Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[Maurice]

What is the "point" of Trek ?

To make money for its owners.

Which doesn't happen if the show isn't attracting viewers.

Maurice, the point of the Trek is to be interesting and entertaining.

Interesting and entertaining... in order to make money for its owners.

 

[T'Girl]

If matter is infinite, so is energy.

Problem with that is the Enterprise has to carry antimatter for power production, if their technology could simply convert any matter into energy, the antimatter would be un-necessary.

They could just carry blocks of metal, or rocks, to power the ship.

 

[CorporalClegg]

That's not what I mean. A replicator could theoretically be totally self-sustaining proved any power source it created produced more energy than the cost of creating one and destroying the previous. I suck at math, so I don't know what that would have to be. But I think it's only 2x+1 where x is the cost.

 

[Belz...]

That's not what I mean. A replicator could theoretically be totally self-sustaining proved any power source it created produced more energy than the cost of creating one and destroying the previous. I suck at math, so I don't know what that would have to be. But I think it's only 2x+1 where x is the cost.

That's impossible, however. You can't get more out of whatever you create then you put in. At best you have to get additional fuel.

 

[T'Girl]

If I replicate a kilogram of antimatter, how much antimatter in a reactor somewhere did it take to power that particular replication?

 

[Jedi_Master]

If I replicate a kilogram of antimatter, how much antimatter in a reactor somewhere did it take to power that particular replication?

You can't replicate antimatter. It would invert the subspace tachyon particle stream and then life as we know it would cease.

 

[Amaris]

Imagine what people could do if their minds were freed up from the worries of scrounging about to meet basic needs?

Lay around the house, get high and watch the tube?

Only if Night Court is on.

I disagree. Not having to work does not necessarily make one lazy.

You'll have to quote me saying that.

You mean like I did when I quoted you before making that response? Let's review:

Seriously?! One of the biggest dream of mankind come true for every person on earth, and it's boring?

Yes. Not having to work makes me lazy. That's a bad thing.

I disagree. Not having to work does not necessarily make one lazy. Imagine what people could do if their minds were freed up from the worries of scrounging about to meet basic needs?

Note the part of your sentence that begins with "Not having to work makes me lazy."

I even made certain to focus on that particular statement by starting my sentence with "I disagree," and following up with "Not having to work does not necessarily make one lazy."

 

[Jedi_Master]

Wine makes me lazy.

 

[Mudd]

Seriously?! One of the biggest dream of mankind come true for every person on earth, and it's boring?

Yes. Not having to work makes me lazy. That's a bad thing.

You'd be bored, then. Don't generalize.

 

[CorporalClegg]

That's impossible, however. You can't get more out of whatever you create then you put in. At best you have to get additional fuel.

It's not any more impossible than creating matter out of thin air.

And if all a replicator does is turn energy into equal parts matter, then it is in no way the holy grail of economic liberation it's made out to be, and this whole argument is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

You mean like I did when I quoted you before making that response? Let's review:

Yes, let's, because apparently you can't distinguish between:

Not having to work makes me lazy.

And:

Not having to work does not necessarily make one lazy

I said it makes ME lazy. What does necessity have to do with it ? Your response has nothing to do with my comment, which was about me.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. Not having to work makes me lazy. That's a bad thing.

You'd be bored, then. Don't generalize.

Who generalized ? I said it was boring. There's that line in my sig that indicates that every post I make is my opinion.

That's impossible, however. You can't get more out of whatever you create then you put in. At best you have to get additional fuel.

It's not any more impossible than creating matter out of thin air.

Well, yes actually, it's more impossible. It's just physics. I realise we're talking about fiction, but if we're to speculate about what it could do in real life, it couldn't do that.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Who's talking about real life?

And the fact that it's impossible only strengthens the argument that the Star Trek economy is total fantasy.

 

[Amaris]

You mean like I did when I quoted you before making that response? Let's review:

Yes, let's, because apparently you can't distinguish between:

Not having to work makes me lazy.

And:

Not having to work does not necessarily make one lazy

I said it makes ME lazy. What does necessity have to do with it ? Your response has nothing to do with my comment, which was about me.

In response to Kai "the Spy" who said:

Seriously?! One of the biggest dream of mankind come true for every person on earth, and it's boring? There are people who don't live for their work, you know.

Kai mentioned mankind as a whole, to which you replied "not having to work makes me lazy."

So your comment was about you, and had nothing to do with Kai's post.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if you would have simply told me that you only meant yourself, you know, instead of leaving a snarky quip that served no purpose.

If you want to be pedantic, be pedantic, but not on my time.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Who's talking about real life?

And the fact that it's impossible only strengthens the argument that the Star Trek economy is total fantasy.

 

[T'Girl]

It's not any more impossible than creating matter out of thin air.

But a replicator doesn't make matter out of thin air, it takes pre-existing matter, dematerializes it, changes it, and then rematerializes it, in it's new form.

And if all a replicator does is turn energy into equal parts matter ...

The replicator uses energy (quite a bit of it), but it doesn't make things out of energy.

 

[Belz...]

So your comment was about you, and had nothing to do with Kai's post.

It had everything to do with it, but I cannot answer for anyone else than myself.

If you want to be pedantic, be pedantic, but not on my time.

I am not being pedantic. You simply misunderstood what I said.

If I wanted to be pedantic, however, I would be as pedantic as I wanted, on your time or anyone else's.

 

[Amaris]

It had everything to do with it, but I cannot answer for anyone else than myself.

Nope.

I am not being pedantic. You simply misunderstood what I said.

If I wanted to be pedantic, however, I would be as pedantic as I wanted, on your time or anyone else's.

Nah.

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

Are you agreeing that I can't answer for anyone but myself, especially since I specified that I was talking about myself ? Honestly, I get bored when I don't have something I have to do. I've been there.

Nah.

Again, I'm not being pedantic on purpose, but I don't think anyone can ask me not to be.

 

[Belz...]

Who's talking about real life?

Well you did say:

That's not what I mean. A replicator could theoretically be totally self-sustaining proved any power source it created produced more energy than the cost of creating one and destroying the previous. I suck at math, so I don't know what that would have to be. But I think it's only 2x+1 where x is the cost.

I assumed since you were talking about theory and math, you were talking about how it would work in reality.

Nice avatar, by the way. Not a bad show.