Thought of the day (month/year)

It is better to have questions that cannot be answered than it is to have answers that cannot be questioned.

Star Trek 2009

OK, I saw the new Star Trek (2009). It was awesome and I enjoyed it immensely.

Now that that's out of the way, the nit-picking can commence. Spoilers follow.

No, seriously, SPOILERS FOLLOW.




1. The creators of the film obviously have not the faintest conception of how much distance there is between planets, nor how fast light travels. The Enterprise leaves the (former) location of Vulcan at some multiple of the speed of light ("Warp 3"), and after many, many minutes of events on the ship, ditch Kirk on a remote ice world... which is still somehow near enough Vulcan that it could be seen clearly in the sky, probably no further than the moon is from Earth.

2. Spock is ditched on this planet to observe the demise of Vulcan. That's some pretty excellent planning, making sure that he is located on the exact location on a presumably rotating planet to ensure he has a clear view of the planet's demise, even though the timing of the event was fairly imprecise.

3. I can grant you could teleport onto a ship at warp speed, whatever. Except, the ship had been travelling at warp speed for potentially hours by that point. If the transporters are capable of operating over that kind of distance, what is the point of having starships at all?

4. Oh so many more, but I'm out of time. Try Bad Astronomy for more.

Thought for the day

Reality is not subject to a vote.

Important Question #7

What happened to Important Question #6?

Important Question #5

Do you think all of the "missing matter" in the universe could be accounted for by all of the pens I've purchased over the years, have never taken out of the house, but somehow seem to have vanished into thin air? (Conservation of mass, psssh.)

Important Question #4

What in the hell is the matter with you people?

Important Question #3

While debugging in Visual Studio (C++), why can't I edit values in the watch window while the program is running? Sure there may be some context problems with local variables, but at least I could flip debugging globals without having to stop execution.