Well, given the summary (and the article it plagiarizes from) explicitly says:
The cells are charged in a traditional way but as power is used or 'discharged' an open mesh section of battery draws in oxygen from the surrounding air.
Okay, sure, that's a little vague. 'course, if one were to actually go through the trouble of RTFA, you'd see this quote from the second article:
Researchers in the UK are developing a rechargeable lithium-air battery that could deliver a ten-fold increase in energy capacity compared to that of currently available lithium-ion cells.
Now, what I couldn't accept (as a Trekkie) was the complete lack of science fiction depth. Where was the social commmentary? Where was the intellectualism? Where was the "What If?"
So, let me guess, you hated "The Naked Time"? Or "The Man Trap"? Or "Operation: Annihilate!"? Or, say, "The Wrath of Khan", the generally acknowledged best ST movie? You know, all those episodes of TOS, TNG, etc, that were, plain and simply, pure action for the sake of it? Okay, to be fair, some of them were a combination of action and character development ("The Naked Time" is a prime example of that sort of thing)... you know, kinda like the new ST movie.
I hate to break it to you, but your image of ST is, at best, one-sided (which doesn't surprise me... a lot of Trek fans want to believe ST was some kind of high-minded, intellectual creation, when the reality is far more mixed). ST wasn't purely philosophical. It had it's philosophical moments, to be sure, but it had it's fair share of mindless action, too.
The last mile is the monopoly, not the rest of an ISPs internals. Fix the last mile monopoly and there's no excuse to regulate any of the rest. That sounds like an interesting choice for ISPs: give up the last mile, or let the government into bed with you on everything else.
Read my whole post. You missed this part:
But given the vast majority of the cost is in building out and maintaining the last mile, I really don't see the point... at that stage, why not just have the government provide the service and be done with it?
IOW, yes, I'm aware of the alternative you suggest. I just don't see why you'd bother.
Industries that can totally screw you over if they stop working (utilities such as power and water) are traditionally under government control because we know the free market ideas of supply and demand do not work for these situations.
Mmm... violent agreement. I'd suggest going back and re-reading my post while paying special attention to the implicit sarcasm tags.:)
While it may seem inconvenient having to wait a few days for an appointment for your service provider, imagine if you had to deal with your local municipality who could care less if you remain a customer.
Yeah! Similarly, my government-run power is always going out, and my government-run water supply never works! No... wait... that's not true at all.
You can be damned sure a government-run ISP would care about their customers. Remember, those customers are also *voters*, and if there's one thing you can say about politicians, it's that they like to get re-elected.
The monopolies causing problems in this discussion are all government-granted monopolies
They're also natural monopolies, thanks to barrier of entry problems. Here, let's do a thought experiment. Imagine, for a moment, that the government never granted any easements to any one business. Instead, they just stayed out of it. What would've happened? Well, let's ignore the fact that, odds are, telephony would never have been deployed because the legal hoops would've been insurmountable. So let's pretend one business was able to lay out the cash, get all the negotiations done, and actually managed to get the last mile built.
Now company B comes along. Well, company A built out their own gear, so the government can't force them to share it. So company B now has to build an *entirely duplicated infrastructure base* just to enter the market! And that's assuming company A didn't enter into exclusive deals with the landowners, effectively choking off any competition before it can take hold.
In short: like other utilities, internet service is a natural monopoly. Competition simply doesn't make sense.
A government-owned last mile, with all companies allowed to compete to provide services from there, would seem to solve the problem without any sort of regulation of the internals of those companies.
And the libertarians would say that that would just put more power in the hands of government. Now they get to pick and choose the competition. That's evil pinko communism!!!
'course, I happen to agree with you. If you want to somehow build a competitive market out of what is, fundamentally, a natural monopoly, the only thing that makes sense is to have the government build the last mile, and then lease service to local businesses at cost. But given the vast majority of the cost is in building out and maintaining the last mile, I really don't see the point... at that stage, why not just have the government provide the service and be done with it?
