(Originally published June 8, 2003.)
(With apologies to Lewis Lapham.)
Years ago, as the rain poured, as the sky thundered with the wrath of a thousand gods, I waited for a taxicab. An atypical day in Los Angeles. A day of Eastern weather. The kind the Establishment snobs take pride in -- out of desperation, if nothing else.
A cab pulled up. Valley Cab, I think it was.
"Where to?", the driver asked. "Nowhere special. Just out of this rain," I kidded. But actually, I wanted to go home.
The ride took, how long? Can't remember. Couldn't be more than a half hour, 45 minutes, maybe. The conversation turned, as it often does, to Hollywood.
"Ever seen Terminator 2?" he asked.
"Yeah, great flick."
"Well, guess what? I was involved in that movie!"
"Huh," I said. "Yes, part of the special effects crew. You remember the scene where Sarah saw the nuclear blast? You know -- in her dream sequence?"
"Sure. Who could forget it?"
"I was part of that. Setting up the scene, I mean."
"Really."
"Really."
So the newest sequel is coming out, and the theme of it is, as usual, universal armageddon -- or at least, armageddon of the global variety. The rise of the machines.
And as I listen to the theme from Terminator 2, I wonder: In a thousand years, will any of this really, really matter?
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
"Captain Jonathan Archer" To Introduce NASA Shuttle Return Feature
According to a recent report, Scott Bakula (Trek's Captain Jonathan Archer) will be introducing a new NASA feature on the return to flight of the Space Shuttle.
It's nice to know that while the latest Trek TV incarnation is gone, the melody lingers on.
It's nice to know that while the latest Trek TV incarnation is gone, the melody lingers on.
"Star Trek: Enterprise" 2d Season DVD Reviewed By The Digital Bits
The Digital Bits website has posted a lengthy review of the new DVD release of the second season of "Star Trek: Enterprise".
You can access it at the following website: Link.
You can access it at the following website: Link.
Titan Books To Publish Original "Star Trek" Comics
According to Wayne Hall of SyFyPortal.com, classic comics featuring the fearless "Star Trek" crew will go where no such comic has gone before: Into new release.
(Excerpt)
Titan Books will release "Star Trek Comics Classics Volume 1: To Boldly Go," the premier collection of out-of-print and never-before-collected DC Comics issues featuring Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise crew, in August.
(End of Excerpt)
I personally look forward to this new publication, as I was not much of a comics fan at the time that these were originally published.
It will be interesting to compare the dialogue in these older comics with those found today.
Source: Link.
(Excerpt)
Titan Books will release "Star Trek Comics Classics Volume 1: To Boldly Go," the premier collection of out-of-print and never-before-collected DC Comics issues featuring Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise crew, in August.
(End of Excerpt)
I personally look forward to this new publication, as I was not much of a comics fan at the time that these were originally published.
It will be interesting to compare the dialogue in these older comics with those found today.
Source: Link.
Grokking Spock -- In Silence
When you think of fans of "Star Trek", do you think of Spock ears, funny hand signs, and Starfleet uniforms worn as though they were real?
To some, "Star Trek" is as real as any fantasy can be. Perhaps more so. Lives are lived according to the sayings of Mr. Spock. Details of the Battle of Wolf 359 are recited from memory, complete with starship statistics and songs of victory and defeat. And Shakespeare isn't quite the same unless it's in the original Klingon.
And, yes, then there are the Klingons -- the ones who take Trek reality where no man has taken it before.
But are most "Star Trek" fans cut from that cloth?
Decidedly not!
To be sure, there are the kind of fans documentarians slather with attention in films like "Trekkies", the wildly successful expose' about that particular eponymous species. But the silent majority of fans are just like you and me.
(Excerpt)
They might enjoy Star Trek, but they’re just like anyone else.
The USS Avenger, a local Star Trek and science fiction fan organization, celebrated two decades of existence recently with a special reception at the Victorian Manor in Edison. Despite the media’s often humorously negative perception of fans of the long-running series, club president Judy Waidlich said it’s not quite like that.
(End of Excerpt)
The next time you see a perfect normal-looking, albeit slightly techy, colleague, classmate, or acquaintance, you can never be sure he -- or she -- isn't a Trekkie. They're everywhere. Still.So go ahead. Flash them a Vulcan sign. They won't bite. And the Vulcan death grip is a myth... or so they say.
Live long and prosper, you normals!
Source: Link.
To some, "Star Trek" is as real as any fantasy can be. Perhaps more so. Lives are lived according to the sayings of Mr. Spock. Details of the Battle of Wolf 359 are recited from memory, complete with starship statistics and songs of victory and defeat. And Shakespeare isn't quite the same unless it's in the original Klingon.
