the practical side and towards the theoretical side) I often grapple with the feeling that I'm devoting a lot of my time, my youth and my mental energy to something that could quite possibly be considered irrelevant. On some level it's possible to say that research using Star Trek is fairly inconsequential, but ultimately, devoting research to it goes back to one of my favorite adages of philosophy, Socrates. The unexamined life is not worth living. If no one examines Star Trek, is it worth watching?

      --
      Yup...
    4. Re:check out the others... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Whether its Shakespeare or Star Trek this kind of study is nonesense. Both the Shakespeare scholar and this lady get the same amount of respect from me. Nada. I shudder to think of the crap TV that will be studied in coming years. Fools will come up with dissertaions on how wonderful and misunderstood each and every F grade soapie is.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:check out the others... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not so easily convinced. Can you point to some PhD-level studies on whether this kind of cultural study is worthwhile? I'm sure someone must have performed rigorous studies into the heart of the issue, and if the results of that study were widely available instead of rotting in some university library, we could all stop bickering here.

    6. Re:check out the others... by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      How many people do you think became engineers or scientists thanks to watching Star Trek as children?

      You mean how many people in the US. The world is bigger, you know, and a good lot of scientists and engineers around never watched Star Trek as kids.

      Better: how many incompetent geeks thought they could become engineers or scientists because they watched Star Trek as kids and then dropped out because they were too stupid?

      Anyone who gets their idea of what being a scientist or an engineer from Star Trek is as sad and deluded as someone who thinks joining the Marines would be cool because he watched Major Dad. The difference is that the Marines weed out losers faster.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    7. Re:check out the others... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! My day feels brighter now, because I realize I don't know you in person, and hopefully never will.

    8. Re:check out the others... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Nah. I disagree. Entertainment is just entertainment. If I want to think seriously about a topic, I read a serious book on it. If I want to relax and turn the serious-thinking parts of my brain off, then I watch Star Trek. If I want to learn about life, then I talk to my father or my neighbor with the Purple Heart from Vietnam. Or I observe my children, or read the autobiography of someone who's had an interesting life. I've got plenty of sources of serious information if I want to think seriously. I don't need to try to extract snippets of good sense from one-liners by Dr. McCoy or a speech to imaginary aliens (who are really clever metaphors for ourselves, ha ha) by Captain Picard. Why mine for silver in the dump when silver mines are all around you? Sure, you might find some, but it's a bit pointlessly harder.

      I don't take lessons about life from Star Trek. I don't consider its imaginary situations metaphors for anything real. It doesn't "discuss" important "issues" as far as I'm concerned, and, even if it gave itself airs and thought it did, then anything actors, screenwriters and directors said on any serious issue would have zero weight with me. Might as well ask a juggler at the State Fair which stocks to buy.

      I surely agree entertainment reflects life and the society that makes it. But why study the reflection instead of the thing itself? If you want to understand American foreign policy since Vietnam, study American foreign policy. There are ample direct resources -- books written by diplomats, soldiers, professors, and reg'lar folks. Recorded speeches, newspapers archives, old photos. Why try to glean insight from the faint reflection of the culture in old Power Ranger episodes? Because it's more fun? Well, fair enough. But don't ask me to call that scholarship. Sounds more like a hobby to me.

      I don't dismiss Dr. Baker and her hobby -- I just don't consider it serious scholarship, which is certainly my prerogative. I don't have to respect an accomplishment merely because it's difficult or well done. Someone who sculpts shit beautifully wouldn't impress me. Dr. Baker's work wouldn't satisfy my wish to do something serious and worthwhile with my life, but if it satisfies hers -- then bon voyage, milady. De gustibus non est disputandam.

      I could go on a rant about how medicine may allow us to live, but culture makes life worth living

      Not for me. Climbing mountains, running triathlons, visiting Galicia, raising children, seeing globular clusters through telescopes, setting up my own intranet, or accomplishing nifty tricks at work make my life worth living. TV and movies and novels could vanish overnight and I dare say I, like the thousands of generations of human being that lived before those things even existed, would find life well worth living.

      When we foster a society that can engage critically with its own culture and media, we have a culture that is less susceptible to the influence of those who would use media to control the public.

      Like masturbation teaches one about sex? I think not. Historically speaking, those least susceptible to media propagandizing are country bumpkins who spend their time with real people and actual events. It's urban elites disconnected from real life, those who routinely exercise their ability to commingle fiction and fact, who are most susceptible. The intellectuals are always first to fall prey to mass delusions -- it's the peasants who are last.

      We gain understanding, or at least perspective, on the other cultures surrounding us

      No doubt. But we'd gain understanding faster by turning off the tube, opening the door, and walking out into it.

      How many people do you think became engineers or scientists thanks to watching Star Trek as children?

      None. You confuse correlation with cause. I think people who were, for whatever reason of personality and rearing, going to become engineers and scientists

    9. Re:check out the others... by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

      Okay, I think maybe one of the things that makes my perspective difficult to argue is that the culture in question here is Star Trek, a piece of work that many more people dismiss than take seriously.

      And whether or not the researcher-in-question's task was difficult or well accomplished isn't something I can really vouch for, all I can do is take the word of the committee that gave her the award.

      So I'm only going to reply to portions of your argument that I actually have rebuttals for, hope you don't mind.

      Entertainment is just entertainment. If I want to think seriously about a topic, I read a serious book on it. If I want to relax and turn the serious-thinking parts of my brain off, then I watch Star Trek. If I want to learn about life, then I talk to my father or my neighbor with the Purple Heart from Vietnam. Or I observe my children, or read the autobiography of someone who's had an interesting life.

      While not all art of culture is created equal, even in film the distinction between entertainment and something more serious or relevant can be murky. Something like the Power Rangers is very simple to just classify as entertainment, and there's little reason to believe any of the people who contributed to it attempted to make it anything deeper. But what about something like Apocalypse Now? It's an entertaining and egaging film on the one hand, and a rather intense exercise is philosophy on the other hand. Fact of the matter is the only written source you mentioned as a possible source for serious thought was an autobiography. Sometimes autobiographies can be very flawed formats for conveying a life experiance or opinion. What if someone chose to interpret their own life experiences in another manner? Hemmingway led what I think you could deem to be an interesting life, from WWI to the Spanish Civil War. He chose to convey his experiences through novels like For Whom the Bell Tolls. Kurt Vonnegut watched the firebombing of Dresden occur before his eyes, and his method of exploring that experience was through a semi fictional, semi autobiography (Slaughterhouse V) where he described in detail exactly what he saw, then conveyed his stunned incomprehension through exploring what an alien race would think of humanity at that moment, and describes the sensation of reliving memories by describing it as a character literally 'unstuck in time'. It conveys more about the mental delerium that one faces in such situations that a raw autobiography could have. All forms of art are ideally the vehicle through which the author brings forth something from their experience or feeling and shares it with the world. Some choose autobiography, some reject that and choose to use music or film or poetry. Who says you could gain more insight from Picasso if you talked to him face to face than if you looked at his paintings? The spoken word is a great communication medium, but it has its limitations.

