96611

I've seen worse handwriting from someone who is almost certainly better educated than you or Patrick Stewart (PhD level, applied science). Seemingly random captialisation, words run together or with big spaces in the middle... Not pretty.

WTF does that mean splain yourself!!!!!! I mean that they are pretty and all that, but they have no real depth to the story. Characters fail to be developed, continuity discarded and real science systematically anally raped. And then you have 7 of 9 and T'Pol, who seem to be little more than a blatent appeal to barely adolecent males. Oh and multiple exclamation marks. A sure sign of madness.

What I'd like to see is a drama series set in the Star Trek universe. Set it during TNG, during a particular time of tension and use the characters serving on one of the smaller, older ships. It'd need a writing team that can write a compelling story. Have continuity, military and science/engineering advisors who have the neccissary qualifications and USE them.

Exactly where it is? :p Most of the pieces of technology gene used are logical extrapolations of pre-existing trends. For example, small telecommunications devices are just a very logical step forward from bulky radios. Something that the military would have great interest in developing. It could be argued that some of the so-called ideas are 19th to early 20th centuary innovations. Wireless Communication (1890's, Marconi), digital transmissions (1875, Bardot), removable, digital storage (1810, Jaquard) are some examples.

As expected, the ratio of males to females is significantly greater that unity. Considering the content of Voyger and Enterprise, this is to be expected.

We're far more likely to end up with a terminally messed up world than reach the TNG Federation 'utopia'. And if civilisation falls then there is little chance of rebuilding a high tech society. Almost all of the readily avalible raw materials have been exausted.

Neo-BSG is in, my opinion, the best TV show currently in production. The old series can't touch it.

Well, if you want to feed them, clothe them and generally spend money looking after them for 16-18 years (assuming no scifi accelerated growth) you can. I'd just recruit normal humans and stick them through a 9 month (Basic soldiers) to 2 year (officer/advanced specialist) training program. And believe me, I'd be able to get a lot larger army for the same cash outlay, and sooner.

Geordi. Who else pulled solutions out of their backside as regularly as well as spinning such complex webs of pseudoscientific terms?

Yeah. I'm fairly successfully avoiding getting back into it. Helps that uni's keeping me busy.

Resized to 640x512 from 1280X1024, with a strategically placed browser window to cover up an unsuitable word. ;) The central image is a photograph of the Bravo Castle nuclear test, which I just thought looked good.

Space is big, and there is little to hide behind. Therefore spotting ranges are going to be long, prehaps hundreds or thousands of kilometres as a low end guess. A 2 km/s projectile isn't going to be able to give an effective range close matching spotting distance, as travel time is going to be in minutes. Easy to evade or what ;) A 3E5 (or 300,000) km/s beam of light is going to be alot better at matching the spotting distance. Besides, they won't see it coming

John Sedgwick, a Union commander during the Civil War, is supposed to have uttered these last words about the enemy forces during a battle: "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist--" right before being hit by a bullet addressed "to whom it may concern" (to shamelessly insert part of one of Murphy's Laws.)

Taking a very down to earth, pratical viewpoint and looking at real technology I would have to say that there is little room for energy weapons to take over. Why? Because flinging high velocity pieces of metal around works. Its simple, reliable, cheap and relatively efficient energy input to damage wise. Energy weapons will only be useful where their speed of propagation is an advantage AND the bulk of the power generation systems can be justified. These limit them to little more than point defence weapons against artillery and missiles in a ground forces role. In space, energy weapons would be best, as projectiles are just too slow to have much hope at hitting at range.