And, yes, then there are the Klingons -- the ones who take Trek reality where no man has taken it before.
But are most "Star Trek" fans cut from that cloth?
Decidedly not!
To be sure, there are the kind of fans documentarians slather with attention in films like "Trekkies", the wildly successful expose' about that particular eponymous species. But the silent majority of fans are just like you and me.
(Excerpt)
They might enjoy Star Trek, but they’re just like anyone else.
The USS Avenger, a local Star Trek and science fiction fan organization, celebrated two decades of existence recently with a special reception at the Victorian Manor in Edison. Despite the media’s often humorously negative perception of fans of the long-running series, club president Judy Waidlich said it’s not quite like that.
(End of Excerpt)
The next time you see a perfect normal-looking, albeit slightly techy, colleague, classmate, or acquaintance, you can never be sure he -- or she -- isn't a Trekkie. They're everywhere. Still.So go ahead. Flash them a Vulcan sign. They won't bite. And the Vulcan death grip is a myth... or so they say.
Live long and prosper, you normals!
Source: Link.
"Star Trek" No "Galactica"?
At the recent Comics Con in San Diego, the subject was about "Star Trek" and the untimely demise of its most recent TV incarnation.
Was it the writing? Was it the special effects? Was it the bodacious curves of Seven of Nine? No, sorry -- wrong show.
And raging among fandom is the issue of how best to blame Brannon Braga and his boss, Rick Berman, for the "death" of Trek.
From the fantasyland of the gathering of comics fans, a voice breaks through loud and clear: The latest Trek failed, because it wasn't real enough.
It wasn't, in other words, like "Star Trek: Galactica".
I don't agree. There's a place for Das Boot, and there's a place for Trek. But never the twain shall meet, unless, of course, in the person of Galactica. Which ain't Trek.
What we need, it seems to me, is a Trek that is in the spirit of the original series. The one that makes old-timey fans like me say, "Ah, yes. This is the way it used to be."
There's nothing wrong with Star Trek: Enterprise that couldn't have been solved by a little more of the good story-telling we expect from Trek.
Because Galactica is fine, but Trek did come first. And it had its own style. It was -- and is -- unique.
As far as whether Trek sufficiently represents our future -- I guess we'll never know for sure, will we?
Here's hoping.
Was it the writing? Was it the special effects? Was it the bodacious curves of Seven of Nine? No, sorry -- wrong show.
And raging among fandom is the issue of how best to blame Brannon Braga and his boss, Rick Berman, for the "death" of Trek.
From the fantasyland of the gathering of comics fans, a voice breaks through loud and clear: The latest Trek failed, because it wasn't real enough.
It wasn't, in other words, like "Star Trek: Galactica".
I don't agree. There's a place for Das Boot, and there's a place for Trek. But never the twain shall meet, unless, of course, in the person of Galactica. Which ain't Trek.
What we need, it seems to me, is a Trek that is in the spirit of the original series. The one that makes old-timey fans like me say, "Ah, yes. This is the way it used to be."
There's nothing wrong with Star Trek: Enterprise that couldn't have been solved by a little more of the good story-telling we expect from Trek.
Because Galactica is fine, but Trek did come first. And it had its own style. It was -- and is -- unique.
As far as whether Trek sufficiently represents our future -- I guess we'll never know for sure, will we?
Here's hoping.
SciFi Channel Debuts Second Season Of New "Battlestar Galactica"
Seems like the second season is debuting to the same fanfare as the first -- and wouldn't we all like such heraldry?
The new Battlestar Galactica is back, and not a moment too soon.
Piloted by Ronald D. Moore, formerly best known for his massive opus in two separate Star Trek series, SciFi's newest entry into the TV space race is this year's continuation of 2004's popular and critically acclaimed re-imagining of the classic 1970's series.
Now, those of you who have followed Mr. Moore may also know him from his work on Mission: Impossible, the Tom Cruise vehicle. But sustaining the momentum of the new Galactica has proved anything but impossible for this seasoned veteran.
See this for an example of accolades for this complex, continuing saga.
Of course, there are those who think that the series is too dramatically tense, and that the tone of peril is taken much too far, for too long. But I think that those are in the minority.
And Sci-Fi's only other competition are its own series. Which, naturally, are on at different times.
This is one space race where leader is running away with the prize. Fridays on Sci-Fi.
The new Battlestar Galactica is back, and not a moment too soon.