      I surely agree entertainment reflects life and the society that makes it. But why study the reflection instead of the thing itself?

      What happens when all you have to glean from a society is the reflection?

      There is no historical record of the Trojan War, all we have is an epic poem by Homer (who may or may not have been one man) which was orally passed down for generations before it was ever written. What we can extrapolate from the Illiad and Odyssey is the cultural context around which these stories unfolded, how these people felt as though gods were at the heart of such cataclysmic events, and what qualities they valued amongst heroes. Even a sense of their attitude towards their enemies' cultures. One cannot simply step back into Greece, 1,000BC, this cultural fragment is all we have. And the generations of people that did just fine without books and movies? Just who do you think these oratory epics were performed for? Your assertion that if all movies and novels vanished you couldn't care less may be true in your case, but it reflects an attitude that I don't think would be shar

      --
      Yup...
    10. Re:check out the others... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duuuude...You just blew my mind!

  46. Re:Star Trek by mattcasters · · Score: 1

    ROTFL. Man that was funny!

    --
    News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
  47. Droz was right! by spywhere · · Score: 1

    That's the beauty of college these days, Tommy! You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit."
    -- James 'Droz' Andrews (played beautifully by Jeremy Piven) in PCU.

    1. Re:Droz was right! by steve's+nose+is+blee · · Score: 1

      YES! I was waiting for this comment from someone.

  48. PhD thesis on Star Trek- Skip the english version, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    to Truly understand the thesis, you must read it in its original Klingon.

  49. Goes to show... by Temujin_12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...how important intelligent communication is. While a topic like 'TV Culture, Myth and Star Trek', in my opinion, does not provide a revolutionary breakthrough in the study of humanities, the fact that she intelligently and effectively enumerates and supports her argument is enough to merit the award she received.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    1. Re:Goes to show... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Goes to show... how important intelligent communication is. While a topic like 'TV Culture, Myth and Star Trek', in my opinion, does not provide a revolutionary breakthrough in the study of humanities, the fact that she intelligently and effectively enumerates and supports her argument is enough to merit the award she received.

      Not really. How to enumerate and support your argument is a skill you should learn in high school, at worst about your sophmore year in college. A PhD candidate is expected to go far beyond that.
    2. Re:Goes to show... by DarenN · · Score: 1

      That cannot be true. To get a PhD you must make an original contribution to the field (this is actually the primary requirement). So to get an award for your PhD it must've pretty much kicked all kinds of ass. To get an award for a PhD on Star Trek means that either it was the greatest social study ever performed for a PhD, or the panel were all Trekkies :)

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
  50. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a transcript from SNL.

  51. Re:Star Trek by anagama · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.shatnerhasbeen.com (you can hear interviews and songs). I actually bought this album a year ago or so and I'm not ashamed to say I truly like it. Anyway, your post reminded me of the song "Has Been" from that album.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  52. Trekology by five+fingers · · Score: 1

    Maybe not "Trekology" per se, but Star Trek can be used as a subject in any course of mythology, semiotics, discourse analysis, etc. When I was in college, my final project for some Literary Theory class (was it stylistics?) was about "The Ketchup Song". Postmodern linguistics treat everything as a text, so there is nothing surprising about choosing Star Trek as a subject.

  53. ST: The Energizer Bunny of TV by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    It keeps boldly going, and going, and going where no one has gone before: Aussie sheepskin...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  54. On that note.. by Durinthal · · Score: 1

    One person at my college did their senior thesis (typically 100+ pages) on the history of Nintendo.

    1. Re:On that note.. by robbkidd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tom: What's he doin?
      Droz: He's finishing his senior thesis. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine-Hackman theory. No matter what time it is, 24 hours a day, you can find a Michael Caine or Gene Hackman movie playing on TV.
      Tom: That's his thesis?
      Droz: Yes! That's the beauty of college these days, Tommy! You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit.
      - PCU

  55. 700 Star Trek episodes??? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who is he kidding? When the series ended in 1969 there were only 80 episodes. The so-called 'derivitive' series' came many years later and are a completely different kind of television. They're kind of the equivalent, frankly, of Star Trek remade the way a Woman's Studies department would redo it in 1989. . . Not necessarily a bad thing in all regards, but definitely not Star Trek.

    I guess there was a brand-name there that really begged to be capitalized on. Let's not get carried away with it, though.

    1. Re:700 Star Trek episodes??? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      Troll? I guess there are some very sacred cows here on /. You're hardly the first person to think this, but I suppose there are some things that just can't be said around here.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  56. He could have taken all of Slashdot's by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    trekspeak and submitted that, and probably still won!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:He could have taken all of Slashdot's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She actually, you see there are these creatures called "Females", Now I know you may never have encountered one and may indeed believe that they too are myth....

  57. Out of curiosity by sam991 · · Score: 1

    Does she include the films in that? I think it's widely accepted that The Wrath of Khan explores the human condition far better than any of the latter series.

    --
    "No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
  58. This is great... by shaneFalco · · Score: 1

    I'm aiming for my PhD in Political Science... after reading this I feel less embarassed for wanting to design a course called 'The Politics of Star Wars' Bonus points if your final makes significant mention of the Wookiees.

    1. Re:This is great... by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

      The wookies long captivity under the empire caused them to be a powerful anti-empire force and eventually helped with the subsequent fall of the empire...

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
  59. guest starring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thirty years on, the roles were reversed, with astronauts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration guest-starring on Star Trek spin-offs to promote their underfunded existence.

    Could someone please enlighten me?
  60. Star Trek Inspirational Posters by alchemist68 · · Score: 1

    Star Trek Inspirational Posters

    http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/star_trek_ins p.html

    Enjoy slashdotters!

    Please don't Slashdot this site, this guy needs donations.

