Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 71,008 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2,841
Set Bookmark
James G
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 10:04am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Suddenly Human

Odd episode, this one. Not that interesting. It works I guess as an allegory of those biological vs adoptive parent stories that sometime occur in real life, sometimes involving abducted or stolen children - there was one in the news a couple of years ago. But I didn't find it very interesting until there's a standoff between the Enterprise and the Talarians, at the end - and then only mildly so.

It's weird that the kid tries to murder Picard, but gets away with it completely. Even stranger that there's no hard feelings at all, and even a touching moment between Picard and his would-be murderer at the conclusion.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 8:33am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2


"I guess I triggered you mightily considering all these ad hominem attacks and plain insults."

You kinda asked for it, though.

You've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion, and then proceeded to turn it into a pointless academic pissing war.

How, exactly, did you expect that to go? Do you have any idea how condescending and disrespectful that looks?

BTW it's not the first time you're doing this here. Please stop doing that. Or at the very least, if you insist on going that route, don't act surprised when the people you mock are mocking you back.

"I don't think [that arguing from authority is invalid]. There is a reason why Einstein first was what is now called Humboldt University and later went to Princeton and not to the University of Barbados."

Funny that you give Einstein as an example. The guy who revolutionized physics while being a mere patent clerk and was not affiliated with ANY university what-so-ever.

It's even funnier when we look at Einstein's accuracy record after he became an authority. Pretty much everything he said as an "authority" turned out to be wrong, form his rejection of quantum mechanics to the cosmological constant.

In short, Einstein is the most blatant and extreme example AGAINST arguing from authority. Moreover, Einstein was a physicist, which is about as hard and precise a science as you can get. Just imagine how worse the situation would be for the softer sciences, such as sociology or philosophy.

And Patrick is correct, when he explained the difference between a mere citation an making an actual argument. Citations are not supposed to be a replacement to actually using our brains and thinking about the topic we are discussing.

@James White
"For the rest, I agree this is not the forum to discuss complex, philosophical ideas."

Personally I have no problem with having such a discussion. Star Trek often raises interesting philosophical questions, so we shouldn't be afraid of discussing them here.

I just wished people would actually make sure that they know what they're a talking about, before they started these discussions. Because it is pointless to philosophize when you don't get your basic facts straight.

Seriously guys, before you throw yourself into such a discussion, do your homework. Learn the basics of how computers and computer programming works. Learn about the relation of hardware to software. Familiarize yourself with basic concepts like machine code, higher level computer languages, operating systems and emualtors. Learn about the various techniques used today to facilitate machine learning, including genetic algorithms. Learn what makes current SAI's as (relatively) intelligent as they are.

There's no need to be an expert on any of this stuff. Just be aware that the topic is complex, and that SOME understanding of the technicalities is required to make a compelling argument.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 7:37am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S2: Friday's Child

I generally enjoyed this episode. I also really like Capella, which is
now nicely visible in the evening sky. Spring is coming. Anyway:

Right after Babel, we are back to the "Earth Federation" trying to
secure those minerals for their colonies. I don't know about the Prime
Directive though. The Capellans might well be warp capable or at least
aware of their planet's position in interstellar relations, and still
choose to live on simple soundstages with a couple of drapes and
employ edged weapons as part of their culture. For what it's worth,
materialising aliens are not a big deal to them; they greet them with
a simple "So you're the earth vessel?"

The wide-spread notion that redshirt deaths are generally shrugged off
might be a bit unfair after all. This far in the series, Kirk
routinely mourns and "demands an explanation" for his crewman's death;
he even does so in this case, where his party is clearly the one at
fault. He promptly gets his explanation from McCoy, who dryly points
out that this idiot just needlessly caused an interplanetary
incident. Well, to the young guy, a Klingon might be a terrifying
alien, maybe like a Borg (you do tend to kill those on sight). But I
can't say that they have done much to earn that reputation; the one
here certainly doesn't.