Piloted by Ronald D. Moore, formerly best known for his massive opus in two separate Star Trek series, SciFi's newest entry into the TV space race is this year's continuation of 2004's popular and critically acclaimed re-imagining of the classic 1970's series.
Now, those of you who have followed Mr. Moore may also know him from his work on Mission: Impossible, the Tom Cruise vehicle. But sustaining the momentum of the new Galactica has proved anything but impossible for this seasoned veteran.
See this for an example of accolades for this complex, continuing saga.
Of course, there are those who think that the series is too dramatically tense, and that the tone of peril is taken much too far, for too long. But I think that those are in the minority.
And Sci-Fi's only other competition are its own series. Which, naturally, are on at different times.
This is one space race where leader is running away with the prize. Fridays on Sci-Fi.
Star Trek Biographer To Give Talk
A biographer of the late DeForest Kelley, who played Dr. Leonard ("Bones") McCoy in the classic Star Trek television series, will appear at a science fiction convention in Seattle, sources say.
Kristine M. Smith was a friend of the late actor and his wife. Her De Forest Kelley: A Harvest Of Memories details how she came to know Mr. Kelley, who is also known for his work in Westerns.
Mr. Kelley was a much-beloved actor among Trek fans and his character was part of the "Trek triumvirate" of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy.
Ms. Smith will appear at the Creation convention in Seattle.
Source: The Great Link.
Kristine M. Smith was a friend of the late actor and his wife. Her De Forest Kelley: A Harvest Of Memories details how she came to know Mr. Kelley, who is also known for his work in Westerns.
Mr. Kelley was a much-beloved actor among Trek fans and his character was part of the "Trek triumvirate" of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy.
Ms. Smith will appear at the Creation convention in Seattle.
Source: The Great Link.
James Gunn Targets Sci-Fi Apathy
Remember when science fiction was all shiny and new, and everyone loved it because it was "cool"?
Neither do I.
But there are those who say that sci-fi is now in a bit of a morass -- a James Carter-esque malaise, if you will -- compared to a presumed "Golden Age" of the past.
I, personally, don't remember that "Golden Age". But I do agree that SF may need a bit of polishing.
In a recent article, the relatively broad appeal of books derived from Star Wars and Star Trek was contrasted with other forms of science fiction which presumably present literary values that franchised books lack. Personally, I'm not sure I buy that.
(Excerpt)
Gunn is director of the Center for the Study of Science Fiction, an academic program at the University of Kansas that he started in 1982 as an extension of his writers' workshops and courses he taught for teachers looking to add science fiction to their lesson plans.
(End of Excerpt)
And who could object to that?To be sure, there seems to be a paucity of Asimovs out there. But what is wrong with Ursula LeGuin, for example?And the popularity of Ender's Game and its sequels speaks to a certain hunger for compelling science fiction.
Is it not possible that the popularity of Trek-style books actually serve as an gateway to other, "more serious" science fiction? And what is so terrible about franchised books, anyway?
I think that the case can be made that science fiction needs to be nurtured, and I applaud Mr. Gunn's efforts in that regard. But in decrying the lack of "good" science fiction, let us not forget that science fiction was never really cool to begin with.
And perhaps that's the real shame that affects the genre today.
Source.
Neither do I.
But there are those who say that sci-fi is now in a bit of a morass -- a James Carter-esque malaise, if you will -- compared to a presumed "Golden Age" of the past.
I, personally, don't remember that "Golden Age". But I do agree that SF may need a bit of polishing.
In a recent article, the relatively broad appeal of books derived from Star Wars and Star Trek was contrasted with other forms of science fiction which presumably present literary values that franchised books lack. Personally, I'm not sure I buy that.
(Excerpt)
Gunn is director of the Center for the Study of Science Fiction, an academic program at the University of Kansas that he started in 1982 as an extension of his writers' workshops and courses he taught for teachers looking to add science fiction to their lesson plans.
(End of Excerpt)
And who could object to that?To be sure, there seems to be a paucity of Asimovs out there. But what is wrong with Ursula LeGuin, for example?And the popularity of Ender's Game and its sequels speaks to a certain hunger for compelling science fiction.
Is it not possible that the popularity of Trek-style books actually serve as an gateway to other, "more serious" science fiction? And what is so terrible about franchised books, anyway?
I think that the case can be made that science fiction needs to be nurtured, and I applaud Mr. Gunn's efforts in that regard. But in decrying the lack of "good" science fiction, let us not forget that science fiction was never really cool to begin with.
And perhaps that's the real shame that affects the genre today.
Source.
A Remembrance Of Things To Be
You know you've made it when The New York Times Magazine covers you in a long feature article -- about your critically acclaimed, and popular, dramatic television series.
