master_q

I still have version 6 and have no problems here at StarTrekFans.net

But with FireFox I have the same problem you are talking about

Happy Birthday, Star Trek! Good to talk to my fellow Star Trek fans.

Star Trek will continue forever because of the fan base. Just look at places like StarTrekFans.net. The hundreds and hundreds of websites and message board communities out there is astonishing. Besides the show itself and watching it, I find it always interesting to observe, and be a part of, the community that has been built around Star Trek by its fans. And because of the Internet, this has been made oh so much more possible. (For an example of a new website that does this check my latest Q REPORT.)

Star Trek will not gradually become less popular, in my view. It is steady---for now. There will be periods of time where it will be in hiatus, but I don't see it becoming less popular. The fans won't allow this to happen. Again, go back to my paragraph above. It might not grow super fast—or anything like that, but it will probably grow gradually. See, what is happening in the media is decentralization. Star Trek will last forever because of it. Maybe, maybe it will not be as high as its glory days, but because the media is decentralizing, and so specializing, it will last.

Does Star Trek need a break from TV? I might be in the minority --- I don't know. But now that it is on its break from television, I think Star Trek should take a breather. I do think it needs a break. As long as the fan base keeps supporting the show and demanding a high quality program, it will go on. If the next movie is good and meets this, Star Trek will continue. . If not, it sill will keep on going but in a different way.

But really, and this--of course--goes back to my overall theme or point, can we say that Star Trek is on a break? Yes and no. From TV, yes. But the community of fans keeps it going. It goes on here on the Internet in different forms: fanfilms, fanfiction, role playing, etc.

Besides just me posting the normal stuff about the show and why so many people love it and how these reasons will make the show long remembered or how these reasons may keep the show going forever, another area it will be remembered is for the power of the fans. Star Trek's future is with the fans. I am sitting back and watching...It will be interesting to see where it goes and how everything plays out. Star Trek is a leading show in this decentralization. We are going where no man has gone before.

Vegas 2006 - 40th Anniversary Convention

Read and See Pictures of STF Members at the Trek Convention!

See General Topic...^

B) B)

Alterego...^

trekz...^ (^2), (^3)

SpaceTigger...^

Chataeya...^

:P :P

Vegas Con Report 1: The Four Captains...^

Vegas Con Report 2: The Co-Stars...^

Vegas Con Report 3: The Recurring Players...^

Vegas Con Report 4: And the Rest...^

Ooh Las Vegas: Bakula Takes Center Stage...^

This Doesn't Stay in Vegas: Bakula, Part II...^

Vegas Report III: Deuces are Wild...^

Kate Mulgrew (Janeway) at Trek Convention...^ (Full Transcript...^)

Upcoming Conventions...^

Trekkers Forever

www.TrekkersForever.com

:P

TrekkersForever.com is a place where you can share all of your non copyrighted Star Trek media. Pictures of yourselves with celebrities, in costume, convention video or interview audio, you name it! Just click the links above to upload any of your media! Note that all media goes through an approval process, no media that is copyrighted will be allowed. Media can be rated, emailed to friends, and flagged if member(s) feel the media is inappropriate. Note that in your "Trekkers Forever Place," you can get HTML code for "Widgets" which showcase the media you have uploaded. Paste the code into your web pages, forums, you name it! That brings me to...

TrekkersForever.com is also place where fans can let the world know about themselves, and connect with one another. No email addresses are shared or made public whatsoever. Once you join up, you're taken to your Trekkers Forever Place, where you can add links to your favorite web sites and/or RSS feeds. Furthermore, you can text, audio, or video blog. You can upload a photo of yourself and a "buddy icon" for use in the site. Also, optionally let fans know what country you're in, and also answer the few Star Trek related questions so other fans can get to know you better. All of these attributes go into your public Trekkers Forever profile, for other fans to view and enjoy. If you visit a profile of a fan (from a play page, or a search page, etc.) that you'd consider a friend, add him to your friends, and maybe he or she will do the same!

