StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I couldn't care less what was supposedly implied, what Riker actually said was 'Prepare to go to Warp power'. And Trek is LOUSY with examples of using Warp power for other systems WITHOUT the Warp drive actually being engaged. He gives an order to the helm to set a collision course and then tells G...

Riker did NOT order Warp ramming in BobW. He ordered a ramming course, and Warp power . Presumably he wanted the warp power for something other than the warp engines? I'd have to review the episode to see the exact words but from memory the implication that he was intending to take the ship to warp...

My bad, I didn't know of this incident, however, there's still the matter that a Wars ship has shown the ability to shrug off three objects 1/17th it's size moving at a fraction of or greater than c and slamming into it without anyone being surprised. Hmmmm. There seems to be a discrepancy in the n...

The Executor -class Star Dreadnaught Executor had three Imperator 's drop out of hyperspace directly on it, the only thing scorching was Vaders temper, we know that Trek can't travel at the speed any military-grade Wars ship can, and then there's the matter of will they think about it, in all their...

Where did you get the figure of 5e24 J? Did you plug the ship's mass and c into the Newtonian kinetic energy equation? I realise I'm being "naughty" by using Newtonian physics, but Einstein doesn't really help us when it comes to a number. Mass moving at C = infinite mass = infinite energ...

two years to build a warship, kamikaze attacks aren't the best idea. Absolutely not - we're talking about an invading ship bent on the destruction of the Federation. I severely doubt it'd be the first thing they'd try, more an act of desperation after losing dozens of ships without leaving a scratc...

Can I be contraversial and say one ship potentially isn't going to be able to do it (death star notwithstanding). The maths would seem to indicate a single ship, even an ISD *could* be brought down by the Federation. Before anyone reacts in horror I'll do the maths and you can work it out from there...

Right. So we shouldn't do it because it's hard and will cost a lot. Hmmm. Maybe we should legalise all drugs because their regulation is hard? Or stop putting people in prison because it's expensive? Actually I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, despite having nothing to do with them. Surely the ...

Missed this bit first time. You're an imbecile. Those other factors apply equally to both smokers and the non-smoking control group, so they are irrelevant to a comparison of the two groups. Do you have ANY idea how epidemiological studies are performed? Holy fucking shit. How do you manage to remem...

Yes you did, you lying sack of shit. You disputed the productivity loss figure, which was one of only TWO figures that I cited. The other one was the health-care cost. Nope. Pay attention as I repeat "The major component of those figures is working from a baseline of working non-stop through y...

Nice try, but that is NOT your original claim. Your original claim was that smoking actually provides a net gain to society, and it doesn't. WRONG! If we compare smoking versus smoking not existing then you have a point. Smoking being legal versus smoking being illegal is what I was talking about -...

Bullshit. Those figures are based on the fact that you are paid for those hours regardless. The fact that people aren't perfect machines at work does not have any impact on their validity. Horseshit! They're shown in a vacuum. Put them alongside figures for much coffee costs in lost productivity or...

Yeah, I did mention that the war on drugs is pointless, because it brings more harm than legalization of drugs. I asked a question if you consider it always bad if the government regulates what you can put into your body, or do you feel that it's justified if it's done for the good of society. If t...

Your statement is pretty blanket ; What if the substance you put into your body generates hidden costs and social problems that are threatening the functioning of society as a whole? The government should and will regulate such a substance ; the only problem is if regulation won't cause even more p...

And I don't think anyone here is arguing with that point. Their problem with smokers is they stuff they force into other peoples bodies. Unfortunately that's modern living. You can't isolate yourself from the effects of other people living their lives - and if you try then no one gets any freedom. ...

Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties. What? Smoking is a civil liberty now? Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's. I realise peopl...

Show me a source for those figures. The annual business productivity cost of smoking has been estimated at $2565 per employee , and that doesn't even take into account the health-care costs. Total costs of tobacco in Canada are estimated at $9.5 billion, and Canada's population is only a fraction o...

The OP wants arguments against banning smoking altogether - I've leave smoking bans in public places entirely out of this. For justification I can only use UK figures, I don't have US figures. There are currently around 15 million regular users of smoking tobacco products. That includes pipe smokers...