You know you've made it when you're Ronald D. Moore.
The Paramount lot was all that I imagined it when, some years ago, I met Mr. Moore at a time he was still sharing prime credits with Ira Steven Behr for the third of the Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine. And the conversation I had with the man gave me a rare look into how a mind such as his works. Which is why I was one of the first proponents and enthusiasts for the new, re-imagined Batllestar: Galactica.
First and foremost, Mr. Moore knows drama. He knows how to write it, and he knows good drama from bad. This story gives an account of how a quintessential Trek fan grew to comprise Hollywood itself, changing a tradition-bound trope into an endeavor -- an enterprise -- greater than most could have imagined.
For his latest work, I will say as I always have: Bravo, Mr. Moore. From one Trek fan to another, you have my greatest respect.
You know you've made it when you're Ronald D. Moore.
The Paramount lot was all that I imagined it when, some years ago, I met Mr. Moore at a time he was still sharing prime credits with Ira Steven Behr for the third of the Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine. And the conversation I had with the man gave me a rare look into how a mind such as his works. Which is why I was one of the first proponents and enthusiasts for the new, re-imagined Batllestar: Galactica.
First and foremost, Mr. Moore knows drama. He knows how to write it, and he knows good drama from bad. This story gives an account of how a quintessential Trek fan grew to comprise Hollywood itself, changing a tradition-bound trope into an endeavor -- an enterprise -- greater than most could have imagined.
For his latest work, I will say as I always have: Bravo, Mr. Moore. From one Trek fan to another, you have my greatest respect.
"Star Trek: Enterprise" In Retrospect
(Originally published March, 2002 under a different title; slightly modified herein.)
Perhaps more than any other Star Trek series since Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Enterprise has demonstrated a keen sense of poetry in the most subtle possible sense -- the poetry of events and motivations.
Despite the constant nagging of those who want to skew Enterprise toward their vision of Trek, the various writers as well as the producers of Enterprise have had in mind the realization what has been increasingly rare in series television: A venue in which to present stories that are both compelling and philosophical. Sadly, the quiet genius of Enterprise during the last several episodes has escaped the attention of a number of reviewers and critics. The central theme of "Rogue Planet" has been missed by even esteemed reviewers. "Rogue Planet" was far more than an involving, engaging story about monomaniacal hunters after the kill. It was also -- much more importantly -- a story about the role of our own, distant past in shaping our intellectual interactions with the present and the future. Just as Tucker marveled, in "Strange New World", "Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you", Archer, too, grapples with the ideas lurking in his subconscious that he has had since childhood. But intead of realizing, almost too late, the centrality of this struggle, Archer comes to a much wiser and much timelier understanding of his own subconscious. He has integrated his past with his present, through the mediation of poetic images, both literal and otherwise.
This is what I mean by the poetry of Enterprise -- not mere citation of poetic verses, but a lyrical, meditative exploration of the process of living and learning that, in a science-fiction context, brings the otherwise hidden processes of intellectual insight to life.
Perhaps more than any other Star Trek series since Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Enterprise has demonstrated a keen sense of poetry in the most subtle possible sense -- the poetry of events and motivations.
Despite the constant nagging of those who want to skew Enterprise toward their vision of Trek, the various writers as well as the producers of Enterprise have had in mind the realization what has been increasingly rare in series television: A venue in which to present stories that are both compelling and philosophical. Sadly, the quiet genius of Enterprise during the last several episodes has escaped the attention of a number of reviewers and critics. The central theme of "Rogue Planet" has been missed by even esteemed reviewers. "Rogue Planet" was far more than an involving, engaging story about monomaniacal hunters after the kill. It was also -- much more importantly -- a story about the role of our own, distant past in shaping our intellectual interactions with the present and the future. Just as Tucker marveled, in "Strange New World", "Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you", Archer, too, grapples with the ideas lurking in his subconscious that he has had since childhood. But intead of realizing, almost too late, the centrality of this struggle, Archer comes to a much wiser and much timelier understanding of his own subconscious. He has integrated his past with his present, through the mediation of poetic images, both literal and otherwise.
This is what I mean by the poetry of Enterprise -- not mere citation of poetic verses, but a lyrical, meditative exploration of the process of living and learning that, in a science-fiction context, brings the otherwise hidden processes of intellectual insight to life.
A Dream Of Unity: Trekking The Light Fantastic
(Originally published on June 15, 2003 under a different title. Slightly modified herein.)
