Ships Crew
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Theunicornhunter

  1. One thing upon which I think we can all agree - there is no easy answer.


    I graduated with some people who are way smarter than I am or ever will be, yet we have the same degree. Is that very fair?


    On the other hand - some people can take a few notes and look over them before the test and get A's while people who study for days get C's. So, if they're smarter they probably didn't work as hard.


    once the government starts spending money on something, it is very hard to get it to stop!



    As much as I dislike taxes I really do think education is important. There used to be statistics (I say used to be as I haven't looked any up in years and perhaps they have changed). Anyway when I was younger - people with some college were less likely to get divorced than those with just a high school education - and people with degrees tended to be less prejudiced. So, I think education can make you a better citizen and thus be worth some tax dollars. My current job doesn't require a degree but I can see how my education has helped me do a better job in all the jobs I've had - I don't know there's any way to quantify that.

  2. I stand by my argument that while learning does take place in college, the real value is in the experience.


    You can have "experience" without going to college. I've actually joined organizations, done volunteer work, had fun, organized events etc outside of college. And if that is the only value then I'd say it isn't worth it.


    I miss being in college too sometimes - certinaly more fun than working but still - it isn't the taxpayers responsiblity to provide people with fun. If our colleges aren't preparing people to be better employees and better citizens then they don't need to be receiving tax dollars.


    And many people don't ever get that particular college experience - they attend night classes while working full time or go back later in life. I don't beleive their degrees are less valuable.

  3. The movie was a success - ie ticket sales - partly because many old time fans went to see it out of curiosity even though the producers have shown little more than disdain for those people. I don't know if would have been so successful with only new viewers. And if the old time fans don't come back for the second - the numbers won't be as high.


    While ST XI was a good acton adventure movie - it really had very little to do with Star Trek = other than borrowing names from the series. IMO it needed a little bit more than just the same names to make it Star Trek.


    I have to agree with VGB - they could have done a better job of keeping some of the essence of Trek in it.

  4. Thanks for the link LVR - that was interesting. I tend to agree - I think there are some fields that require a degree - mostly in the science, and advanced technical fields but many jobs can be done without a degree.


    Another good point is the prestige of a degree and I agree that exists - but is it worth what it costs?


    And even with a degree - do you really need the two years of general ed that most degrees require? I don't think it should be eliminated but it could definitely be pared back, maybe by redisigning courses for non-majors such as a four hour general principles of science - rather than two three hour courses from a list.


    And not everybody does the traditional college experience - many can't afford it. Many students now are struggling to balance a degree with a full time job and often a family. If the goal is to increase earning potential - do they need 60 hours of general ed before they get to the specialized classes?


    There are some employers (or there used to be) that will pay for two college courses a semester for full time employees - it would take a while but it's a definite alternative if you're working anyway.

  5. Sometimes I have felt frusrated at being "planet bound" or I dream about not just space travel but organized, civilized cities with speedy mass transit and access to knowledge and art etc.; but I'm not really convinced that the future of humanity offers a Star Trek like future - I mean what if the Terminator vision comes to pass?


    For all we know we'll send ourselves into another Dark Ages.


    But I was born too soon - I should have been born 15 years later. For my age range single women outnumber single men - for those about 10 years younger the reverse is true. I would have loved to have been on the other end of that demographic curve. :)

  6. Saw this article about a suggestion to make college degrees three year instead of four.




    In an era when college students commonly take longer than four years to get a bachelor's degree, some U.S. schools are looking anew at an old idea: slicing a year off their undergraduate programs to save families time and money.


    If part of this means summer classes I'm not sure where the "cost savings" comes in - but on a larger scale - it raises the question - how much education do you have to have to be "educated"


    I'm all for programs that give you credit for knowledge you already have - particularly in general knowledge - Advance placement in high school - or testing out which they used to call it CLEP (if they still do that?)


    I also admit I question whether some of the general ed courses taught on college campuses today really "educate." A couple of years ago I took some classes at a local community college for "fun" - maybe my perspective was changed because I'd had so much formal education but the classes seemed much easier and the teachers almost "spoon fed" the students. Some students were also quite rude which was a surprise. On of the most interesting and IMO sad events, one night my astronomy instructor offered to come back at night with his telescope and show us the constellations and I was the only one that showed up. (I was taking the class for fun and all the others were apparently taking it for "elective credit")

  7. Once again I feel I must say - multiple worlds ie multiple universes is not the same thing as multiple timelines. And when they talk about a universe for every possible action (many worlds or multiverse) - they mean that literally down to the spin of every electron. so a different world (universe) for every spin of every electron of every atom - well that gives infinity a run for its money.