Star Trek XI?

For all the latest beam over to the StarTrekFans.net Star Trek Movies forum.

StarTrekFans.net Poll: Is a new TOS era movie a prequel?...^

Current Rumor: Trek XI To Be A Reboot?...^

StarTrek.com Movie XI Section...^

Star Trek XI - Memory Alpha...^

Paramount Seeks Shatner and Nimoy for Star Trek XI...^

BringBackKirk.com Response...^

Leonard Nimoy Holds Approval Rights for Casting of New Spock...^

Composer Michael Giacchino Scores Star Trek XI...^

Actors Hail J.J. Abrams for Star Trek Mission...^

Shatner Would Like To Appear In 'Star Trek XI'...^

New Poster Sends Clues to Direction of Next Movie...^

Bring Back Kirk in Star Trek XI?

Extra Stuff

Visit StarTrekFans.net's Planet Roddenberry, For all your Roddenberry needs...!

What's in Your Star Trek Collection?...^

What are your Favorite Moments in TNG?...^

Hey Holy Grail fans, Have you seen this Trek parody?...^

What kind of mad scientist are you?...^

Autographs on both the front and back of the guitar by: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Avery Brooks, Scott Bakula , Kate Mulgrew , Gary Graham, Armin Shimerman, Michael Westmore, Diana Muldaur, Mariette Hartley, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, Denise Crosby, Robert Foxworth, Mike Okuda, Jeffrey Combs, Mark Alaimo, Aron Eisenberg, Robert Picardo, Ethan Phillips, Connor Trinneer, Dominic Keating, Andrea Martin, William Schallert, William Campbell, Charlie Brill, James Darren, Grace Lee Whitney, Kim Darby, Gwenyth Walsh, Garrett Wang, Tim Russ, Majel Roddenberry, Carol Struycken, and Michael Dorn!

(Link via Slice of Sci-Fi.) Click Here to View at Ebay.

B) B)

Star Trek Google News Search...^

View and Edit Star Trek Wikipedia Entry...^

See the Star Trek Portal...^

Master Q can be reached at trivia (at) startrekfans.net

I have heard. Very Cool.

I think they made the right move. I have always been weary of the idea that Pluto be considered a "planet."

Alright now that I'm back and have some free time (it's the weekend! )...

I just read an interesting story that just recently came out. I doubt we will hear this from the MSM (mainstream media) or from Gore or from the parasite scientists.

"Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming." Link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/print...0211652,00.html

For this and so many reasons this "science" is filled with so many manipulations of the given facts (e.g. the hockey stick!), contradictions, gaps, agendas, and so on. The hysteria in this "movement" is anti-human.

Monopolies:

This is a theoretical that does not exist in an actual free-market (and outside of talking about how government is a monopoly). Cartels and monopolies that do exist now (and they do exist) are here because of government. Government has given them the keys. Any kind of real monopoly that can really do harm is one of force. However, this brings us back again to a government created attribute! This is not a free-market attribute.

There has been no examples in our history of a free-market monopoly, and attributed to that, some kind of history that shows that this particular company was "gouging" customers with ever higher prices. There are none. So you are talking about a theoretical that we have not seen.

Government also makes it more difficult for small businessmen to get anywhere. Where a larger businessman can absorb the high expenses of regulations, it is much more difficult for any guy starting up to be able to afford those expensive regulations. So if we really want to talk about a market place that is in the hands of wealthy businessmen, then we should be talking about how the government cripples the little guy and, thus, helps the big guy (from competition). (And this is just one basic example.)

"The Big Myth", as some new book is called (I have not checked it out yet), is that big businesses, as the media tells us, implore to the state for taxation decreases and deregulation, but the truth is that the vast majority want the opposite. Not too long ago Wal-Mart was saying how they love the idea of a minimal wage increase. You bet they would! Because they already pay more then the minimal wage and so a small increase would not cause any damage to them. But we can say that it would hurt some of Wal-Mart’s competition. (It is ironic to note how this is unknown to those that support minimal wage laws and are hatters of Wal-Mart.)

