.. because such games are so well known for their music?
Yes, they are.
Michael Giacchino was a computer of music in video games, specifically the Medal of Honor series (1999 - 2007) and the Call of Duty series (2003 - 2004). J.J. Abrams found out about him through his work in those game series, and brought him in to handle the muscle for Abram's new series Alias. After that, it was natural for him to write music for Lost as well, and then to jump into movies, including The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Up (which won him an Oscar), Star Trek, Inside Out..
Russia and Putin never lied, sure. They didn't lie about Russian troops crossing the Ukrainian border, they lied about the results of the Crimean elections, they're currently lying about why they're targeting for airstrikes in Syria.
Right, Putin and the Russian military never lie. What a load.
I disagree; the selection of candidates has had nothing to do with any "fringe" (who are universally shunned and disaffected in both parties until it's time to whip votes).
The problem is that it's the "fringe" who are the only ones excited to vote in the primaries, when candidates are actually selected. If we had more people actually getting off their asses and voting their wishes during the primaries, the fringes wouldn't have the disproportionate amount of power that they have now.
According to Memory Alpha, Starfleet Academy is in Marin County (in the vicinity of Horseshoe Bay), but Starfleet Headquarters is across the Golden Gate, on the Presidio.
Interesting, I was going on the remastered shot from Star Trek: the Motion Picture, where it shows a shuttle arriving at Starfleet Headquarters. It seemed, from the shot that it was heading in the direction towards Marin, unless they got the bridge wrong. Will have to rewatch.
It could be that taking transporters everywhere (instead of actually experiencing the journey from A to B) gives you a terrible sense of direction.
I'd have to rewatch it (again), but from the dialogue, it sounded like they had never heard of the term "Alameda."
Or in reality, the writers were just trying too hard to make the movie a comedy.
Very likely! I'll admit, it worked a lot better for me in that film than most "comedic elements" in action/sci-fi/adventure films these days.
The fact that the MSM hasn't really touched on this, the NYT hasn't run daily headlines on this (email scandal) is proof that the coronation is still highly possible, if not for the GOP carrying the weight.
I know it might be hard to believe but maybe, maybe the issue really ISN'T that important to be running "daily headlines" on the story?
And the GOP is more or less is incapable of doing anything useful, which is why someone like Trump can stay on top of the polls, months after he should have gone away.
I feel like it's 2012 again, when flashy, 'fun' (but stupid) candidates gain the limelight for the GOP, before they finally settle on the safe, boring, more electable guy.
What if many people wanted their own county-sized vineyard estate home in the country?
They don't. That how the show's future utopia works. People tend not to want that, just because someone else has it. So the answer to your question is "well, they're not going to, so it doesn't matter." I think it ignores human nature, but it's a fun little fantasy.
That might be an interesting hypothetical world of non-scarcity, but that's the world of Wall-E, not Star Trek. In Star Trek, people are being shown working, pretty hard, almost all the time.
All warp drive gets you is opportunities to meet unfriendly aliens, blow up entire planets with bombs made of the fuel, and find caches of unobtanium scattered around the universe (there's no point hunting for normal matter - we have enough of that at home).
Oh, but also, you could "spread freedom" throughout the galaxy.:-9
Will Wheaton still smarts at the "Shut up, Wesley" line. I'll admit, it was out of character for Picard, but the writers loved to make the senior staff either idiots or assholes during Wesley episodes to make Wesley look better.
Keep in mind that by the time TOS is on the air, Roddenberry had already been eased out of being the big decider after the nearly fatal disaster of the production of the first Trek movie.
I believe the phrase is that he was "kicked upstairs." Promoted to Executive Producer, while the directors and producers gained control of the franchise. He certainly disliked the militarization of Star Trek when Nicholas Meyer gave the Enterprise far more naval trappings in Star Trek II than it had had previously.
That's when I realized that Executive Producer is a blanket title that can mean anything at all and refer to any level of involvement in a show. Steven Spielberg was Executive Producer when basically co-directed Poltergeist behind the scenes. Harvey Weinstein was Executive Producer on the Peter Jackson-directed Lord of the Rings movies when he had no involvement other than passing on the project and making a recommendation for another producer. It's a title that can mean anything, probably used to reward favors as much as anything else.
