"I believe the numbering system must be as follows, first two digits indicate class of ship it is a part of (all the Enterprises have been in the heavy cruiser class) - that is, heavy cruisers (in TOS, the "Constellation Class") must start with 17."
Fair enough, but how do you explain the Constellation (NCC-1017) and the Republic (NCC-1312)?
"For instance, I expect to see transporters, even though it is established ST universe canon that they were not around at Kirk's time! Read John M. Ford's excellent novel, "The Final Reflection", which was set "a couple years before he (Kirk) was born" (quote). "
I loved John M. Ford's wonderful books, too. But not a single novel is considered "canon". Look at how Ford portrayed the Klingons and compare it to the way they developed in TNG and DS9. Ford guessed, and canon is about to prove him wrong. Just like "Star Trek: First Contact" invalidated the excellent novel about Zee Cochrane, "Federation".
Um, I'll accept your argument if you can quote the line from "Metamorphosis" that declares he is biologically non-human. Until then, my explanation of TOS references indicating that he is from Alpha Centauri will remain that he simply moved there as a colonist.
There's a lot more history to Star Trek than what the various productions have aired. Much of it was made up by fans (some pretty clever, others less so) who just tried to fill in the blanks.
Every place humans have gone has been militarized. While I agree that it would be nice if we could all learn to get along, hold hands, and explore space peacefully and cooperatively, that just isn't going to happen. If the U.S. doesn't put weapons in space, someone else will (as if they weren't already there). My only hope is that the first nation to put weapons in orbit (and beyond) is benign enough to share the territory.
Stonewolf, while SSTO is indeed fairly easy, the other half of the goal, reusability, is not. Still, I agree that NASA definitely went down the wrong path with VentureStar...and we see now what they got for it.
While the VentureStar (X33) had some very cool features, not the least of which was the linear aerospike engine that could tune its efficiency as the vehicle gained altitude, the McDonnell Douglas had a simpler program called the Delta Clipper.
The Delta Clipper (DC-X) program which MD had proposed for NASA's X-33 effort competed with several other projects, including Lockheed's Venture Star. But the Clipper had a distinct advantage: a working prototype.
Delta-Clipper Press Release
Based on off-the-shelf hardware, the DC-X had a fascinating capability that was straight out of 1950's science fiction: this thing could hover! The video footage I've seen of the four-story tall rocket lifting off, rising several hundred feet in the air, moving horizonatally and stopping before descending vertically and landing in the same upright position it took off from was extraordinary. During testing, there were several incidents, including one in which an explosion had occurred on the vehicle as the rockets ignited, but the remotely piloted craft actually took off and hovered before the ground crew realized it had been damaged. Ultimately, the whole program came to a halt when a landing gear failed, causing the prototype to topple over and explode.
It's a shame Clinton, Gore, and NASA decided to go with the flash and dazzle promised by Lockheed instead of investing the time and energy in a simpler project that was much further along.
Having used Amigas for years for various applications, I'm fond of the machines, but a little hard pressed to figure out how an Amiga like the one that sits under my desk at home could possibly compete in today's market. A faster processor alone won't do it. A better interface is needed. Improvements to Exec and provisions for protected memory environments, too. The dependence on Agnes, Denise, and Paula has to be tossed, also. And when all of this is done, and the new system with the name "Amiga" debuts, it won't be the same one that hit the scene 16 years ago.
It might have the same name. It will probably perform better, but it won't be the same machine. If this new Amiga is a great box/interface/whatever, then I might buy into it; the name will be enough to cause me to give it serious consideration before deciding one way or the other. But I won't be fooled into thinking that there is a direct lineage between it and the computer with all those signatures inside the case.
Gee, when I play computer games, I get a kick out of trying my best to take the alien/monster's side. I'll do my best to feed members of my squad to the wee beasties. And games that are designed to let you play the bad guys? Those are aces in my book!
Does this make you think I have genocidal tendencies? Or that I'm just messing around and blowing off steam in a fantasy environment? One of us is having trouble distinguishing reality from make-believe.
And what do you recommend should be done to get compliance from those who choose a lifestyle you don't agree with?
Walk to work, eh? That's not such a bad idea, if you're in good enough health to accomplish it in the first place, or if your job is close enough to permit such a labor and time-intensive commute. But what about the ill and infirm? What about the older population? Our society works as well as it does because the technological support built into it allows a diverse range of people to contribute their energy and talents. In nature, only the healthy contribute to society, the rest die and get eaten. In a sense, this is certainly a very sustainable model for society. It would provide far less stress on the environment than current lifestyles. But it's also a far colder and merciless way for things to work.
