Well, I did. So there. And yes, I would, because the -s on the end of the word makes it plural. UK English has that same conjugation rule as US English. Single "is". Plural "are". "Maths" is plural due to the suffix.
That would be clearly an after-the-fact insertion. Photorealism being passed off as part of actual news events is not, and is not ethical in journalism.
Technology will never totally replace the need for humans to do jobs that you don't need a degree to do. Plus, there will always be punishment jobs like "scrub the warp manifold with a toothbrush".
Try dealing with traffic in my area after the show is over. There's plenty of reason to watch them in hi-def.
But they seem to film those from a helicopter just fine with no problem, so it seems to me this is BS justification for misleading. You're NEVER supposed to misrepresent the truth in journalism and this should have been disclosed clearly as "simulation" or similar, and not presented as actual fact. I've been through photojournalism courses and it was drummed into our heads to never, ever fake a shot after the fact beyond basic cleanup for brightness/exposure/saturation/etc. No simulations or clone tooling allowed.
It has plenty of relevancy considering the roots of the idea (real-life people who draw on real-life experiences) and the fact that any future space force (and the creation of such has been considered before, seriously) would draw from the existing armed forces which are structured the way they are for good reason. Whether it'd be the USAF or the USN that would be more of a model (or basis; the USAF was split from the Army, so it was heavily influenced by that origin) is hard to say right now, but the idea that we'd start all over again is unlikely to actually happen.
Sure, officer-only in the beginning when you're talking small capsule spacecraft (Apollo 15) and for the next few generations after that, but when you're talking ships that operate like naval vessels, you're going to be drawing on your national navy for how to operate your space force.
The size of the crew has less to do with the era when a ship existed and more to do with her size -- you'll see a much smaller crew on a destroyer than you do on a carrier. The TNG Enterprise was a much larger ship (really, two ships held together with latches and explosive bolts and such) so you need a larger crew to man her and, to some extent, many positions are duplicated to some extent in the event the ship splits up into two parts.
Ships of the line in the 18th century had large crews, too, don't forget. HMS Victory was only about 57 meters long, yet had a crew of 850. That's a lot, comparatively, for a ship of that size -- no automation means humans had to do everything.
When not at war, the Navy, too, performs humanitarian missions and has been involved in deep-sea exploration. It was little known until recently but it was the US Navy that made the search for Titanic possible -- the main purpose of the expedition was to search for two sunken submarines and survey the wreckage. And it's usually the Navy that sends ships to disaster areas (e.g. the hospital ship Comfort) to help where it's needed. It just doesn't get as much press today as the doom and gloom stories of actual war do.
So it's not unrealistic to say that the navy would perform science; government agencies often have the resources and funding to do it where private industry wouldn't, and when no war is on, the navy needs a reason to exist, so why not put it to peaceful use?
Also, the message of Star Trek is partly "put aside our petty differences and we could be so much better", so naturally there is a lot of focus on peaceful stuff and when conflicts do arise, the Earth is a unified single nation that doesn't fight over petty differences (like religion; it still exists like it does today, but we have gotten past having bloody wars over it) and we put a united front toward the enemy.
That's because DS9 (and TNG, slightly) were the only ones to actually show cadets, but that's also how it works in the Navy. While you're at the Academy, you're a cadet, and then you graduate and become (I think) an ensign; someone who's in the Navy can probably chime in to say whether I'm right or not.
But a cadet isn't part of the serving Navy and will only be on training vessels or doing school-related things like classes, homework, etc. They wouldn't show up often on a ship that's part of the active fleet, so it makes sense for them to not show up on the Enterprise until she's assigned to the training fleet (which is the way it works in real life, too; old ships that no longer are part of the fleet due to age, lack of modern refit/equipment, etc. are used for training for a bit before being mothballed).