A hippie WWII bomber pilot, and later a police officer? Far out, man!
I did like the idea that in that episode of the original Star Trek, when the Enterprise encountered actual Space Hippies (with all the 1960s trappings and lingo) searching for "Eden", many of the hippies die immediately upon setting foot on their paradise planet because it was pristine, yet poisonous.
And what's wrong with that ? It is still an interesting thought experiment: what would a post scarcity society be like ?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that; a cool story is still a cool story, and it's fun to fantasize about a "better society." We just shouldn't take it too seriously, because if we do want to look to it as a model of the future, it's just as important, or more, to expose flaws and unworkable tenets as it is to dream about the positives.
Sisko once referenced using up something like a year's worth of transporter rations to go home for dinner or something. I forget what exactly it was, but they clearly had some rationing of higher end goods/services.
That was Deep Space Nine, pretty much after Gene Rodderberry had ceased his involvement with Star Trek (it may have been after he died). DS9 writers tended to take a more pragmatic view, and reintroduced scarcity concepts.
People in outlying colonies used money, too. In fact, it was really only the Federation's core worlds that didn't, and I'm not even sure how it worked there, either. (How did they decide who was allowed to eat at Sisko's dad's restaurant? How did they decide who got to live in a sweet penthouse overlooking the Golden Gate bridge, and who had to commute to Starfleet Headquarters via transporter from Iowa
Geez. If I could matter transport to San Francisco instantly, whenever I wanted, you'd bet I'd live in a lovely rural setting rather than some built-up metropolis. You can keep the sweet penthouse in SF***, the only advantage to that in my mind is you'll have the businesses and museums and bars and such. But I'll take being surrounded by nature any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But as for your questions, "people didn't care about that anymore." In general, the Federation and the Federation planets economies were a realization of 1960s Utopian fantasies. It totally collapses when you think about it, and with just about every utopia, it requires a fundamental shift in human nature that we'll never see in order to hand-wave away these problems.
*** Or not SF, it might be Marin County, the home of Starfleet Headquarters. I was a little amused that Uhura and Chekov in 1986 had no idea where "Alameda" was, despite it being a major feature of San Francisco Bay (just a few dozen miles from Starfleet Headquarters). I suppose you could make the argument that all the names had changed by then, but it seems rather unlikely. We're fairly attached to our historic names.
Not so sure about the average human on Earth though. On Voyager, the economics of the replicator become untenable - despite the warp drive being a real monster in terms of how much energy it must consume, the replicator must have a significant energy consumption even in those terms
With Voyager, this makes sense because Voyager is such a closed environment -- a glorified life boat. However, the series has made it clear that on Earth energy is abundant and free enough that everyone has replicators can make just about any non-living thing. I believe it was specifically mentioned that Sisko's father operates a restaurant on Earth for the pleasure of it, and because traditionally-cooked food tends to taste a bit better than replicated.
That's stated but never really supported or fully explored. None of the obvious implications of it seem to really exist in Trek. One glaring example is how a brilliant legacy candidate could not easily get into Starfleet academy on the first try, or why people even bother with Starfleet to begin with.
Yet oddly enough a misfit like Barclay somehow made it in. People should know better by now that Trek will throw versimilitude, logic, or consistency to the wind in order to admit next week's mediocre plot.
Barclay was always crazy-talented; that's how he made it to the Enterprise in the first place. The episodes were fairly consistent in that, at least. However, he had a lot of social problems, and dealt with stress poorly. What I don't think makes a lot of sense is how he rose so high in an authority-driven quasi-military like Starfleet while having such a problem with authority figures like Riker grading him. I suppose it's because he found "secret" ways to blow off steam, like the Holodeck, but once he reached the Enterprise, the stress levels went through the roof (people expect more there on the flagship, after all) and his extra-curricular activities got him into more trouble.
Not really - if anything, we're defining the 'basic necessities' upwards.