You're very upfront about pushing your lifestyle and the beliefs that motivate it. I respect that and wish you well, but permit me the same liberty here:
Rely on science and technology to solve problems. Modern agriculture, for example, has made our current population size (and larger!) sustainable. Modern medicine and hygene has resulted in far fewer epidemics and diseases are incrementally being vanquished. The use of automobiles and airplanes has allowed people to share their talents over a larger area. These technologies have also reduced dependence on horses for transportation, and thus eliminated a major source of pollution and disease common in 19th century cities. Computers and the Internet are allowing more people to work from home, thus driving down the need to commute in the first place.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, computers and telecommunications will further reduce the need for commuting. Nanotechnology might soon be able to reclaim materials from junk yards and trash heaps at the elemental level -- the ultimate recycling. Heck, we might have the technology to start moving people off the planet in huge numbers within fifty or sixty years. The worst thing we could do for the environment right now would be to stall progress with feel-good but useless regulations.
Pay less attention to the alarmists and social engineers, or at least treat them with skepticism. They want something: ratings, funding for research, power. Just because someone says something against the interests of one big industry, that doesn't mean that those statements aren't bought by another. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and now one of its outspoken critics, cautions:
"Much of the environmental movement has been hijacked by political and social activists who use environmental rhetoric to push agendas that have nothing to do with ecology."
Each species has strengths that allow it to survive in its environmental niche. In fact, that niche is defined by the strengths and weakness of the creatures that fill it. Humans have a capacity for abstract reasoning and talent for building things. To compromise these gifts would be as foolhardy as pulling fangs and claws from lions to try to force them into becoming vegetarians. It is completely natural for us to take over our environments the way we have through reason and ingenuity. It is also natural for us to have displaced other species in the process; no species dominates its environment without displacing others.
But here's the clincher: We are the only species on the planet that gives a damn about the others. We are the only creatures who will choose to inconvenience ourselves to save threatened animals. When push comes to shove, nature insists that only the strong survive, but as a species we are willing to resist that and let mercy intervene. That, in my opinion, makes human progress worth quite a bit. Anything that benefits our species ultimately benefits others.
The JunkScience web site has a repository of links, articles, and message boards questioning a lot of bad science that gets popularized in the media. Sometimes, they get a little too political for my tastes, but most of the time, they are the best source of information that the alarmists of the world don't want to repeat. I encourage you to try the link again. It's a good site.
So how exactly would it be possible for the significantly warmer climates of the past to have occurred? It seems to me that the thermohaline hypothesis is interesting, but unproven.
"It should be remembered that this paper is about increases in green-house gasses. It doesn't attempt to say they have seen an increase in the Earth's temperatrure. "
Absolutely! But the trouble is the alarmists and social engineers will ignore that troubling detail and use it to further their agenda. Heck, many of them can't even tell the difference between Ozone Holes and Global Warming.
But the last time I checked (at least in the United States), the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were already improving the condition of the environment. The pollution levels in and around most US cities is dramatically less than it was thirty years ago. And the situation continues to improve. Now why on Earth should we enact laws and regulations to further burden our economy to achieve an effect we are already well on our way to attaining?
Actually, I think we are in what is called an "interglacial" period between ice ages. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, temperatures dropped enough that those years are referred to as a "Little Ice Age" and we've been on an unsteady warming trend ever since.
Still, your point is well taken that there are very powerful natural forces that drive climate in a chaotic manner. I'm sure that mankind is more of an influence now than a few hundred years ago, too. But I doubt that alone should force our civilization into the arms of the alarmists and social engineers.
Then perhaps you should go back and take a closer look at the content. Check out the message boards. You'll find, if you're willing to set aside preconceived notions, that the site is an excellent skeptic resource.
Um...DDT is still used to control mosquito populations in third world countries, and doesn't show any of the effects you listed. In fact, the local governments want it because it is inexpensive and highly effective -- no hint of British imperialism anywhere in their decision. Where did you get your info?
Not at all. There is no intention to wipe out the species. Rather, this is a chemical-free way of reducing their numbers. Think of it as an environmentally-friendly pesticide.
No one is talking about killing off the species. They are talking about releasing the equivalent of sexual decoys so that there are fewer successful matings.
Or, to put it another way, if you received a vasectomy, would your offspring be born sterile, or would you simply not have any at all? Lysenko was wrong, after all!
