Ron78

On 9/20/2017 at 1:55 PM, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

So I posted a while back that I was going to watch all the series and movies in order of when they took place on the timeline.  Well I finished up Enterprise a while back, actually I loved it.  Started the original series and remembered some of the episodes (from watching re-runs as a kid), got through the first season and decided I'd skip on to TNG.  I'd already seen all the movies that took place after the OS prior to TNG.  Also skipping the animated series.  Decided to just watch in the order of the shows, movies at release now.  

 

Currently in season 6 of TNG and am really enjoying it.  Not sure why I never gave it a chance when it first aired.  I watched some episodes of it and Deep Space 9 only because my roommate watched it in college.  Can't wait to finish it up and watch TNG movies.  

 

Noticing that DS9 starts right where I'm at in TNG (Season 6) and overlaps for two seasons and Voyager starting during season 3 of DS9 and TNG movies being spread out overlapping both DS9 and Voyager, what order should I watch them in?  Or does that really matter?

 

Should I just finish TNG and those movies.  Then start DS9, finish it.  Then Voyager and finish it.  

It is cooler to watch the seasons in chronological order because of a few guest appearances here and there, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much.  You will string it all together in the end either way.

TNG was an awesome show.  I liked DS9 just a little more.  Like you I grew up on the original series, but despite it's charm and classic characters it is hard to get past just how dated the special effects, props, and sets are, so I understand why you skipped a couple seasons.

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Is The New 'Star Trek: Discovery' Promo Hinting At Connection To Previous Series?

No hint.  It is supposed to take place 10 years prior to the original series.

On 7/24/2017 at 8:22 PM, DM72 said:

Mayweather vs McGreggor tix went on sale today. 

 

I must say, they're not as expensive as I thought they'd be. The real fans can actually afford to see it live. The get in price is $500. Expensive, but not THAT expensive.

I think the PPV is reasonably priced too.  Even though I think McGregor stands almost no chance of winning, I am definitely buying the PPV because I want to see exactly how it goes down.  McGregor claims to have a strategy.  I want to see how far that strategy can take him.

7 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Ron78 described it pretty good.   You are setting the show before the original show.  Your show has to show that time period. I'm not sure they are.  They may have some things in it, that place it beyond the original show's  timeline.

 

I just feel, any new show should've been set in the future; where you have a clean slate.

 

http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/bryan-fuller-star-trek-discovery/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_facebook_entertainmentweekly

 

Bryan Fuller's original idea, might have hold some promise?

 

 

A post Voyager series that opened up the door for cameos of actors from previous Trek shows was the only way to go.  That might of had me purchasing a CBS subscription.

Just now, nonniey said:

Well it certainly looks better than Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise.

I don't agree.  Next Generation had some seriously good writing in its last 4 seasons.  Enterprise had a decent 1st season, and a strong 4th season.  Voyager absolutely sucked, but I would still take it over this Discovery crap.

On 7/27/2017 at 4:51 PM, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Why is it a mistake they went 10 years before the original ST series?  Elaborate.  

Because you have to walk a fine line between the style of a show set 10 years prior (that is made in the 2010's) and the style of the original series (which was made in the 60's).  They have done a good job of this with prior incarnations of Trek, but it doesn't even look like they are trying to make this series fit the Star Trek puzzle.  Everything looks completely different and incongruent with the timeline.

Also, there needs to be continuity in other ways (like the Klingons for example).  The Klingons were a significant part of the Star Trek story-line for basically it's entire existence.  Make up has changed them over the years, but now the Klingons they are introducing in this new series hardly resemble the Klingons we have known in the past (not out of necessity, but out of choice).  CBS is being lazy, and it is going to result in this series being a bust. 

4 hours ago, drowland said:

  Hide contents

My take on the flu was Woody's character thought it made humans primitive because they could no longer speak.  The reality is all they lost was their voice.  Nova showed she was still intelligent and was able to pick up sign language.  Woody realized this later when he caught the flu and was over come with guilt and depression for killing his son in cold blood for no reason.  that's why he was drinking heavily and his son's photo was on the table.  Caesar saw this and showed mercy.  

 

17 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

It looks like crap.  I just watched "All Good Things" on Hulu.  I hadn't seen it in well over a decade and wanted to see if it still holds up.  Part of the appeal is nostalgia, but I still really enjoyed it.  I really missed those days of Star Trek.  This monstrosity bears no resemblance.

20 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

  Hide contents

There were a ton of soldiers. It showed this when Caesar and group were following them they had heavy firepower, humvees etc. also, i assumed the Apes were caught off guard since they had the women and children with them which they didn't during their fight against the soldiers in the opening scene. 

 

I don't know...they were starved and beaten and weak from the work. Not to mention seemed fairly lost and rudderless without their leader as evidence by how quickly their resolve changed when he arrived. Still, they probably could have done more. I think having the children separated helped keep the adults in line. 

 

I thought the simian flu was the plague caused by Caesar releasing the toxin. Therefore all Apes that come in contact with it are essentially exposed to the toxin like Caesar while humans died or eventually devolved. That's why Caesar was so shocked to see an intelligent ape on their level aside from the fact that he could speak. He thought only those exposed were like them not realizing the flu caused any other Apes to be similar. Thats how I understood it even prior to this film. Thought this was implied in Dawn but I'll have to check again.

