and while I too enjoyed the film, my complaints (within it's universe and `science`) were:
1. Did the planet Vulcan, a founding member of the Federation, not have any planetary defenses? I find it hard to believe that a single miniscule (in planetary scale) mining vessel can destroy planetary defenses AND starships at the same time. I buy the fact that it wiped out the starships as it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. 2. Even though half of starfleet of the Constitution class starships got wiped out at Vulcan, Earth didn't have any defenses either? 3. Delta Vega is apparently a moon of Vulcan. Why didn't that moon get destroyed in the black hole? 4. Where was the Narada when it was drilling Earth? It wasn't Saturn was it? If it was Earth, why didn't Earth (or did it?) get destroyed when the entire mass of the Red Matter destroyed the Narada? 5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact. 6. It seemed like you could get to Vulcan pretty fast from Earth. In the original Canon, I seem to remember a consistency of distance and time to get to other star systems. I know this is brand new and pretty much wipes that idea out but I hope that they stay consistent with that distance.
Other than that, it was great.
1 and 2. It is a bit of a stretch, but keep in mind the Narada was over a hundred years more advanced. Also, after the destruction of Romulus, it was outfitted with the best weapons the Romulans had (retrofitted Borg stuff). It would have been a (probably smallish) threat to the "modern" (circa 2380s) Federation. 3. That's not how black holes work. Black-hole Vulcan has the same gravitational attraction as regular Vulcan. 4. It was above Earth, but had flown past Saturn, or something. They warped away after Spock, remember. Though, it's unknown how far away. 5. It probably just wasn't destroyed. They had 20+ years to repair it. 6. Yeah, the whole warping-to-Vulcan-in-5-minutes thing was annoying.
The scientific problem I had the most issue with was the "super-nova" that destroyed Romulus, enveloping it. Was it in the same solar system? If so, then Spock would destroy the Nova by turning the Romulan Sun into a black hole!? Or, was it in a different system? If so, then the Nova was so huge that the mass of the star could expand over distances of light years and envelop a planet in a different star system!?
It was in another system, but it grew in strength as it destroyed star systems, making a threat to the entire galaxy.
A thing that sets this apart, at least for me, is that it isn't a weapon by its self. It's solely defensive. Don't want to be attacked? Just cloak! It's like kevlar, it can be used for a more effective offense, but its real shining is in its defense.
Hey, I didn't say it was particularly hard science.
I suppose there could be (and probably have been) sociological (ewww) studies looking at gender roles in other cultures, and conscious reasons for career choices. Even those these would almost certainly be feminazi-tainted, the possibility is there.
Anyway, I would hypothesize that any choice as complex as a career would have contributions from Nature as well as Nurture.
The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there.
Not really. Most women don't like techie stuff, just as most men don't like flower arranging.
One could argue that this is due to societal perceptions of what a particular sex "should like", causing people, either subconsciously or consciously, to avoid fields that are commonly perceived to be for the opposite sex.
I fail to see how not voting would help anyone. You would have absolutely zero affect, simply being another lazy american nonvoter in the statistics. Instead, I would suggest voting for a 3rd party candidate or a write-in who you could support. You would almost certainly have no affect on the result of the race, but at least your statistic would be meaningful and hopefully encourage supporting of your ideals in the future.
Also, although I am no fan of the lesser-of-two-evils, you could always inform them of why you're not supporting them in an attempt to have them reverse their unfavorable policies.
The Preamble the the constitution Downes_v._Bidwell "By the constitution a government is ordained and established 'for the United States of America,' and not for countries outside of their limits." Insular Cases
etc.
I'm not saying its right, or that I like it, but it has been done, and the general legal interpretation appears to me (IANAL) to be the Constitution ends where the States do; not really applying to territories, and definitely not to other nations. The border as a sort of "lawless limbo" would seem to go along with that.
And, in the end, as long as the people don't care enough, the government can take away any of their rights, ignoring the moral ramifications and certainly the apparently long forgotten Constitution.
The existence of the public library doesn't stop people from buying books. On the contrary, libraries creates book-lovers and sustain the book business.
I agree that free music downloads do create publicity and fans, some of whom may buy tracks to support the artists, but the library analogy doesn't really hold up. With a library book, the potential buyer doesn't get to keep the book, and thus has reason to buy it for their own selfish reasons, apart from pure charity to the author. With free digital music, the potential buyer gets the product for free and has no such incentive.