Interesting; I hadn't known about that. It does make sense when you are talking about missions with only a few crewmen (like the USAF-only Apollo 15 crew; all three astronauts were officers) but that model falls apart when you're talking about naval vessels which have crews in the hundreds. And not all jobs on a ship are highly skilled -- you have to have cooks to feed your crew, for instance, and for a job like that you don't need someone to go through the Naval Academy. It's a poorly-thought-through idea and like you say, I hope more enlisted crew will show up as time goes on. I know that in many of the novels, enlisted ranks are mentioned -- so I think a lot of novel writers agree with me that something should be done.
Hey, I want to play this game and I'm really female in real life (down, boys!), but just for you, I'm not gonna play an Orion, if it turns out to be possible.:p
It's true that the focal characters are indeed officers, but I think the writers could have nodded to the many people out there who are enlisted, in real life and in Trek, by occasionally having the captain ask for someone with an enlisted rank to join an away team, and so on.
Good point -- had forgotten about him. (and I know the enlisted ranks I cited were Army -- I was thinking at the time of a friend who served there; "Chief" is short for chief petty officer, which IS a Navy rank. Sorry to anyone I may have confused).
I've never figured out why it seems that everyone in the Navy (Starfleet) is an ensign or higher in the Trek universe; Ensign is a commissioned officer rank, not an enlisted rank.
Yet, most of the stuff that happens on ships gets done by enlisteds, and even officers will listen to an NCO who knows their stuff.
So, you'd think the random guy would be a private, private first class, sergeant, etc.
Fortunately, we have this thing called the internet that can *gasp* be used to view things not hosted in the US. And as we all know, trying to ban something just makes it multiply like crazy (thank you, Streisand, for naming that phenomenon via your idiocy), so if you look hard enough you'll find it somewhere. And I sure as hell know that if I were interested (I'm not) I wouldn't be using Microsoft crap either -- it won't even run on my machine.
Southwest doesn't even fly out of the continental 48. They used to codeshare to Hawaii but nixed that. It was a ripoff anyway -- you had to use DOUBLE reward points to book on that route. I wouldn't have wasted the points -- the place isn't that special.
However, why not book with a non-US airline if you're going on an international trip? They serve citizens of their countries who are flying to the US, so you can book with them, too. I'm not sure who's best on trans-Atlantic routes but I've heard really good things about Singapore Airways/Airlines (I forget which), so consider them if they service the route you want.
You fail to take account of the fact that early on there are other costs involved. There's a massive investment that has to be recouped, yes, the production technology is new, and there are behind the scenes glitches with new technologies that have costs associated with them, not just time.
You are also probably looking at MSRP, which is almost always a fair bit higher than what you pay in the real world. I sure don't pay $15 more per disk.
Yeah. Difference is, you said "I goofed" instead of blaming it on Apple. It's especially silly of people to complain about it (NOT you!) since you have to deliberately turn the feature on in the first place.
(question, though -- there was no way to call and cancel the order before it shipped?)
At least now you/we can just smile and laugh about it; we don't scream and throw fits like crybabies.
You have to click the install button twice - once to change it from the price to "install", once to actually install, then you have to enter your password if you haven't entered it recently enough into the store app. That's 3 steps.
If people want to buy the app, let them. That's their choice. But you can't do it by mistake.
Nope, it doesn't. I have the same issue. What were you trying to view captions on? I use subtitles instead of captions for DVD/Blu-Ray now, and my TiVo Series 3 has an onboard CC decoder and sends the captions to the TV via HDMI as part of the picture data (the decoder in the TV is inactive).
Pick up a TiVo HD/S3, a BR/DVD player with HDMI out, a 2-to-1 switcher, replace your cable box with two CableCards, and your problem is solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I did. So there. And yes, I would, because the -s on the end of the word makes it plural. UK English has that same conjugation rule as US English. Single "is". Plural "are". "Maths" is plural due to the suffix.
And I never said it was a utopia, did I?
That would be clearly an after-the-fact insertion. Photorealism being passed off as part of actual news events is not, and is not ethical in journalism.