If anything, the situation is getting much worse. The population of the world continues to grow, and we're running out of room and resources. Increases in efficiency have allowed us to stay ahead of the curve, but it's a Moore's Law of farming** and development: once those efficiency gains taper off and reverse, the crash will be catastrophic on a level we've never seen before. Arable land will shrink as both the climate changes and population development advances, and when we hit the maximum amount of crops per sq km, we'll see food prices rise, not drop.
I'm not sure where this "post-scarcity" society notion comes from, or at least that we're somehow close to achieving it. We've always needed lots and lots of material resources. This isn't changing, if anything, the higher a standard of living people achieve, the more energy, resources, and land they consume. Post-scarcity relies on some fantastic invention we haven't attained yet, like cold fusion for energy and replicators for materials.
** Moore's Law being something that people thought would continue for decades to come, yet it's already dead.
And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?
My understanding was that the solar wind could essentially "blow away" the atmosphere over time, that the atmosphere has an external force acting on it. Earth's magnetic field is essential for deflecting the solar wind and avoiding the same fate. But that wouldn't explain why Venus, presumably dealing with a much stronger solar wind, has such a robust atmosphere with such a weak magnetic field. Venus's wikipedia article suggests that water on Venus had boiled off, and its free hydrogen and oxygen were swept into space by the solar wind. Perhaps its clouds of sulferic acid are so much heavier that gravity is enough to keep them there.
Stop using the term "space nutter," thank you. It's second only to "SJW" and "no true scotsman" when it comes to stupid phrases used on Slashdot that people need to stop parroting.
Slashdot Mirror
.. because such games are so well known for their music?
Yes, they are.
Michael Giacchino was a computer of music in video games, specifically the Medal of Honor series (1999 - 2007) and the Call of Duty series (2003 - 2004). J.J. Abrams found out about him through his work in those game series, and brought him in to handle the muscle for Abram's new series Alias. After that, it was natural for him to write music for Lost as well, and then to jump into movies, including The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Up (which won him an Oscar), Star Trek, Inside Out..
Good thing J.J. Abrams plays video games.
Russia and Putin never lied, sure. They didn't lie about Russian troops crossing the Ukrainian border, they lied about the results of the Crimean elections, they're currently lying about why they're targeting for airstrikes in Syria.
Right, Putin and the Russian military never lie. What a load.
They hate women
Hmm, not that I've noticed...
and hate her even more for being the best candidate we've had for President in nearly a hundred years
Ahahaa... oh, oh wow. Thank you for trolling me. That was worth a laugh.
I disagree; the selection of candidates has had nothing to do with any "fringe" (who are universally shunned and disaffected in both parties until it's time to whip votes).
The problem is that it's the "fringe" who are the only ones excited to vote in the primaries, when candidates are actually selected. If we had more people actually getting off their asses and voting their wishes during the primaries, the fringes wouldn't have the disproportionate amount of power that they have now.
Perhaps, but apply a little perspective. When Star Trek originated it was unique in having a positive outlook of the future at all.
That's true. I am pretty fond of 1960s/1970s sci-fi dystopias (almost all sci-fi at the time).
According to Memory Alpha, Starfleet Academy is in Marin County (in the vicinity of Horseshoe Bay), but Starfleet Headquarters is across the Golden Gate, on the Presidio.
Interesting, I was going on the remastered shot from Star Trek: the Motion Picture, where it shows a shuttle arriving at Starfleet Headquarters. It seemed, from the shot that it was heading in the direction towards Marin, unless they got the bridge wrong. Will have to rewatch.
It could be that taking transporters everywhere (instead of actually experiencing the journey from A to B) gives you a terrible sense of direction.
I'd have to rewatch it (again), but from the dialogue, it sounded like they had never heard of the term "Alameda."
Or in reality, the writers were just trying too hard to make the movie a comedy.
Very likely! I'll admit, it worked a lot better for me in that film than most "comedic elements" in action/sci-fi/adventure films these days.
The fact that the MSM hasn't really touched on this, the NYT hasn't run daily headlines on this (email scandal) is proof that the coronation is still highly possible, if not for the GOP carrying the weight.
I know it might be hard to believe but maybe, maybe the issue really ISN'T that important to be running "daily headlines" on the story?