The Klingons are still sneaky and dishonorable here, eventually
backing away from the fight in space as well. That's interesting given that in the
beginning, the Klingons seem to be at an advantage precisely because
they are cultually closer to the Capellans. - However, it is
believable that a single Bird of Prey or "small scout ship"/glowing
paperclip would be seriously outgunned by the Enterprise. Still in
STIII, a fully armed Constitution class vessel coming at you is a
thing to be very nervous about. (Obviously, by that time, the Klingons
would choose to die in the fight.)

DC Fontana's script has another one of those remarkably hard cuts that
she already employed twice in Babel, and that most of you were put off
by. I call it some refreshingly dynamic pacing, maybe even somewhat
ahead of its time. It also works in this case: we can all figure out
that there's a coup by Maab's people, no need to spell it out.

I also rather enjoyed Julie Newmar's display of regal arrogance,
putting a good measure of Catwoman in her always-sexy voice when she
declares that "it is my right to see him die". Her exact motivations
remain unclear throughout though, like pretty much everyone's.

Yeah, and Scotty is probably a tad too smug when he explains to
everyone on the bridge how *he* just fell for a ruse, abandoning his
captain in the process; the story sounds accordingly different in his
report to said captain when he finally returns. And finally, their
very cavalry-like appearance, while okay as a joke, felt rather
unneccessary to me. Kirk had almost got it there. Just one
three-minute Kirk speech about how honoring proper succession demands
Junior is now in charge, everyone voluntarily drops their weapons
and bows to the baby, boom, you're done.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 7:33am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 6:47am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Booming this is a casual internet forum about Star Trek. In a debate about AI where you asked for some expert sources, you really thought it necessary to piss on Andy's citations because the universities weren't top notch?
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 5:09am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

And yes Andy's friend I'm aware of the fact that quality in departments varies and that universities have different research foci.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 4:58am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Phew Andy's friend

I guess I triggered you mightily considering all these ad hominem attacks and plain insults. For the most part I wanted you and your AI interested buddies to find a more appropriate forum because some of you have a tendency to post walls of text that are off topic.

By the way, in India itself the Birla Institute of Technology doesn't make it into the top 10 (17 in QS and 37 (last place) in THE). If you are so focused on eastern philosophy then at least use better sources from east.

Sorry that the thought that people at elite/prestigious universities tend to be there for a reason insults you.

Set Bookmark
Andy's Friend
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 4:28am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2


You could have debated the points made by the scholars I quoted.
You could have quoted other scholars more to your liking.
You preferred to simply question if not ridicule the scholars I quoted. This you did based on their philosophical leaning and their academic affiliation.

I shouldn’t have to tell a pedant like yourself what kind of logical fallacy that is. But there is more.

It is curious to say the least that you should question my selection of sources because they lean towards the philosophical or metaphysical side. As one of them states, that is precisely because the ‘roboticist’ side, more preoccupied with purely mechanical aspects, leave it to them to raise such questions.

Moreover, Pandey’s ‘backwater Indian university’ to use your sorry expression is part of the point. As I stated, he specifically bases his argument not on Western, but on Indian philosophy. As I wrote, ‘There are other schools of thought than ours, and it is always good to be reminded of that lest we become too convinced of our own moral superiority in the West or the Federation.’

This was apparently entirely lost on you. How ironic. What does that say of your cognitive capabilities?

As for academic affiliation, I cannot emphasise enough how inadmissible your pitiful attitude is in our early twenty-first century. And I thought that I was the ‘arrogant’, ‘elitist’, ‘condescending’ prick around here.

I’ll be blunt: you’re a sorry excuse for a scholar, Booming, and most likely an impostor. This especially that you write merits a comment, as it is indicative of your whole pitiful reasoning:

“That is a university that does not make it into the first 1000 places in the THE (Times Higher Education). it is certainly a fine institution but nothing to brag about.”

Academic rankings are a contradiction in terms. If you were a scholar, you would know that.

