This response is directed to the entire sub-thread, not just the post - it IS true that Star Wars opted to steer clear of explaining its sci-fi tech where Star Trek revolved around the tech itself. But I have to completely disagree about Star Wars not being sci-fi.

If Jules Verne wrote a book about a version of the 20th century where carriages were propelled without horses, but failed to explain some sort of combustion engine as being the driving force, would that have made his work less sci-fi? Much of good science fiction literature relies not on the explanation and believability of the science, but of the fiction. In The Time Machine my H.G. Wells, it was not explained exactly HOW the time machine traversed time, but that is surely science fiction.

What makes Star Wars great science fiction is that the technology used integrates smoothly with the worlds in which the story it set - the hover car on Tattouine fit in place mach as a normal car fits in on Earth, the technologies presented blended with the settings in which they existed and didn't seem forced or in need of explanation. By the 'science fiction equals explained science' definition, would Battlestar Galactica be science fiction?

As for the story - yes, Star Wars was story-driven (at least the originals). Sure a lot of the fundamental story ideas were borrowed from other source, that fact doesn't negate a story being present. But in truth there are very few works of fiction that are truly original - the fundamentals are fairly constant and reused in pretty much every story ever. What makes Star Wars work is the relatability of the story - the course of events made enough sense and the characters actions and reactions were those we could see ourselves or people we knew doing in such circumstances (something that Star Trek occasionally could have used a little more of).

THANK YOU!

I've wondered myself why the definition for a planet capable of sustaining life had to be so narrow. One should consider that leading theories about how life started here involve the Earth having had much more extreme conditions and an environment that would be caustic to the majority of life as we know it. Yet we see within our own Solar System a variety of less volatile environs that we assume could never be valid hosts.

If we are seeking other places in the universe where life could have originated under the same circumstances as they did here, then of course they are bound to find a limited number of matches - the universe is vast and seemingly random. But how can we be so sure that the formula for life on Earth is the only valid formula for life?

If history has taught us nothing else, it is that when we hold the world/universe to our conventional standards, we should be prepared to be proven wrong.

When I enlarged the photo, the putty impression looked a lot like a nipple.

Maybe mammalian nipples originated from an ancient symbiosis with these creatures!

A graduated scale makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bell curve we've got now.

As long as we have poverty, extreme wealth is shameful.

I personally voted for Obama with the blessing of my 4-year-old daughter (she was outraged to hear that McCain doesn't plan to address the issue of equal pay). I'd rather not have to worry about the possibilities of losing my healthcare, paying higher taxes, or watching my kids educations suffer to fund more wars we shouldn't be fighting.

I'm more okay with socializing healthcare than the recent Wall St. bailout. I don't think government needs to stick their noses in everything, but it should be able to facilitate each of our efforts to reach our fullest potential.

If any of these views make me a Marxist, so be it.