Ah, so the wriggly things didn't eat their brains..
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
That was not their purpose, no.Ah, so the wriggly things didn't eat their brains..
Khan: ..Allow me introduce you to Ceti Alpha Five's only remaining indigenous lifeform. ...What do you think? They've killed twenty of my people, including my beloved wife. ...Oh, not all at once, ...and not ...instantly, to be sure. ...You see, their young enter through the ears ...and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later, ...they grow, ...follows madness. ...And death. (emphasis added for appropriate details from the film.)
I think the moral there is always use earplugs when going to sleep on an alien planet..
Or, you know, count your freaking planets!I think the moral there is always use earplugs when going to sleep on an alien planet..
Not my opinion, but found online and copied here. I actually dig it.
Can i sneak in a question about The Wrath of Khan movie?-
When Chekov and another crewman beamed down to that hostile 'sandstorm' type planet and were captured by Khan and his followers and taken to their cargo container home, why did the two refuse to answer Khan's simple question about why they'd beamed down?
No wonder Khan was annoyed and put them wriggly things in their ears..
Because Genesis was a classified project. That's why Kirk needed a retina scan to access the file, why Spock and McCoy had never heard of it until then, and why Kruge needed a spy to steal it.
Gene Roddenberry a possible actual Romulan, used Star Trek in part, to put a finger into the eye of Irwin Allen...
How?
If you watch; Lost in Space, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants, Time Tunnel, the computers in these series were actual first generation vacuum tube based machines, that weren't quite as automated as Star Trek's.
How?
If you watch; Lost in Space, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants, Time Tunnel, the computers in these series were actual first generation vacuum tube based machines, that weren't quite as automated as Star Trek's.
Nonsense.
Inconceivable!
Also, when a veteran officer, colleague, and friend says "he put creatures in our bodies to control our minds," perhaps take out your tricorder and scan him to make sure said creature is not still there.
It is called 'tongue and cheek'...
And considering the Strange New Worlds episode 'Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and Tomorrow', how do you know that? For sure.
Furthermore, going to the second part, the shows that I mentioned all made use of actual early computer equipment. Those blinking lights originally allowed the computer system that they were connected to, to be programed, in binary.
Before Xerox PARC, developed windows, the earliest computers were programmed in binary, then came Assembly Language, the early programming languages; such as COBAL, FORTRAN, BASIC, APL, RPG...
ALL of them are still used today.
It isn’t.
It’s called tongue in cheek.
And for it to be called that, your comment would have to be funny, or even make sense.
Count the laugh emojis you got.
Zero.
Not funny then.
Count the likes.
Zero.
Then I guess it didn’t make sense.
This is a thread for controversial opinions. Whatever nonsense it is that you posted qualifies as neither.
That is completely incorrect. You probably could not be more wrong. Programming languages existed since the 1950s,
PARC didn't develop windows, it developed a GUI (typo: had typed GU) for their ALTO station. There were others, some of which were influenced directly by Alto, some of which were not. Please don't spread misinformation to prove some weird incomprehensible point.
Last edited:
Yep - and APPLE stole the PARC interface (and mouse design) and made the first MacOS. THEN Microsoft, in turn, stole the MacOS design to build Windows.
The film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" did an excellent job nut-shelling that period in early personal computer history.
Oy vey!
The film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" did an excellent job nut-shelling that period in early personal computer history.
Oy vey!
I always hear the Windows part and wonder that people didn't know that the Atari ST and the Amiga had interfaces that were a heck of a lot closer to Macs (and previously Lisa) and earlier than Windows 3.1 was. But everyone was still joking that IBM now stood for "I Became a Macintosh". "Windows" didn't DO anything until Windows 95. It was a "Mac looking" interface but not an operating system.
Even Windows 95/98/Me still had a great deal of MS-DOS under the hood. It really wasn't until the switch to the NT kernel that consumers were using a true operating system separate and distinct from DOS.
Even current iterations have code structure dating back to 3.1.
Ah, true. There was also the AT&T System V computer, going back to 1983 (one year before Mac), that had a rudimentary Windows-like interface and 3-button mouse. My dad had one of those for development as a FedGov contractor.
We did actually also have an Atari 520ST (later got a 1040ST), the former of which was released in 1985, around the same time as Microsoft Windows 1. So yeah, it really was a "race to the middle" for some of these environments.
EDIT: Sorry for the continued tangent, Digits. I guess I started writing this before I saw your last post.
"Gene's vision" was more of a marketing tool than an actual philosophy.
Similar threads