You see, many utilities are best served by local monopolies.
But... if that's true, why the hell not have the local monopoly *be* the government? The whole fucking point of privatization is to encourage competition. But if the industry is a natural monopoly (which is what you're alluding to), then privatization makes no fucking sense, because the monopoly then has no reason to actually address customer needs (ie, reduced prices, improved service, etc).
On the flipside, a government-run operation can run at cost (ie, zero profit, making just enough money to operate), and if the public doesn't like how it's being run, they have elections as recourse (as opposed to a monopolistic private entity, where they have no recourse at all).
Or possibly because some of us think punitive taxes are an inappropriate use of government power, and only serve to distort the market?
Well, to be fair, "punitive" taxes, as you call them, are specifically designed to "distort" the market... in the sense that they *un-distort* the market by forcing the cost of negative externalities back onto the consumer.
Or: Carbon taxes are a *perfect* example of government taxation to *correct* market inefficiencies.
What I do have a problem with is setting up taxes to cover the "environmental damage" of doing things, such as releasing a ton of CO2. Exactly what is that cost?
Yes, you're right. I'm sure there's no possible costs associated with global climate change. It's not like farm land becomes unarable, coastal areas become unlivable, etc. Nope, not costs at all.
And, of course, burning gasoline only causes CO2 emissions. It's not like all that exhaust could possibly result in increased health costs thanks to respiratory ailments, asthma, and so forth. Nope, not at all.
Not only that, but is the government going to use those tax revenues to somehow pay that cost so that there's no net impact of me polluting?
Uh, that's not the point. The point is to force companies to factor the cost of those externalities into the price of the product, so that individuals can then make an educated choice based on the *full* cost of the products they're purchasing. The government could just throw the money in the ocean. The effect would be the same.
Of course, ideally, yes, the government would, say, fund research into green technologies, fund cleanup efforts, etc. But whether they do or not *doesn't actually matter*.
For the last decade at least, the UK and the rest of Europe has had diesel cars the size of an Accord / Aura / Fusion which could average 42mpg (50mpg Imp.) in mixed driving - at least it was never a problem for me - urban driving reduces the mileage of course.
Well sure, that's easy with diesel. Diesel stores more energy, per gallon, than gasoline, so of course you're going to get better mileage. Couple that with the fact that a US gallon is smaller than the EU equivalent, and I don't find your numbers even remotely surprising.
Problem is, a) US diesel penetration is pathetic at best, and b) ULSD still isn't ubiquitous (last I checked, anyway) (of course, the latter partly explains the former, so I may be repeating myself). So, big surprise, diesel vehicles aren't popular there.
Besides which, even if the entire US were to switch over to diesel, it's no panacea. Sure, you'll get better mileage, but you end up trading carbon emissions for particulates. And that's ignoring some of the technological problems (like poor performance in cold climates).
Whoever that professional is, they mustn't do a very difficult job. Honestly, the idea that anyone can perform a mentally intensive task at a peak level of performance at the drop of a hat is laughable at best.
Yes... because "what is the number such that it's square is two" is the natural way to ask that question... as opposed to, say, "what is the square root of two".
I'm sure I could create a nice, tortured question that'd puzzle Alpha, too. But I wouldn't fault Alpha for being confused by it.
Do you feel the same way about films? Were The Dambusters, Saving Private Ryan, and Casablanca tasteless for the reason you suggest?
Ahhh, trolling to start the old videogames versus art argument, once again? Okay, I'll bite:
All of those are works of art meant to educate and enlighten (of course, you already know that). Modern videogames, on the other hand, use war to present a fun setting for a little sanitized killing (you already know that, too, but you like to believe it's kinda sorta like "art" so it's the same). The former general tries to do justice to the victims of the war by telling their story. The latter is shallow attempt to cash in.
