There's never been a decent market for Mac PCI expansion cards, so Apple has realized the futility of building them into the desktop. Instead you've got very high speed expansion ports in Thunderbolt 2 that will amply serve the purpose.
BTW, Thunderbolt has been re-registered as an Intel, not Apple trademark as it's Intel that has full rights to the interface. So there is nothing preventing it from being included on standard Intel mobos.
Yeah vampires need to be afraid of religious icons. I'll always remember that scene in Salem's Lot where the vampire challenges the priest to get into a faith-off, then crushes the crucifix. Powerful stuff.
I prefer the interpretation in Vamps comic series. One person totally fails to ward off the fanged biker chicks because he really didn't have faith in what the cross symbolized and it didn't even slow them down. An Amerind shaman apprentice falls when his raging hormones win out over the teachings of his master, and a Manhattan homeless man manages to totally hold off the vamps with a Chevrolet hub cap because of his total belief in it's warding power.
In that story, it's not the icon, it's the sincere faith (or lack of it) that you put behind it.
Cosmic rays are powerful. In fact they're so powerful that they show that there's no reason to worry about any of the atom smashers we build on Earth. Right now, the most powerful accelerators we got, their beams cranked up to eleven, are just wet firecrackers compared what incoming cosmic rays are. We have yet to do anything with our tech that nature doesn't do first, and fairly often on a much more grander scale.
The lack of magnetic field and lower gravity means you don't get to keep that Earth type atmosphere or anything remotely close even if you could dump one there instantly by magic. That means doing something completely different that delivers the same goal. For example, you only need enough volume inhabitable as required by whoever ends up there and if they can do everything outside with robots or environment suits it gets the job done, or if edible organisms are developed that can handle Martian conditions then there's less need to pressurise large volumes.
Actually yes you can "keep" it... but it takes regular maintenance. which means you don't get to stop adding atmosphere once the process is done but have to keep up a certain level of activity to keep up with the steady losses. Thing is if you're going to settle on Mars, then you need to be able to go outside and do the work. There's going to be a lot of work that needs to be done that can't be handled by remote or robot. Or your colony and activities need to remain essentially underground. At that point however, it does kill much of the appeal of going in the first place.
Why dont we use the same tin foil radiation shields that we used to get to the moon and past the Van Allen radiation belts? Worked for the Apollo guys...
No it didn't. The Apollo program basically worked on being lucky enough not to be caught outside the belts in a major solar storm. In James Michner's novel "Space" the Apollo 18 astronauts were unlucky enough to be on the moon during a major solar flare. It did not end well. The command module pilot survived by being on the right side of the moon during the duration of the flare. and by rotatng the greater part of the mass of his ship against the flare.
Mars has no effective ozone layer or magnetic field. In other words, it's pretty much almost the same exposure to radiation as being in space. The atmosphere offers a little bit of protection, but not much. And definitely not on the long term.
To make Mars habitable on the ground, you've got to build up a decent oxygen atmosphere that will give you an ozone layer. the lack of magnetic field though, may mean however that this isn't enough.
.... chances are you're working on Memorial Day, because 1. you don't get holidays, only paid compensation, and 2. You've been asked to put in extra time.
These tendencies are totally independent on the prevalence of smartphones.
If you want that kind of guarantee, you have to be willing to pay for it. The responsibility is ultimately not the contractor, but YOU the person who's running the shell company pretending to be a software developing house. Since all you've done is essentially rent out a contractor to do the work that a publishing house would normally do in house, you only rented him for a contracted period of time. You're not supporting him on staff, so unless you work out a maintennce contract what you pay for, then you don't have an indefinite claim on his time and life for the finite sum you paid. You get exactly what you pay for. It works both ways.
If you contract me to write software for you, you get a certain amount of work for a contracted amount. If it includes support, that will be part of the contract and will factor in the price. If you don't pay for anything other than the work done, than that exhausts any obligations between you and I.
In the company I worked for, we paid an outside contractor to maintain and support our database as a long term ongoing partnership, he not only installed it but provided ongoing maintennce and updates because he was being paid to do so, a mutual arrangement that worked quite well.
It's also why you don't do fly by night operations for major projects, it's why Microsoft does it's work in house. So lets leave big ticket development projects out of comparison because those are strawman arguments.