  61. Doesn't matter by Maxmin · · Score: 1

    Not only is she both a smartie AND a Trekkie, she's a hottie.

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Associate · · Score: 1

      From TFA She's not bad.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      So we've got oversaturated picture and super vasoline on the lens picture. Your MySpace visual effects won't work on me!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  62. A prize winning thesis.. by kayditty · · Score: 0

    with a grammatical error in its title? Okay, it is possible that "Myth and Star Trek" was meant, but, most likely, 'TV, Myth, and Star Trek' was the intention. It's an important distinction (in this case).

  63. Oi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was embarrased by this too, but we're not all arts students! Melbourne is the best Computer Science university in Australia, and has traditionally had a good engineering faculty.
     
    Yeah yeah, IHBT...

  64. Commercial success != cultural impact by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Star Trek was a huge cultural phenomenon for years after its cancellation. It was fans that got Paramount to wake up and make the first Star Trek movie. Terms like "Beam me up, Scotty" were part of pop culture well before the franchise was reborn in 1979.

    In this respect it is akin to Tolkien's works, which enjoyed widespread popularity for decades before Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies were a smash hit. The Rankin/Bass Hobbit movie and Bashki's ill-fated Lord of the Rings film didn't diminish the cultural impact of the books. Most people have never read them, but everyone knew what a Hobbit was well before Jackson's screen version arrived.

    I think the distinction here is that popular culture is not just the sum of a series of transitory flashes in the pan that are only remembered as nostalgia. Star Trek first was seen in the 1960s, but I think most people think of the Star Trek universe as a concept unto itself, rather than an artifact of a particular time in American history. Star Trek seems to have the same appeal and cultural reach, and it would be hard to argue that The Lord of the Rings is the product of the 1960s (when it first became popular on a wide scale) or the early 21st century (when the movie was released).

    Brittney Spears, et. al., while commercially successful and visible everywhere in pop culture, will likely be associated in the future with the 2000s. Star Trek, while less obvious, is still there, and still relevant, if less obvious.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Commercial success != cultural impact by Gnostic+Ronin · · Score: 1
      I agree with the cultural sucess part, but re:ST you're way off.

      It's HYPED as cultural success. That isn't the same as BEING a cultural success. The "cultural success" of ST is more a product of nostalgia and media marketing than anything the original Trek did by itself.

      Rather trivial example:

      Trek is credited with the first interracial kiss. While that's true, and it was probably a fairly big deal at the time, that isn't all it's cracked up to be. First off, that wasn't the first interracial couple. Heck Lucy married Hispanic Ricky in the 1950's and HAD A BABY WITH HIM. That's probably bigger on the "anti-racism" scale than a 2-minute kiss by a captain who's kissed every alien woman within arm's reach. Secondly, at least by my reading of TV ratings, the "interracial kiss" that "made history" wasn't seen by all that many people in the 1960's. In fact in all the re-runs I've seen of TOS, I don't remember ever seeing it. Yet people credit "Der Trek" with helping to end racism, despite the rather obvious facts: Lucy did more, earlier, with a bigger audience. The reason that Trek gets credit is that the marketing machine of Trek trumpets it's hippyness and work toward human progress or whatever.

      And the same can be said of FTL travel -- Trek probably wasn't the first to suggest FTL travel, but since Paramount keeps Trek in sight, it can contend that the only reason anybody's working on FTL travel or any other treknology was of course directly influenced by "The Trek". Same with mp3s. I seriously laughed out loud to hear Shatner take credit -- through his connection to Trek of course -- for mp3s and thus iPods. Not like Apple had anything to do with the iPod.

      It's good TV, I'll give it that, but it's not a "cultural phenomenon". That's more due to Paramount always shouting about their "cultural phenomenon". And honestly, I think STAR WARS was the big reason for the first Star Trek movie, not the fans. The show was cancelled, there wasn't a huge fanbase. They saw that STAR WARS, a movie about space was making big money. So like so many other hollywood companies, they cashed in. They made their own space movie, based on an old TV show that was essentially collecting dust in Paramount's basement.

      And really, come up with a better "cultural impact" than "Beam me up Scotty". That's actually proof positive that most Americans hadn't ever seen the show, because that line was never said.

      I like the shows, I just hate the "cultural impact" arguments that distort history. Star Trek may have a big geek/nerd following, but it was a product of the 1960's and managed to get reborn in the 1980's. It's just a TV show. One that's been made into "culture" by the power of hype to tell people exactly what they remember from the '60's.

    2. Re:Commercial success != cultural impact by Nephilium · · Score: 1

      As an aside on the inter-racial aspect...

      Ricky, at least as I recall... was Puerto Rican... and there wasn't *as* much hate for hispanics as there was for blacks...

      So the Uhura/Kirk kiss was a bit more shocking (to the audience at the time), then Lucy/Ricky kissing...

      And it's hard to argue with the fact that Star Trek did start a culture... There are conventions and groups dedicated to it... whereas I don't believe I've ever seen an I Love Lucy convention... (as I try to figure out what the real freaks would wear to that... red wigs?)

      Nephilium

      People tell me, 'Oh, you just drink to escape your problems.' Well, no shit. I'd eat rat heads if it took away my problems. -- Fred R., panhandler

    3. Re:Commercial success != cultural impact by Moodie-1 · · Score: 1

      A few minor clarifications:

      the first interracial kiss

      I saw the original airing of that episode ("Plato's Stepchildren") and I don't really remember there being much of a public controversy about it. Maybe there were some behind-the-scenes battles with the censors but that kind of thing never got publicized back then.

      Trek probably wasn't the first to suggest FTL travel

      Very true. The 1956 MGM movie "Forbidden Planet" had it (and made a bigger deal over it) ten years earlier. In fact that's where Gene Roddenberry got some of his ideas for Star Trek. The planet sensors, the crew personalities, phasers (blasters), etc.

      Not like Apple had anything to do with the iPod.

      IPOF, Apple did not originate the portable mp3 player, there were plenty being sold before Apple joined the party. Apple just miniaturized the hell out of it and gave it a pretty screen and intuitive OS.

      The show was cancelled, there wasn't a huge fanbase.

      But there was! The show was actually cancelled at the end of the second season. The only reason the show was brought back for a third season was because Paramount was inundated with fan mail imploring them to continue it. (It's rumored that the reason most of the third season shows were inferior was because Paramount didn't like being maneuvered by ST's fans and brought in less-skilled writers and producers just to stick it to them.)