But I doubt that moth exists for any reason, good or bad, other than the fact that it had genetic qualities that gave it the opportunity to become a pest to humans. Nature doesn't have a plan or good intentions. Nature is a process. A process that depends on survival of the fittest and the Hell with everything else. Introducing altered insects with an eye towards culling their population won't change the genetics of the species. It will (hopefully) be nothing more than a chemical-free pesticide. With a huge amount of wasted effort mating with sterile adults, the succeeding generation will have a substantially smaller population. And guess what? No chemicals sprayed all over the crops for someone to get worked up about.
Ah! Okay, I see what you're saying. It made perfect sense to me, but then I'm used to "Trek Jargon" and I never even had to try to parse it. I retract my witless comment!
Kasreyn, don't be too worried about the new effects shots. I've been following this project for months, and they look fantastic. Go here for an example: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Slashdot Mirror
While the ship looks a lot like the Akira as a silhouette from above, I think you're in for a surprise when you see it in profile. Wait and watch...
Um, I'll accept your argument if you can quote the line from "Metamorphosis" that declares he is biologically non-human. Until then, my explanation of TOS references indicating that he is from Alpha Centauri will remain that he simply moved there as a colonist. There's a lot more history to Star Trek than what the various productions have aired. Much of it was made up by fans (some pretty clever, others less so) who just tried to fill in the blanks.
Although new technologies often cause new problems, no solutions are ever found with ignorance. The U.S. is only harming itself in the long run.
Every place humans have gone has been militarized. While I agree that it would be nice if we could all learn to get along, hold hands, and explore space peacefully and cooperatively, that just isn't going to happen. If the U.S. doesn't put weapons in space, someone else will (as if they weren't already there). My only hope is that the first nation to put weapons in orbit (and beyond) is benign enough to share the territory.
Stonewolf, while SSTO is indeed fairly easy, the other half of the goal, reusability, is not. Still, I agree that NASA definitely went down the wrong path with VentureStar...and we see now what they got for it.
X-33 References
The Delta Clipper (DC-X) program which MD had proposed for NASA's X-33 effort competed with several other projects, including Lockheed's Venture Star. But the Clipper had a distinct advantage: a working prototype.
Delta-Clipper Press Release Based on off-the-shelf hardware, the DC-X had a fascinating capability that was straight out of 1950's science fiction: this thing could hover! The video footage I've seen of the four-story tall rocket lifting off, rising several hundred feet in the air, moving horizonatally and stopping before descending vertically and landing in the same upright position it took off from was extraordinary. During testing, there were several incidents, including one in which an explosion had occurred on the vehicle as the rockets ignited, but the remotely piloted craft actually took off and hovered before the ground crew realized it had been damaged. Ultimately, the whole program came to a halt when a landing gear failed, causing the prototype to topple over and explode.A collection of DC-X images
It's a shame Clinton, Gore, and NASA decided to go with the flash and dazzle promised by Lockheed instead of investing the time and energy in a simpler project that was much further along.
Having used Amigas for years for various applications, I'm fond of the machines, but a little hard pressed to figure out how an Amiga like the one that sits under my desk at home could possibly compete in today's market. A faster processor alone won't do it. A better interface is needed. Improvements to Exec and provisions for protected memory environments, too. The dependence on Agnes, Denise, and Paula has to be tossed, also. And when all of this is done, and the new system with the name "Amiga" debuts, it won't be the same one that hit the scene 16 years ago.
It might have the same name. It will probably perform better, but it won't be the same machine. If this new Amiga is a great box/interface/whatever, then I might buy into it; the name will be enough to cause me to give it serious consideration before deciding one way or the other. But I won't be fooled into thinking that there is a direct lineage between it and the computer with all those signatures inside the case.
Gee, when I play computer games, I get a kick out of trying my best to take the alien/monster's side. I'll do my best to feed members of my squad to the wee beasties. And games that are designed to let you play the bad guys? Those are aces in my book!
Does this make you think I have genocidal tendencies? Or that I'm just messing around and blowing off steam in a fantasy environment? One of us is having trouble distinguishing reality from make-believe.
Walk to work, eh? That's not such a bad idea, if you're in good enough health to accomplish it in the first place, or if your job is close enough to permit such a labor and time-intensive commute. But what about the ill and infirm? What about the older population? Our society works as well as it does because the technological support built into it allows a diverse range of people to contribute their energy and talents. In nature, only the healthy contribute to society, the rest die and get eaten. In a sense, this is certainly a very sustainable model for society. It would provide far less stress on the environment than current lifestyles. But it's also a far colder and merciless way for things to work.
