Random Banter

[Overmind One]

Transgenderism is destroying women's sports! Notice it's not the women who go for men's sports. It's the failed men who decide they want to compete in women's sports. Just sayin

They are MEN competing against women, and you are right about the bolded!

 

[YJ02]

Never heard of her before Harry ...never watched the show!

same here, no idea who she is

 

[YJ02]

I remember some talk here about transgender people in sports a while back. Can't find it though. Perhaps it was somewhere in this thread even. In any case, I just came across the following on twitter, so I thought I'd post it here for y'all to feast on.


I'm just loving all the comments on it pointing out the obvious fallacy. O, and here's my reply while I'm at it.

i had posted about Caster Semenya, a woman by birth and who had been verified as a woman by a IOOC(?) doctor in a physical

so i guess her "parts" are what you would expect to find on a female

this is a problem with the left and many areas. like how they are for women's rights yet are silent when it comes to women's rights in certain cultures

your tweet post shows where they are fighting for trans athletes, yet they are silent on this woman's case and others like her when sports agencies single them out for banning while in many cases, never do anything against the trans athletes

hot button issue people get support while people who are born a certain way are left under represented and under protected in court

woman do make testosterone naturally, her's (Semenya's) is naturally high, she is considered androgynous, yet we have had discussions here before where it has been said that people should be considered per the way they were born and what sex they were based on genitalia

making her take testosterone blockers to compete is like having a person who is tall play basketball on their knees

will the 'lets be fair to everyone' crowd ever really see the idiocy of their actions? or will they just make it 'fair' for everyone to get a trophy?

 

[YJ02]

SPACEX tests their Starship Hopper

also known as the flying water tank

 

[Lord Ba'al]

https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.am...ts-to-work-on-human-animal-embryo-experiments

 

[Lord Ba'al]

For @Overmind One

https://www-engadget-com.cdn.amppro...on-is-a-free-roaming-star-trek-vr-experience/

 

[Overmind One]

For @Overmind One

https://www-engadget-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2019/07/31/away-mission-is-a-free-roaming-star-trek-vr-experience/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/31/away-mission-is-a-free-roaming-star-trek-vr-experience/

There is another game out there in VR called Star Trek Bridge Crew, and at least that one has all of the bridge sets (including TOS). This one appears to be 100% Discovery (STD), which means I won't be getting it. But thanks for posting it!

 

[Lord Ba'al]

There is another game out there in VR called Star Trek Bridge Crew, and at least that one has all of the bridge sets (including TOS). This one appears to be 100% Discovery (STD), which means I won't be getting it. But thanks for posting it!

Ah, I hadn't noticed. Otherwise I would obviously not have posted it for you.

 

[Overmind One]

Ah, I hadn't noticed. Otherwise I would obviously not have posted it for you.

It looks good visually. The real reason I should have explained might make itself obvious by watching Bridge Crew's concept here:


The visuals are beautiful. However, the biggest problem is it's almost mandatory multiplayer participation to play it. There aren't a lot of people out there in the VR gaming community at this time. The saturation for VR is nowhere approaching consoles or even the PC-only gaming communities. In other words, there is nobody to play with! This makes the game pretty much useless for somebody wanting to have an immersive VR gaming experience. I read the reviews for it and decided not to buy it.

This one, being that it is 100% on the Discovery, is definitely not going to find a home in my VR library. Just knowing that somewhere in the environment I am experiencing, there is a room where a magic tardigrade is used to instantaneously transport the ship to any point in the universe, in a Star Trek show, and I immediately want to exit. Also, I think this same multiplayer issue might be a problem. I could still buy it and review it, huh?

 

[YJ02]

being that it is 100% on the Discovery,

isn't this ship the Aegis?

 

[Lord Ba'al]

It looks good visually. The real reason I should have explained might make itself obvious by watching Bridge Crew's concept here:


The visuals are beautiful. However, the biggest problem is it's almost mandatory multiplayer participation to play it. There aren't a lot of people out there in the VR gaming community at this time. The saturation for VR is nowhere approaching consoles or even the PC-only gaming communities. In other words, there is nobody to play with! This makes the game pretty much useless for somebody wanting to have an immersive VR gaming experience. I read the reviews for it and decided not to buy it.

This one, being that it is 100% on the Discovery, is definitely not going to find a home in my VR library. Just knowing that somewhere in the environment I am experiencing, there is a room where a magic tardigrade is used to instantaneously transport the ship to any point in the universe, in a Star Trek show, and I immediately want to exit. Also, I think this same multiplayer issue might be a problem. I could still buy it and review it, huh?

I wouldn't waste money on something you don't like just for the sake of reviewing it, unless it's really cheap perhaps. Your review is likely to be heavily biased due to your dislike of Discovery anyway.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

I see numbers everywhere I go

Better than seeing dead people.

 

[Overmind One]

isn't this ship the Aegis?