I wish I had mods points. And I wish I could understand why people who would scream bloody murder if their rights to free speech were curtailed are so fervently interested in taking those rights away from others. Maybe just a hint as to why they don't think that people who join together to spend their money more efficiently should have free speech rights after all. And why anyone would support a "legal fiction" that is calling for the stripping of free speech rights from every other legal fiction but itself. ("Move To Amend", spending money lobbying against their own right to spend money lobbying against spending their own money...)
The right to "free speech" is a meaningless term when my free speech, and those of most ordinary Americans are trumped by the "free speech rights" of corporate backed PACS with the budget of millions or more.
Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?
Why should companies and especially corporations be allowed to donate money? Only private citizens should have that right, and I dare say, those in or running for public office should be allowed to take from those they represent.
Run for Senate in Pennsylvania, the law should be that they accept only from PA citizens. Running to represent district 5 in NY? Please only accept from distric 5 residents. Otherwise we have Senators from Delaware representing Hollywood's interests and not his own constituents. Joe Biden, I'm looking at you.
And again, this would not stop me, Mr Kent Rove Version 2.0 from staring up a PAC called Citizens for For Joe Blow and hold lots of attack (excuse me I mean "information") ads against Jane Dear. Joe Blow isn't accepting any extra contributions, they're all going to private citizen Kent Rove 2.0 Which CU says can accept any amount of money he wants.
Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?
I would absolutely include independent candidates. And most would be glad for it because it's a win-win for them, as they've never been able to compete on the money raising scale. (which is why many like Nader would most likey support it.) It makes them actually competitive instead of a joke item for when the news line is slow.
Canada only allows political contributions from individuals, and only up to a maximum of 5000$.
What is totally unregulated however are the monies raised by Super PACS which aren't spent on direct contributions to candidates but on advertising such as "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth". Thanks to Citizens United these activities have NO cap whatsoever.
If you don't mind paying taxes, then why not simply abolish taxation and then you can voluntarily donate your money to the government?
If you derive a direct benefit from them, why don't you continue to pay your taxes (voluntarily) and let those of us who receive little to no benefit from them not pay them, instead of condoning violence to force people to pay for things that you want?
It's extremely hard for me to believe that you don't derive any benefits from...
1. Living in a relatively stable society.
2. Public sanitation
3. Police and Fire protection.
4. The activities of agencies such as those devoted to environmental protection, automobile safety, and so on.
The fact that you are able to post on the Internet means that you're reaping benefits from society whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
I loved Japan because they got it right healthcare-wise for 98% of the country. If you work, you have coverage that is always 80/20. So you have to work, and you are always covered, but you are also always paying something. They then regulate the cost of almost all medical services so that the 20% is never truly excessive. I had surgery on my mouth (no general anesthesia) and it cost me 5000 JPY (surgery took about 20 minutes I think). Not enough to keep me from doing it, but enough such that I was willing to explore other, simpler treatments first before we went down the more risky rabbit hole. If you weren't working, you could buy into the national plan for a very reasonable amount. The best part was because surgery wasn't a bonanza of pay for hte doctor relative to less invasive treatments, doctors actually were more respectful of the commitment complex surgery takes and did their upmost to explore other treatments first.
Japan also is a country where the employers don't view employees as disposable tools to be jettisoned as the first measure in cutting costs. Japanese companies take a major interest in both the health, morale, and especially, the dignity of their workers. And they respond in kind. The health service in Japan is designed around care and efficiency. The health system in the United States, including the sorry compromise ridden mess that we had to settle for in Obamacare is focused mainly on paying as many middle parties that can get their hands in the till.
Though for sufficiently serious problems, one can have recalls many years later.
There are limits to that. You buy a five dollar shirt at C.H. Martins, you can't come back ten years later and demand a refund because it's become a pile of disconnected threads, nor can you expect a recall on your car because it's rusted out. Vehicle recalls occur only because of demonstrated safety issues and because Federal regulations demand such a response.
The OP essentially wants to be able to act like a software development company on the cheap. A software development company has it's own full time staff to develop code and budgets time for things such as beta testing and fixing the INEVITABLE bugs that come up, especially for major pieces of software. This of course is not cheap, you're paying salaries and benefits to maintain such resources.
If you're going to try to do this on the cheap by outsourcing it, then you're going to have to admit that you're not a developing house, you're just a shell game trying to hide the fact that you're not the publishing house you're making yourself out to be to your customers.