How do you compare research in wildly different fields? How do you evaluate performance? How do you quantify innovation? Citations? Awards? Cost/benefit analysis? And so on, and so forth. Regardless of ranking methodology, ranking systems attempt to quantify the qualitative. They are more misleading than meaningful, other than to those bureaucratic minds who prefer deceptive statistics in order to possess an arsenal of numbers to throw at someone as argument.

Statistics as rankings are the sort of tool used by bureaucratic administrations of universities to extort funds from politicians and magnates, in other words, financiers, public or private. This is the main reason they are conducted, and if you were a scholar you would know that.

It is therefore highly ironic that you should refer to such rankings and use them as argument. That is the mentality of the bureaucrat, Booming. Not that of the scholar.

Scholars know who and where their peers—friends and/or rivals—are, and usually also why. We are perfectly capable of evaluating the quality of scholarly output by a given individual, or the main universities in our field. We know how useless rankings are, and how outright misleading they can be.

And we know better than to let the reputation or lack thereof of some higher learning institution affect our appreciation of scholarship. We read the scholarship, we make up our own minds. They call us scholars for a reason.

If for whatever reason, professional or personal, some scholar chooses to accept a position in some obscure university in say, Mongolia, that’s his business. Nowadays, depending on his field of course, it mostly won't greatly affect the quality of his output anyway.

You seem to have little idea of what globalisation has meant for academia, Booming. We don’t live in the Victorian or Edwardian era any longer. The differences between the traditional great powers and the many lesser powers is rapidly diminishing. This includes the academic world. Do you have any idea of how many universities have been established in the world in the past fifty years alone? The middle class of universities in the world today is huge.

As is the number of outstanding academics working in departments in middle-class universities. Plenty of universities around the world today boast one or two outstanding scholars in their specific fields. Not everybody is working at Oxford and Cambridge. There are more outstanding scholars in the world than that, and recently created departments around the world often make it a point to hire one. If you were a scholar, you would know that.

How many universities in the world today don’t enjoy powerful individual or corporate sponsorship (look at the Tatas in India), attempting sustained, long-term academic growth, perhaps by attracting foreign scholars in order to raise a single elite department to world-class excellence? Where along this long-term process is any given university? Do you think you can just look at a ranking and know these and other things?

Five years ago, I wrote the following here, while discussing the character of Darren in ‘Lessons’:

“I work at a major European university, and we see the exact same thing going on. Faculties competing for resources. And within each faculty―Humanities, in my case―various departments competing ferociously over the allocation of resources.

This is what Darren basically represents. In the case of universities, and except for the very, very top universities, which will have very good departments across the board, most universities tend to specialize and have one elite department, so to speak. A typical case in the US―I presume you’re American―is Texas A&M University, a somewhat undistinguished university, which however has one of the best nautical archaeology departments in the world.

(…) Darren is that department head who, in my world, will tell the faculty dean that her department has a good shot at entering the “Top5 in the World” with the allocation of a few more resources that will allow say, snatching two great scholars she’s been having talks with from other universities, and that strengthening her department further surely is worth more for the university than investing in some obscure other department.”
(TNG 'Lessons', 25 Aug 2015)

Note that I wrote of attempting to enter the “Top5 in the World”. Anything below the very top is irrelevant today, Booming: there may be very little difference between number 100 and number 800, depending on department, and only slightly more below that.

My university ‘outranks’ Texas A&M by a wide margin overall in such rankings. That means *nothing* in real life. Rankings are a function of massive bias, sheer size, and economies of scale. Little else. Don’t let the fancy algorithms ranking methodologies purport to use to negate bias fool you. Bias exists. You are living proof.

Nautical archaeology is not my field but I sometimes make use of their findings. Texas A&M outclasses most universities in that specific field, including your examples of Oxford and MIT. For my specific purposes, only two universities in the world rival them. I just checked: one is in the 400s, the other in the 1100s according to your precious rankings.

You, with that sorry attitude of yours, would of course dismiss both those other little-known universities as you probably would Texas A&M, and you would be reading output by Oxford and MIT scholars inadequate for your purposes and making necessarily flawed adaptations to suit your purposes, instead of reading the relevant output from those 'backwater' universities. That is not how the scholar goes about his work, Booming.