Imagine that, years hence, the greatest secrets of the universe are revealed, and it is determined that we are indeed but one of millions of sentient, intelligent races in the universe. Mankind is placed on trial for its right to exist. In other words, it is the trial depicted in Star Trek's "Encounter at Farpoint", through "All Good Things..." -- except that it occurs in reality.
What, friends, do we have to show for ourselves? Millennia of warfare? Continuous, unremitting hatred and atrocity? Petty bickering, and a failure of humanity at all levels of mutual relationships and societal governance? Where and when can or will we evolve? How can we evolve, without becoming soulless, communitarian, or hateful? These are questions that face us and our children as we reach for the stars.
We have an obligation to the future to ask ourselves the question: Is it possible, indeed, to unite as one?
Imagine that, years hence, the greatest secrets of the universe are revealed, and it is determined that we are indeed but one of millions of sentient, intelligent races in the universe. Mankind is placed on trial for its right to exist. In other words, it is the trial depicted in Star Trek's "Encounter at Farpoint", through "All Good Things..." -- except that it occurs in reality.
What, friends, do we have to show for ourselves? Millennia of warfare? Continuous, unremitting hatred and atrocity? Petty bickering, and a failure of humanity at all levels of mutual relationships and societal governance? Where and when can or will we evolve? How can we evolve, without becoming soulless, communitarian, or hateful? These are questions that face us and our children as we reach for the stars.
We have an obligation to the future to ask ourselves the question: Is it possible, indeed, to unite as one?
Level One Diagnostic: Transporter Issues, Redux
Every time anyone mentions the possible invention of a teleportation device, the same issues arise and they are never really resolved.
A primary issue is the "Information-based transporter dematerialization = Death" rule, as described in a recent article of mine:
(Excerpt from an earlier article of mine (not published here)):
Dematerializing in an information-transmitting transporter = Killing. Permanently. No resurrection, no nothing. Killing, as in final death.
The only exception to the dematerializing=death rule is if exactly the same physical material is physically beamed from origin to destination. Otherwise, what results is simply an exact copy of the original who only believes he is the original. The original, the instant he is dematerialized, is actually and permanently dead -- his consciousness permanently terminates when he is dematerializes, since consciousness is attached to the specific, exact physical matter which supports it.
The consciousness of the person at the destination who is assembled from information beamed from the origin has consciousness, but it is a different consciousness that merely believes (mistakenly) that it is the original consciousness.
As I said, the only exception is if the physical matter is actually beamed. Not mere information. Mere information is absolutely insufficient.
Think of the information-based transporter as a fax machine in which the original paper you trying to fax is destroyed by the fax machine. The fax may be successful, but what results at the other end is only a faxed copy -- not the original. (If you set it that it doesn't dematerialize (destroy) the individual at the origin, but merely scans him and sends the information to the destination point for assembly, the original remains -- just as in a real fax machine.)
So, if YOU step inside an information-based transporter, and YOU are dematerialized, then YOU die. Period. You die permanently -- you don't "wake up" at the destination point.
(End of Excerpt)
So, here's my problem: If someone were eventually to invent a real transporter, but one that only sends information from origin to destination, how can we possibly confirm that my conclusion above is true or not true?
We could try to ask the unlucky test subject after he rematerializes, but he wouldn't really know, because his consciousness would fool him into thinking that he was the original, when he was not! So how can we solve the problem of testing the truth of this conclusion?
One solution might be to merely scan the test subject, and not actually dematerialize him, and then send the information to the destination to materialize "him" at the destination, but what if that's not possible?
A primary issue is the "Information-based transporter dematerialization = Death" rule, as described in a recent article of mine:
(Excerpt from an earlier article of mine (not published here)):
Dematerializing in an information-transmitting transporter = Killing. Permanently. No resurrection, no nothing. Killing, as in final death.
The only exception to the dematerializing=death rule is if exactly the same physical material is physically beamed from origin to destination. Otherwise, what results is simply an exact copy of the original who only believes he is the original. The original, the instant he is dematerialized, is actually and permanently dead -- his consciousness permanently terminates when he is dematerializes, since consciousness is attached to the specific, exact physical matter which supports it.
The consciousness of the person at the destination who is assembled from information beamed from the origin has consciousness, but it is a different consciousness that merely believes (mistakenly) that it is the original consciousness.
As I said, the only exception is if the physical matter is actually beamed. Not mere information. Mere information is absolutely insufficient.
Think of the information-based transporter as a fax machine in which the original paper you trying to fax is destroyed by the fax machine. The fax may be successful, but what results at the other end is only a faxed copy -- not the original. (If you set it that it doesn't dematerialize (destroy) the individual at the origin, but merely scans him and sends the information to the destination point for assembly, the original remains -- just as in a real fax machine.)