While many at "the top" grasp on government power, in a free-market that does not allow this (i.e. government), the reason why a business gets large is because it provides a service and/or product that customers freely want and act to get. I produce "x", lots of people want it and more of it; I am going to grow in correspondence. It awards achievers and innovators. (Unlike the government: failure grows government.) One of the myths that come to my mind, which relates to fallacies of free-market monopolization on consumers, is that some people claimed that "when a company gets so big, it can then destroy freedom by, for a specific time period, taking in losses by selling at near zero levels, and this would lead the company to total monopoly [etc.]". That, thus, would lead to some of the descriptions and feelings that some people seem to have about free-market economies. Of course, for one thing, this assumes that after the supposed "destruction" of competition that nothing else would materialize (and this is despite the large profits that would drive people in!)

Subjectivity:

Evil is not a subjective term when it comes to killing or stealing. You know it, everyone else reading this knows it, and I know it. I do not know of anyone that believes that to be the case. No sensible or moral person would. It is just nonsense. You can branch out and talk about theological views on morality: Is homosexuality evil? Is pornography evil? Is gambling evil? And so on. But these are outside of our topic. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

(The issue of subjectivity is of value in economics. E.g. I have chosen to take some of my free time this weekend to post a reply versus other things I could be doing right now. I cannot classify my choice using some kind of mathematical unit. This is the subject at hand---this is what I brought up.)

Private Property Ownership:

As I have said before, ownership of property and resources in the free market conservers and creates. It does this much better then any kind of top-down regulation or other government program.

But what do we complain about the most when it comes to pollution? Well, it seems the areas in which private property is abandoned: Air & rivers. Rivers are owned by government and have no incentive (or other direct motivation) to take care of them. Air is not so much owned, as are my lungs or flowers on my land. You damage them, you have to pay up.

Private Property Ownership Disputes (Environmental Damage) & Conservation:

If using my land, I damage your health some ill way then I should pay. It is no different then me damaging your land. You not only own your land, but you own yourself, right? Obviously.

The question of me using up an entire resource is nonsensical. I don’t have a monopoly---no one does in a free-market. And if I was foolish to use up a resource quickly, I would not be in business that long. For example, if I cut down all my trees, I will be out of business in no time.....But if I do some select cutting in this (renewable!) resource, I can stay in business practically as long as I want to. If I am foolish, a smart businessman looking to make more money won’t be.

The free-market of laissez-faire, as Rothbard says, has "marvelous build-in mechanism". It pushes us to be conservative on the large scale. That is the real key. Not only through the natural economic reasons (of deduction), but based on empirical history. The market place is self-regulating. History and reason shows us this. The natural mechanisms of prices "regulate". Environmentalists arguing against the market place are arguing against good economics.

For Example.....What about copper ore? Why has that not been exhausted? (Why has it not been exhausted before our industrial society!?) et cetera ...

Economist Dr. Rothbard explained:

On the market, this loss of future income is immediately reflected in the monetary value---the price---of the mine as a whole. This monetary value, reflected in the selling price of the mine, and then of individual shares of mining stock, is based on the expected future income to be earned from the production of the copper; any depletion of the mine, then, will owner the value of the mine and hence the price of the mining stock. Every mine owner, then, has to weigh the advantages of immediate income from copper production against the loss in the “capital value” of the mine as a whole, and hence against the loss in the value of his shares.