Summarising: would you rank Texas A&M lower than Oxford? Overall, perhaps. But for specific purposes, that may very well not be the case. It isn’t in nautical archaeology, for example.

I can only be thankful for that as I have often found their output profitable for specific purposes in my own research. This is what matters to actual scholars, not silly rankings. And if you weren’t a fraud, you would know that.

How often have you not benefitted from scholarship from some ‘obscure’ university in your own research? How many outstanding scholars don’t you know to be found in otherwise nondescript universities? If you haven't, and you don't, you are either not a very a good scholar, or not a scholar at all.

What do you know of the strengths of university departments in the world? You don’t, because you are an impostor, Booming, likely a failed scholar or a bureaucrat at best. No scholar of merit would write what you write.

"Give me Oxford or MIT, I would even accept the barely first rate losers of the ETH Zurich."

I have no words for the idiocy of this comment. Stay well, Booming.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 4:28am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Sociology and Political Science are not part of the humanities but the social sciences.

" In the hard sciences, it is the research work and only the research that is important, not the name of the scientist or the university."
That really made me chuckle. That is so obviously not true on so many levels. First in sociology and political science we follow the science approach of the natural sciences which means empirical research. This is done mostly through doing sample analysis with statistical methods. And even in what a layman would call hard science there is constant name dropping. Sure frauds and bad science is discovered sooner or later but sometimes it can take quite a while.

"I suspect that might not be the case in the humanities, although it should be."
What?! Like an empirical study of laws, philosophy, literature, history??? These fields are by their very nature not empirical. Maybe you now think: "Wait, you can study the impact of laws." but that would be in the realm of the social sciences again and not humanities.

"I don't know if any of this is relevant anyway since we're talking about AI studies, which is a multidisciplinary field of which philosophy is a major part."
I don't think that there is a field called AI studies. I guess you mean A.I. research/computer science and for that philosophy is very likely not that relevant.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 3:35am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

"if you wan to use an authority argument, at least use sources that are leading in their respective fields and not some guy who has probably a bigger shot at getting shot in eastern Ukraine than the Nobel Prize. "

You are a sociologist, no? In the hard sciences, it is the research work and only the research that is important, not the name of the scientist or the university. I suspect that might not be the case in the humanities, although it should be. Still, I agree that human bias means journals are probably more likely to take notice of work done at major universities.

I don't know if any of this is relevant anyway since we're talking about AI studies, which is a multidisciplinary field of which philosophy is a major part.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 2:52am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

I was surprised that during Picard's death scene, I felt absolutely nothing. The acting in it was fine and the passing of this iconic character that I'd loved for nearly three decades was certainly a big deal, but again...nothing. I eventually realized that I wasn't reacting because I knew that one way or another, Picard was coming back. The damn show bore his name, and Patrick Stewart would not have gone to extravagant lengths to invite his dear friend, Whoopi Goldberg, to guest star during the series' second season with knowledge that he wouldn't be in it. As for the characters mourning his loss, I honestly don't know any of them well enough to empathize with their pain. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the end of the series, whenever that may be, will show "Picard's" death. Then, I definitely will shed a tear.
Set Bookmark
Picard Maneuver
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 2:20am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Face of the Enemy

I agree with the comment above mine. Many of TNG's scripts seem to be written as if it's unexpected that the episode is ending soon, like they got all the way to filming before they realized it and had to rewrite on the fly.

Regarding Sirtis, as much as I love the show, I've always had problems with the direction. Everybody was bad in Encounter At Farpoint and it's obvious that the actors were just given scripts with some vague notes. It's a little amusing that despite the progressive platitudes, this show was probably below average in giving its females something meaningful to do. This episode was a big exception with the tension between two women being the centerpiece. Even more surprising that Sirtis held her own against a much stronger actress.

