Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Star Trek starships are more realistic to what I expect them to be. Photon torpedoes and phaser arrays are much more cool than blaster cannons scattered all over the ship's decks. If an Imperial Star Destroyer ever tangled with a Federation Sovereign class battlecruiser, it would be over really quick. Warp drive is more scientifically plausible than a hyperdrive as well. Also, a phaser could tie down a Jedi's light saber as long as it has energy to fire. If you have two phasers on you, he couldn't block both. 😀
I'd beg to differ with you in some of this! Blaster cannons "scattered all over the ship's decks" is likely merely to fend off incoming X-Wings or similar class vehicles. And tell me you'd take over a Super Star Destroyer? C'mon, man, not even close! Compare your wimpy Federation starship (it's on http://www.merzo.net/1mpp.htm )withthe Imperial Star Destroyer on page http://www.merzo.net/2mpp.htmor the Super Star Destroyer on http://www.merzo.net/10mpp.htm'nuff said!
I hadn't thought about it that way, but it sounds about right. Star Wars is more of an epic morality tale in line with Greek sagas. And yes, Star Trek is more about discovery and response to futuristic situations.
I'd watch ST:TOS reruns during the '80s, then toward the late '80s, maybe early '90s I'd watch ST:TNG, and again in reruns since. I never got into any of the spin ST series. I hadn't heard about Matt Damon but that sounds really interesting. I can't quite picture him as Kirk since I can't picture him with such charisma, but he would bring a seriousness that I'm sure would give legitimacy to the movie. I don't know who will play Spock and the others, but I could picture Paul Giamatti as Dr. McCoy.You really have to enjoy Star Wars on a different level. I don't think it's a good match up even if they do share a common inter-galactic theme. Last Fall over a few months I rented the entire Star Wars saga and watched it from the beginning. It was very enjoyable watching it like this and I even liked the more recent Episodes I, II, and II more than I did when watching them at the theaters (though Episode I is still lame, IMO).
Those kinds writings are great….even if they're not considered extremely “rare”, they still probably add to historical knowledge of people and customs of that time. I'd be interested in hearing what the letters focus on.If I got a package of old letters what I would do is create a web site with images of the scanned in letters as well as the text written out. This way other people can find the letters, perhaps by doing a Google search for an obscure person that happens to be mentioned in one of the letters, or by searching for a small town mentioned therein. Other people can then comment on the letters and perhaps provide some insight.
I hadn't heard that the rocket crashed…I imagine I'll see it in the news soon enough. I'm sure that Star Trek will continue into the future after the entire cast of ST:TOS has passed on.
Yes indeed, we wish you well in your studies. It's good to be eager from the onset. It'll go a long way in motivating you to get your education completed.
Stay away from certificates. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Going back a bit, I'd have to disagree with DB's statement here. I think that any certificate - especially one from a recognized body - can aid in filling out one's resume, especially if it complements one's area of study and relates to the target job area. While you might not want to dedicate a lot of time and money toward getting a certificate alone (rather than a degree), I don't think it's going to be worthless if you can get one "along the way".
I do think that advances in knowledge were made during the Dark Ages and I listed some great thinkers in another thread on the matter, “Welcome to the Dark Ages board”. When we think about it, there had to have been progress made in sciences/arts, or else we would have had a vacuum between the fall of Rome and the Early Middle Ages, which we do not have. The thing is that knowledge was likely transmitted orally to the masses during this period. It is my understanding, though, that books were kept intact by being transcribed by monks. It's not that no progress was made, but rather that great works of literature seem to be absent.What I meant by the lack of literature from the period is that we don't really have significant works from the Dark Ages like we do in other eras. The Greeks produced works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey, Rome produced the Aeneid, and then we skip a thousand years or so before we get to Beowulf and other works. The Middle Ages then produced some great works like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Divine Comedy, etc.According to the earlier thread I mentioned above, the "Dark" adjective for the post-Roman age in Europe was made by humanists as a jab at the time period. Although we now know it wasn't so "dark" after all, the term remains.
That older thread says there was a lack of literature. How true is this?
It may be somewhat true. Beowulf was written around 1000 A.D. and based on oral tradition, and according to the article monks were primarily the only ones who could read/write at the time. We also have St. Augustine's Confessions and City of God during the Dark Ages. I don't know if these latter two would be considered classical literature, though. I can't think of much in terms of writing from the Dark Ages. During the Middle Ages we begin to see seminal works such as The Canterbury Tales and The Divine Comedy.
Can you imagine what would have happened had those views about the population bomb, expanding deserts, etc caught on in the mainstream media and become fads for politicians to take advantage of? I believe those views were being put out in the 1960s, although we may have Malthus' age old views as roots of even some of these. What if the United States and other developed countries were to have dedicated a significant portion of its revenues and placed self-imposed restrictions based on industry because of those predictions? How would the world be better today? How would power be shifted?I think one thing may be mis-portrayed here; I think all people, of whatever political persuasion, prefer less pollution to more pollution. Clean air and clean water are fundamental items that anyone can see is clearly beneficial. I think the problem with the recent GW controversy is that one point of view, which is loaded with political implications, has self-proclaimed itself to be the de facto truth about some uncertain, complex phenomena. I don't think it takes a genius to see how red flags should automatically go up when this happens. And when we see people talking like those I've pointed out in this thread, we should really pause to ask some serious questions, like what are the real motivations of the proponents of the global warming scare? What are their priorities?
I'm not familiar enought with the Black Panther Party, so I'm not sure whether they'd fall into the definition of “terrorists”. What were its political aims? What were its tactics? Is this the same BPP that Malcolm X was once involved with?
That's really interesting stuff. So I'm guessing you had to move around a lot because of safety concerns, is that correct?
I saw links to two different stories on Drudge just now which are related to global warming:Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion Children 'bad for planet'These kinds of stories would almost be comical if the people who claim these ideas weren't serious, and I'm afraid that with today's global warming hype these radical ideas might catch on to bigger crowds. There's a real sense of man = enemy in some environmental voices and their ultimate values place their perception of a "healty earth" above the value of mankind. It is truly backwards, and if you follow their logic you can come to some scary scenarios, such as legal limitations on the number of children people can have; perhaps widescale forced abortions; refusal to give medical aid to the dying; and so forth. I read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six years ago and I'm reminded of it from time to time when I hear about environmental radicals. If you are going to read the book you may want to avoid reading this because it may be a spoiler, but the essential storyline is about a master plan to kill off the global population with a lethal, contagious disease. The only people left alive are the select few who are behind the plan and perhaps their families. The mastermind in part is some very wealthy, environmental radical who has bought up lots of land and has his private complex somewhere in middle America and also in the jungles of Brazil.It is a scary scenario but when I read about someone comparing mankind to a "virus" then Clancy's work of fiction doesn't seem so far off after all.
I thought it may have been unknown for some time but I also thought that it is known nowadays. I thought Greek Fire was designed so that when someone tried to extinguish it the flames only spread worse. Perhaps you're thinking of the medieval metallurgy process of turning lead into gold? 😀
