Star Trek 100000 AD
- Thread starter urbandk
- Start date
Pssshaw...small potatoes!
My Enterprise-1701-Z-2900-Y-Sigma-Epsilon-Googolplex-2 is made of a whole UNIVERSE! (It's called a "Universe class", mundanely enough...)
And it flys around in the United Federation of Multi-verses!
(But it's still recognizably a universe shaped out of like a saucer, a secondary hull, and two tube thingies...)
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year. 
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year.
I would prefer "Star Trek: CE 1000000" myself...
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year.
I would prefer "Star Trek: CE 1000000" myself...
Maybe it's "100,000 After Doohan."
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year.
I would prefer "Star Trek: CE 1000000" myself...
Yeah, but that's just silly people trying to distance themselves from the birth of Christ while still keeping Christ's birth as its basis.. I find it annoying.
Anno Domini: the Year of our Lord.
If all it said was after Yeshua ben Yusef it would be fine enough, as any dating system is going to use a date that seems arbitrary to someone. But considering two-thirds or more of the planet don't recognize Jesus as anything like their lord, it's a bit presumptuous to insist that the standardized date everyone's expected to use, merely because of the triumph of Western civilization, refer to the West's God.
It's kind of like rubbing salt in the wound.
If all it said was after Yeshua ben Yusef it would be fine enough, as any dating system is going to use a date that seems arbitrary to someone. But considering two-thirds or more of the planet don't recognize Jesus as anything like their lord, it's a bit presumptuous to insist that the standardized date everyone's expected to use, merely because of the triumph of Western civilization, refer to the West's God.
It's kind of like rubbing salt in the wound.
Dune.
My Latin is a bit rusty, but I don't think the possessive pronoun "our" is a necessary inclusion in the translation of "Anno Domini". The somewhat more neutral "the year of the lord" or even "the year of a lord" would also be correct I think.
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year.
No, it doesn't.
It can proceed the year, but the standard in modern academic writing is to have it after the year.
That follows as modern academia is made of idiots. It only makes sense if it precedes the year. It drives me batty how people throw out grammatical structure and tradition for uniformity. I don't always get it correct, but to throw it out is sheer lunacy and ignorance. Like the idiots at my school who thought that id est and exempli gratia were interchangable. Hell, I had a professor who thought AD stood for "After Death." Idiot.
I think it's lost its religious connotations and grammatical function and just become a tool for delineating dates. Indeed, I find the movement to CE quixotic, since I don't really care that AD has Christian origins. In fact, choosing to use CE and BCE almost seems to call attention to their use, the opposite of what someone should want.
However, using AD before the year also calls attention to its use. In the year of our lord 2009, I think it's not idiotic to have a standard abbreviation that serves one purpose only, to establish that we're in the common era and not pre-common era. Besides, if we were really serious about fixing the date to Jesus's alleged birth, it would be 2013.
As far as i.e., e.g. ibid., et al., etc., and whatever else have you, their misuse is not an indictment of academia but rather those who misuse them. I'm in academia all day long. I'm not a particularly good academic, but I know that Latin abbreviations and their proper use is not a useful metric of someone's intelligence.
If someone thinks A.D. means after death, then he must have missed that memo, but I wouldn't judge him on that alone.
However, using AD before the year also calls attention to its use. In the year of our lord 2009, I think it's not idiotic to have a standard abbreviation that serves one purpose only, to establish that we're in the common era and not pre-common era. Besides, if we were really serious about fixing the date to Jesus's alleged birth, it would be 2013.
As far as i.e., e.g. ibid., et al., etc., and whatever else have you, their misuse is not an indictment of academia but rather those who misuse them. I'm in academia all day long. I'm not a particularly good academic, but I know that Latin abbreviations and their proper use is not a useful metric of someone's intelligence.
If someone thinks A.D. means after death, then he must have missed that memo, but I wouldn't judge him on that alone.
Well, you got me there. It still ascribes to Jesus the qualities of a lord, which I suspect many would have issue with.
It could work, but the Star Trek already seen is so advanced it would be hard to do much more advanced than it already appears. BTW: AD precedes the year.
I would prefer "Star Trek: CE 1000000" myself...
Yeah, but that's just silly people trying to distance themselves from the birth of Christ while still keeping Christ's birth as its basis.. I find it annoying.
Yeah, that's an aspect of the whole BCE/CE thing I've found a bit...paradoxical...but I think switching to a whole new numbering system - that you'd have to convert BC/AD dates to in your head to figure out the date relative to today (or some other historical date) would just be to confusing, and prevent the adoption of the BCE/CE standard from taking off...(and it is starting to be adopted fairly regularly/commonly in acedemic circles.)
And an born-again atheist (ex-Christian fundie) and and layman wanna-be academic ("poser"), I understand why to desire for a non-Western non-Xtian-centric dating label, so I tend to support BCE/CE and use it whenever I can...
But I didn't mean to derail this thread off-topic, sorry...
Take THAT ancient Mayans.
H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", published 114 years ago. The year 802,701 A.D.
I think it's not brought up that much because even a thousand years out, if a civilization still exists, it won't be human in the way we understand it. I mean, look at Trek--it posits enormous technological change and glosses over all but the most facile implications of it all. The denizens of the 24th century possess truly godlike power but utilize only a fraction of it. It's tough to imagine a society even more powerful than that in a consistently interesting, relatable, and understandable manner (does anyone want to see Star Trek: Organia?).
Which is not to say some SF authors don't attempt it. I'm more out of touch than I should be with some of the more recent forays into hard, predictive SF, but I understand there's some stuff out there that goes for a society that is effectively transhuman.
Which is not to say some SF authors don't attempt it. I'm more out of touch than I should be with some of the more recent forays into hard, predictive SF, but I understand there's some stuff out there that goes for a society that is effectively transhuman.
speculatively, i don't think a thousand years will make that much difference in human society. i understand changes are occurring rapidly, but i think we can look back 10,000 years to agrarian and nomadic hunter-gatherers and still recognize the basic nature of their cultures. we can also look at radically different societies in the world now and have common reference points.
in addition, i imagine that changes and advances in the way people live will not be spread out evenly. there might be radical transformations in some societies but very little elsewhere.
i could be totally wrong, but in a broad sense i imagine life will stay the same more than it will change.
in addition, i imagine that changes and advances in the way people live will not be spread out evenly. there might be radical transformations in some societies but very little elsewhere.
i could be totally wrong, but in a broad sense i imagine life will stay the same more than it will change.
I think change is accelerating. People who lived 2000 years ago lived mostly as people did 8000 years ago. People who lived 200 years ago lived mostly as people did 1000 years ago. But people who lived 100 years ago lived nothing as people did 200 years ago; people who lived 50 years ago lived nothing as people did 100 years ago; people who are alive today lived nothing as they did 50 years ago.
If I can afford it, I like to think immortality will be an option for me. Regardless of whether that prediction is true, I think I'll see artificial intelligence in my lifetime, and a radical economic shift born of automation--in some ways close to replicator society of Trek, if not post-scarcity.
Could be wishful thinking.
If I can afford it, I like to think immortality will be an option for me. Regardless of whether that prediction is true, I think I'll see artificial intelligence in my lifetime, and a radical economic shift born of automation--in some ways close to replicator society of Trek, if not post-scarcity.
Could be wishful thinking.