      It's just a TV show.

      The reason Star Trek has had such a large cultural impact is more to do with its depiction of a smoothly managed interstellar civilization that found a way to (pretty much) do away with both poverty and evil than with its sham science. No doubt this is the way most people wished today's world was, a clean, orderly culture with most everyone content with their lives. And with replicators eliminating manufacturing and the need for money. A civilization based on plenty, rather than on scarcity like ours.

    4. Re:Commercial success != cultural impact by GalionTheElf · · Score: 1

      Another small clarification RE ST the movie: Paramount was actually working on a new series with the original crew, when Star Wars came out and they rewrote a two-parter that had been written for the series in to the first ST movie.

      Anything left in your post that is remotely relevant/true? ;)

      --
      I'm going over here and I don't know why!
  65. PHD == by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
    Piled Higher & Deeper.

    Seriously, I worked my ass off to pass calculus and thermo exams, and some guy does this? I suppose you either give him the highest award or take the public relations blow when it comes out that you allowed that 'study' in your university.

    Think I'm a troll? If this happened in America people would be screaming about the failing quality of American educational standards.

    --
    Needle Nardle Noo
    1. Re:PHD == by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had to work your arse off to pass Calculus and Thermodynamics? That in itself says more about American educational standards than all the Star Trek Theses in the world ever could...

    2. Re:PHD == by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She, and you're a troll inasmuch as you didn't bother to check any facts beyond the immediate knee-jerk feeling the article's sparse- and not completely accurate- summary produced in you. It's obvious you didn't read the article itself.

      Have all the opinions you can carry, but do try and back them up with a little information, 'kay? Or don't they teach that in the school you're attending?

      Hell, I'm not a Phd. and even I know that much.

    3. Re:PHD == by NoMaster · · Score: 1
      ... and some guy does this? ... If this happened in America people would be screaming about the failing quality of American educational standards.
      No, people will just scream about literacy and reading comprehension...
      • The front-page article refers to the good Doctor as "her". So does the linked article - repeatedly. Half the comments here are about what a hottie she is.
      • The front-page article indicates - and the linked story explicitly says - that the academics who selected her thesis for recognition are American!
      Though I doubt people will scream - if you're any indication, your whole country is just one step away from sucking your toes and going "duh?" a lot...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:PHD == by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If that's a chick, then my name is RuPaul

    5. Re:PHD == by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet she put more effort into her thesis than you did. Just her research alone consisted of watching 700+ episodes 3-4 times each (I didn't read the article so it might not say but she has stated this). I suspect two things. First that her thesis turned out to be more difficult that yours. And second that you're a whiny little bitch.

  66. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

    You're not challenging Dr Baker's bona fides, are you? Check out this Buffy Scholar!

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  67. Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent, that means the review committee is sure to like my exhaustive collection of McCoy facial expressions.

  68. Cramer by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

    Cramer is also the guy who developed the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

    IANAP, alas, but if I understand it properly, it explains the weirdness such as the two-slit experiment and Schroedinger's Cat.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Cramer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transactional? Let me get get this straight, our world is really a big relational database?

      Damn, where is the ROLLBACK TRANSACTION command when you need it.

  69. Maybe less useless than you think by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems like a wee bit more serious and useful work.

    Dunno.

    It's been famously stated that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. I'd suggest that those who do not study myths are condemned to act them out.

    Many of may have been taught abouth myth in this way: Myth is obsolete science. Zeus is just a primitive mind's way of explaining lightning without the benefit of understanding electricity. I know I was taught this way. However, if you look at a myth like Cupid and Psyche, it's obviously not the product of a primitive mind. Myths are what they are, but the do serve a very practical purpose in allowing us to relate the world to the subjective experiences and responses that make up our identity.

    We're currently fighting a war whose root causes are clearly in the economics of petrolum and regional politics. But what sustains the war (on both sides) by a mythical theme: the alien who wants to destroy our way of life. This is the alien of "War of the Worlds". This is "the Hun". This is not the alien from ET.

    One of the most popular terms in US political discourse these days is "islamo-fascism". Notice that while this term is technically inaccurate when applied to Al Qaeda's goals, it is mythologically potent, combining the alien (islam) and the threatening (fascism). This is not to say Al Qaeda isn't alien and threatening! It's just to say the term is more emotionally loaded than technically accurate. Framing your thinking in terms of the mythical theme of alien invasion means you mischaracterize the other's intentions. The other party's real intentions may be just as bad, or even worse, but it doesn't change the point: allowing one mythical theme to dominate your thinking about a situation means you act more in accord with the mythical paradigm than specific facts of the case.

    What does this have to do with Star Trek? Well, it doesn't necessarily have to have any immediate use. There is no immediate use for studying the genetics of a fruit fly, but the knowledge gained from that study is valuable indeed. It's clear to me that TOS and TNG have connected with many people, many intelligent people, in a deep way, a way which subsequent series like Voyager and Enterprise failed to, although individual episodes may fall below or rise above the others in any of the series. This in itself is no doubt mysterious to the company that produced them. Which means we are in some sense in a state of ignorance, the wealth of theories regarding this notwisthstanding. There are always plenty of theories available when you are in a state of ignorance. So serious scholarship is certainly called for. It may provide useful fundamental results, or it may not, but it is at least of interest to those whose jobs it is to provide mythologically potent entertainment.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Maybe less useless than you think by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      If you were talking about the study of social myths, as reflected in TV series et cetera, by social psychologists, I'd agree. That would be serious scholarship, and has its uses. But I don't think studying social myths outside of that context is scholarship. It's just mythology, or art, or someone's amusement.

      The difference is like the difference between astrology and astronomy. Both study the movements of the stars and planets carefully, and construct elaborate, internally-consistent, internally-logical frameworks for understanding cause and effect. But only astronomy is a science, because only astronomy is based on things as they really are, rather than things as they may seem to be.

      Beginning with a thorough understanding of human biology, individual psychology, and evolutionary biology, and then using social myths (or TV shows) as part of the evidence in your study of human social psychology makes perfect sense to me. But I suspect that's not what we're talking about here. I suspect we're talking about studying TV shows uncritically, in their own context, without a good biological and psychological background: for example accepting at face value the reasons actors and writers give for what they say and do, and the reasons audiences say is their reason for watching.