BTW, Casablanca? Jebus, you couldn't have picked a worse example. Yes, that movie is set in wartime. But it's hardly a war movie.
PS. For the record, I also have problems with WWII videogames, and movies that present a cheap, clean, sanitized war story... problem is, I'm having trouble coming up with an example of such a thing because the movie industry is generally grown up enough to understand that a cheap, shallow representation of a real tragedy like war is probably not a useful thing to put out there.
PPS. BTW, before you bring out the censorship strawman, keep in mind, I never once mentioned it. I couldn't care less if a company felt like throwing out a tasteless title to soak a few mouthbreathers. I just think such actions are more than a little disgusting. And the results certainly don't qualify as anything more than cheap pop art.
And yet, none of this matters because, once again, autism rates haven't declined in the wake of the removal of thimerosol. Period. That's the nut of it, and you've danced around that fact once again.
Is it possible thimerosol may have had other unpleasant side-effects? Perhaps. I don't know. But it doesn't matter, because the issue at hand is the link between vaccines and autism, a link that clearly does not exist, based both on experimental study and real-world experience.
Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here [sitestat.com] and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".
Hint: environmental, elemental mercury sources are not the same thing as thermerasol.
Meanwhile, study after study has eliminated the link between vaccinations and autism. I'd provide citations, but it's clear you've already consumed the kool-aid.
Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth because their government told them so
No, it was invented out of whole cloth because the guys propounding the theory have no evidence backing their assertions, while all studies in the topic have demonstrated there is no such connection.
you might also talk about how in order to receive any vaccinations from the Gates foundation you have to provide patent protection to pharmaceutical companies. No IP law? No vaccinations.
You might... if you actually had evidence backing your assertion.
Problem is, for mosquitos to stop feeding off humans would mean developing some sort of mechanism to differentiate between a human and an animal.
Uh, how did you infer that was the goal from the GP's post? The point isn't that mosquitos will evolve to avoid humans. The point is that they probably *won't* evolve a resistance to this "vaccine" because it won't act as a sufficient evolutionary pressure to select mosquitos with that resistance, as the ability to feed on humans isn't sufficiently advantageous. The corollary is precisely the opposite of what you're inferring: similarly, the vaccine wouldn't act as a sufficient pressure to select mosquitos that would avoid humans in the first place.
On the flipside, I'm not sure I buy the argument. Human populations are non-trivial in size, and it may be that they act as a significant food source for mosquitos in large parts of the world.
Look at the real talent and effort that has gone into the game, and this is a title that isn't even trying to be overtly artistic. Now tell me that the product as a whole is a lesser artistic work than a painting of a tin of Campbell's soup, or an episode of Lost.
So first you're comparing games to David, and now you're comparing them to Campbell's soup cans and episodes of Lost? Jebus, talk about lowering the bar.
Will games look pretty? Sure. Will they sound nice? Yup. Will they contain content that merits anything but the label Pop Art? Maybe. But I'll be surprised if it's any time soon. Hell, it took, what, 50 years for the comic book to reach the level of a artform, and it's still often derided by outsiders as being kids stuff. Compared to that video games are still in their infancy (as witnessed by their often infantile nature).
Meanwhile, even crass "action" video games will continue to surpass in quality the majority of what you regard as "art".
ROFL. Define "quality". The plots are a joke compared to a great novel. The music is average pop culture trash, and the artwork is about the same.
No, games have a *long* way to go before they "surpass" anything. Granted, they've certainly come a long way from the old days. But come on, just a *little* perspective would be nice.
Eh? What about "needs of the many outweigh," and all that...? I mean, they fricken killed off Spock, though deep down we all knew he was coming back.
Hardly the core concept in the movie, though. And hardly that philosophical (certainly not insightful). Fundamentally, it was an action movie.
Actually, though, Wrath of Khan was more of a traditional naval-battle movie set in space. It worked so well in the "Balance of Terror" episode of the original series that they brought it back for a movie.