I enjoyed Megalomaniacal Troi when she was chewing out the Romulan guy. She also looked good in the sweater thing that I guess was a medical gown or something when she was in sickbay at the end. They brought this woman on for sex appeal and it took them six seasons to figure out how to dress her.

It's a minor thing, but in this episode, Worf is ordered to bring the traitor guy to Picard's ready room, and Worf goes to manually fetch him. Why? Does Picard really expect him to do it himself? There is a moderately tense diplomatic thing going on and Worf leaves the bridge to valet. Can't he just hail someone else to bring the guy to the bridge? It's a tubby, meek, and seemingly broken middle age guy, what's he gonna do that requires a Klingon escort? Softly complain internally?

Hope the Romulan engineer was never found out for leaking the cloak. He's kind of fucked if he is.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 1:56am (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

There is a rhetorical device called "authority argument" which means that you are trying to win an argument by quoting somebody who has a far deeper understanding or is an authority in his/her field without actually understanding the results. It is often used in science. For example when I write a paper then I cannot redo the entire statistical analysis or data mining process of every quoted study to be sure that there are no mistakes. So quoting these study is an authority argument. That is the reason for peer reviews.

"Not exactly, appealing to authority would be dropping names like Einstein but not explaining why Einstein was correct."
No. Even if the guys quoted here are often, I would say, third rate they still have degrees in the discussed fields which means that using quotes from them is still an argument by authority. Andy's friend used this form of argument and I just interjected that, if you wan to use an authority argument, at least use sources that are leading in their respective fields and not some guy who has probably a bigger shot at getting shot in eastern Ukraine than the Nobel Prize.

"If you cite an authority and explain the reasoning for the citation"
No. It just means. This scientist is right and therefore his/her work should not be questioned. The people here are not experts which means that if somebody quotes an associate professor even of Twiddledee University then the other people can either accept that argument or field their own authority arguments.

My problem with these discussions is visible already. Because they lack a solid foundation on which to discuss the issue there have been quite a few "you are stupid, you don't understand this" posts or "my expert says this"

They can do what they want, of course, but if they approached this logically then they would just share their individual knowledge and be done with it.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 1:27am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Marauders

I saw this as an A-Team homage. That show sucked, and so did this episode.
Set Bookmark
John Daniels
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 11:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S4: These Are the Voyages...

OMG!!! I love the series but get mad at some of the things the writers do. Just does not make any sense. Why would they kill Trip off at the end of the show, so dumb. Why not have them all go to the big speech and trip is sitting with T'Pol hold there cute little elf ear baby and our blue friend with his baby and the Captain gives an amazing speech and end it like that.

But no, they have to get the aliens that can travel past warp 4 and somehow beam on the ship, it just feels forced and unreal. It’s sad really; this series was great and had so much more potential. With all that said I really enjoyed the series and sad to see it end. The ending was good with the 3 captains talking about going where no man has been before.

If you get time stop by and say hi to me on YouTube, (dot com forward slash johndaniels) my fellow Star Trek enthusiast I am going to be doing a video at some point on Star Trek Holacracy. Take care, it was awesome getting to read Allan's reviews and all of your comments, I wish you all the best.

Live long and prosper,

Set Bookmark
James White
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 11:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Quincy - you still have no clue what you're talking about. Stick to film/tv show discussion.

For the rest, I agree this is not the forum to discuss complex, philosophical ideas.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 8:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: First Contact


First Contact was released and takes place chronologically during DS9's 5th season, FYI. You know, for any niggling details thst didn't seem to mesh for you, you at least have the context of the time passage. ;-P
Set Bookmark
Dahj's Digital Ghost
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 7:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Outrageous Okona

"I come from a town so small it has a fraction for a zip code."

Same with the rating for this episode.
Set Bookmark
Jeffrey Jakucyk
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 6:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Up the Long Ladder

Much like When the Bough Breaks, this is an episode where the plot only works when everyone involved is a blithering idiot. Picard stating that nobody on the Enterprise would be willing to donate their genes? Come on, just ASK them. If not, offer that the Federation is huge and they'll be able to find plenty of people willing to donate, or even move there and breed. But no, the Enterprise is here and this situation must be resolved right stat now.