 

The mine owners’ decisions are determined by their expectations of future copper yields and demands, the existing and expected rates of interest, etc. Suppose, for example, that copper is expected to be rendered obsolete in a few years by a new synthetic metal. In that case, copper mine owners will rush to produce more copper now when it is more highly valued, and save less for the future when it will have little value---thereby benefiting the consumers and the economy as a whole by producing copper now when it is more intensely needed. But, on the other hand, if a copper shortage is expected in the future, mine owners will produce less now and wait to produce more later when copper prices are higher---thereby benefiting society by producing more in the future when it will be needed more intensely. Thus, we see that the market economy contains a marvelous build-in mechanism whereby the decisions of resource owners on present as against future production will benefit not only their own include and wealth, but the mass of consumers and the economy as a whole.

 

But there is much more to this free-market mechanism: Suppose that a growing shortage of copper is now expected in the future. The result is that more copper will be withheld now and saved for future production. The price of copper now will rise. The increase in copper prices will have several “conserving” effects. In the first place, the higher price of copper is a signal to the users of copper that it is scarcer and more expensive; the copper users will then conserve the use of this more expensive metal. They will use less copper, substituting cheaper metals or plastics; and copper will be conserved more fully and saved for those uses for which there is no satisfactory substitute. Moreover, the greater cost of copper will stimulate ( a ) a rush to find new copper ores; and ( b ) a search for less expensive substitutes, perhaps by new technological discoveries. Higher prices for copper will also stimulate campaigns for saving and recycling the metal. This price mechanism of the free market is precisely the reason that copper, and other natural resources, have not disappeared long ago.

 

[...]

 

In fact, in contrast to the gloom-and-doomers, raw material and natural resource pries have remained low, and have generally declined relative to other prices. To liberal and Marxist intellectuals, this is usually a sign of capitalist “exploitation” of the underdeveloped countries which are often the producers of the raw materials. But this is a sign of something completely different, of the fact that natural resources have not been growing scarcer but more abundant; hence their relatively lower cost. The development of cheap substitutes, e.g., plastics, synthetic fibers, has kept natural resources cheap and abundant.

 

[...]

 

The development of synthetic materials and of cheaper energy highlights a vital aspect of modern technology the doom-sayers overlook: that technology and industrial production create resources which had never existed as effective resources. For example, before the development of the kerosene lamp and especially the automobile, petroleum was not a resource but an unwanted waste, a giant liquid black “weed.”

 

[...]

 

Predictions of imminent exhaustion of resources, as we have noted, are nothing new. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt, calling a Governors’ Conference on natural resources, warned of their “imminent exhaustion.” At the same conference, steel industrialist Andrew Carnegie predicted the exhaustion of the Lake Superior iron range by 1940, while railroad magnate James. J. Hill forecast the exhaustion of much of our timber resources in ten years. Not only that: Hill even predicted an imminent shortage of wheat production in the United State, in a country where we are still grappling with the wheat surpluses generated by our farm subsidy program. Current forecasts of doom are made on the same basis: a grievous underweighting of the prospects of modern technology and an ignorance of the workings of the market economy.

 

It is true that several particular natural resources have suffered, in the past and now, from depletion. But in each case the reason has not been “capitalist greed”; on the contrary, the reason has been the failure of government to allow private property in the resource---in short, a failure to pursue the logic of private property rights far enough.

 

[He gives the example of timber resources, destruction of Western grasslands.]

No magic wand of some kind of government regulation controlling the uses of materials will protect the environment. (Can someone actually come up with some magic wand here? Besides trying to refute freedom?) The use of materials needs to be free to be correctly allocated. Price signals of supply and demand need to be operational according to a free market. The mechanics are needed. (It should be clear to most people what happens when the government takes destroys the mechanics of the market place.) People can talk about "greed" and how bad that is, but you cannot then say that that "greed" leads to the destroying of natural resources because it is extremely uneconomical (meaning they will not be successful in the market and with that kind of thinking will go out of business) to do it in either the short or long run. If people wanted to all of a sudden go crazy and start chopping down all the trees, for whatever non-logical reason, nothing really prevents people from doing that now. If people wanted to all of a sudden go crazy and start killing people left and right, then there is nothing that will stop them. Not even the laws from government.