My code is not guaranteed indefinitely. Any bugs which appear after the contract is expired can be fixed under another contract if I agree to fix them. I am certainly under no obligation to do that later work at all and especially not for free.
Interesting that you're not prepared to guarantee your work. It would make me wary of contracting you as it places the onus on me to ensure that I've throughly tested your code rather than on you. Is this common practice?
All guarantees have limits. With cars, it's a set number of miles or months, whatever is reached first. With most products it's 30 days, or not at all. When you devalue labor by eliminating in house staff to penny ante it to outside contractors, there are going to be consequences. You're not keeping a contractor on retainer, you're going to have to have reasonable limitations on your expectations.
You're thinking like a scheming gamer, not a man of passion. (and remember we're talking about a Reman here!) who has seen his entire family, and world shattered into dust. Nero wasn't a professor, nor an intellectual, he was an individual driven by passionate revenge. And that's a driving force for a Romulan the way honor is for a Klingon.
He could have captured Spock and collapsed the star that caused the initial singularity in the prime timeline.
Just because you have a load of uranium and hydrogen on your hands, doesn't mean you have what it takes to build a hydrogen bomb. Nero's (and Spock's) trip to the past was a fluke, not something that could be duplicated with any control. When you're feeling as nihlistic as Nero was and the only tool you have in hand is an awfully big hammer, the universe starts looking like a nail.
Um, Majel Barrett did indeed play Number One, the ship's exec, in "The Cage".
There were also several TOS episodes with female authority figures, e.g. "The Enterprise Incident".
And what happened to that Romulan Commander again? "Number One was the original prototype for Spock, presumably created to give Majel Barett a leading part on the show. However the cast as created didn't quite fly, so Spock became the emotionless one, presumably to get rid of what looked like Satanic grins.
It was the 60s, Star Trek TOS was very progressive for its time. Gene Roddenberry had Majel Barrett playing the first officer in the pilot, but the network made him change it.
No it wasn't really. That's one of the really irritating myths of the show. Trek followed much more than it led. And for each forward thought it expressed, I can find plenty that were downright regressive.
As bad and as cheesy as Star Trek (in any of the series of that franchise or the movies for that matter) got, it was by far and away better than the standard "science fiction" fare that was produced and arguably is still being produced in Hollywood. Classics like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", and "It Came from Outer Space" were more typical and the real standard that Star Trek needs to be compared against as those were contemporary (at least when Roddenberry was running the franchise).
Film science fiction has always been inferior to the depth and soul searching that happens in print and is a general problem with the medium.
Arguably, the original series of "Outer Limits" was on it's average, a far better science vehicle than any incarnation of Trek . "Twilight Zone", when it felt like being Sci-FI, was generally great Sci Fi.
> Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way.
Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as sci-fi. The original did a good job too.
That's what the heart of Science Fiction is: Exploring the social consequences, implications and ramifications of how technology effects people's lives. The "classic" Sci-Fi writers (Isaac) Asimov, (Robert) Heinlein, (Arthur) Clarke are some of the BEST _precisely_ because they explored these social issues at a deep level. Great Sci-Fi encourages and rewards deep thinking.
There is a persistent myth of TOS as being some all progressive vision of the future. It's a myth that ignored the basic fact that the original series was:
1. Highly critical of the Anti-War movement of the 60's as Kirk defends American involvement in the war.
2. Sexist in it's portrayal of women. Janice Lester is a villain because she refuses to accept Starfleet's determination that women aren't fit to be Starfleet captains and takes direct action to correct that "flaw" in her person. Nichelle Nichols may heap praise on her role now, but in the 60's she nearly quit her role, because of the treatment of her character which did not improve until the modern movies.
3. Pretentious to the point of anvilicious in it's treatment of social issues. Moral and ethical failings are those of those "weird aliens" never that of Kirk or it's Federation, a general pandering to the myth of American "exceptionalism". As Kirk's Federation is clearly meant to be the United States writ large.
4. Generally a promoter of a '40's 50's worldview which makes sense sense Roddenberry was of a 40's 50's generation.
Slashdot Mirror
There's never been a decent market for Mac PCI expansion cards, so Apple has realized the futility of building them into the desktop. Instead you've got very high speed expansion ports in Thunderbolt 2 that will amply serve the purpose. BTW, Thunderbolt has been re-registered as an Intel, not Apple trademark as it's Intel that has full rights to the interface. So there is nothing preventing it from being included on standard Intel mobos.