Technology will never totally replace the need for humans to do jobs that you don't need a degree to do. Plus, there will always be punishment jobs like "scrub the warp manifold with a toothbrush".
Or grammar. "maths" is plural. "maths are not ..."
Pot, kettle. ;)
Covering events like that IS journalism, no matter how much it's labeled as "entertainment".
Try dealing with traffic in my area after the show is over. There's plenty of reason to watch them in hi-def.
But they seem to film those from a helicopter just fine with no problem, so it seems to me this is BS justification for misleading. You're NEVER supposed to misrepresent the truth in journalism and this should have been disclosed clearly as "simulation" or similar, and not presented as actual fact. I've been through photojournalism courses and it was drummed into our heads to never, ever fake a shot after the fact beyond basic cleanup for brightness/exposure/saturation/etc. No simulations or clone tooling allowed.
It has plenty of relevancy considering the roots of the idea (real-life people who draw on real-life experiences) and the fact that any future space force (and the creation of such has been considered before, seriously) would draw from the existing armed forces which are structured the way they are for good reason. Whether it'd be the USAF or the USN that would be more of a model (or basis; the USAF was split from the Army, so it was heavily influenced by that origin) is hard to say right now, but the idea that we'd start all over again is unlikely to actually happen.
Sure, officer-only in the beginning when you're talking small capsule spacecraft (Apollo 15) and for the next few generations after that, but when you're talking ships that operate like naval vessels, you're going to be drawing on your national navy for how to operate your space force.
The size of the crew has less to do with the era when a ship existed and more to do with her size -- you'll see a much smaller crew on a destroyer than you do on a carrier. The TNG Enterprise was a much larger ship (really, two ships held together with latches and explosive bolts and such) so you need a larger crew to man her and, to some extent, many positions are duplicated to some extent in the event the ship splits up into two parts.
Ships of the line in the 18th century had large crews, too, don't forget. HMS Victory was only about 57 meters long, yet had a crew of 850. That's a lot, comparatively, for a ship of that size -- no automation means humans had to do everything.
When not at war, the Navy, too, performs humanitarian missions and has been involved in deep-sea exploration. It was little known until recently but it was the US Navy that made the search for Titanic possible -- the main purpose of the expedition was to search for two sunken submarines and survey the wreckage. And it's usually the Navy that sends ships to disaster areas (e.g. the hospital ship Comfort) to help where it's needed. It just doesn't get as much press today as the doom and gloom stories of actual war do.
So it's not unrealistic to say that the navy would perform science; government agencies often have the resources and funding to do it where private industry wouldn't, and when no war is on, the navy needs a reason to exist, so why not put it to peaceful use?
Also, the message of Star Trek is partly "put aside our petty differences and we could be so much better", so naturally there is a lot of focus on peaceful stuff and when conflicts do arise, the Earth is a unified single nation that doesn't fight over petty differences (like religion; it still exists like it does today, but we have gotten past having bloody wars over it) and we put a united front toward the enemy.
Alas that seems to have gotten lost lately.
That's because DS9 (and TNG, slightly) were the only ones to actually show cadets, but that's also how it works in the Navy. While you're at the Academy, you're a cadet, and then you graduate and become (I think) an ensign; someone who's in the Navy can probably chime in to say whether I'm right or not.
But a cadet isn't part of the serving Navy and will only be on training vessels or doing school-related things like classes, homework, etc. They wouldn't show up often on a ship that's part of the active fleet, so it makes sense for them to not show up on the Enterprise until she's assigned to the training fleet (which is the way it works in real life, too; old ships that no longer are part of the fleet due to age, lack of modern refit/equipment, etc. are used for training for a bit before being mothballed).