      I'll illustrate. A good psychologist might wonder why Steve McGeek became a scientist or engineer. He might even ask Steve himself, and note that Steve says: "Oh, because I used to love watching Star Trek as a kid." But the good psychologist is not going to take Steve's statement at face value. He's going to assemble other evidence about Steve, based on observation, talking to his parents, what he knows about young males from other experiments, yadda yadda, before he comes to any conclusion. And his conclusion might be: Star Trek makes people want to be engineers. But it also might be: engineers are not good at knowing (or are embarassed by) the reasons they are what they are -- maybe it's because they're scared of girls or something -- and have a habit of attributing it to reasons more acceptable to their peers, or society at large.

      On the other hand, I suspect someone just studying TV shows would accept Steve's statement at face value -- because he would have no other sources of information than what's within the study of myths. He's not a psychologist, cognitive scientist, or even a biologist. As I said, I think a free-standing study of myths is about as useless as a free-standing study of the movements of the planets.

  70. If you pour enough. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    focused attention from enough people into a fictitious world and set of characters, you breathe life into that world, into those people.

    The reality we populate today is a collective dream. You walk away from the lamp post, and it stays the same when you come back. That's clarity, that the grand, stupendous trick. The subconscious mind is incredibly aware, of far more than we actively realize. --It knows all of the objects and events of this world backwards and forwards in time. When you dream alone, reality is fluid because it's just you pulling it together. When there are a few billion dreamers, the edges get pretty tight and reliably there.

    Everything is just energy after all, and energy is the stuff from which awareness both springs and is self-created. Somewhere out there, there are millions of people envisioning our version of reality with great joy and attention. We are created through this process. Or so I think.

    Every story is a mirror of our own collective psyche; So of course You can determine where a society is in terms of spiritual evolution based on the stories it tells. Star Trek is about voyaging into god, trying to solve the great mystery through our collective gathering around the camp fire of humanity to tell stories. Anybody who derides the study of the stories we tell ourselves is missing the meta game by a zillion miles.


    -FL

    1. Re:If you pour enough. . . by Erixxxxx · · Score: 1

      focused attention from enough people into a fictitious world and set of characters, you breathe life into that world, into those people.

      No, you have a cult of morons.

      The reality we populate today is a collective dream. You walk away from the lamp post, and it stays the same when you come back.

      Walk backwards into the lamp post, and it hurts. Even if youve never seen it before.

      Oh, and there is no collective. Or should I say, no evidence of such a thing as a 'collective dream' or consciousness.

      Anybody who derides the study of the stories we tell ourselves is missing the meta game by a zillion miles.

      Anyone who thinks truth can be arrived at by studying made-up shit, no matter how old, is an idiot. Myths are just early attempts to answer questions. In the absence of the modern scientific method, effectively that means that myths are, well, made up bullshit. Not saying anything bad about those who made them up; they were just trying to answer questions. I am saying something bad about those who still revere myths, or who think that any real truths (beyond our obvious need to have an explanation for everything) can be garnered from them.

      I have the utmost respect for myth...in an illitarate, pre-industrial society. I have the utmost respect for myth...when those are the only answers a peoples level of technology enables them to develop.

      I have no respect for those who cling to myth or try to idealize it when far better ways of answering questions exist. Truth is not about what we would like to believe.

    2. Re:If you pour enough. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      Walk backwards into the lamp post, and it hurts. Even if youve never seen it before.

      If you had bothered to let my post in rather than attack it without understanding it, you would see that you are not saying anything that I don't agree with.

      People who speak with your brand of opinion, (and I use the word 'brand' deliberately), have very often never explored beyond that which their television sets and highschool science teachers have told them they are allowed to explore.

      In other words, you speak with remarkable conviction considering you have only the flimsiest of experiences with which to support your notions. If you had done any exploration into these matters, you would recognize the possibility of truth in what I describe.


      -FL

    3. Re:If you pour enough. . . by trongey · · Score: 1

      Beautifully written FL, aside from that last sentence that kind of dropped out of character. Still, I enjoyed the imagery.
      I've always liked that line of thinking. I'm normally a very logical, analytical person so it's kind of mentally liberating to go there at times.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    4. Re:If you pour enough. . . by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      There is one quote I think of when I read your post and your parent. "If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago." And it's ironic that "illitarate" is misspelled...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  71. Just think of the fun Djoymi Baker can now have by Hepneck · · Score: 1

    she gets to say, "I'm a Doctor, Jim, not a physician"!

    --
    You may all go to Hell and I will go to Texas - Davy Crockett
  72. Re:Star Trek by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    "That's that shitty TV show my dad used to watch."

    I dare you to name a show you like to watch.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  73. Re:I think I going for my Pschology or Sociology.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go for it. But the difficult part (notice I avoided saying, "the hard part") will be the paper. It's a little more complicated than just publishing the toilet paper you wiped yourself off with. And then you have to defend it before a committee -- remembering full well that some of those guys haven't had a boner in decades -- and you'll see it's an uphill battle.

  74. Tested science?! Star Trek?! *REALLY!? by ediron2 · · Score: 1
    Star Trek and the like are at least Science Fiction: not based upon the supernatural, but instead upon testable, and currently tested theories and ideas.
    Heh, I've waited 20+ years to repeat this old saw... We were seniors in high school and the US Air Force recruiter came to visit. Part-way through his presentation, Recruiter-dude said 'Everything from Star Trek, we're doing in today's Air Force'. Three of us nerds sitting together bust into laughter and riffed (at the same time):
    • "Warp Factor Six, Mr. Sulu"
    • "Set phasors on Stun"
    • "Beam me Up, Scotty"
    Dilithium, tribbles, vulcan everything, photon torpedos, ship-caliber phaser-blasts putting a whole town to sleep, alien technology that was never capitalized on (turning people into cubes, romulan cloaking) and blue beer. Q, the boundlessness of the holodeck. Interstellar gateways, time paradoxes and spacetime rifts, planet-eating drones, energy beings.

    Star Trek was SF. It was ASTOUNDINGLY speculative, often at levels that tax even MY optimism on our ability to advance even in a million years (The Transporter, specifically). But at least it portrayed science and discovery in a positive light. Let's just agree it did yeoman's work in true-SF habit of using fictional/future science to awaken questions, explore ethical challenges... and stop there.

  75. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by Moodie-1 · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's 7 series if you count both the animated series (gag!) and the new internet-only "New Voyages" series (has potential).