I don't see the free music makers being mainly supported by charitable donations from fans, but more on merchandise, advertising, and live shows. All of which are supported by the fan base built up through free music.
I'd like to see more music become something like webcomics, where there are:
A) A lot of amateurs, who don't make a living, but get a trickle of money and their own satisfaction.
B) Larger, more popular artists who can make a living off merch, ads, etc.
QuantumG has a perfect analogy (except the whole presidential thing), from exactly three lines away, in the same section of the Constitution: Congress has the power to enforce copyright, just like they have the power to declare war. They don't have to use it.
Isn't space meant to be like demilitarized zone or something?
Yes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits military bases, any kind of weapon tests and the permanent placement of WMD anywhere outside the Earth's atmosphere (nuclear ICBMs are OK as long as they stay in space only temporary on their way to their destination).
Hmm, that's interesting. I think your post should probably be called Computers != Direct Democracy != Mob Rule, and that's true. I just assumed direct democracy would be used, and hadn't thought about separate, autonomous communities being used (though that's one of my favorite political ideals) or individuals voting for others and giving them weighted votes, creating a sort of Direct Democracy/Representative Democracy mix.
I hadn't really had enough time to look at it closely before, but now Metagovernment has just become a whole lot more interesting to me, as it incorporates a lot of my own ideas (Direct Democracy, Voluntarism, etc.) and fixes (or attempts to fix) many important problems.
Mod parent up.
Only problem, of course, is that everybody will have equal powers over the law, including FBI people and other crooks.
But why shouldn't they, if everyone else does? The majority will simply overpower them.
I like open source style Direct Democracy a lot, but it does have the problem of the majority oppressing the minority. Better than the minority oppressing the majority, though, I suppose.
Instead I'm going to post this letter on a few popular **** forums, and raise general public awareness of ****'s actions. I will continue to closely monitor ****'s actions, and may switch ISPs if it continues with this course of action.
You're right, thanks for making me aware of what **** is doing by posting it on a public forum. If **** doesn't stop, I'll make sure to not use/stop using ****'s service pronto.
Nope, I am not insinuating any such thing. You however are claiming it for your own. It is simply an analogy to show that if such an argument was not valid then, it ain't valid now.
Well, if you're just saying that fewer qualified blacks applied than qualified whites, and thus fewer blacks were hired, then I see nothing wrong with that.
It may show social problems that cause less blacks to be qualified/apply for a job, but that is a completely separate issue that can't be addressed through simply giving jobs to unqualified blacks over qualified whites. Instead focus should be on equality of opportunity, through better education for the poor, and other programs, not equality of outcome through racially based hiring decisions.
Perhaps its not clear to you that similar arguments were made about black people not so long ago. "They just aren't interested in white-collar jobs. Can't you just admit that blacks and whites are different?"
That's a ridiculous strawman. You're insinuating that blacks and whites didn't have the same opportunity to enter the job of their choice, but this doesn't hold true for the academic field where jobs are (or would be, without affirmative action,) given solely based on the merits of applicants.
A less qualified woman should not get a job over a more qualified man, and vice versa. Anything other than that is sexism. If fewer qualified women apply than men, fewer women should get jobs.
The question of why fewer apply doesn't enter into the decision process, whether it's genetic or societal (It's my opinion that it is mainly societal, with some genetic factors). I don't even know if I'd call the differences in interests necessarily a bad thing, it's just part of our society(/species).
Domus? Nominative? But "go home", it is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
Dative, sir!
[knife on throat]
No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! The... accusative, accusative! Domum, sir, ad domum!
Except that domus takes the...?
The locative, sir!
Which is?
Domum!
Slashdot Mirror
and while I too enjoyed the film, my complaints (within it's universe and `science`) were:
1. Did the planet Vulcan, a founding member of the Federation, not have any planetary defenses? I find it hard to believe that a single miniscule (in planetary scale) mining vessel can destroy planetary defenses AND starships at the same time. I buy the fact that it wiped out the starships as it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
2. Even though half of starfleet of the Constitution class starships got wiped out at Vulcan, Earth didn't have any defenses either?