 

i don't know about the sign language. I thought they just delolved to being unable to speak. All the the cases we witnessed hadthe humans showing understanding of their surroundings and situations just without the ability to speak. They still showed fear, anger, loveetc. I don't think they were as primitive as Woody suggested. Could be bias against Apes projecting that savageness and primitiveness onto the affected humans. 

 

I loved the struggle Caesar had with his hatred of the humans and his visions of Koba. It was a very good ending for his story. Once he had lost himself it was an appropriate time to die. Beautiful and tragic

 

 

 

 

I saw War for the Planet of the Apes, and being a huge fan of the first two, I was really disappointed in this film. I give it a 5.5 out of 10.

The CG was top notch, but the plot had some serious holes.  

2 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

 

I prefer this one...

1 minute ago, tshile said:

That sounds great, and is the typical Economist theory on how things will work out.

 

Problem is that the money will move, but the actual people won't. The people that do the taxes, the legal work, etc all have careers that go away and while individually their skills may translate to another sector there's rarely enough space for most of them.

 

I think insurance is a drain on society but your answer of what to do for the people in the sector isn't very good. They're going to be screwed without an actual plan.

 

Society may hate the industry and the execs making all that money but the execs will be fine. The people hurt are largely like the rest of the people we're claiming need help.

To be honest, my line work would also be eliminated if Direct Pay Health Care was implemented, and I would have to find a new line of work as well.  I don't think we should maintain a grossly inefficient process just to keep people comfortable in the same jobs they have always had. 

56 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity, whats the plan for all the people that would lose their jobs if you got rid of the health insurance industry?

Saving money on Health Care would mean that people would have more money to invest elsewhere in the economy (maybe even other areas of insurance coverage). 

@Larry  I completely agree with you that if what we meant by "eliminate the insurance companies" was instead give our money to the government and let them administer our Health Care, that would not be an ideal situation because the government has a tendency to mismanage the money  we give them (just look at social security).  You have missed what the concept "Direct Pay Health Care" represents.  It is explained in the article I posted.  Basically you are paying a monthly "membership fee" to providers to mitigate risk instead of a monthly premium to insurance companies.  If you eliminate insurance companies from the equation, it could be a huge savings.

You are right that insurance companies have always allowed about 80% of what providers billed them (an allowance is a combination of what the insurance company pays and what the patient pays out of pocket), but that doesn't factor in what the insurance companies deny.  Insurance companies outright deny coverage sometimes (for a variety of reasons) and that costs providers or patients huge sometimes.  You would obviously eliminate those denials with Direct Pay.  Also, the portion of the 80% that is patient liability is so high sometimes (due to the affordable care act) that patients are not paying everything they owe.  Hospitals are taking a hit nationwide because of this.

Also, I think you're wrong about Hospitals being able to cut their staff under a single payer system.  Medicare, for example, is so inefficient and complex that it requires special staff with a special understanding of that payer.  A single government payer would probably require more attention (not less).

16 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

If that were true then it would happen with insurance companies. Instead the prices are all foing up uniformly. The insurance companies already pocketbthe difference, and they are all in competition with one another yet their products remain very similar. What you would end up woth under your plan is a 21 year old healthy stud paying nickles for his "membership" whereas the 70 year old senior get milked. There's nothing in your pman that would help even the drastic swings that take place. 

The insurance company still represents a "middle man" that has to pay its employees and score a profit. You remove that from the equation and the savings can be huge.  Plus, we don't get as much competition among insurance companies as we would like because there is a lack of competition across state lines.  Reimbursement from Medicaid and Medicare would still probably have to exist in some form.

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

What's to stop the healthcare provider from just pocketing the difference?

Competition on the free market.  You would have options.  What's to stop insurance companies from pocketing the difference?  They make out like bandits.

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

I see so little difference between that and insurance other than one being managed by a third party.

It cuts out the middle man.  Insurance companies make money by assessing high premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurances.  Also, by negotiating discounts with providers and delaying or outright denying payment to providers.  If you could eliminate the insurance companies, it would reduce costs for both patients and providers.  It has been tested in really small markets with success.  If you implemented it on a large scale, I am willing to bet it would be more successful because of greater pooling.

14 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@Ron78that's how hospitals work in Guatemala, but imagine having to pay $15,000 to leave the hospital. Insurance is just pre-healthcare financing. The problem is that politicians and the healthcare industry aren't doing a damn thing to address healthcare costs, instead they just want to find ways to pay for continually exploding healthcare costs. Republicans wouldn't dream of ever putting rate caps on services because in captialism everyone deserves the right to be able to ransom their neighbor's life for small fortunes.

$15,000 to leave?  That is not how the direct pay model works.  You pay a monthly fee for "membership" to a provider instead of paying an insurance premium (and all the overhead that comes with insurance).  Insurance companies cost both medical providers and patients tons of money.  If you could work out a system that eliminates the need for medical insurance, you could reduce the cost of Health Care.

Direct Pay Health Care might be the best solution:

http://www.netquote.com/health-insurance/news/health-care-membership-fees

Eliminate the middle man (commercial insurance companies) and you will reduce the cost of health care.

I saw Wonder Woman, and I give it a B+.  It wasn't a perfect film, but it was entertaining.  It was certainly better than Batman vs Superman or Suicide Squad.  In some ways, I felt like they were trying to use a similar formula to Captain America: The First Avenger (e.g., the military love interest, the eccentric back-up crew, and the committed super hero wielding a shield against the Germans).