    But again, a different thing from changing the timeline - once the timeline has changed - it's changed. The Star Trek we knew is gone - forever - it ain't coming back and it doesn't exist anywhere else except our memories.


    Despite their protestations to the contrary - it was a literary device that the writers use to create a blank slate for future sequels. But I'd rather watch these strange, totally unfamiliar characters with familiar names have a rip roaring romp through space than most other movies I've seen. The movie was fun and entertaining it just wasn't Star Trek - not really.

  8. I gave it a four (five is for exceptional movies) - this was a good, action adventure movie - it was entertaining - had a bit of humor and a tad of romance. As a stand alone movie I'd recommend it to anyone.


    For Trek fans there could be some disappointment and the argument of whether it lost the essence of what makes Trek Trek -well that could go on for a bit.


    Im one of the few here that was in front of my tv set (okay my older sister's tv set) on Sept 8, 1966 - and other than one ep of Enterprise I think I've seen every episode. I like thought provoking drama and missed that aspect of Trek; but that is easier to do on tv than in movies - people go to the movies to see action.


    I agree with some others

    Click for Spoiler:

    Chekov was too young; and what a different character - I guess he was raised by a different dad too. Actually, liked this Sulu better - not so brooding. The thing with Uhura and Spock - total surprise on that - maybe she was raised by a different dad because Spock obviously had the same one. Actually, it's a different culture now than in 1966 and that's what drove most of the changes - this Uhura got to be spunkier than what 1966 would have allowed - still whatever happened to Leila Kalomi?


    And they were all too young to get promoted from cadet to bridge officer

  9. Regarding "alternate timeline":


    Click for Spoiler:

    There is only one timeline - if it is changed by a person from the future traveling back to the past - then yes, it is a different or "alternate" timeline from what orginally happened. But it isn't like an alternate universe that you can switch between the two timelines - they don't co-exist. The new timeline is "the" timeline. That's why the temporal prime directive is so important - of course now there is no guarantee Star Fleet will ever have a temporal prime directive.


    I understand it was a necessary plot device to give the writers the freedom to do whatever they wanted with future scripts. But the more it sinks in - the more disappointing it is.



    Nor do I think most of have a firm enough grasp of temporal mechanics to say - can this be fixed by preventing Nero from ever going back in time. I mean wouldn't that rewrite every thing that happened in this movie?

  10. Good points - I agree with most of those points. I too left the theatre having enjoyed the movie but after thinking about it a while I do see some issues


    Click for Spoiler:

    as regards the timeline - No Vulcan means no Tuvok - hence no Tuvok lost on mission on Maquis ship - and thus no reason to send Voyager to the badlands. ie no Voyeger.


    And getting the whole bridge crew there together - that was contrived

  11. I agree

    Click for Spoiler:

    Having Chekov on the bridge at age 17 with Cpt Pike was just incorrect. To me, sitting in the theater it said to me "that shows that someone looked at the surface of Star Trek history, pulled out names and threw them into the script without looking at time frames or whatnot".




    That said though, it was minor. Not at all something to be upset about or hate the movie over. As I was watching before I fully accepted the "alternate time line" aspect I was enjoying the movie but annoyed with the changes none the less. After I forced myself to recognize the alternate time line like we would with Yesterday's Enterprise I let go of those annoyances and just watched the movie.


    The only annoyance that I left the theater with was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and that they didn't "fix it all" in the end. If they don't "fix it" at some point then I don't see how this Star Trek can fit into the "Star Trek Universe". Destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda along with other changes totally destroys the history that is already on film. How can TNG happen if TOS didn't? How can DS9 and Voyager happen if TNG didn't?



    I also didn't really care for the introduction of new aliens. Too much of a "Star Wars" feel with the big headed alien on the bridge of the Kelvin and


    I agree about Chekov - I understand they bascially used the "atlernate timeline" to covera a multitude of sins so to speak; but after thinking about it, I think putting all of those characters together on the bridge right out of the academy - was just wrong. Alternate timeline or not shouldn't they graduate from the academy first and you don't just promote someone from cadet to captain or even commander but that's Hollywood.