So, if YOU step inside an information-based transporter, and YOU are dematerialized, then YOU die. Period. You die permanently -- you don't "wake up" at the destination point.
(End of Excerpt)
So, here's my problem: If someone were eventually to invent a real transporter, but one that only sends information from origin to destination, how can we possibly confirm that my conclusion above is true or not true?
We could try to ask the unlucky test subject after he rematerializes, but he wouldn't really know, because his consciousness would fool him into thinking that he was the original, when he was not! So how can we solve the problem of testing the truth of this conclusion?
One solution might be to merely scan the test subject, and not actually dematerialize him, and then send the information to the destination to materialize "him" at the destination, but what if that's not possible?
Teleportation
A new book has been written that claims that, one way or another, teleportation will affect humanity in the future.
Alone among popular SF franchises, Star Trek has been the sole exponent of teleportation as a device to help humanity. But, does reality comport with Trek's vision? Quite possibly, teleportation might be developed. But, assuming that teleportation will be developed, will the process necessarily result in successful transportation of individual personalities? The jury is very much out.
(Excerpt)
In his new book, Teleportation - The Impossible Leap, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., writer David Darling contends that ""One way or another, teleportation is going to play a major role in all our futures. It will be a fundamental process at the heart of quantum computers, which will themselves radically change the world." Darling suggests that some form of classical teleportation and replication for inanimate objects also seems inevitable. But whether humans can make the leap, well, that remains to be seen. Teleporting a person would require a machine that isolates, appraises, and keeps track of over a trillion trillion atoms that constitute the human body, then sends that data to another locale for reassembly--and hopefully without mussing up your physical and mental makeup.
(End Of Excerpt)
See source below.
"Mussing up your physical and mental makeup"? That's a mild way of putting it! Teleportation, badly accomplished, would only kill the original subject. Note that the article mentions "data". As I've said, it is matter, not data, that is transferred by Trek-universe teleportation devices. Because of certain philosophical and logical issues, I certainly hope that it isn't just data that is transmitted, since data can be duplicated. Since individual personalities cannot be duplicated, the ability of data to be transmitted means that data cannot be the thing that is associated with our own unique personality, and thus if only data is transmitted, and the original is destroyed, then the unique personality that is YOU is destroyed in the teleportation process. I hope that the author of the book, at least, realizes this.
In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode about Thomas Riker, apparently data was reflected during transportation and caused a duplicate to be created. This event is consistent with my theory that the original atoms, and not just their data, must be transferred for the real personality to continue to exist (the real personality was William T. Riker in that episode, who had the actual atoms of the pre-transported individual). By contrast, in the original Star Trek, the transporter accident involving a "vicious Kirk" and a "mild Kirk" poses significant problems. Trek's theory of teleportation is a thicket of extremely difficult problems that are nontechnical as much as technical.
Source: Link.
Alone among popular SF franchises, Star Trek has been the sole exponent of teleportation as a device to help humanity. But, does reality comport with Trek's vision? Quite possibly, teleportation might be developed. But, assuming that teleportation will be developed, will the process necessarily result in successful transportation of individual personalities? The jury is very much out.
(Excerpt)
In his new book, Teleportation - The Impossible Leap, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., writer David Darling contends that ""One way or another, teleportation is going to play a major role in all our futures. It will be a fundamental process at the heart of quantum computers, which will themselves radically change the world." Darling suggests that some form of classical teleportation and replication for inanimate objects also seems inevitable. But whether humans can make the leap, well, that remains to be seen. Teleporting a person would require a machine that isolates, appraises, and keeps track of over a trillion trillion atoms that constitute the human body, then sends that data to another locale for reassembly--and hopefully without mussing up your physical and mental makeup.
(End Of Excerpt)
See source below.
"Mussing up your physical and mental makeup"? That's a mild way of putting it! Teleportation, badly accomplished, would only kill the original subject. Note that the article mentions "data". As I've said, it is matter, not data, that is transferred by Trek-universe teleportation devices. Because of certain philosophical and logical issues, I certainly hope that it isn't just data that is transmitted, since data can be duplicated. Since individual personalities cannot be duplicated, the ability of data to be transmitted means that data cannot be the thing that is associated with our own unique personality, and thus if only data is transmitted, and the original is destroyed, then the unique personality that is YOU is destroyed in the teleportation process. I hope that the author of the book, at least, realizes this.
