Let me get this straight--you're comparing using iPhones with murder, death, and disease? You must be the biggest Apple-Hater in the world. I mean, I may not be a big fan of iPhones, but I certainly wouldn't compare owning one to having HIV.

You see, this is why we have to tell you when it is intended to be humorous. Because otherwise you go off the deep-end.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing to tell certain people. Maybe they'll stop being pests.

I was thinking more of the association between Apple products and homosexuals, myself. I mean, if you're going to have gay soldiers, they absolutely have to carry iPhones.

(It's a joke people...)

Au contraire--I'm actually a fan.

What I get annoyed with is the whole, "Star Trek explored all sorts of socially relevant topics." I don't deny this--but it did so fairly rarely. Hell, "Roseanne" and "Home Improvement" had the occasional "Very Special Episode" that explored socially relevant topics.

I don't hate those episodes listed. To me, they are examples of non-socially-relevant episodes--and I could list quite a few others. One of my favorite episodes is "A Piece of the Action." Short of "Don't leave a Chicago Gangs history book on another planet," there isn't much social relevance there. It's just a fun episode where Kirk out-mobsters the mobsters.

While "Spock's Brain" could be called a cautionary tale about society stagnating under the control of a machine intelligence, so could "Return of the Archons", "The Apple", and arguably "A Taste of Armageddon." Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.

I may have been off-base regarding "Bread and Circuses," which I kind of looked at as a "Sliders" episode--"What if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen?" Fun concept, definitely, but not necessarily socially relevant. But you do make a good point.

Again, Star Trek had it's share of social relevance, and that's wonderful. But it also had it's share of episodes that were more character-driven than story-driven. That's not a bad thing. It also had a few really stupid episodes. I tend to look at televised science fiction in that light: If I can tune in and have a better than 50% chance of being entertained or enlightened, it's a good show. Star Trek definitely qualifies for me.

But let's not make it something that it was not.

Actually, Simon Pegg (Scotty) had this to say about the Lens Flare:

[Interviewer:] Who made the first joke about lens flares?

[Pegg:] Probably some film student who wanted to demonstrate his or her knowledge of film terminology, thus elevating themselves to an assumed level of critical superiority, which gave them the kind of smug, knowing smile that indicates a festering sour grape, fizzing in the pit of their own ambition. It’s become a sort of communal stick to have a crack at JJ with, mostly by people who didn’t know what the fuck lens flare was, until someone started sneering the term all over their blog. It demonstrates JJ’s supreme talent as a film maker that the main means of knocking him is to magnify a throw away artistic choice, into some sort of hilarious failing. Lens flare is essentially an anomaly caused by light hitting the lens and creating refracted shapes. Because it draws attention to the fact that we are looking at a filmed event, it actually creates a subliminal sense of documentary realism and makes the moment more vital and immediate. In the same way Spielberg spattered his shots with bloody seawater in Saving Private Ryan, JJ suggests that the moment we are in is so real and alive, there just isn’t time to frame out all the light and activity. The irony is by acknowledging the film’s artifice, you are enhancing the reality of the moment. It’s clever and I love it. On set we call it ‘best in show’ and our amazing director of photography, Dan Mindel has a special technique to achieve it. To the detractors, I offer a polite fuck you and suggest you find a new stick to beat us with, if being a huge, boring neggyballs is necessary for your personal happiness.

And "Spock's Brain."

'nuff said.

Who, it's fair to assume, is now dead.

Also, there are plenty of Spock & Uhura moments in the original series. Nichelle Nichols had this to say:

The attraction between the characters was in the original series, says Nichols. “Now, go back to my participation in Star Trek as Uhura and Leonard (Nimoy) as Spock,” she explained. “There was always a connection between Uhura and Spock. It was the early 60s, so you couldn’t do what you can do now, but if you will remember, Uhura related to Spock. When she saw the captain lost in space out there in her mirror, it was Spock who consoled her when she went screaming out of her room. When Spock needed an expert to help save the ship, you remember that Uhura put something together and related back to him the famous words, ‘I don’t know if I can do this. I’m afraid.’ And Uhura was the only one who could do a spoof on Spock. Remember the song (in Charlie X)? Those were the hints, as far as I’m concerned.”

I do think this Spock is a bit more emotional. Some of it may come from Spock Prime...

Spock's Brain. Whenever somebody brings up the nobility of Star Trek, I just remind them of "Spock's Brain."

There are a few great Star Trek episodes, with meaning and purpose. But there's also Spock's Brain, Return of the Archons, Operation: Annihilate!, Catspaw, Friday's Child, Who Mourns for Adonais, Gamesters of Triskellion, Omega Glory, Bread and Circuses, The Enterprise Incident, Spectre of the Gun, For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, All Our Yesterdays, etc.

Another Uhura story that I heard was that there was an episode where all of the senior officers were down on the planet and Uhura was left in command. The network nixed that one pretty quick: "A woman?! A BLACK woman!? In charge of a starship!? I don't think so!"

The issue is how much collusion was there between Apple and the publishing companies to set these prices--which, according to the e-mails, was quite a bit. Apple was working to craft an agreement that all the publishers would agree to, not individual agreements with the publishers. That's collusion.

...and people say Google Glass makes you look like a dope.

Years ago, all you people voted to ban private ownership of surface-to-air missiles. "Why would you need a surface-to-air missile?" you asked. "Duck Hunting? That's just crazy!"

Well, look who's laughing now!

(For the humor impaired, this is intended to be funny.)

This always sounds like a good idea. Here's the problem, though: Who decides that the speed was unsafe?

Obviously, you wouldn't be driving at an unsafe speed. So you're cruising down that rain-slicked highway at 85 MPH and everything is fine until some other idiot who doesn't believe 85 MPH is a safe speed shows up in front you doing 50. As you slam into the back of him, you think, "This isn't my fault! It's that idiot driving 50 MPH! I was perfectly safe until he showed up!"

Yes, in an ideal world, we would all drive at a safe speed and be respectful of each other. But the reality is that you have different people with different driving abilities and different cars with different capabilities and the whole idea that everybody on the freeway can be trusted to "do the right thing" is completely absurd. That's why you need to have an arbitrary number.

Depends on your definition of "the market."

If you mean the whole market for automobiles, Tesla is barely a blip. If you mean the market for high-end luxury vehicles, it appears that Tesla is doing quite well. Add to that these higher-end vehicles tend to have nice margins and it's even worse for these dealers because they'll make more selling one A8 than they will selling three A3s.

Depends on how dedicated the criminal is, as well as the person selling the gun. Put some of the people selling guns to criminals in jail and they might decide that isn't a business they want to be in.