    I sort of thought the same Star Wars thought about the alien on the bridge lol


    As for the timeline - I hate these quandaries but now that they "know" what will happen - can't they simply rescue Romulus earlier and more or less prevent the entire thing from happening or now that they have changed the timeline maybe the future won't happen at all - such as what if Spock doesn't live to be the old Spock.

  12. I didnt' read any other reviews until I'd had a chance to see it.


    Overall a great movie 3 out of 4 stars. It had lots of action, some humor and a couple of sentimental moments but it was definitely more of an action movie than a character movie.


    Yes, it rewrote the history of the Star Trek universe - so they have a blank slate for sequels.


    I thought Chris Pine did an exceptional job - the rest of the acting was fairly good.


    Like the first Star Trek movie - it seemed a little too much time was spent in introducing the cast before they got down to the plot but it's still much better than most movies (Trek or non-Trek) that I've seen lately.


    Click for Spoiler:

    Since Spock was my favorite character it was a little harder to get used to the "New" Spock - the emotional, the having a thing with Uhura Spock. They incorporated it into the plot well though - loved that scene on the transporter pad


    I look forward to the sequel.

  13. I think it is hype to get the Star Trek Base Fans out to see it, the grandparents as Van Roy says. By the way this grandparent has a kids as young as his grandkid. As for nudity Star Trek is not the place I want to see it, as the plan is now to take my kids and grandkid to see it. :laugh:


    I was thining of taking my ten year old niece but I am concerned she might get more of an education than she needs right now - I mean Kirk is Kirk and movies in 2009 show a lot more than tv in the 60's did - even though ST was groundbreaking back then in "costumes."


    I was thinking of going opening weekend but I may wait until I hear from people that have seen it whether it is child friendly.

  14. As for someone being a convicted "felon" - what that means is you've committed a crime for which the punishment is greater than one year in jail.

    I don't disagree with that definition (except to clarify that the crime must be punishable by a year or more in jail regardless of the actual time served). However, that definition means Nelson Mandela should be considered a felon as well.


    Agree or not - it is the Black letter law defintion of a felony.

  15. As for someone being a convicted "felon" - what that means is you've committed a crime for which the punishment is greater than one year in jail. People can make mistakes without being a hardcore evil criminal - writing a bad check, hitting someone etc. drunk driving can be felonies. We don't know what this woman did. It is possible for people to turn their lives around


    However, in this case -it's just my opinion, that this woman must be pretty stupid and that should have been obvious before this event.

  16. There are a couple of ways to look at it - it's just a meaningless marketing ploy attempting to entice younger viewers by suggesting anything their parents did was "wrong" - this is what I'm hoping for - just meaningless hype.


    On the other hand it is meant to be offensive - to the parent generation- it's meant to imply that there is something old fashioned or certainly lacking in entertainment value in the original series - and by association something wrong with anyone that would have liked TOS. I don't really care for that implication.


    And it also is troubling because it suggests the film will merely reflect the juevenile mentality of Hollywood; fights, explosions and people taking off their clothes. (Wonderful take on this in the Alan Alda movie Sweet Liberty)


    Obviously, special effects and tecnology have come a long way since the 60's so that's good - I don't like cheesy effects. But if it's all special effects, explosions and naked people with no plot or character development - I will be disappointed. One way or the other I'm going to see it - I just hope I don't come away disappointed.

  17. It's a bit ironic that with all the hype in the last couple of years about Avian flu - we're now facing a possible pandemic of swine flu. (although swine flu is apparently less deadly than avian flu)


    I remember once as a little child hearing my grandfather talk about having the flu while he was in the service; he enjoyed the telling because he was tellig a tale about someone who had apparently thought he died. In doing a little reading - it's surprising he didn't. Grandpa was a soldier in WWI and the influenza pandemic of 1918 killed several million people; the numbers vary from to 20-50 million people - but more people died of the flu that year than in all of WWI - one out of every five inhabitants of the globe contracted it (not all died). It's regarded as the most devastating pandemic (global outbreak) in recorded history (yes more than the Plague.)


    It's kind of amazing with all the exotic diseases and talks of biological warfare - that the flu can be so deadly. Yet it can be.


    Here's hoping this won't take hold or that it won't be too severe (although people have already died and it's been found in at least four countries) and people do die of the flu every year.


    You're annual flu shot won't help with this strain.


    So, wash your hands a lot, don't shake hands, be careful who you kiss and take care of your self.