In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode about Thomas Riker, apparently data was reflected during transportation and caused a duplicate to be created. This event is consistent with my theory that the original atoms, and not just their data, must be transferred for the real personality to continue to exist (the real personality was William T. Riker in that episode, who had the actual atoms of the pre-transported individual). By contrast, in the original Star Trek, the transporter accident involving a "vicious Kirk" and a "mild Kirk" poses significant problems. Trek's theory of teleportation is a thicket of extremely difficult problems that are nontechnical as much as technical.
Source: Link.
The American Spirit
The American spirit prevails against that of the dark.
It is the shining beacon piercing through a world of chaos.
When I begin to lose faith in ability of world leaders, I think of the image of a proud flag, waving against the universal darkness.
And I know that we will always win in the end.
We are Americans.
What more need be said?
It is the shining beacon piercing through a world of chaos.
When I begin to lose faith in ability of world leaders, I think of the image of a proud flag, waving against the universal darkness.
And I know that we will always win in the end.
We are Americans.
What more need be said?
What Is Religiosity?
What is religiosity?
It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the belief that there is a Creator greater than oneself, whose faith in humanity is worthy of ours.
There is a duality of faith: God's, and our own.
Neither is necessarily borne out at any given time. But both are essential for religiosity.
Americans are among the most religious of people. We are people of faith and distinction. The reasons, it seems to me, are clear: Only those of faith can bring order to a continent and pioneer a nation from the mere wilds to civilization.
Americans always have been a self-selected lot.
And so it is with our faith -- we have faith in God because we know that God has faith in ourselves. We know that faith matters, and things are done in God's name only if they deserve it. Faith is a difficult burden as well as a joyful avocation. We know the power of faith.
Are some of us Babbitts, wearing our religiosity on our sleeve? Yes, and woe betide those who say, "Jesus this, and God that", and all the while do nothing to justify God's faith.
For faith is a two-way street, and if our faith is empty because it mocks that of God, then why should we be surprised if, in the end, we fail?
Religiosity is that which enlivens and empowers us. It makes us proud to be who we are.
And God bless this country that believes in Him, for we shall gain tenfold the personal sacrifices we make in His name.
It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the belief that there is a Creator greater than oneself, whose faith in humanity is worthy of ours.
There is a duality of faith: God's, and our own.
Neither is necessarily borne out at any given time. But both are essential for religiosity.
Americans are among the most religious of people. We are people of faith and distinction. The reasons, it seems to me, are clear: Only those of faith can bring order to a continent and pioneer a nation from the mere wilds to civilization.
Americans always have been a self-selected lot.
And so it is with our faith -- we have faith in God because we know that God has faith in ourselves. We know that faith matters, and things are done in God's name only if they deserve it. Faith is a difficult burden as well as a joyful avocation. We know the power of faith.
Are some of us Babbitts, wearing our religiosity on our sleeve? Yes, and woe betide those who say, "Jesus this, and God that", and all the while do nothing to justify God's faith.
For faith is a two-way street, and if our faith is empty because it mocks that of God, then why should we be surprised if, in the end, we fail?
Religiosity is that which enlivens and empowers us. It makes us proud to be who we are.
And God bless this country that believes in Him, for we shall gain tenfold the personal sacrifices we make in His name.
A Lesson For All
Why is it that quite often, it is the foreigner who sees the greatness in America, while too many of us find a need to chide our fellow citizens, as if the greater sum of our existence is solely to find an America we dislike?An Eastern European says so well what many Americans should feel, and yet do not. Is it the hunger of the formerly oppressed that puts the edge to our reason, that cuts beyond the obfuscation of trivial hatreds and unwholesome whining?
I would suggest that the following says it best:
(Excerpt)
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases which risk of sounding like commonplaces. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion. Only freedom can work such miracles!
(End of Excerpt)
Who among us can dispute the truth of these observations? This is a land built by immigrants who wanted a better life, and saw it in America. We are indeed fortunate, here in America, that we can take our American blessings for granted -- and that others around the world do not.
Source: Link.
I would suggest that the following says it best:
(Excerpt)
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases which risk of sounding like commonplaces. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion. Only freedom can work such miracles!
(End of Excerpt)
Who among us can dispute the truth of these observations? This is a land built by immigrants who wanted a better life, and saw it in America. We are indeed fortunate, here in America, that we can take our American blessings for granted -- and that others around the world do not.
Source: Link.
The Angels Of Harlem
There is a tendency for popular culture to neglect the hard questions of life. The unpalatable issues, and the ones that people hate think about, because they're unhappy thoughts.In the 1970's, what seemed like half the black actors in Hollywood starred in this little miniseries called Roots. In the 1980's, Lucille Ball did a movie about homelessness. Television had a social conscience, about life issues that affected too many in our society. And admittedly, racism, homelessness, and all these other things don't seem to have lost much currency in certain circles.