You're very upfront about pushing your lifestyle and the beliefs that motivate it. I respect that and wish you well, but permit me the same liberty here:
Rely on science and technology to solve problems. Modern agriculture, for example, has made our current population size (and larger!) sustainable. Modern medicine and hygene has resulted in far fewer epidemics and diseases are incrementally being vanquished. The use of automobiles and airplanes has allowed people to share their talents over a larger area. These technologies have also reduced dependence on horses for transportation, and thus eliminated a major source of pollution and disease common in 19th century cities. Computers and the Internet are allowing more people to work from home, thus driving down the need to commute in the first place.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future, computers and telecommunications will further reduce the need for commuting. Nanotechnology might soon be able to reclaim materials from junk yards and trash heaps at the elemental level -- the ultimate recycling. Heck, we might have the technology to start moving people off the planet in huge numbers within fifty or sixty years. The worst thing we could do for the environment right now would be to stall progress with feel-good but useless regulations.
Pay less attention to the alarmists and social engineers, or at least treat them with skepticism. They want something: ratings, funding for research, power. Just because someone says something against the interests of one big industry, that doesn't mean that those statements aren't bought by another. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and now one of its outspoken critics, cautions:
Each species has strengths that allow it to survive in its environmental niche. In fact, that niche is defined by the strengths and weakness of the creatures that fill it. Humans have a capacity for abstract reasoning and talent for building things. To compromise these gifts would be as foolhardy as pulling fangs and claws from lions to try to force them into becoming vegetarians. It is completely natural for us to take over our environments the way we have through reason and ingenuity. It is also natural for us to have displaced other species in the process; no species dominates its environment without displacing others.
But here's the clincher: We are the only species on the planet that gives a damn about the others. We are the only creatures who will choose to inconvenience ourselves to save threatened animals. When push comes to shove, nature insists that only the strong survive, but as a species we are willing to resist that and let mercy intervene. That, in my opinion, makes human progress worth quite a bit. Anything that benefits our species ultimately benefits others.
The JunkScience web site has a repository of links, articles, and message boards questioning a lot of bad science that gets popularized in the media. Sometimes, they get a little too political for my tastes, but most of the time, they are the best source of information that the alarmists of the world don't want to repeat. I encourage you to try the link again. It's a good site.
So how exactly would it be possible for the significantly warmer climates of the past to have occurred? It seems to me that the thermohaline hypothesis is interesting, but unproven.
But the last time I checked (at least in the United States), the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were already improving the condition of the environment. The pollution levels in and around most US cities is dramatically less than it was thirty years ago. And the situation continues to improve. Now why on Earth should we enact laws and regulations to further burden our economy to achieve an effect we are already well on our way to attaining?
Actually, I think we are in what is called an "interglacial" period between ice ages. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, temperatures dropped enough that those years are referred to as a "Little Ice Age" and we've been on an unsteady warming trend ever since.
Still, your point is well taken that there are very powerful natural forces that drive climate in a chaotic manner. I'm sure that mankind is more of an influence now than a few hundred years ago, too. But I doubt that alone should force our civilization into the arms of the alarmists and social engineers.
Then perhaps you should go back and take a closer look at the content. Check out the message boards. You'll find, if you're willing to set aside preconceived notions, that the site is an excellent skeptic resource.
Perhaps minor ones on any significant scale. But banning its use would invite catastrophe.
Um...DDT is still used to control mosquito populations in third world countries, and doesn't show any of the effects you listed. In fact, the local governments want it because it is inexpensive and highly effective -- no hint of British imperialism anywhere in their decision. Where did you get your info?
Not at all. There is no intention to wipe out the species. Rather, this is a chemical-free way of reducing their numbers. Think of it as an environmentally-friendly pesticide.
No one is talking about killing off the species. They are talking about releasing the equivalent of sexual decoys so that there are fewer successful matings.
Or, to put it another way, if you received a vasectomy, would your offspring be born sterile, or would you simply not have any at all? Lysenko was wrong, after all!
But I doubt that moth exists for any reason, good or bad, other than the fact that it had genetic qualities that gave it the opportunity to become a pest to humans. Nature doesn't have a plan or good intentions. Nature is a process. A process that depends on survival of the fittest and the Hell with everything else. Introducing altered insects with an eye towards culling their population won't change the genetics of the species. It will (hopefully) be nothing more than a chemical-free pesticide. With a huge amount of wasted effort mating with sterile adults, the succeeding generation will have a substantially smaller population. And guess what? No chemicals sprayed all over the crops for someone to get worked up about.
Ah! Okay, I see what you're saying. It made perfect sense to me, but then I'm used to "Trek Jargon" and I never even had to try to parse it. I retract my witless comment!
Ah, another Babylon 5 fan, I see.
My paragraphs.
Kasreyn, don't be too worried about the new effects shots. I've been following this project for months, and they look fantastic. Go here for an example:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture