I'm not disputing that money is a guarantee of success; however, it does give an unfair advantage, and as you pointed out is a barrier for entry. You need $x to win. Democracy, to me, at it's heart is about each citizen having an equal amount of power politically. We all have an equal say, an equal chance to compete. There are so many other realms where having money is advantageous, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, because its the desire to advance that makes capitalism work.
When it comes to politics though- who has the most money should not factor. Having more money shouldn't give you the right to shout over everyone else and drown out their political voices.
The reason we're stuck with two candidates, both hugely unpopular with large swathes of the population, is because third candidates can't thrive because they are drowned out by the finances of the main two. This should be the ideal time for a third party to be successful, but it won't.
Dr Polaski wasn't my favourite, but I never liked Dr. Crusher. There was something about her that really irritated me. There's usually one main character on each series that I really don't like.
I never liked Bones. (OK - this is a stretch... he was OK- but I'm trying to make a point so had to include him) I never liked Dr. Crusher. (I think it was her voice) I never liked Quark (or any Ferrengi - too flat, stereotyped and cliché) I never liked Tom Paris (too cheesy, and probably the worst actor from any series).
Kate Mulgrew an equal to Patrick Stewart? Robert Duncan McNeill *shudder* an equal to Brent Spiner? Tim Russ anywhere near as good as Michael Dorn? Robert Beltran *ugh* as good as Jonathan Frakes (ok he wasn't the best either)
The actors chosen for Voyager were absolutely terrible. I actually quite liked voyager (after first few seasons) but that is DESPITE the acting. The acting was wooden and amateurish.
The only plus side is, I don't think whoever wins is going to see 8 years in office. I think 4 for either is more realistic. Based on how global economy and China are tilting we're almost certainly going to experience a mild recession in the next 4 years. Recessions are not good for incumbents. Add to that how unpopular both candidates already are (and they tend to get less popular once they take office).
I'm not a Trump fan, in fact quite the opposite, but this is disturbing.
No individual should be allowed to spend so much on an election. No one should have this much power. It's not exactly "buying votes" (which is illegal), but it is buying ad-time which can translate into votes.
It is excessive to allow more than $100 per person (or corporation)- adjustable for inflation. (I don't think those campaigning should be allowed to give more than $100 to their own campaign either). It truly is disgusting how much money is involved in the election and how much money influences who wins.
As you get old, you develop medical conditions. Both Trump and Clinton are older than the average main party candidate. Presidents aren't immune to aging- and *gasp* could die in office.
If that happens, that's why we have VP and a predetermined order of succession. When nominating a candidate, don't just look at the President, look at their Vice Presidential candidate too. In the case of the current Presidential candidates it might be extra-important; I don't think either are immune from being impeached early in their Presidency.
I know you're joking, but it really is a shame Voyager did such a bad job in the casting. Without all the awful actors Voyager would have been a good show. The doctor was the only good actor on that show. (I had a fondness for 7 of 9, but it might not have been because of her acting ability).
Compare the actors from TNG to Voyager- there is a huge gulf in acting ability. Voyager probably had better writers but the poor acting made it go flat.
Star Trek: Usually explores morality at it's core. Plot built around a moral conundrum. May be fleshed out with action and explosions at times, but really, the show is about exploring humanity more than it is exploring space.
Reboot Star Trek: Just string a bunch of action sequences together and add a bunch of computer generated graphics. Plot optional.
I don't have a problem with action movies. Look at how popular the super-hero movies are. Star Trek was never about action and explosions; it was a more thoughtful show. This may have made it rather niche (TNG was criticized as being a show about people sitting in meetings making decisions) and sometimes Star Trek blows chunks (like anytime they try and do romance)- but JJ's Star Trek was simply not Star Trek- it was spiderman in space..
Nukes are better for influencing public opinion. Threaten to send a nuke at Washington DC and millions of ordinary people panic. Threaten to send precision strikes against the pentagon and the white house and only those people head for the bunkers.
I think the worry is that "the haves" will have the ability to genetically engineer their children to have higher intelligence, better looks, stronger muscles, better coordination, bigger willies, perkier air bags.
The "have nots" will be base-model humans.
This will make the divide between the rich and the poor larger and condemn the descendant of those on the bottom of the stack to stay on the bottom.
Look at the banana crop- almost all bananas produced in the world are identical clones propagated by cuttings. Now they're being wiped out because that particular cultivar has a weakness to a disease.
Similar things are happening with Arabica coffee beans- thank god we've got Robusta (as bad as it is), because the genes from Robusta might help keep Arabica alive.
Imagine if all humans were clones of each other and had a certain weakness to "Honey Badger Flu"- guess what, when Honey Badger Flu makes the leap from Honey Badgers to humans- humanity goes extinct. Honey Badger Flu doesn't care.
I don't think a blanket ban would necessarily be a good thing.
If we can eliminate certain diseases and syndromes, that might be beneficial for all of society as well as the individual. Although, care must be taken we don't stifle our genetic diversity too much. Some of our weaknesses might be strengths under certain circumstances (example: sickle cell).
When it comes to "cosmetic" enhancements, that's where we should leave DNA alone (unless it's for things such as eliminating hare-lip or other conditions that make life for the individual harder due to social stigmas).
Other enhancements like "intelligence", "strength", "libido", etc... yeah, it might benefit society to allow boosting those in DNA, but I still have certain ethical qualms against doing so. I do think that it's inevitable they will be allowed eventually regardless of moral qualms. If China produced a society of super-humans, Japan would want to produce a society of super-humans too to not get left behind. That would make Korea and Russia follow suit- and if Russia had super humans, the US and Europe would want them too so Russia wouldn't be able to over-achieve compared to them.
I'd love a darker series Colonists crash landing on an alien planet disconnected from the rest of the federation Losing most of their technology. Finding out they're not alone and there is a semi-hostile primitive species there. Then they have to struggle, how hard do they try and stick with the prime directive, and non-interference, how does it impact their own survival.
For a while workers had retirement to look forwards to. The millennial generation, because of a greying population, won't have retirement, they'll have to work until they die
In the Star Trek future it gets even worse - you have to keep working after you die.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disputing that money is a guarantee of success; however, it does give an unfair advantage, and as you pointed out is a barrier for entry. You need $x to win. Democracy, to me, at it's heart is about each citizen having an equal amount of power politically. We all have an equal say, an equal chance to compete. There are so many other realms where having money is advantageous, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, because its the desire to advance that makes capitalism work.
When it comes to politics though- who has the most money should not factor. Having more money shouldn't give you the right to shout over everyone else and drown out their political voices.
The reason we're stuck with two candidates, both hugely unpopular with large swathes of the population, is because third candidates can't thrive because they are drowned out by the finances of the main two. This should be the ideal time for a third party to be successful, but it won't.
Dr Polaski wasn't my favourite, but I never liked Dr. Crusher. There was something about her that really irritated me. There's usually one main character on each series that I really don't like.
I never liked Bones. (OK - this is a stretch... he was OK- but I'm trying to make a point so had to include him)
I never liked Dr. Crusher. (I think it was her voice)
I never liked Quark (or any Ferrengi - too flat, stereotyped and cliché)
I never liked Tom Paris (too cheesy, and probably the worst actor from any series).
Freeze them first- and work quickly.
Really?
Kate Mulgrew an equal to Patrick Stewart?
Robert Duncan McNeill *shudder* an equal to Brent Spiner?
Tim Russ anywhere near as good as Michael Dorn?
Robert Beltran *ugh* as good as Jonathan Frakes (ok he wasn't the best either)
The actors chosen for Voyager were absolutely terrible. I actually quite liked voyager (after first few seasons) but that is DESPITE the acting. The acting was wooden and amateurish.
The only plus side is, I don't think whoever wins is going to see 8 years in office. I think 4 for either is more realistic. Based on how global economy and China are tilting we're almost certainly going to experience a mild recession in the next 4 years. Recessions are not good for incumbents. Add to that how unpopular both candidates already are (and they tend to get less popular once they take office).
I'm not a Trump fan, in fact quite the opposite, but this is disturbing.
No individual should be allowed to spend so much on an election. No one should have this much power. It's not exactly "buying votes" (which is illegal), but it is buying ad-time which can translate into votes.
It is excessive to allow more than $100 per person (or corporation)- adjustable for inflation. (I don't think those campaigning should be allowed to give more than $100 to their own campaign either). It truly is disgusting how much money is involved in the election and how much money influences who wins.
I would like to see Hillary jog 3km.
Has she ever smoked, and has she ever exercised?
She has smoked, but she never inhaled.
As you get old, you develop medical conditions. Both Trump and Clinton are older than the average main party candidate. Presidents aren't immune to aging- and *gasp* could die in office.
If that happens, that's why we have VP and a predetermined order of succession. When nominating a candidate, don't just look at the President, look at their Vice Presidential candidate too. In the case of the current Presidential candidates it might be extra-important; I don't think either are immune from being impeached early in their Presidency.