  76. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by timeOday · · Score: 1
    The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
    Are you honestly arguing that contemporary pop culture is best observed through books rather than television? I direct you to some comparative stats on readership vs TV viewership. (And I have to question whether they corrected for "I'm lying because reading is high-class whereas watching hours of TV every day is embarrassing.")
  77. Not my first thought by Mercano · · Score: 1

    My first thought when talking about TV shows about space travel and ancient myths would, of course, bye Stargate, not Star Trek. Granted, the 'Gates (mostly SG-1, but Atlantis does have, well, Atlantis) tend to twist the mythology of the week in some pretty odd ways some time, but they tend to pull from myths pretty offten.

    Of course, Thor, Norse god of thunder, really being an alien of the same species that crashed at Roswell is completly true. The government just got the writers to put it into the show for plausable denyability. The same thing is true for the plots of episodes #100 and #200. They were just hanging laterns on the fact.

    --
    #include <signature.h>
    1. Re:Not my first thought by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Although I think the article is really talking about science fiction being the new mythology and not about science fiction based on mythology.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  78. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by TIMxPx · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone would argue with the notion that watching television exposes one to more pop culture than reading a book. The point is that watching entertainment television should not generally be considered legitimate scholarship. This is the price that academia is paying for both "postmodernism" and the concentration in the humanities on cultural studies. Suddenly, works of art are no longer valued for their real content; they are valued for their insight into culture. In the past, popularity gave way to quality and bad art faded away because it had no lasting value. People who engage corporate entertainment on a scholarly level are just propagating meaningless garbage. Part of the problem is that these people aren't doing anything significant. I mean the "academics" who are studying pop music and television. They are searching for something unique or new. The other part of the problem is that some very good art is bound to be forgotten because we accept the opinions of trained historians and analysts, many of whom are too busy carving out a niche for themselves instead of stepping up and addressing the content of works as opposed to their cultural impact. I'm not saying that Star Trek doesn't quote or borrow from mythology, but that doesn't make Star Trek or any other television show itself worthy of graduate study. I'm also not saying that it has no absolute artistic value. Just being on television doesn't make it bad in the artistic sense, but the mere fact that people watch it shouldn't make it a legitimate topic of study. The GP was, if I understand correctly, making a statement about how lame academia has become. I agree. I know people doing PhD dissertations in things like pop music who probably couldn't pass a 9th grade algebra test. They truly are pseudo-scholars, they can't hack it in the world of the heavy-hitting academics, and they don't belong there.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
  79. Film Studies, Clingfilm Studies ... by csrster · · Score: 1

    I like this guy's stuff - http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/researchers/mirr/ researcher/300. His paper on Lord of the Rings-based sexploitation movies at last-year's Tolkien-2005 conference was, er, unique. As was the video-show at the party afterwards.

  80. Re:One less university to consider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously aren't from Australia.

    The University of Melbourne is considered one of the best Universities in the country. To attend medicine at the University of Melbourne, a base requirement is a perfect score from secondary school (no, not mis-typed ... straight A+ on all assignments and exams). This includes biology, chemistry, mathematics and probably others, not entirely sure of the current pre-requisite course requirements. Just about all of the courses are incredibly tough. Engineering is about 40 hours contact per week, medicine probably more.

    I know several people who have attended Melbourne, including two recipients of their Phd's. If she's finished her thesis and recieved an award, she's intelligent, persistent, dilligent, patient and creative. ... not the sort of person who posts flamebait on slashdot.

  81. Great PHD. by master_p · · Score: 1

    It is a great PHD. The finest excuse a student could come up so he can abuse the university's network to download all the Star Trek torrents, as well as spent his hours viewing all the episodes.

    When there is an opening for Bored Housewifes, please call me. I'll be here all week.

    1. Re:Great PHD. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      > When there is an opening for Bored Housewifes, please call me. I'll be here all week.

      Must be nice to be a bored housewife and be able to post to Slashdot all day :-).

  82. SF is at least 1800 years old by giafly · · Score: 1
    this theme goes back to the very first SF story, Frankenstein (1818)
    After leaving the island they were suddenly carried up, ship and all, by a whirlwind into the air, and on the eighth day came in sight of a great round island shining with a bright light, and lying a little above the moon. In a short time they are arrested by a troop of gigantic "horse-vultures" and brought as captives to the "man in the moon", who proves to be Endymion. He is engaged in a war with the inhabitants of the sun, which is ruled by King Phaëthon, the quarrel having arisen from an attempt to colonize the planet Venus
    True History, by Lucian, 120-180 AD.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  83. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by shungi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And then what about Star Gate SG1? Modern Mythology? Which of course brings to mind The Matrix Movies. Indeed, one might wonder if in 300 years the new empire won't pick up those movies and make a state religion out of them...

  84. More far-fetched myths of today by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    It is nice to think that at least today we KNOW that our myths are made-up. But there are still some people who manage to insist they are real, actual events! - UFO religions like the Scientologists or heaven's gate.

    More prevalent myths believed today: genesis, the garden of eden, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, God.

  85. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

    Well, it shows the value of being able to manipulate your instructors to let them let you do as you please.

    I didn't like any of the topics one of college English profs gave out...I kept working on her till I convinced her to let me do mine analyzing the lyrics of Rolling Stones songs. I got away with it...and made an "A". It actually was a lot of fun...research was a breeze as that I was (and still am) a big fan.

    Now...if only I could convince my bosses at real jobs to let me do what I want to do....ahh...I miss the old easy school daze...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  86. counting by ixidor · · Score: 1

    "Grand Total: 32631 minutes (543 hours, 51 minutes) That's 22 days, 15 hours and 51 minutes of Star Trek. Not bad..." from former post, and "Djoymi Baker watched 700 episodes - 624 hours without ads" from parent. so how did Djoymi Baker watch 624 hours, when there is only 543 and 51 min? how does 624 = 543 ?

  87. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    What magical place do you come from where Michael Moorcock's work is considered "pop culture"? :-)

  88. decline of academic standards by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This is just another notch in the continuing decline of academic standards. Just like a large fraction of California students cant pass a sixth grade level math test and are refused graduation, all the way up to third rate college professors.

  89. Re:Trek? Easy. Buffy? Now You're Hardcore by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    Apparently, you are a little bit on the outside of these discourses, looking in, because there are two very distinct approaches to cultural material that you seem to be confusing, and "postmodernism" is only tangentially related to both of them.

    An intentional indifference to the question of the "quality" of a work is the hallmark of cultural studies as developed by British academics in the 70's and 80's, and it is one of two ongoing approaches to popular culture (and insofar as cultural practices are pretty much pervasively tied up with questions of markets, all culture can be seen as "popular;" it's just a question of who the people that use that culture are.) This approach takes as a given that culture is being produced by a culture-industry, and then sees what people do with that fact. A lot of the focus on fan communities, on "subversive" readings, on the role that audiences play in communicating their desires to the market, comes from this tradition.

    The other approach is the critical theory approach identified with the Frankfurt School, which pretty much sees the consumers of popular culture as dupes, and sees Star Trek and such as commodities which reinforce the dependent position of the audience; that if you unpack these media products, you find that they ultimately comply with the assumptions and ideology which dominates the modern world. Theorists like Theodor Adorno were very much of the view that very few works were of enough aesthetic value to resist being reduced to a commodity: he largely shares your apparent view.

    But you don't recognize this as a current argument within academia. And you characterization of academics in the humanities is simply incorrect - the hardest working scholars that I know are in the humanities. I went back for a humanities PhD after a career in the software industry, with a technical background and the ability to program. I know how to do calculus. And in my experience, it's as easy, or easier, to "fake it" or cruise by with a minimal effort in the sciences as in the humanities. For every Sokal hoax, there is a Bogdanov affair. The difference is that no one awarded Sokal a PhD in the humanities.

    My impression of the the dissertation is actually that it is thin; saying that "Star Trek borrows from mythology" is really kind of jejune. A more interesting historicization of popular culture is Angela Ndalianis' "Neobaroque Aesthetics and Popular Entertainment."

  90. Wrong subject of focus by jhumkey · · Score: 1

    Hummm, Measure of a Man is one of my favorite episodes. (Or at least the "potential it had" is. . .)

    I never took "Does Data have a Soul" as the central theme. . . to me the focus was always in the other direction, at society itself.

    "IF" there is "some possibility" that Data has a soul. . . do we want to be the type of race that takes the chance and subjects this individual (and the others like him to come) to, what essentially consititutes slavery? The diminishment of the individuals very worth, to simple property?

    It wasn't so much about what Data was/wasn't. Or what he had/didn't have. It was about society's responsibility to "choose its own moral path and stick to it. . ." How do we (as a society) want to be regarded/known by the other races "out there" amongst the stars. . .?

    IMHO

    --
    No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
  91. Get Serious by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

    These Trekademics* (that's right, a new word and you heard it first from ol' Xylene); Why don't they get seriously intellectual and write about The Matrix?
    If one can dig a PhD from Trek, surly there's a Nobel in The Matrix somewhere...

    *I'm heading right over to the Wikipedia to define this!!

    1. Re:Get Serious by Hepneck · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe there could of been a prize of some sort if the Wachowski brothers had stopped with the first movie. Unfortunately they made the second and third movies, which proved two things: 1) They never got past their first semester of philosophy and, 2) That they only had the candlepower to get halfway down the rabbithole. Then they fell back into action movie mode with crashes, shootouts, bad dialogue, raves, and huge mechs with soft, chewy nouget centers. The only PhD that will associated with the Matrix movies is the one that Cornel West earned.

      --
      You may all go to Hell and I will go to Texas - Davy Crockett
    2. Re:Get Serious by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      The Matrix (at least the first one) is largely a retelling of Star Wars (not that Star Wars is really original): Neo = Luke Morpheus = Obi Wan Matrix = The Empire Agent Smith = Darth Vader Zion = Rebel base Young savant is tutored by older, more experienced person to fight evil and save the world...

  92. What's Truly Amazing About Your Post by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1

    You managed to use "die-hard Star Trek fans" and "sex" in the same sentence.

    Congratulations.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  93. Re:Tested science?! Star Trek?! *REALLY!? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
    'Everything from Star Trek, we're doing in today's Air Force'
    I thought Stargate was the one that they're doing in the Air Force.
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  94. JFK inspired.. present funding tired..buttkik need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The old Trek, according to the author, had actors and storylines inspired by ex-President John F. Kennedy
    and his vision for the future of space. He led us into space in tin ships and using glorified calculators
    for computers. The ships burned kerosene of all things for fuel! We lost heart in it after that amid
    Republican calls for subsidies to big business and tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor, social
    safety nets, and scientific research. We went along with it because of our apathy.
    Now come astronauts asking for a new dedication to space research and exploration. Their voices are not
    as loud in Congress as the bribes from the rich for still more immunity from taxation and still more subsidy
    for their wealth. The Russians have stopped hoping we will change and, despairing of our commitment, have
    decided to work with the Chinese instead in a new lunar venture. Rumsfeld's vision for a moon shoot is to
    listen to that nut job from the University of Hawaii and send some more tin atop a mountain of chemicals, let
    it fail, and cancel what is left of the space program altogether while the country grieves over another
    'regretably failed expedition'.....when this kind of expedition is carefully engineered to be doomed from
    the start. This kind of space policy will be viewed in the future as treason! We have a window of opportunity
    to create a viable space program with real spacecraft. It will not stay open forever. The moon has shown
    itself to have a mineral, helium-3, that will make an excellent fusion fuel. The first to go their and
    establish a base will have a legal claim to lunar territory. If progress by others follows up their original
    exploration, prospecting, mining, and settling with claims to the whole of the moon or the whole of space for
    that matter and backs up their claim with capable military hardware as they are certain to do, it will be
    our loss. This loss will be signifigant. We will lose our standard of living and become a so called third
    world country. This loss will probably be accompanied by civil unrest as an apathetic population awakens
    to the new situation. The response of our government will probably be repression a la Argentina. We have
    many hispanics in our population now, however, and this will fail also, probably in a hail of internecine
    civil war as we head for failed state status like Somalia.
    We need nuclear powered spacecraft. Now! Only nuclear powered craft will get us where we will want to go
    with enough ship and equipment and crew to do what we need when we get there. And we will need to get there,
    wherever 'there' is, an asteroid containing molybdenum, vanadium, chrome, He-3, or whatever we need or will
    need to maintain the viability of our society. We don't realize it, but we not only lack energy resources,
    but also lack critical minerals and metals. Most of our phosphate fertilizer comed from central florida.
    The only other place in the world to get it is in Zimbabwe; and they are not our friends. Most of over
    eleven other critical elements and minerals to our civilization come from there and similar hostile places
    to us. One day certain, a combination of Muslim oil suppliers just may take it into their collectivee
    crack pot heads to demand that we mass convert to Islam. How would you like that....your grandchildren
    will become moslems against their wills....and yours. Our solar system has all these elements and maybe
    more elements that we havent even discovered yet. All for the taking if we would just get up and go there.
    It is not our choice. We don't go...someone else will! We don't mine...we will end up buying these minerals
    and products from others at the cost of our standard of living, our religion, and our freedom, and maybe our
    lives! I know this site is a lot of fluff, and some fellow /dotter will probably make light of this, or maybe
    some scorer will call it a 'z