The problem with many environmentalists is that they view the earth as an intrinsic value. Once you view it an intrinsic value, we can conclude that you are going to be anti-human. For example...if you view the grass as an intrinsic value, then a human that walks on it is destroying it. Human evolution in development of technology allows us to use the natural resources in a way that betters society. I can extract something from earth and then turn it into something productive to man. These "environmentalists" would rather see us in the Stone Age then advance through freedom. We humans are not self sustaining. We need to live off the land and use it. It will always be that way and freer markets are needed.

TUH, this is not at all true of economic theories. Most theories are based on the idea that we are the "economic man". That our only goal is economic advancement, but this of course is untrue in the real world. Most theories also are false when they believe that the world is a lab. They believe that economics, like you have said in the past, is of physics. That the observation of man will automatically give the economic principle (some kind of fancy equation), but this is not always true in reality. Sure empirical data is important; very important. But we need a basis. We need something deeper.

Economic theory does not necessarily say that we all need "equal access". This is untrue. (And would be bad, depending on how you define this "equal access" thing.) We act. We act in our life because we want to accomplish something... anything. Here is a deeper theory. We have different goals, not necessarily "economical” in terms of money. (But real economics is more then a study of money. It is a study of limited resources and the alternative, competitive, uses. For example, we can talk about the economics of use of time.) Some people value other things. But we accomplish them by acting. In order for someone to act, he must know that the goal in which he seeks will probably not come, if he undergoes no actions. So people pursue action to reach a goal. We act in our life because we want to accomplish something... anything. I want to walk across the room. I have an objective. I have a means to accomplish that objective. I act. Man acts. This is an axiom to buildup of. No, not of a pure mathematical sense, but of subjective values. Of this form of deduction.

To further go on what I said yesterday: The missions between politicians and businessmen are different. One actually has to please people. The other does not. I go to a businessman because he provides me with a valuable service or product; otherwise I would not have used my limited resources to conduct the act of business with this person. My personal subjective utility (welfare) was raised (from *my* perspective). (His too------from his subjective perspective!) The incentive for a politician is to plunder and give out "freebies". The businessman has to be conservative. He has to please people, or he will go out of business. It is very destructive for him to be fiscally liberal. (Unless he has support from the government.) Politicians have perverse incentives to treat this nation as a grab-bag-free-for-all. (It is easily seen that politicians give us the biggest problems.) Fundamentally government is force. When we talk about power, the only real power is force. This is government.

So there is a big difference. But, again, I do not trust anyone just because he says he is a businessman. I try to be a careful customer. And I have no respect for any kind of welfare or other regulations (like antitrust) that are really used to protect select companies at the expense of others. Cut these businesses off the government payroll.

We can also see that there is an actual "democracy" in a free-market. This is a real democracy. Nothing is perfect. Sorry. There are still going to be evil people. But a nation that adopts this will have the best system possible.

To say that all economic theories are false is incorrect, in my view. (Economic theories that treat life as a machine are wrong. I agree with that. That is why we need a deeper theory of understanding a basic axiom of the actions of man. The economic models that uphold this are the good ones and they are out there.) People do react to incentives. The economy IS a playing-field of calculations: How does a simple pencil get constructed and get to the local shop!? Government can't calculate. But if shortages exist, markets CAN. Oil is a great example of this. Look at Iraq: They have Soviet-like rule there. There are shortages. When the government perverts the costs, it reeks into the market place. People also know best what they can do with their own lives. They are best equipped to make choices for themselves. Not government. History shows us that the so-called "bad guys" that were supposed "monopolies" here in this nation were nothing of the sort. The competition hated them. They want to the all-mighty power of the government to smash their better competition. Talk about power and control. These companies used power alright, but the power is the bondless government. A company can't force me to do anything, but it can with government. In the market place I have choice. (Thank goodness we have not gown down to total statism. But we have gone very far.....there are several areas that are so tightly restricted that the choices are far between.)