3. Delta Vega is apparently a moon of Vulcan. Why didn't that moon get destroyed in the black hole?
4. Where was the Narada when it was drilling Earth? It wasn't Saturn was it? If it was Earth, why didn't Earth (or did it?) get destroyed when the entire mass of the Red Matter destroyed the Narada?
5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact.
6. It seemed like you could get to Vulcan pretty fast from Earth. In the original Canon, I seem to remember a consistency of distance and time to get to other star systems. I know this is brand new and pretty much wipes that idea out but I hope that they stay consistent with that distance.
Other than that, it was great.
1 and 2. It is a bit of a stretch, but keep in mind the Narada was over a hundred years more advanced. Also, after the destruction of Romulus, it was outfitted with the best weapons the Romulans had (retrofitted Borg stuff). It would have been a (probably smallish) threat to the "modern" (circa 2380s) Federation.
3. That's not how black holes work. Black-hole Vulcan has the same gravitational attraction as regular Vulcan.
4. It was above Earth, but had flown past Saturn, or something. They warped away after Spock, remember. Though, it's unknown how far away.
5. It probably just wasn't destroyed. They had 20+ years to repair it.
6. Yeah, the whole warping-to-Vulcan-in-5-minutes thing was annoying.
The scientific problem I had the most issue with was the "super-nova" that destroyed Romulus, enveloping it. Was it in the same solar system? If so, then Spock would destroy the Nova by turning the Romulan Sun into a black hole!? Or, was it in a different system? If so, then the Nova was so huge that the mass of the star could expand over distances of light years and envelop a planet in a different star system!?
It was in another system, but it grew in strength as it destroyed star systems, making a threat to the entire galaxy.
It made no sense at all.
Agreed.
See Star Trek: Countdown
A bit buggy (lassen sich derartige Kommunikationen leicht abhÃren, anyone?), but here it is.
A thing that sets this apart, at least for me, is that it isn't a weapon by its self. It's solely defensive. Don't want to be attacked? Just cloak!
It's like kevlar, it can be used for a more effective offense, but its real shining is in its defense.
Basically, I hope we end up hiding from threats instead of preemptively attacking them.
Hey, I didn't say it was particularly hard science.
I suppose there could be (and probably have been) sociological (ewww) studies looking at gender roles in other cultures, and conscious reasons for career choices. Even those these would almost certainly be feminazi-tainted, the possibility is there.
Anyway, I would hypothesize that any choice as complex as a career would have contributions from Nature as well as Nurture.
Not always.
The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there.
Not really. Most women don't like techie stuff, just as most men don't like flower arranging.
One could argue that this is due to societal perceptions of what a particular sex "should like", causing people, either subconsciously or consciously, to avoid fields that are commonly perceived to be for the opposite sex.
I fail to see how not voting would help anyone. You would have absolutely zero affect, simply being another lazy american nonvoter in the statistics. Instead, I would suggest voting for a 3rd party candidate or a write-in who you could support. You would almost certainly have no affect on the result of the race, but at least your statistic would be meaningful and hopefully encourage supporting of your ideals in the future.
Also, although I am no fan of the lesser-of-two-evils, you could always inform them of why you're not supporting them in an attempt to have them reverse their unfavorable policies.
The Preamble the the constitution
Downes_v._Bidwell "By the constitution a government is ordained and established 'for the United States of America,' and not for countries outside of their limits."
Insular Cases
etc.
I'm not saying its right, or that I like it, but it has been done, and the general legal interpretation appears to me (IANAL) to be the Constitution ends where the States do; not really applying to territories, and definitely not to other nations. The border as a sort of "lawless limbo" would seem to go along with that.
And, in the end, as long as the people don't care enough, the government can take away any of their rights, ignoring the moral ramifications and certainly the apparently long forgotten Constitution.
Have you read The Long Tail? (Or the Book)
The existence of the public library doesn't stop people from buying books. On the contrary, libraries creates book-lovers and sustain the book business.
I agree that free music downloads do create publicity and fans, some of whom may buy tracks to support the artists, but the library analogy doesn't really hold up. With a library book, the potential buyer doesn't get to keep the book, and thus has reason to buy it for their own selfish reasons, apart from pure charity to the author. With free digital music, the potential buyer gets the product for free and has no such incentive.