The situation is apparently so desperate that after they steal Riker's and Pulaski's cells, they go ahead and make nearly fully-grown clones of them (to me they both look like Pulaski, but whatever). Why couldn't they just wait for the Enterprise to leave first? They could just hide the stolen cells in a refrigerator somewhere away from the cloning lab for the day or two the Enterprise would be in orbit. That just boggles the mind. But I guess they needed them to be more than just a petri dish so they could shoot something.

As to the disposition of the clones, I'm not sure I'd go quite so far as to call it murder. They're clearly frozen, suggesting they haven't been "activated" yet as some folks upthread have mentioned. We honestly don't know their actual level of development since it's hyper-accelerated, but they've definitely not awoken yet, so you could argue that until that point they're not yet alive per se. Yes this is getting into semantics, but that's the nature of the whole abortion argument, as well as for the different types of murder (voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, first and second degree murder, etc.)
Set Bookmark
Patrick D
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 6:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

"In know but it would be nice to hear from a few leading minds. Not some guy from a backwater Indian university or Ukraine."

I don't mean to interrupt, but it doesn't sound like you understand OmicronThetaDeltaPhi's point. He's saying that the statement "a conversation is not worth having without leading minds involved" is just appealing to authority because the implication is that no conversation of importance can originate on a subject unless experts are involved. If that's the case for you, then the simple answer is not to engage in such a discussion. For the others, however, there have been reasoned arguments that proliferated into linking interesting sources and citing data. They might not be experts, but that doesn't mean they can't learn from sharing expert opinion with each other.

"Technically, quoting these guys is still an authority argument but not one that carries much weight."

Not exactly, appealing to authority would be dropping names like Einstein but not explaining why Einstein was correct. If you cite an authority and explain the reasoning for the citation, you're not appealing to authority, you're giving your argument an added basis in published fact.
Set Bookmark
Nothing but the Tears
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 6:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

Wow, over 600 comments. That’s more than the reviews for DS9’s and VOY’s finales combined.

So, I just want to dip my toe into a couple of things. I’ve tried to read all comments but it’s WAY to expansive to provide proper responses to everyone.

I think AI and AC (which I hadn’t hear before) are fascinating concepts. I know not nearly enough about either to add anything meaningful to that debate so I’ll limit it to the scope of the show.

The question then simply becomes, does what we see within this fictional universe feel consistent with what came before and what the show portrayed? Do the outcomes feel like natural outcomes of the story being told? Can I easily suspend my disbelief or do I have to work for it?

So, as an individual viewer, my feelings here are:

- That Data would want to die seems in character to me, especially given how long he’s spent in limbo.

- That Picard would turn him off so quickly, that nobody else would question it, that I don’t buy.

- Again, given what we’ve seen on TNG as well as how little we actually know about the synths and the golem here, it feels to me as though it should be possible to transfer Data to the golem. Bear in mind, I say this not from a scientific point of view, just what feels right to me, in universe.

- Overall, I feel like the foundation for Data’s existence in limbo as well as the reasoning that he basically has to die don’t flow naturally from the story. As others have said, I think it could have been set up from the start if Picard had been aware of Data’s state from the start. It could have been about why Data wanted to go, possibly arguing back and forth, so, in the end, it’s clear to Picard that can’t go on.

As far as great Sci-Fi shows out there are concerned:

- The Expanse is probably my favorite show out there right now. Love the characters, love the look and feel, love the music, love the world building, love how willing they are to shake up the show every season as they follow the books.

- The Man in the High Castle I enjoyed immensely. I thought the world had a really strong PKD feel to it. The casting was great throughout, and I think the nailed the different look and feel for the East Coast vs. West Coast and Neutral zone. Loved the music, too. I think it went too much into Indiana Jones territory in its portrayal of the bad guys but I still thought it was worthwhile.