Except in popular culture.
The television landscape, with some exceptions, has become the vast wasteland complained of in the 1950's. "Reality" shows bring you perfectly well-fed people eating snakes and bugs. "Fantasy" shows show you whatever you want to see, particularly on cable.
And above all, there are graphics. Blazing, 3-D graphics, all in hope of catching the Lilliputian attention span of the average eyeball. Tennessee Williams and the other greats of television theatrical anthologies wouldn't recognize the place. For eyeballs on screens are all that count.The reality of life is that there are thousands of angels out there, needing our attentions, needing our help, as individual citizens, one to another.
It's easy to blow off the need to give back to our community. It's comforting to know that television shuts out the cold winds of neglect and inability. But it is even more comforting to know that we don't need to ignore what is outside our doors. When your favorite charity asks you to donate, think of the people you can help.
For even angels need help; and who better to help, than each of us?
Except in popular culture.
The television landscape, with some exceptions, has become the vast wasteland complained of in the 1950's. "Reality" shows bring you perfectly well-fed people eating snakes and bugs. "Fantasy" shows show you whatever you want to see, particularly on cable.
And above all, there are graphics. Blazing, 3-D graphics, all in hope of catching the Lilliputian attention span of the average eyeball. Tennessee Williams and the other greats of television theatrical anthologies wouldn't recognize the place. For eyeballs on screens are all that count.The reality of life is that there are thousands of angels out there, needing our attentions, needing our help, as individual citizens, one to another.
It's easy to blow off the need to give back to our community. It's comforting to know that television shuts out the cold winds of neglect and inability. But it is even more comforting to know that we don't need to ignore what is outside our doors. When your favorite charity asks you to donate, think of the people you can help.
For even angels need help; and who better to help, than each of us?
Patriotism Is Central To The American Identity
Patriots of all races and walks of life grace this shining edifice of humanity known as "America".
Just as I have always said, a recent poll confirms that we Americans take deep pride in our country. We may disagree amongst ourselves, but, regardless of creed, color, or race, we hold our country up with pride, and we believe in the greatness that is Americanism. How can we fail to take pride in our country -- the leader in so many noble and glorious endeavors and enterprises?
(Excerpt)
Sentiment spans races, generations The poll also found that, African Americans and Hispanics are among those most inclined to have patriotic feelings. The survey found “virtually no difference between blacks’ views and those of the nation as a whole.” Eighty percent of black Americans and 78 percent of Hispanics strongly identify themselves as patriotic, as well as 81 percent of white Americans, the poll found. Some 87 percent of baby boomers — the bloc of Americans demographers generally consider born between 1946 and 1964 — said patriotism is a central identifying fact of their lives. Seventy-eight percent of Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, felt the same way.
(End of Excerpt)
Source: http://www.msnbc.com
Just as I have always said, a recent poll confirms that we Americans take deep pride in our country. We may disagree amongst ourselves, but, regardless of creed, color, or race, we hold our country up with pride, and we believe in the greatness that is Americanism. How can we fail to take pride in our country -- the leader in so many noble and glorious endeavors and enterprises?
(Excerpt)
Sentiment spans races, generations The poll also found that, African Americans and Hispanics are among those most inclined to have patriotic feelings. The survey found “virtually no difference between blacks’ views and those of the nation as a whole.” Eighty percent of black Americans and 78 percent of Hispanics strongly identify themselves as patriotic, as well as 81 percent of white Americans, the poll found. Some 87 percent of baby boomers — the bloc of Americans demographers generally consider born between 1946 and 1964 — said patriotism is a central identifying fact of their lives. Seventy-eight percent of Generation Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, felt the same way.
(End of Excerpt)
Source: http://www.msnbc.com
Abortion In America: The Law Should Be Changed
(NOTE: This article was written by yours truly the day before Justice O'Connor announced her resignation.)
In Congressional testimony, a prominent ethics expert criticized Roe v. Wade for putting the interests of the courts over those of the ability of a free people to determine its own fate. I must say that the testimony presents intriguing arguments against abortion and is yet another indication that "pro-choicers" may soon face new restrictions on that practice.
(Excerpt)
Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion.
(End of Excerpt)
See: Link.
In Congressional testimony, a prominent ethics expert criticized Roe v. Wade for putting the interests of the courts over those of the ability of a free people to determine its own fate. I must say that the testimony presents intriguing arguments against abortion and is yet another indication that "pro-choicers" may soon face new restrictions on that practice.
(Excerpt)
Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion.
(End of Excerpt)
See: Link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)