And the GOP is more or less is incapable of doing anything useful, which is why someone like Trump can stay on top of the polls, months after he should have gone away.
I feel like it's 2012 again, when flashy, 'fun' (but stupid) candidates gain the limelight for the GOP, before they finally settle on the safe, boring, more electable guy.
Californians are just terrible people in general, and no amount of "green" technology or reduction in fossil fuel consumption can change their nature.
People in whatever state/country you're from are just terrible people in general.
What I said is just as valid and supported as yours. Both deserve a nice down-modding.
Way to win people over for buying electric cars
I don't think there's any intent to "win someone over." It's just someone being a dick while punishing someone else for being a dick.
What if many people wanted their own county-sized vineyard estate home in the country?
They don't. That how the show's future utopia works. People tend not to want that, just because someone else has it. So the answer to your question is "well, they're not going to, so it doesn't matter."
I think it ignores human nature, but it's a fun little fantasy.
That might be an interesting hypothetical world of non-scarcity, but that's the world of Wall-E, not Star Trek.
In Star Trek, people are being shown working, pretty hard, almost all the time.
All warp drive gets you is opportunities to meet unfriendly aliens, blow up entire planets with bombs made of the fuel, and find caches of unobtanium scattered around the universe (there's no point hunting for normal matter - we have enough of that at home).
Oh, but also, you could "spread freedom" throughout the galaxy. :-9
Wanting to have more is absolutely a basic human behavior. You have to be completely blind to all of human history to not see this.
Will Wheaton still smarts at the "Shut up, Wesley" line. I'll admit, it was out of character for Picard, but the writers loved to make the senior staff either idiots or assholes during Wesley episodes to make Wesley look better.
Keep in mind that by the time TOS is on the air, Roddenberry had already been eased out of being the big decider after the nearly fatal disaster of the production of the first Trek movie.
I believe the phrase is that he was "kicked upstairs." Promoted to Executive Producer, while the directors and producers gained control of the franchise. He certainly disliked the militarization of Star Trek when Nicholas Meyer gave the Enterprise far more naval trappings in Star Trek II than it had had previously.
That's when I realized that Executive Producer is a blanket title that can mean anything at all and refer to any level of involvement in a show. Steven Spielberg was Executive Producer when basically co-directed Poltergeist behind the scenes. Harvey Weinstein was Executive Producer on the Peter Jackson-directed Lord of the Rings movies when he had no involvement other than passing on the project and making a recommendation for another producer. It's a title that can mean anything, probably used to reward favors as much as anything else.
A hippie WWII bomber pilot, and later a police officer? Far out, man!
I did like the idea that in that episode of the original Star Trek, when the Enterprise encountered actual Space Hippies (with all the 1960s trappings and lingo) searching for "Eden", many of the hippies die immediately upon setting foot on their paradise planet because it was pristine, yet poisonous.
And what's wrong with that ? It is still an interesting thought experiment: what would a post scarcity society be like ?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that; a cool story is still a cool story, and it's fun to fantasize about a "better society."
We just shouldn't take it too seriously, because if we do want to look to it as a model of the future, it's just as important, or more, to expose flaws and unworkable tenets as it is to dream about the positives.
Sisko once referenced using up something like a year's worth of transporter rations to go home for dinner or something. I forget what exactly it was, but they clearly had some rationing of higher end goods/services.
That was Deep Space Nine, pretty much after Gene Rodderberry had ceased his involvement with Star Trek (it may have been after he died). DS9 writers tended to take a more pragmatic view, and reintroduced scarcity concepts.
People in outlying colonies used money, too. In fact, it was really only the Federation's core worlds that didn't, and I'm not even sure how it worked there, either. (How did they decide who was allowed to eat at Sisko's dad's restaurant? How did they decide who got to live in a sweet penthouse overlooking the Golden Gate bridge, and who had to commute to Starfleet Headquarters via transporter from Iowa
Geez. If I could matter transport to San Francisco instantly, whenever I wanted, you'd bet I'd live in a lovely rural setting rather than some built-up metropolis. You can keep the sweet penthouse in SF***, the only advantage to that in my mind is you'll have the businesses and museums and bars and such. But I'll take being surrounded by nature any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But as for your questions, "people didn't care about that anymore." In general, the Federation and the Federation planets economies were a realization of 1960s Utopian fantasies. It totally collapses when you think about it, and with just about every utopia, it requires a fundamental shift in human nature that we'll never see in order to hand-wave away these problems.