A serious problem happens government is incapable or inclined to adapt. When it does try to do this it fails. [One reason, most don't think of: Calculation Problems, again.](It often makes the problem worse. Or causes a whole new problem. And sometimes that problem is worse then the original.) Airport security is an example. It is horrible. I dread going to one. (I'll drive, if feasible!) What is needed is private security here. (Get rid of those stupid regulations against the pilot having a gun etc.etc.) And something called market responsibility, which government takes away.

Private property rights----the protection of private property (which we need!!! we don't really have)----protect the environment much more greatly then any government. There is no way around this.

It is real simple: You do damages to my property-----YOU need to fix them. After all, it is my property. I own it. You do not. You damaged MY property. We can debate about capitalism and things that relate to it, but we can boil real environmental protection down to protection of property rights.

(Edit: Alright I think I got my missed up sentences mostly fixed, now that I have actually proofread it through completely! [should do that first thing.] Enjoy The Weekend. )

Here at StarTrekFans.net I posted about how people have an incentive to take care of their property. The better it looks the more valuable. Government, on the other hand, does not have that. And when a government "rents out" land to a private contractor, they do not have the incentive as they would if they actually owned the land. Giving government ownership or control of ownership of more land will result in the exact thing that environmentalists (and so-called "environmentalists") want.

Free-markets depend on sound protection of private property rights. What are needed are liability laws here. If you damage my property (by polluting my air/water, dumping waste on my land, etc.), you should be held liable. It is really not more complex then that. You damage my property, you should be held responsible. You damage my window by throwing a ball, you should be held responsible.

Thomas J. DiLorezno makes a good point his book "How Capitalism Saved America".... where he compares the political scene to scene of capitalism. He says that capitalism has a natural incentive to "preserve resources for the future" whereas "political resources allocation under democracy tends toward immediate gratification."

He continues: "Whenever the present value of using a resource in the future is larger than the value of current use, that resource will be persevered.................After all, elementary economics teaches that a business can maximize profits by minimizing costs, and the way for any business to minimize costs is to use as few resources as possible in producing its goods or services-----to conserve, in other words." (He gives examples: the ways telecommunications has conserved in the means of media, Coca-Cola and its use of aluminum cans, etc.) He also talks about the record of socialist nations, like the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, where government ownership was paramount, and the environmental destruction.

Economist George Reisman (quote in the book by economist DiLorenzo):

[in a capitalist society] large numbers of the most intelligent people devote their lives to science, technology, and business. All are highly motivated to increase the supply of economically usable natural resources by the prospect of earning a personal fortune for every significant success they achieve in this regard. No greater guarantee of mankind’s ability to enjoy a growing supply of natural resources could be found.

As DiLorenzo says "human intelligence in a capitalist economy has always been the key to creating economically useable natural resources."

DiLorenzo:

Obviously, despite the environmentalists' mantra that the pursuit of profit is the root cause of pollution problems, this was not the problem in the communist world. Indeed, the pursuit of profit is perfectly compatible with environmental conservation in a regime of private property and sound liability laws-----that is, under free-market capitalism. Socialism destroys the environment just as it destroys economic opportunity and so much else.

(DiLorenzo has a new book coming out in Oct: "Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe". His last book on Lincoln was "The Real Lincoln"---a good book.)

When did I say that I trust businessmen unequivocally? Far from. I do not and no one should. But I trust an average businessman to an average politician any day. And/or if you pick out a random businessman and a random politician, I put more trust and hope in that random businessman any day. If we do a side-by-side history comparison from the average businessman to the average politician, it is easy to see that the businessman is the one who advances society. We grow not through government...we grow through the market place of individuals.