Right. It was an action movie. Though, to be fair, "Balance of Terror" was a far more thought-provoking episode than ST2. ST2 was plain and simply an action movie. Yeah, Spock dying was sad. But the core point was to show a fun ship-on-ship, captain vs. captain space battle, with Kirk up against a true equal for a change.
"Balance of Terror", on the other hand, spent a lot more time analyzing the psyche of the "enemy", revealing a captain who, instead of being a blind patriot, turned out to be a thoughtful, three-dimensional character who's motivations for fighting were far more complex than a simple need for revenge ('course, it helps that Mark Lenard was one of the most brilliant actors to grace the set of Star Trek).
All of which just reinforces my point: if you (not you specifically, but you, the general ST basement dweller:) really don't like the new ST movie because it's not philosophical enough, Khan must've *really* pissed you off. They took one of the more interesting villains in TOS (presented in one of the more interesting episodes, examining the history of earth, eugenics, etc), and turned him into a two-dimensional, blood-thirsty, irrational killer.
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
ST has *always* been about *both* action and thoughful plot, but which you got depended on the episode. The Naked Time? Action. The City on the Edge of Forever? Thoughtful plot. To claim ST was only one or the other is to be blinded by fanboi-ism.
The timeline that we know from the series is still in tact, otherwise future Spock would have no memory of any of the events that he experienced.
Ah, no, that's just wrong. If you believe in the many-worlds hypothesis (which is what the whole movie is based on), the Spock that comes back from the future is from a different timeline and will retain his memories, even though the timeline he's now in will no longer progress the way the one he came from did.
Of course, that means it's impossible to actually alter future events in a given time line (instead, by changing things in the past, you'd create and occupy a *new* timeline), which directly contradicts basically every other time travel-based Star Trek episode (eg, The City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday's Enterprise, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
You watched it to see "cool terminator robots".
Well, that says something about your average Fox viewer...
Well, given the summary (and the article it plagiarizes from) explicitly says:
Okay, sure, that's a little vague. 'course, if one were to actually go through the trouble of RTFA, you'd see this quote from the second article:
So, I would guess that, yes, it's rechargeable.
Now, what I couldn't accept (as a Trekkie) was the complete lack of science fiction depth. Where was the social commmentary? Where was the intellectualism? Where was the "What If?"
So, let me guess, you hated "The Naked Time"? Or "The Man Trap"? Or "Operation: Annihilate!"? Or, say, "The Wrath of Khan", the generally acknowledged best ST movie? You know, all those episodes of TOS, TNG, etc, that were, plain and simply, pure action for the sake of it? Okay, to be fair, some of them were a combination of action and character development ("The Naked Time" is a prime example of that sort of thing)... you know, kinda like the new ST movie.
I hate to break it to you, but your image of ST is, at best, one-sided (which doesn't surprise me... a lot of Trek fans want to believe ST was some kind of high-minded, intellectual creation, when the reality is far more mixed). ST wasn't purely philosophical. It had it's philosophical moments, to be sure, but it had it's fair share of mindless action, too.
The last mile is the monopoly, not the rest of an ISPs internals. Fix the last mile monopoly and there's no excuse to regulate any of the rest. That sounds like an interesting choice for ISPs: give up the last mile, or let the government into bed with you on everything else.
Read my whole post. You missed this part:
IOW, yes, I'm aware of the alternative you suggest. I just don't see why you'd bother.
Industries that can totally screw you over if they stop working (utilities such as power and water) are traditionally under government control because we know the free market ideas of supply and demand do not work for these situations.
Mmm... violent agreement. I'd suggest going back and re-reading my post while paying special attention to the implicit sarcasm tags. :)
While it may seem inconvenient having to wait a few days for an appointment for your service provider, imagine if you had to deal with your local municipality who could care less if you remain a customer.
Yeah! Similarly, my government-run power is always going out, and my government-run water supply never works! No... wait... that's not true at all.