Yeah vampires need to be afraid of religious icons. I'll always remember that scene in Salem's Lot where the vampire challenges the priest to get into a faith-off, then crushes the crucifix. Powerful stuff.
I prefer the interpretation in Vamps comic series. One person totally fails to ward off the fanged biker chicks because he really didn't have faith in what the cross symbolized and it didn't even slow them down. An Amerind shaman apprentice falls when his raging hormones win out over the teachings of his master, and a Manhattan homeless man manages to totally hold off the vamps with a Chevrolet hub cap because of his total belief in it's warding power. In that story, it's not the icon, it's the sincere faith (or lack of it) that you put behind it.
Cosmic rays are powerful. In fact they're so powerful that they show that there's no reason to worry about any of the atom smashers we build on Earth. Right now, the most powerful accelerators we got, their beams cranked up to eleven, are just wet firecrackers compared what incoming cosmic rays are. We have yet to do anything with our tech that nature doesn't do first, and fairly often on a much more grander scale.
The lack of magnetic field and lower gravity means you don't get to keep that Earth type atmosphere or anything remotely close even if you could dump one there instantly by magic. That means doing something completely different that delivers the same goal. For example, you only need enough volume inhabitable as required by whoever ends up there and if they can do everything outside with robots or environment suits it gets the job done, or if edible organisms are developed that can handle Martian conditions then there's less need to pressurise large volumes.
Actually yes you can "keep" it... but it takes regular maintenance. which means you don't get to stop adding atmosphere once the process is done but have to keep up a certain level of activity to keep up with the steady losses. Thing is if you're going to settle on Mars, then you need to be able to go outside and do the work. There's going to be a lot of work that needs to be done that can't be handled by remote or robot. Or your colony and activities need to remain essentially underground. At that point however, it does kill much of the appeal of going in the first place.
Why dont we use the same tin foil radiation shields that we used to get to the moon and past the Van Allen radiation belts? Worked for the Apollo guys...
No it didn't. The Apollo program basically worked on being lucky enough not to be caught outside the belts in a major solar storm. In James Michner's novel "Space" the Apollo 18 astronauts were unlucky enough to be on the moon during a major solar flare. It did not end well. The command module pilot survived by being on the right side of the moon during the duration of the flare. and by rotatng the greater part of the mass of his ship against the flare.
Faraday cages do not block cosmic radiation, only a relatively narrow band of EMF. Faraday cages won't protect you against atomic fallout either.
Mars has no effective ozone layer or magnetic field. In other words, it's pretty much almost the same exposure to radiation as being in space. The atmosphere offers a little bit of protection, but not much. And definitely not on the long term. To make Mars habitable on the ground, you've got to build up a decent oxygen atmosphere that will give you an ozone layer. the lack of magnetic field though, may mean however that this isn't enough.
.... chances are you're working on Memorial Day, because 1. you don't get holidays, only paid compensation, and 2. You've been asked to put in extra time. These tendencies are totally independent on the prevalence of smartphones.
If you want that kind of guarantee, you have to be willing to pay for it. The responsibility is ultimately not the contractor, but YOU the person who's running the shell company pretending to be a software developing house. Since all you've done is essentially rent out a contractor to do the work that a publishing house would normally do in house, you only rented him for a contracted period of time. You're not supporting him on staff, so unless you work out a maintennce contract what you pay for, then you don't have an indefinite claim on his time and life for the finite sum you paid. You get exactly what you pay for. It works both ways. If you contract me to write software for you, you get a certain amount of work for a contracted amount. If it includes support, that will be part of the contract and will factor in the price. If you don't pay for anything other than the work done, than that exhausts any obligations between you and I. In the company I worked for, we paid an outside contractor to maintain and support our database as a long term ongoing partnership, he not only installed it but provided ongoing maintennce and updates because he was being paid to do so, a mutual arrangement that worked quite well. It's also why you don't do fly by night operations for major projects, it's why Microsoft does it's work in house. So lets leave big ticket development projects out of comparison because those are strawman arguments.
How about removeing power from the federal branch of goverment to state goverment.