*** Or not SF, it might be Marin County, the home of Starfleet Headquarters. I was a little amused that Uhura and Chekov in 1986 had no idea where "Alameda" was, despite it being a major feature of San Francisco Bay (just a few dozen miles from Starfleet Headquarters). I suppose you could make the argument that all the names had changed by then, but it seems rather unlikely. We're fairly attached to our historic names.
Not so sure about the average human on Earth though. On Voyager, the economics of the replicator become untenable - despite the warp drive being a real monster in terms of how much energy it must consume, the replicator must have a significant energy consumption even in those terms
With Voyager, this makes sense because Voyager is such a closed environment -- a glorified life boat. However, the series has made it clear that on Earth energy is abundant and free enough that everyone has replicators can make just about any non-living thing. I believe it was specifically mentioned that Sisko's father operates a restaurant on Earth for the pleasure of it, and because traditionally-cooked food tends to taste a bit better than replicated.
That's stated but never really supported or fully explored. None of the obvious implications of it seem to really exist in Trek. One glaring example is how a brilliant legacy candidate could not easily get into Starfleet academy on the first try, or why people even bother with Starfleet to begin with.
Yet oddly enough a misfit like Barclay somehow made it in. People should know better by now that Trek will throw versimilitude, logic, or consistency to the wind in order to admit next week's mediocre plot.
Barclay was always crazy-talented; that's how he made it to the Enterprise in the first place. The episodes were fairly consistent in that, at least. However, he had a lot of social problems, and dealt with stress poorly. What I don't think makes a lot of sense is how he rose so high in an authority-driven quasi-military like Starfleet while having such a problem with authority figures like Riker grading him. I suppose it's because he found "secret" ways to blow off steam, like the Holodeck, but once he reached the Enterprise, the stress levels went through the roof (people expect more there on the flagship, after all) and his extra-curricular activities got him into more trouble.
Not really - if anything, we're defining the 'basic necessities' upwards.
If anything, the situation is getting much worse. The population of the world continues to grow, and we're running out of room and resources. Increases in efficiency have allowed us to stay ahead of the curve, but it's a Moore's Law of farming** and development: once those efficiency gains taper off and reverse, the crash will be catastrophic on a level we've never seen before. Arable land will shrink as both the climate changes and population development advances, and when we hit the maximum amount of crops per sq km, we'll see food prices rise, not drop.
I'm not sure where this "post-scarcity" society notion comes from, or at least that we're somehow close to achieving it. We've always needed lots and lots of material resources. This isn't changing, if anything, the higher a standard of living people achieve, the more energy, resources, and land they consume. Post-scarcity relies on some fantastic invention we haven't attained yet, like cold fusion for energy and replicators for materials.
** Moore's Law being something that people thought would continue for decades to come, yet it's already dead.
I've seen the movies. They come back. It gets ugly.
Jurassic World had it wrong. When we bring dinosaurs back, we should fiddle with the genetics to make them better lovers, not better killers.
Dozens of Amazon literotica book-sellers can't be wrong! :-9
And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?
My understanding was that the solar wind could essentially "blow away" the atmosphere over time, that the atmosphere has an external force acting on it. Earth's magnetic field is essential for deflecting the solar wind and avoiding the same fate. But that wouldn't explain why Venus, presumably dealing with a much stronger solar wind, has such a robust atmosphere with such a weak magnetic field. Venus's wikipedia article suggests that water on Venus had boiled off, and its free hydrogen and oxygen were swept into space by the solar wind. Perhaps its clouds of sulferic acid are so much heavier that gravity is enough to keep them there.
Stop using the term "space nutter," thank you.
It's second only to "SJW" and "no true scotsman" when it comes to stupid phrases used on Slashdot that people need to stop parroting.