Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Qs messing with the universe (Score 1) 162

The Doctor doesn't have close to the powers Q has, which is good. An omnipotent, omniscient protagonist makes a very, very poor and boring story. Where's the challenge? Where's the room for character development? Where's the flaw that makes him likable?

Face it, perfect characters work well as foils, possibly as deus ex machinas and as plot device, but they should not be prominent characters.

Comment Re:Jumped the shark a long while ago (Score 1) 162

Q was a nice plot device, and he was well used. An omnipotent being has no need for power games for he has any power he wants. What I especially liked was that they didn't try to make him a "god", i.e. someone craving worship, because anyone who had total power has no need for petty crap like that. He was quite believable. What would ultimate power eventually lead to? Boredom. That's exactly what happened with Q, and the Continuum. They were essentially incredibly bored. Bored enough that the exploits of an insignificant species become interesting enough to observe because they behave in an odd way, and bored enough that another one of them wishes to die.

It is likely that this is pretty much how an inquisitive mind reacts to total knowledge, total power and eternal life. It sure gets boring really quickly.

Wesley was ... well, a mistake, yes he was. He was the proverbial Mary Sue character. I think it was even revealed at one point that Roddenberry wanted to see himself in him, which makes him even more Mary Sue. It is kinda telling that the character was eliminated from the show around the same time Roddenberry died. In the end, the character was just not really believable, that was his fatal flaw. The youngest ensign in the fleet saving the day on the flag ship time and again... c'mon, it gets old. And again, it was the character, not the actor. Where Kirk was sometimes cringeworthy because Shatner is a crappy actor, Wheaton had little chance to make this character believable. When you're handed shit, you can only polish it so much. And in the end you sit there with dirty hands.

Borg children... never seen the episode. But we're (probably?) talking about an episode, there have been a lot of episodes that were rather... questionable in their logic. In TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9... and even more in Enterprise once the time travel sets in.

Piccard's style of operation was a cooperative one. There's not really a problem with that, and I don't remember a case where a spot decision was necessary and he instead went into a meeting. Kirk was a cowboy, Piccard a diplomat. Both of them due to the nature of the show they headed. Kirk was supposed to be a hands on guy, tough guy in a wild west universe. Not only 'cause TOS was basically a western show in disguise. Times change, and so do viewer expectations. The 90s were a decade when we believed we can solve all problems in the world by talking about them. That also explains the counselor.

Better and worse... all the Star Trek shows have their strong and weak sides.

Comment Re:Gouge the middle class to make them poor (Score 1) 200

That's much of why a nuclear family in the '50s got along fine on a single income and a two-parent family now involves both parents working and the kids in child care,

Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s had:
a 1200 (not 2200) sqft house,
formica (not granite) counters,
stainless steel appliances,
automatic dishwasher,
automatic dryer,
*might* have had a TV (not a 54" LCD),
car without multiple built-in DVD player, infotainment center, ABS brakes, half a dozen air bags, computer controlled *everything*, 2000W stereos,
computers,
smartphones,
game consoles,
etc,
etc,
ad nauseum.

Comment Re:Not so innocent after all (Score 3, Interesting) 129

Where the hell did you get that? Yes, there were people driven by religious zeal and whatnot, but for most of the European nobility the crusades were a chance to conquer a land for themselves, for as second born they had no claim to the land the firstborn got.

If you go down the list of noble participants of the various crusades, you will come up with a handful of landed leaders who wanted to ensure that the new "owners" will swear fealty to them and a huge number of landless nobles who wanted some.

Comment Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 1) 426

They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 1) 310

And where did you go to law school?

First, your statement regarding negligence and criminal law for negligence shows that you don't know the difference between criminal law and civil law.

Second. If a woman is drunk, does that mean you can rape her? She was negligence by becoming drunk near you and that there is a high probability that you would rape her if she was drunk.

Third, if there is an insurance policy, that would be controlled by the policy, which probably has an exclusion for items stolen from an unlocked car.

As far as negligence, if he left your laptop in the car, he may be liable to you, under your theory -- in a civil case. Never to a thief, except possibly in the case of a minor. But we have not covered that yet in my class.

Slashdot Top Deals

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...