You can be damned sure a government-run ISP would care about their customers. Remember, those customers are also *voters*, and if there's one thing you can say about politicians, it's that they like to get re-elected.
The monopolies causing problems in this discussion are all government-granted monopolies
They're also natural monopolies, thanks to barrier of entry problems. Here, let's do a thought experiment. Imagine, for a moment, that the government never granted any easements to any one business. Instead, they just stayed out of it. What would've happened? Well, let's ignore the fact that, odds are, telephony would never have been deployed because the legal hoops would've been insurmountable. So let's pretend one business was able to lay out the cash, get all the negotiations done, and actually managed to get the last mile built.
Now company B comes along. Well, company A built out their own gear, so the government can't force them to share it. So company B now has to build an *entirely duplicated infrastructure base* just to enter the market! And that's assuming company A didn't enter into exclusive deals with the landowners, effectively choking off any competition before it can take hold.
In short: like other utilities, internet service is a natural monopoly. Competition simply doesn't make sense.
A government-owned last mile, with all companies allowed to compete to provide services from there, would seem to solve the problem without any sort of regulation of the internals of those companies.
And the libertarians would say that that would just put more power in the hands of government. Now they get to pick and choose the competition. That's evil pinko communism!!!
'course, I happen to agree with you. If you want to somehow build a competitive market out of what is, fundamentally, a natural monopoly, the only thing that makes sense is to have the government build the last mile, and then lease service to local businesses at cost. But given the vast majority of the cost is in building out and maintaining the last mile, I really don't see the point... at that stage, why not just have the government provide the service and be done with it?
You see, many utilities are best served by local monopolies.
But... if that's true, why the hell not have the local monopoly *be* the government? The whole fucking point of privatization is to encourage competition. But if the industry is a natural monopoly (which is what you're alluding to), then privatization makes no fucking sense, because the monopoly then has no reason to actually address customer needs (ie, reduced prices, improved service, etc).
On the flipside, a government-run operation can run at cost (ie, zero profit, making just enough money to operate), and if the public doesn't like how it's being run, they have elections as recourse (as opposed to a monopolistic private entity, where they have no recourse at all).
Or possibly because some of us think punitive taxes are an inappropriate use of government power, and only serve to distort the market?
Well, to be fair, "punitive" taxes, as you call them, are specifically designed to "distort" the market... in the sense that they *un-distort* the market by forcing the cost of negative externalities back onto the consumer.
Or: Carbon taxes are a *perfect* example of government taxation to *correct* market inefficiencies.
What I do have a problem with is setting up taxes to cover the "environmental damage" of doing things, such as releasing a ton of CO2. Exactly what is that cost?
Yes, you're right. I'm sure there's no possible costs associated with global climate change. It's not like farm land becomes unarable, coastal areas become unlivable, etc. Nope, not costs at all.
And, of course, burning gasoline only causes CO2 emissions. It's not like all that exhaust could possibly result in increased health costs thanks to respiratory ailments, asthma, and so forth. Nope, not at all.
Not only that, but is the government going to use those tax revenues to somehow pay that cost so that there's no net impact of me polluting?
Uh, that's not the point. The point is to force companies to factor the cost of those externalities into the price of the product, so that individuals can then make an educated choice based on the *full* cost of the products they're purchasing. The government could just throw the money in the ocean. The effect would be the same.
Of course, ideally, yes, the government would, say, fund research into green technologies, fund cleanup efforts, etc. But whether they do or not *doesn't actually matter*.
You know what's really fucking horrible, seeing that on a computer, with a quad-core CPU, just for a browser and email, and half the time idle
Exactly. Half the time. And that's the difference.
A truck like that with no trailer hitch says one thing: they *never* use that engine. Ever.
Well, to be fair, not everyone is in walking distance of a fishing lake.
That said, anyone who needs a 1/2-ton to tow his "fishing" boat is *definitely* doing something wrong...