- I’ve been watching The Orville S1 and I’m enjoying it. It’s not great but entertaining. The feeling I constantly get is that I wish it knew what it wanted to be. It seems to meander rather than fully embracing the idea of an homage to TNG or, instead, being Galaxy Quest The TV Show.

- RDM’s BSG remains one of my favorite Sci-Fi shows of all time. The first episode I saw was “33”, and I fell in love with it the moment I saw that episode. I never looked back.

- DS9 remains my favorite Trek show, followed by TNG. I immensely enjoy re-watching both of them to this day, for different reasons. I love DS9’s cast and massive extended cast. I thought they had some fantastic stories, but long and short form. Not a perfect show but close to my heart. TNG is just great fun to watch. I think my favorite type of TNG story is the one where they’re solving some kind of mystery, just slowly peeling back the layers. I also really like the feeling of ‘being’ aboard the Enterprise. Also, Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. I like the others, too, but these two always come out on top for me.

- Babylon 5 I recently re-watched and really enjoyed it. The best stuff is definitely somewhere between mid season 2 and mid season 4, roughly speaking. And when it’s strong, it’s really strong. Interesting, too, that it doesn’t matter that the SFX and the production in general can be lacking. I find even S1 is worthwhile, especially knowing what’s to come. The last episodes in S5 are also pretty good, after a weak first half. I could do without the movies, tbh. Somehow none of them clicked for me.

Ranking first Trek seasons, hmm, tough one. Let me phrase it this way, this is how high each first season would be on my ‘would like to to re-watch’ list:
1. DS9
2. TNG
3. TOS
4. VOY
5. ENT
6. PIC
7. DIS

Also, it occurs to me that the order would be a bit different if I just wanted to re-watch specific episodes (e.g. I’m still sort of curious to go back and watch Picard’s pilot but I’m not interested in seeing the whole season again). One thing to note here is that I recently re-watched TNG S1 but haven’t seen TOS S1 in ages so that might be impacting this order. With that in mind:
1. DS9
2. TOS
3. TNG
4. PIC
5. VOY
6. ENT
7. DIS

Oh, also wanted to mention that I wonder what an RDM Picard show would have been like. I'd have loved to see what he would have done with it. Has he ever commented on the show? I assume not. Just curious.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 5:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@James White

lmao! Andy's Friend literally describes the straw man in his head that he's arguing with. Look no further than your nearest mirror for the fool in question.

@Andy's Friend

Peter G. stated my position correctly. (Thank you.)

Meanwhile, you then twist what he stated into a notion that I might think Data was a toaster. That's asinine. Data was very clearly depicted as a sapient organism. All he lacked was emotion. While there's research to indicate that emotion compliments our reason, I seriously doubt the question is settled. It's quite reasonable for a work of fiction to present that as not being absolutely necessary. And that's certainly what TNG did.

As far as trying " to take strands of conversations to initiate other conversations..." I find it difficult to even want to talk to someone who's forever arguing with the misunderstanding they have of what someone else is saying, so I doubt I'll be taking you up on that offer.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 5:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Workforce

Many will disagree with me but I didn't like Jaffen that much.
Set Bookmark
Jon R
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 4:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: The Siege of AR-558

A lot of commenters raise the valid question "Why doesn't the Dominion destroy the array from orbit?".

In a real war if they would have that a final option if they can't retake it.

But whatever. I'll let that slide. I'll accept the very loose logic that "it's too important to destroy".

What bugs me is this... why do the Jem'Hadar come through that cavern at all?

Perhaps my memory is just poor (which is possible) but I don't recall them ever explaining why the Jem'Hadar can't just transport into the camp.

Does the camp have a force field? If there is then clearly there's an opening in it right where that cavern is. So if there's an opening, they should be able to use a transporters :/
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 4, 2020, 3:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: PIC S1: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2

@ Omicron
"and it is logically invalid"
I don't think so there is a reason why Einstein first was what is now called Humboldt University and later went to Princeton and not to the University of Barbados.
Next ►Page 1 of 2,841
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.