I don't see the free music makers being mainly supported by charitable donations from fans, but more on merchandise, advertising, and live shows. All of which are supported by the fan base built up through free music.
I'd like to see more music become something like webcomics, where there are:
A) A lot of amateurs, who don't make a living, but get a trickle of money and their own satisfaction.
B) Larger, more popular artists who can make a living off merch, ads, etc.
By your logic the president is required to declare war because the constitution says has the power to..
I think Bush has messed with your mind a bit
The Congress shall have power ... To declare War;
And also, in response to grolaw!:
The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Nothing says Congress has to use their power.
QuantumG has a perfect analogy (except the whole presidential thing), from exactly three lines away, in the same section of the Constitution: Congress has the power to enforce copyright, just like they have the power to declare war. They don't have to use it.
Let me remind you, my friend, that evolution means SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION to an environment.
Umm, A gradual process of development, formation, or growth.
Or even a working link.
That doesn't appear to be exactly the same, but similar and interesting, and the article makes some good points.
Isn't space meant to be like demilitarized zone or something?
Yes, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits military bases, any kind of weapon tests and the permanent placement of WMD anywhere outside the Earth's atmosphere (nuclear ICBMs are OK as long as they stay in space only temporary on their way to their destination).
There's also the failed Space Preservation Act.
As everyone should.
Hmm, that's interesting. I think your post should probably be called Computers != Direct Democracy != Mob Rule, and that's true. I just assumed direct democracy would be used, and hadn't thought about separate, autonomous communities being used (though that's one of my favorite political ideals) or individuals voting for others and giving them weighted votes, creating a sort of Direct Democracy/Representative Democracy mix.
I hadn't really had enough time to look at it closely before, but now Metagovernment has just become a whole lot more interesting to me, as it incorporates a lot of my own ideas (Direct Democracy, Voluntarism, etc.) and fixes (or attempts to fix) many important problems.
Mod parent up.
What about Swfdec or Gnash?
Yeah, anytime I see anything in Italian I just get really confused. It's so close, but then doesn't make any sense.
Only problem, of course, is that everybody will have equal powers over the law, including FBI people and other crooks.
But why shouldn't they, if everyone else does? The majority will simply overpower them.
I like open source style Direct Democracy a lot, but it does have the problem of the majority oppressing the minority. Better than the minority oppressing the majority, though, I suppose.
Instead I'm going to post this letter on a few popular **** forums, and raise general public awareness of ****'s actions. I will continue to closely monitor ****'s actions, and may switch ISPs if it continues with this course of action.
You're right, thanks for making me aware of what **** is doing by posting it on a public forum. If **** doesn't stop, I'll make sure to not use/stop using ****'s service pronto.
Nope, I am not insinuating any such thing. You however are claiming it for your own. It is simply an analogy to show that if such an argument was not valid then, it ain't valid now.
Well, if you're just saying that fewer qualified blacks applied than qualified whites, and thus fewer blacks were hired, then I see nothing wrong with that.
It may show social problems that cause less blacks to be qualified/apply for a job, but that is a completely separate issue that can't be addressed through simply giving jobs to unqualified blacks over qualified whites. Instead focus should be on equality of opportunity, through better education for the poor, and other programs, not equality of outcome through racially based hiring decisions.
That still means they have different interests.
Perhaps its not clear to you that similar arguments were made about black people not so long ago. "They just aren't interested in white-collar jobs. Can't you just admit that blacks and whites are different?"
That's a ridiculous strawman. You're insinuating that blacks and whites didn't have the same opportunity to enter the job of their choice, but this doesn't hold true for the academic field where jobs are (or would be, without affirmative action,) given solely based on the merits of applicants.
A less qualified woman should not get a job over a more qualified man, and vice versa. Anything other than that is sexism. If fewer qualified women apply than men, fewer women should get jobs.
The question of why fewer apply doesn't enter into the decision process, whether it's genetic or societal (It's my opinion that it is mainly societal, with some genetic factors). I don't even know if I'd call the differences in interests necessarily a bad thing, it's just part of our society(/species).
Domus? Nominative? But "go home", it is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
Dative, sir!
[knife on throat]
No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! The... accusative, accusative! Domum, sir, ad domum!
Except that domus takes the...?
The locative, sir!
Which is?
Domum!
I came, of the wine, to be thrown up?