For the last decade at least, the UK and the rest of Europe has had diesel cars the size of an Accord / Aura / Fusion which could average 42mpg (50mpg Imp.) in mixed driving - at least it was never a problem for me - urban driving reduces the mileage of course.
Well sure, that's easy with diesel. Diesel stores more energy, per gallon, than gasoline, so of course you're going to get better mileage. Couple that with the fact that a US gallon is smaller than the EU equivalent, and I don't find your numbers even remotely surprising.
Problem is, a) US diesel penetration is pathetic at best, and b) ULSD still isn't ubiquitous (last I checked, anyway) (of course, the latter partly explains the former, so I may be repeating myself). So, big surprise, diesel vehicles aren't popular there.
Besides which, even if the entire US were to switch over to diesel, it's no panacea. Sure, you'll get better mileage, but you end up trading carbon emissions for particulates. And that's ignoring some of the technological problems (like poor performance in cold climates).
Well, we all know how bulletproof secure Firefox is, right?
More to the point, we all know how secure FTP is, right?
Jebus, if you're that paranoid, why, dear god, weren't you using SFTP?
Whoever that professional is, they mustn't do a very difficult job. Honestly, the idea that anyone can perform a mentally intensive task at a peak level of performance at the drop of a hat is laughable at best.
Yes... because "what is the number such that it's square is two" is the natural way to ask that question... as opposed to, say, "what is the square root of two".
I'm sure I could create a nice, tortured question that'd puzzle Alpha, too. But I wouldn't fault Alpha for being confused by it.
Do you feel the same way about films? Were The Dambusters, Saving Private Ryan, and Casablanca tasteless for the reason you suggest?
Ahhh, trolling to start the old videogames versus art argument, once again? Okay, I'll bite:
All of those are works of art meant to educate and enlighten (of course, you already know that). Modern videogames, on the other hand, use war to present a fun setting for a little sanitized killing (you already know that, too, but you like to believe it's kinda sorta like "art" so it's the same). The former general tries to do justice to the victims of the war by telling their story. The latter is shallow attempt to cash in.
BTW, Casablanca? Jebus, you couldn't have picked a worse example. Yes, that movie is set in wartime. But it's hardly a war movie.
PS. For the record, I also have problems with WWII videogames, and movies that present a cheap, clean, sanitized war story... problem is, I'm having trouble coming up with an example of such a thing because the movie industry is generally grown up enough to understand that a cheap, shallow representation of a real tragedy like war is probably not a useful thing to put out there.
PPS. BTW, before you bring out the censorship strawman, keep in mind, I never once mentioned it. I couldn't care less if a company felt like throwing out a tasteless title to soak a few mouthbreathers. I just think such actions are more than a little disgusting. And the results certainly don't qualify as anything more than cheap pop art.
And yet, none of this matters because, once again, autism rates haven't declined in the wake of the removal of thimerosol. Period. That's the nut of it, and you've danced around that fact once again.
Is it possible thimerosol may have had other unpleasant side-effects? Perhaps. I don't know. But it doesn't matter, because the issue at hand is the link between vaccines and autism, a link that clearly does not exist, based both on experimental study and real-world experience.
Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here [sitestat.com] and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".
Hint: environmental, elemental mercury sources are not the same thing as thermerasol.
Meanwhile, study after study has eliminated the link between vaccinations and autism. I'd provide citations, but it's clear you've already consumed the kool-aid.
Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth because their government told them so
No, it was invented out of whole cloth because the guys propounding the theory have no evidence backing their assertions, while all studies in the topic have demonstrated there is no such connection.
you might also talk about how in order to receive any vaccinations from the Gates foundation you have to provide patent protection to pharmaceutical companies. No IP law? No vaccinations.
You might... if you actually had evidence backing your assertion.
Problem is, for mosquitos to stop feeding off humans would mean developing some sort of mechanism to differentiate between a human and an animal.