Could be, but the ship itself is basically the Discovery, and everything in the game is from the Discovery era and has Discovery suits, designs and visuals. Remember, Discovery is the only show where you see any of the stuff in this game, not any other show. Discovery has nothing in common with any other Star Trek show.

 

[Overmind One]

I wouldn't waste money on something you don't like just for the sake of reviewing it, unless it's really cheap perhaps. Your review is likely to be heavily biased due to your dislike of Discovery anyway.

Yep, you are right about that.

 

[YJ02]

Could be, but the ship itself is basically the Discovery, and everything in the game is from the Discovery era and has Discovery suits, designs and visuals. Remember, Discovery is the only show where you see any of the stuff in this game, not any other show. Discovery has nothing in common with any other Star Trek show.

i looked up the hull number

the NX 1787

I am not 'sharpshooting' you here, its just that the "nx" caught my eye, and I remembered form ENTERPRISE that NX designation was for experimental ships. a lot like when the air force puts an x before the plane's numerical designation. like the x35

so i just typed in nx 1787 and info on the USS AEGIS came up. some ship from an alternate timeline in some trek video game.

what does "nx" stand for anyhow? i get what it is in real world, is it 'nacelle experimental' for trek?

one result--https://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-bridge-crew-hands-on/

 

[Overmind One]

i looked up the hull number

the NX 1787

I am not 'sharpshooting' you here, its just that the "nx" caught my eye, and I remembered form ENTERPRISE that NX designation was for experimental ships. a lot like when the air force puts an x before the plane's numerical designation. like the x35

so i just typed in nx 1787 and info on the USS AEGIS came up. some ship from an alternate timeline in some trek video game.

what does "nx" stand for anyhow? i get what it is in real world, is it 'nacelle experimental' for trek?

one result--https://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-bridge-crew-hands-on/

NX is the designation for experimental ships. The Aegis is a Kelvin era ship not in the canon timeline. It has the Abrams style nacelles and ship design outside and also inside. That is why I won't be getting the game:

The bridge of the Aegis:

The outside of the Aegis (note the nacelles):

This show does not exist in the canon timeline with the Enterprise or any other canon starship. I don't expect the game to do very well with Star Trek fans, but it might appeal to people who like Abrams trek and Discovery. It looks beautiful, but like Bridge Crew, it almost requires multiplayer to play it effectively.

 

[Overmind One]

Honesty really is an expensive gift and I am giving it away like it's candy...Okay not again. Time to be a two faced person in real life. Pieces of shit some humans are - but unfortunately, it's hard to find who is a piece of shit and who isn't.

Why did you post this comment on this thread?

 

[YJ02]

NX is the designation for experimental ships. The Aegis is a Kelvin era ship not in the canon timeline. It has the Abrams style nacelles and ship design outside and also inside. That is why I won't be getting the game:

The bridge of the Aegis:

View attachment 35275

The outside of the Aegis (note the nacelles):

View attachment 35276

This show does not exist in the canon timeline with the Enterprise or any other canon starship. I don't expect the game to do very well with Star Trek fans, but it might appeal to people who like Abrams trek and Discovery. It looks beautiful, but like Bridge Crew, it almost requires multiplayer to play it effectively.

yes, just talking about the number and how it popped out with the NX

what does NX stand for in trek anyhow?

 

[Overmind One]

yes, just talking about the number and how it popped out with the NX

what does NX stand for in trek anyhow?

The two letters appear to be arbitrary, having no actual meaning. Similar to the X-type aircraft developed by the Air Force and also NASA, the X designation applies to prototypes and experimental aircraft. In Star Trek, the NX designation appears to be applied to one-offs and small volume starship types like the Defiant (NX-74205) which was a working prototype class warship, and Captain Archer's Enterprise which was the first of it's kind (warp 5 engine) and also the first Starship Enterprise (NX-01).

 

[YJ02]

The two letters appear to be arbitrary, having no actual meaning. Similar to the X-type aircraft developed by the Air Force and also NASA, the X designation applies to prototypes and experimental aircraft. In Star Trek, the NX designation appears to be applied to one-offs and small volume starship types like the Defiant (NX-74205) which was a working prototype class warship, and Captain Archer's Enterprise which was the first of it's kind (warp 5 engine) and also the first Starship Enterprise (NX-01).

right, for experimental or test ships

in reality "nx" stands for 'navy' or 'naval experimental', like the USAF's "x" designation (though in the USAF the numbers after do not always match with the finished product, as the x-15 was far diff from the f-15)

in trek, there is some speculation that since Roddenberry was in the army air corps, he wanted some terms from the real world navy to carry over.

some cites state there is no explanation for either nx or ncc in canon, though some think ncc is for 'naval construction contract' though in trek, we hear the terms 'fleet' and 'starfleet' but never 'navy' idt.

i guess for me, i'll just stick with 'nacelle experimental', makes more sense then navy experimental