  95. Re:Cultural impact by Gnostic+Ronin · · Score: 1
    I guess I'm probably not explaining myself well. What bugs me about Trek is that it's claiming to be a big part of American Culture as well as having Prophet Roddenberry predicting every modern device, if not outright insiring them. It claims cultural iconhood without any proof that any of it was true.

    As to the first part Ricky/Lucy vs. Kirk/Uhura, which is the greater blow for equality? Even granting hispanics getting a somewhat better deal than blacks, I would think showing a hispanic married to a white woman (and from everything I saw in Lucy it was pretty much treated as no big deal), eventually having a child, etc. is probably further along the equality path than a "fling" of about 3 minutes of kissing that's forgotten in the next episode. Even granting the difference between hispanics and blacks in the 1950's/1960's it's still not as Paramount wants people to think -- that ST was on the vanguard of civil rights. I'm tired of the claim, as well as some of the other alleged "social justice" things.

    But it's a common thing with Trek. Unlike other "culturally impacting" TV/movies, almost all of Trek's claims seem to come years after the fact. With Harry Potter or Da Vinci Code, I can point to news articles and documentaries produced fairly soon after the release: "Does Harry Potter encourage Witchcraft?", "Is there any Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code", "Should Christian Children read Harry Potter?", etc. Each one speculating about the cultural impact of these books. We had news reports of kids standing in line for the the next HP book. That isn't something JK Rowling came up with 5 years after, or even 10 years after. It happened while the HP series was being written. I've never seen the same for Trek, although it seems (almost) to be credited with starting the Hippy movement altogether, as well as the invention of everything up to (and probably soon added to the trek-list) Blu-Rays. Sorry, but no. Roddenberry isn't a prophet, and ST didn't change the world.

    Maybe we just disagree on what Cultural Impact is. I think it needs to reach a bit higher to be a cultural impact. Show me a anti-war protester in a Starfleet uni, and I'll believe in St's impact. Until then, I'm not convinced. It's a fictional TV show given far too much credit as a force in America. Other than for the few for whom ST is a Bible or Quran, it's probably less influencial than Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Simpsons.

  96. Oh, and PS by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

    Oh, and because I forgot to address this bit:

    Like masturbation teaches one about sex? I think not.

    This is Slashdot. Thousands of people here pray it does. :)

    --
    Yup...
  97. well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Okay, I apologise if the post isn't totally coherant, as it is being composed at 1:00am.

    No need, my friend. It's a very cogent argument, and very well expressed.

    I do not think I disagree with you very much at all, if you will permit me to add that our primary sources for what people or cultures are like should be factual accounts of what happened, if they exist. I do agree that reading Hemingway adds important depth to one's understanding of the Spanish Civil War, or reading Isherwood adds a lot to one's understanding of Weimar Berlin, but only after you've got the basic facts of what happened in your head. If you know nothing about those times, your impression is not very good. Reading only Slaughterhouse Five to learn about the Second World War would give you an absurdly skewed view. And, if you must choose -- this is really my only point -- I think the factual resources are always better.

    I'm not quite sure the ancient epics fit in the same category as modern art, because they were very consciously intended to convey historical truth as well as entertain and propagandize. Art isn't quite the same when it must be society's memory, too. It's also not quite true that all we have of Mycenaen Greece is Homer. There's archaeology, too. Can we agree that you can learn a lot from all of a society's preserved shards?

    Nevertheless, on the whole I think you've made a persuasive argument for calling what's-her-name's work on Star Trek some kind of scholarship, or at least saying it could be, if done right. So, you win.

    1. Re:well said by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

      ...or at least saying it could be, if done right. So, you win.

      Heh, reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin stated that he approaches conversations like contests where points can be awarded for dominating the tone or direction of a discussion. Hobbes says "That's absurd, discussion can't always be competative!" To which Calvin replies "Okay that's one point, but I'm still ahead!" (I'm sure I butchered the joke in the telling...)

      Anyway, yes, one would have a horribly warped understanding of history and society if one relied upon fiction alone, and context, such as primary historical details, makes almost all fiction or art more satisfying and insightful. So I suppose, yes, if one had to choose between one (raw, verifiable facts, primary audio/visual sources and/or eyewitness accounts) or the other (artistic interpretations of history or primary historical sources), yes you have to choose the former.

      As far as ancient epics relating to modern art, the first barrier is I tend to feel that it is juuust about impossible to fully understand the psychology of a culture 2,000 years removed from ourselves, but the ancient epics could probably be, very tangeantially, compared to some of Hollywood's attempts at historical drama. Take "Gladiator" for instance, some efforts are made to inform (well, the opening text-blurb, though Gladiator got loads of historical facts wrong, it has a veneer of accuracy), to entertain, and to push an agenda (Democracy, questioning the role of the spectator). The Illiad served as an information source for the populace (perhaps to no more a degree of accuracy than "Gladiator" handled its history...), it entertained, and it pushed the agenda of Greek unity and loyalty to country, husband, etc. The context of one oral work dominating culture for hundreds of years versus one of hundreds of hollywood films that were produced in a single year of course couldn't be more different, but it's interesting to think that somehow, by sitting around an electronic, light based storyteller we hearken back to the singers of old.

      And yeah, archeaology is a vast wealth of information across all cultures, what's interesting about the particular examples we were discussing though is that archaeology has only recently felt it had discovered the ruins of Troy, and if indeed it has, it actually sheds very little light on the actual events of the Trojan War so far. Kind of funny how the epic and the site are tomes of entirely mutually exclusive knowledge about essentially the same thing.

      Sorry, just late-night entertainment sophistry :P

      So yeah, it's been a very enjoyable discussion, thanks for the equally well expressed counterpoints :P

      --
      Yup...