Uh, how did you infer that was the goal from the GP's post? The point isn't that mosquitos will evolve to avoid humans. The point is that they probably *won't* evolve a resistance to this "vaccine" because it won't act as a sufficient evolutionary pressure to select mosquitos with that resistance, as the ability to feed on humans isn't sufficiently advantageous. The corollary is precisely the opposite of what you're inferring: similarly, the vaccine wouldn't act as a sufficient pressure to select mosquitos that would avoid humans in the first place.
On the flipside, I'm not sure I buy the argument. Human populations are non-trivial in size, and it may be that they act as a significant food source for mosquitos in large parts of the world.
Why think when you can simply dismiss out of hand?
Look at the real talent and effort that has gone into the game, and this is a title that isn't even trying to be overtly artistic. Now tell me that the product as a whole is a lesser artistic work than a painting of a tin of Campbell's soup, or an episode of Lost.
So first you're comparing games to David, and now you're comparing them to Campbell's soup cans and episodes of Lost? Jebus, talk about lowering the bar.
Will games look pretty? Sure. Will they sound nice? Yup. Will they contain content that merits anything but the label Pop Art? Maybe. But I'll be surprised if it's any time soon. Hell, it took, what, 50 years for the comic book to reach the level of a artform, and it's still often derided by outsiders as being kids stuff. Compared to that video games are still in their infancy (as witnessed by their often infantile nature).
Meanwhile, even crass "action" video games will continue to surpass in quality the majority of what you regard as "art".
ROFL. Define "quality". The plots are a joke compared to a great novel. The music is average pop culture trash, and the artwork is about the same.
No, games have a *long* way to go before they "surpass" anything. Granted, they've certainly come a long way from the old days. But come on, just a *little* perspective would be nice.
Eh? What about "needs of the many outweigh," and all that...? I mean, they fricken killed off Spock, though deep down we all knew he was coming back.
Hardly the core concept in the movie, though. And hardly that philosophical (certainly not insightful). Fundamentally, it was an action movie.
Actually, though, Wrath of Khan was more of a traditional naval-battle movie set in space. It worked so well in the "Balance of Terror" episode of the original series that they brought it back for a movie.
Right. It was an action movie. Though, to be fair, "Balance of Terror" was a far more thought-provoking episode than ST2. ST2 was plain and simply an action movie. Yeah, Spock dying was sad. But the core point was to show a fun ship-on-ship, captain vs. captain space battle, with Kirk up against a true equal for a change.
"Balance of Terror", on the other hand, spent a lot more time analyzing the psyche of the "enemy", revealing a captain who, instead of being a blind patriot, turned out to be a thoughtful, three-dimensional character who's motivations for fighting were far more complex than a simple need for revenge ('course, it helps that Mark Lenard was one of the most brilliant actors to grace the set of Star Trek).
All of which just reinforces my point: if you (not you specifically, but you, the general ST basement dweller :) really don't like the new ST movie because it's not philosophical enough, Khan must've *really* pissed you off. They took one of the more interesting villains in TOS (presented in one of the more interesting episodes, examining the history of earth, eugenics, etc), and turned him into a two-dimensional, blood-thirsty, irrational killer.
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
ST has *always* been about *both* action and thoughful plot, but which you got depended on the episode. The Naked Time? Action. The City on the Edge of Forever? Thoughtful plot. To claim ST was only one or the other is to be blinded by fanboi-ism.
The timeline that we know from the series is still in tact, otherwise future Spock would have no memory of any of the events that he experienced.
Ah, no, that's just wrong. If you believe in the many-worlds hypothesis (which is what the whole movie is based on), the Spock that comes back from the future is from a different timeline and will retain his memories, even though the timeline he's now in will no longer progress the way the one he came from did.
Of course, that means it's impossible to actually alter future events in a given time line (instead, by changing things in the past, you'd create and occupy a *new* timeline), which directly contradicts basically every other time travel-based Star Trek episode (eg, The City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday's Enterprise, etc).