Look up the term "Articles of Confederation" (the precursor to the U.S. Constitution. Read up on it's history and you'll have your answer.
I wish I had mods points. And I wish I could understand why people who would scream bloody murder if their rights to free speech were curtailed are so fervently interested in taking those rights away from others. Maybe just a hint as to why they don't think that people who join together to spend their money more efficiently should have free speech rights after all. And why anyone would support a "legal fiction" that is calling for the stripping of free speech rights from every other legal fiction but itself. ("Move To Amend", spending money lobbying against their own right to spend money lobbying against spending their own money...)
The right to "free speech" is a meaningless term when my free speech, and those of most ordinary Americans are trumped by the "free speech rights" of corporate backed PACS with the budget of millions or more.
Why should companies and especially corporations be allowed to donate money? Only private citizens should have that right, and I dare say, those in or running for public office should be allowed to take from those they represent.
Run for Senate in Pennsylvania, the law should be that they accept only from PA citizens. Running to represent district 5 in NY? Please only accept from distric 5 residents. Otherwise we have Senators from Delaware representing Hollywood's interests and not his own constituents. Joe Biden, I'm looking at you.
And again, this would not stop me, Mr Kent Rove Version 2.0 from staring up a PAC called Citizens for For Joe Blow and hold lots of attack (excuse me I mean "information") ads against Jane Dear. Joe Blow isn't accepting any extra contributions, they're all going to private citizen Kent Rove 2.0 Which CU says can accept any amount of money he wants.
Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?
I would absolutely include independent candidates. And most would be glad for it because it's a win-win for them, as they've never been able to compete on the money raising scale. (which is why many like Nader would most likey support it.) It makes them actually competitive instead of a joke item for when the news line is slow.
Canada only allows political contributions from individuals, and only up to a maximum of 5000$.
What is totally unregulated however are the monies raised by Super PACS which aren't spent on direct contributions to candidates but on advertising such as "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth". Thanks to Citizens United these activities have NO cap whatsoever.
If you don't mind paying taxes, then why not simply abolish taxation and then you can voluntarily donate your money to the government? If you derive a direct benefit from them, why don't you continue to pay your taxes (voluntarily) and let those of us who receive little to no benefit from them not pay them, instead of condoning violence to force people to pay for things that you want?
It's extremely hard for me to believe that you don't derive any benefits from... 1. Living in a relatively stable society. 2. Public sanitation 3. Police and Fire protection. 4. The activities of agencies such as those devoted to environmental protection, automobile safety, and so on. The fact that you are able to post on the Internet means that you're reaping benefits from society whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
I loved Japan because they got it right healthcare-wise for 98% of the country. If you work, you have coverage that is always 80/20. So you have to work, and you are always covered, but you are also always paying something. They then regulate the cost of almost all medical services so that the 20% is never truly excessive. I had surgery on my mouth (no general anesthesia) and it cost me 5000 JPY (surgery took about 20 minutes I think). Not enough to keep me from doing it, but enough such that I was willing to explore other, simpler treatments first before we went down the more risky rabbit hole. If you weren't working, you could buy into the national plan for a very reasonable amount. The best part was because surgery wasn't a bonanza of pay for hte doctor relative to less invasive treatments, doctors actually were more respectful of the commitment complex surgery takes and did their upmost to explore other treatments first.
Japan also is a country where the employers don't view employees as disposable tools to be jettisoned as the first measure in cutting costs. Japanese companies take a major interest in both the health, morale, and especially, the dignity of their workers. And they respond in kind. The health service in Japan is designed around care and efficiency. The health system in the United States, including the sorry compromise ridden mess that we had to settle for in Obamacare is focused mainly on paying as many middle parties that can get their hands in the till.
Though for sufficiently serious problems, one can have recalls many years later.
There are limits to that. You buy a five dollar shirt at C.H. Martins, you can't come back ten years later and demand a refund because it's become a pile of disconnected threads, nor can you expect a recall on your car because it's rusted out. Vehicle recalls occur only because of demonstrated safety issues and because Federal regulations demand such a response.
The OP essentially wants to be able to act like a software development company on the cheap. A software development company has it's own full time staff to develop code and budgets time for things such as beta testing and fixing the INEVITABLE bugs that come up, especially for major pieces of software. This of course is not cheap, you're paying salaries and benefits to maintain such resources.