Interesting; I hadn't known about that. It does make sense when you are talking about missions with only a few crewmen (like the USAF-only Apollo 15 crew; all three astronauts were officers) but that model falls apart when you're talking about naval vessels which have crews in the hundreds. And not all jobs on a ship are highly skilled -- you have to have cooks to feed your crew, for instance, and for a job like that you don't need someone to go through the Naval Academy. It's a poorly-thought-through idea and like you say, I hope more enlisted crew will show up as time goes on. I know that in many of the novels, enlisted ranks are mentioned -- so I think a lot of novel writers agree with me that something should be done.
Hey, I want to play this game and I'm really female in real life (down, boys!), but just for you, I'm not gonna play an Orion, if it turns out to be possible. :p
It's true that the focal characters are indeed officers, but I think the writers could have nodded to the many people out there who are enlisted, in real life and in Trek, by occasionally having the captain ask for someone with an enlisted rank to join an away team, and so on.
Good point -- had forgotten about him. (and I know the enlisted ranks I cited were Army -- I was thinking at the time of a friend who served there; "Chief" is short for chief petty officer, which IS a Navy rank. Sorry to anyone I may have confused).
I've never figured out why it seems that everyone in the Navy (Starfleet) is an ensign or higher in the Trek universe; Ensign is a commissioned officer rank, not an enlisted rank.
Yet, most of the stuff that happens on ships gets done by enlisteds, and even officers will listen to an NCO who knows their stuff.
So, you'd think the random guy would be a private, private first class, sergeant, etc.
But nope...
(and I say this as a long-time Trek fan: "huh!?")
Have you seen prices for transAtlantic ships though?
Fortunately, we have this thing called the internet that can *gasp* be used to view things not hosted in the US. And as we all know, trying to ban something just makes it multiply like crazy (thank you, Streisand, for naming that phenomenon via your idiocy), so if you look hard enough you'll find it somewhere. And I sure as hell know that if I were interested (I'm not) I wouldn't be using Microsoft crap either -- it won't even run on my machine.
No, they're just lunatics. Nothing lives on the Moon, but that doesn't mean the Moon isn't going to their heads.
Are there any decent foreign airlines that codeshare with US airlines so it books through the US carrier?
Southwest doesn't even fly out of the continental 48. They used to codeshare to Hawaii but nixed that. It was a ripoff anyway -- you had to use DOUBLE reward points to book on that route. I wouldn't have wasted the points -- the place isn't that special.
However, why not book with a non-US airline if you're going on an international trip? They serve citizens of their countries who are flying to the US, so you can book with them, too. I'm not sure who's best on trans-Atlantic routes but I've heard really good things about Singapore Airways/Airlines (I forget which), so consider them if they service the route you want.
It can be a dramatic difference if you set it up right. But "is it worth it?" is a subjective question. It is for me; maybe not for you.
You fail to take account of the fact that early on there are other costs involved. There's a massive investment that has to be recouped, yes, the production technology is new, and there are behind the scenes glitches with new technologies that have costs associated with them, not just time.
You are also probably looking at MSRP, which is almost always a fair bit higher than what you pay in the real world. I sure don't pay $15 more per disk.
Yeah. Difference is, you said "I goofed" instead of blaming it on Apple. It's especially silly of people to complain about it (NOT you!) since you have to deliberately turn the feature on in the first place.
(question, though -- there was no way to call and cancel the order before it shipped?)
At least now you/we can just smile and laugh about it; we don't scream and throw fits like crybabies.
You have to click the install button twice - once to change it from the price to "install", once to actually install, then you have to enter your password if you haven't entered it recently enough into the store app. That's 3 steps.
If people want to buy the app, let them. That's their choice. But you can't do it by mistake.
(And free apps require multiple steps too).
Nope, it doesn't. I have the same issue. What were you trying to view captions on? I use subtitles instead of captions for DVD/Blu-Ray now, and my TiVo Series 3 has an onboard CC decoder and sends the captions to the TV via HDMI as part of the picture data (the decoder in the TV is inactive).
Pick up a TiVo HD/S3, a BR/DVD player with HDMI out, a 2-to-1 switcher, replace your cable box with two CableCards, and your problem is solved.