Kate Mulgrew was the best Kirk.
COME AT ME
I know you're joking, but it really is a shame Voyager did such a bad job in the casting. Without all the awful actors Voyager would have been a good show. The doctor was the only good actor on that show. (I had a fondness for 7 of 9, but it might not have been because of her acting ability).
Compare the actors from TNG to Voyager- there is a huge gulf in acting ability. Voyager probably had better writers but the poor acting made it go flat.
Star Trek: Usually explores morality at it's core. Plot built around a moral conundrum. May be fleshed out with action and explosions at times, but really, the show is about exploring humanity more than it is exploring space.
Reboot Star Trek: Just string a bunch of action sequences together and add a bunch of computer generated graphics. Plot optional.
I don't have a problem with action movies. Look at how popular the super-hero movies are. Star Trek was never about action and explosions; it was a more thoughtful show. This may have made it rather niche (TNG was criticized as being a show about people sitting in meetings making decisions) and sometimes Star Trek blows chunks (like anytime they try and do romance)- but JJ's Star Trek was simply not Star Trek- it was spiderman in space..
Reality is 'Jar Jar A' pretty much killed Star Trek
Yes, especially when he regenerated into the Doctor and crashed the Delorean into the side of the Star Gate whilst fleeing Serenity.
Nukes are better for influencing public opinion. Threaten to send a nuke at Washington DC and millions of ordinary people panic. Threaten to send precision strikes against the pentagon and the white house and only those people head for the bunkers.
Well, on the plus side, the grapes could be strung together to make anal beads.
I cut the cord... ... but had to duct-tape it back together again to get internet access.
I wish I had mod points but I don't.
Please accept this humble smiley face instead: :)
I'm not going to get it because it's a rip-off of temple run. That genre has been done to death.
I think the worry is that "the haves" will have the ability to genetically engineer their children to have higher intelligence, better looks, stronger muscles, better coordination, bigger willies, perkier air bags.
The "have nots" will be base-model humans.
This will make the divide between the rich and the poor larger and condemn the descendant of those on the bottom of the stack to stay on the bottom.
I don't care about any cosmetic eye-colour changes.
Don't care about intelligence, etc.
I just wish I could have genetically predisposed them to get up off their arses and do some housework.
Diversity is important.
Look at the banana crop- almost all bananas produced in the world are identical clones propagated by cuttings. Now they're being wiped out because that particular cultivar has a weakness to a disease.
Similar things are happening with Arabica coffee beans- thank god we've got Robusta (as bad as it is), because the genes from Robusta might help keep Arabica alive.
Imagine if all humans were clones of each other and had a certain weakness to "Honey Badger Flu"- guess what, when Honey Badger Flu makes the leap from Honey Badgers to humans- humanity goes extinct. Honey Badger Flu doesn't care.
I don't think a blanket ban would necessarily be a good thing.
If we can eliminate certain diseases and syndromes, that might be beneficial for all of society as well as the individual. Although, care must be taken we don't stifle our genetic diversity too much. Some of our weaknesses might be strengths under certain circumstances (example: sickle cell).
When it comes to "cosmetic" enhancements, that's where we should leave DNA alone (unless it's for things such as eliminating hare-lip or other conditions that make life for the individual harder due to social stigmas).
Other enhancements like "intelligence", "strength", "libido", etc... yeah, it might benefit society to allow boosting those in DNA, but I still have certain ethical qualms against doing so. I do think that it's inevitable they will be allowed eventually regardless of moral qualms. If China produced a society of super-humans, Japan would want to produce a society of super-humans too to not get left behind. That would make Korea and Russia follow suit- and if Russia had super humans, the US and Europe would want them too so Russia wouldn't be able to over-achieve compared to them.
Her voice was recorded before she died too!
It's better they use a dead woman's voice than a dead woman's... ... no, I won't go there.
I'd love a darker series Colonists crash landing on an alien planet disconnected from the rest of the federation Losing most of their technology. Finding out they're not alone and there is a semi-hostile primitive species there. Then they have to struggle, how hard do they try and stick with the prime directive, and non-interference, how does it impact their own survival.
This is the technology of the future.
For a while workers had retirement to look forwards to.
The millennial generation, because of a greying population, won't have retirement, they'll have to work until they die
In the Star Trek future it gets even worse - you have to keep working after you die.
Where else can I go and do very little and get a degree that no-one takes seriously if they close down ITT Tech.
Thank goodness I still have the University of Phoenix to go to.