If you're going to try to do this on the cheap by outsourcing it, then you're going to have to admit that you're not a developing house, you're just a shell game trying to hide the fact that you're not the publishing house you're making yourself out to be to your customers.
My code is not guaranteed indefinitely. Any bugs which appear after the contract is expired can be fixed under another contract if I agree to fix them. I am certainly under no obligation to do that later work at all and especially not for free.
Interesting that you're not prepared to guarantee your work. It would make me wary of contracting you as it places the onus on me to ensure that I've throughly tested your code rather than on you. Is this common practice?
All guarantees have limits. With cars, it's a set number of miles or months, whatever is reached first. With most products it's 30 days, or not at all. When you devalue labor by eliminating in house staff to penny ante it to outside contractors, there are going to be consequences. You're not keeping a contractor on retainer, you're going to have to have reasonable limitations on your expectations.
You're thinking like a scheming gamer, not a man of passion. (and remember we're talking about a Reman here!) who has seen his entire family, and world shattered into dust. Nero wasn't a professor, nor an intellectual, he was an individual driven by passionate revenge. And that's a driving force for a Romulan the way honor is for a Klingon.
He could have captured Spock and collapsed the star that caused the initial singularity in the prime timeline.
Just because you have a load of uranium and hydrogen on your hands, doesn't mean you have what it takes to build a hydrogen bomb. Nero's (and Spock's) trip to the past was a fluke, not something that could be duplicated with any control. When you're feeling as nihlistic as Nero was and the only tool you have in hand is an awfully big hammer, the universe starts looking like a nail.
Um, Majel Barrett did indeed play Number One, the ship's exec, in "The Cage".
There were also several TOS episodes with female authority figures, e.g. "The Enterprise Incident".
And what happened to that Romulan Commander again? "Number One was the original prototype for Spock, presumably created to give Majel Barett a leading part on the show. However the cast as created didn't quite fly, so Spock became the emotionless one, presumably to get rid of what looked like Satanic grins.
Characters with long ears should never grin. :)
It was the 60s, Star Trek TOS was very progressive for its time. Gene Roddenberry had Majel Barrett playing the first officer in the pilot, but the network made him change it.
No it wasn't really. That's one of the really irritating myths of the show. Trek followed much more than it led. And for each forward thought it expressed, I can find plenty that were downright regressive.
As bad and as cheesy as Star Trek (in any of the series of that franchise or the movies for that matter) got, it was by far and away better than the standard "science fiction" fare that was produced and arguably is still being produced in Hollywood. Classics like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", and "It Came from Outer Space" were more typical and the real standard that Star Trek needs to be compared against as those were contemporary (at least when Roddenberry was running the franchise).
Film science fiction has always been inferior to the depth and soul searching that happens in print and is a general problem with the medium.
Arguably, the original series of "Outer Limits" was on it's average, a far better science vehicle than any incarnation of Trek . "Twilight Zone", when it felt like being Sci-FI, was generally great Sci Fi.
> Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way.
Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as sci-fi. The original did a good job too.
That's what the heart of Science Fiction is: Exploring the social consequences, implications and ramifications of how technology effects people's lives. The "classic" Sci-Fi writers (Isaac) Asimov, (Robert) Heinlein, (Arthur) Clarke are some of the BEST _precisely_ because they explored these social issues at a deep level. Great Sci-Fi encourages and rewards deep thinking.
There is a persistent myth of TOS as being some all progressive vision of the future. It's a myth that ignored the basic fact that the original series was:
1. Highly critical of the Anti-War movement of the 60's as Kirk defends American involvement in the war.
2. Sexist in it's portrayal of women. Janice Lester is a villain because she refuses to accept Starfleet's determination that women aren't fit to be Starfleet captains and takes direct action to correct that "flaw" in her person. Nichelle Nichols may heap praise on her role now, but in the 60's she nearly quit her role, because of the treatment of her character which did not improve until the modern movies.
3. Pretentious to the point of anvilicious in it's treatment of social issues. Moral and ethical failings are those of those "weird aliens" never that of Kirk or it's Federation, a general pandering to the myth of American "exceptionalism". As Kirk's Federation is clearly meant to be the United States writ large.
4. Generally a promoter of a '40's 50's worldview which makes sense sense Roddenberry was of a 40's 50's generation.