It does take two to tangle. I dislike any business that is trying to steal someone's private property. I also dislike the government for opening up the possibility---in the first place! To solve this kind of problem we should limit government: We should define the proper roles of government. And the proper role of government does not include eminent domain, in my view. We have to strike at the real root. Yes, get angry at any business that tries to use the government for its own advantage. I agree! (I am not for economic fascism------so I am completely against mercantilism / cooperate welfare and so on.) I am not saying otherwise. However, what enables them? It is the bondless government. If the government was not bondless, like it is today, this would not be a problem.

I might be guilty of defining a group by its "lowest common denominator". But that is why I said "fringe".---It is scary to see what some of these fringe groups say.

I am all for the environment. (Call me an environmentalist, if you like! ) I love to go the park! I love to be outdoors! I love doing those kinds of things. (I wish I could do them more to be honest.) That's why we need to protect private property rights. This is the best way to protect the environment.

(If I am wrong about global warming and it is actually a gigantic problem that some believe, the answer will not be to turn over our freedoms and our private properties to government. The answer, again, will be more government protection of private property rights.)

Sorry to hear this.

I am happy to hear that you are doing better. You will be in my thoughts and prayers.

Oh, no doubt. But he was a politician after all. Why we would want to give our liberty to these kinds of people is very foolish. In doing so, we have let "environmentalists" let hundreds of thousands of people die in third world nations. (E.g. DDT bans.) Not to mention, other (very serious) ill effects due to so-called "environmentalists" and their helpfulness to political leaders in property right destruction. These are obviously not the people that we should trust or relinquish our liberty to. Doing so, we can expect more suffering and more deaths and an overall decline of society and progress. It is remarkable how "environmentalists" believe the answers are through politics. (It seems everything is today! Did you know that Chicago has banned foie gras from being served at restaurants? Because, you know, certain "intellectuals" know best and have the greatest morality measured up to the general populace.) Government is the biggest polluter in the world statistically. Government is the entity that destroys property rights and allows politically-well connected businesses to damage others property. A real environmentalist would be looking to the market.

"Consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political term. There have been many "consensuses" of science, but were proven wrong by newer and better theories. Using the politically charged word in science is wrong. It is used to hush any disent. To mute any contrarian studies. (You are lucky when you do get descent because government typically controls the money to these projects. Scientists have incentive to propagate anything pro-statist.)

And there is no real consensus, if we use the term, in the global warming debate and the nature of man's possible involvement or lack thereof. From the signings of large petitions by scientists....To evidence that point in different directions...Etc. Here at StarTrekFans.net I have posted several times about my thoughts about the "science" of global warming and the fallacies of man causing global changes. Thinking that the world should be static is also silly. It must be man's ego of not only believing that he can really affect Earth's global climate with pollution, but also by having the ego that the current climate (or something close in the past) is the way it has to be for Mother Nature. That Mother Nature is nothing to man. (And in many ways in history the rise of temperature has been man's friend, by the way. E.g. Check out Thomas Gale Moore, at Stanford University's Hoover Institute.)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Here are some fringe "environmentalists"...............................

• Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

• John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."

• David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

• David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

• Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

• Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."

• John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"

• Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

• Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

• Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

• Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."

Does it count if I hear the "voices" in my head say things when I log on?

Doesn't that happen to everyone?

Few months ago I remember reading an article about a not so well know public figure that is on national radio (who is controversial)......it was basically an attack piece that was ripped off a site that campaigns against this personality

Ignore me...Just me nickpicking! :laugh:

The emphasis is very important.....at least to me

Thanks, TrekZ.

Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for playing!

And well done on earning third place!!

I might be wrong......but isn't "Free and Independent States" in all caps in the original? (All caps to show the emphasis in the original)

I saw it on television too....neat

Yeah, they are pretty good. When I read the science and mathematics articles..........they are excellent. The only area that I would be a little careful on is any controversial topics.

Wiki has grown very fast too. When I do a Google search these days.....wiki almost always appears in the top 20.

Independence Day!

The Celebration of Secession.

I hope all of you had a fun and safe Independence Day!

It would be a good time for everyone to actually read the Declaration of Independence.

Trivia Wolf 359 is Over! :biggrin:

Until Next Time....I'll See All of You in the Q-Continuum....

MASTER Q

trivia(-at-)startrekfans.net

Trivia Wolf 359

Wolf 359 Has Ended!

Hope You Enjoyed It!

Once again, my thanks to Matt, Jack_Bauer, VBG and AE for making this possible! Thank you, VBG, for going above and beyond to make all of this, such a good competition!

And my many thanks to each and every participant! Hope you enjoyed it! :biggrin: Good Job Everyone!!!

********************************

Prize Winners: Rick Alverado, Vold and TrekZ!! Congratulations!

Rick, you get the grand prize winning of the Star Trek Borg DVD Collection Set. You also get the first place honor of a special Trivia Wolf 359 insignia, which will be placed in your user-profile award section.

Vold, you get Star Trek: Insurrection on DVD. Plus the honor of a second place insignia.

TrekZ, you get Star Trek: Nemesis on DVD. And the honor of a third place insignia.

********************************

Total Trivia Wolf 359 Points:

1. Rick Alverado ~ 263 Points

2. Vold ~ 241 Points

3. Trekz ~ 154 Points

4. sea trooper ~ 99 Points

5. WishfireOmega ~ 97 Points

6. mowzer ~ 79 Points

7. Mrs.Picard ~ 78 Points

8. sea trooper* ~ 74 Points

9. MrPsychic ~ 60 Points

10. Yillara_Skye ~ 53 Points

11. Odie ~ 47 Points

12. 3 of 7 ~ 45 Points

13. pittykitty ~ 41 Points

14. ARMS ~ 36 Points

15. Binar ~ 31 Points

16. Lt. Van Roy ~ 26 Points

17. Jadziaezri ~ 21 Points

18. Savagediana ~ 6 Points

19. Recycle ~ 4 Points

*Our well-paid transporter experts have still yet to figure out how to fix this situation. Sorry, Sea Trooper, it looks like we are stuck with two of you. :P

********************************

ONLY Week Four:

1. Rick Alverado ~ 81 Points (Out of a Possible 95)

2. Vold ~ 80 Points

3. TrekZ ~ 67 Points

4. Binar ~ 31 Points

5. ARMS ~ 26 Points

6. Mowzer ~ 25 Points

7. 3 of 7 ~ 21 Points

8. Pittykitty ~ 15 Points

********************************

Until Next Time....I'll See All of You in the Q-Continuum....

Need/want to contact master_q? Email him at trivia(-at-)startrekfans.net.

ARMS ~26

#1541: +5

#1540: +5

#1536: +5

#1535: +5

#1530: +5

#1528 +1

Mowzer ~25

#1530: +5

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1539: +5

#1540: +5

Pittykitty ~15

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1540: +5

Binar ~31

#1528: +1

#1533: +5

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1538: +5

#1539: +5

#1540: +5

trekz ~67

#1528: +7

#1530: +5

#1531: +5

#1533: +5

#1534: +5

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1537: +5

#1538: +5

#1540: +5

#1539: +5

#1541: +5

#1542: +5

3 of 7 ~21

#1541: +5

#1539: +5

#1536: +5

#1535: +5

#1528: +1

Rick Alverado ~81

#1527: +5

#1528: +6

#1529: +5

#1530: +5

#1531: +5

#1532: +5

#1533: +5

#1534: +5

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1537: +5

#1538: +5

#1539: +5

#1540: +5

#1541: +5

#1542: +5

vold ~80

#1527: +5

#1528: +10

#1530: +5

#1531: +5

#1532: +5

#1533: +5

#1534: +5

#1535: +5

#1536: +5

#1537: +5

#1538: +5

#1539: +5

#1540: +5

#1541: +5

#1542: +5

Answer:

Second Sight

Answer:

Child's Play

Answer:

Live Fast and Prosper