>> ^EDD:

>> ^ant:
>> ^EDD:
Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHMi69-_A0

Submit it please!

Nah, I never really watched any Star Trek TV series (I have the Sift to thank for pretty much all my (very limited) ST-related knowledge), I only ever saw short clips and snippets), so I wouldn't even know how to tag this kind of thing properly... You go ahead and submit it (and forward me the link, I'll sure vote for it though).


OK and thanks. It will be a while since this is a low priority submission. If anyone else wants to submit, go for it and please kindly let us know!

>> ^ant:

>> ^EDD:
Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHMi69-_A0

Submit it please!


Nah, I never really watched any Star Trek TV series (I have the Sift to thank for pretty much all my (very limited) ST-related knowledge) - I only ever saw short clips and snippets, so I wouldn't even know how to tag this kind of thing properly... You go ahead and submit it (and forward me the link, I'll sure vote for it though).

>> ^EDD:

Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHMi69-_A0


Submit it please!

It's only 36^52 if the attacker knows there must be 52 characters, which seems fairly unlikely. Instead, assuming 52 is the longest likely password, you have to add up 36^52 + 36^51 + 36^50, etc...

In any case, this password is fairly secure. The brute force GPU methods another poster mentioned are currently viable against 9-10 character passwords, but only if we have the hash, and only if the hashing algorithm is very simple. The complexity of a hash would be something that we would expect to scale with processing power, so in terms of addressing this problem we could effectively assume that the resulting computer in TNG time would be about the same effectiveness as a current one (in terms of hashes analyzed per second).

Unfortunately, this password is about 10^62 times as complex as the largest viable brute force candidates. That is a large number.

I fixed the embed but I guess jtv (or the caster) has changed the way they do things and you wind up being redirected to their site to view the stream (have to click "TNG" in the middle of where the video should be), so I will just *dead this again until I can sort it out.

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^Deano:
Oh Worf. A millennium is 1,000 years. But he said "A millennia". Which is the plural. Should have dropped the A.
Anyway, I always thought whats-her-name there was very cute.

English is his second language. I forgive him.


Does he speak English or is that the translator we here?

@blankfist I like Star Trek but yes a lot of it is bloody rubbish. Guilty pleasure for me but some eps I just want to fast forward.

Congratulations! Your video, Star Trek: Worf on Religion, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 21 Badge!

>> ^Deano:
Oh Worf. A millennium is 1,000 years. But he said "A millennia". Which is the plural. Should have dropped the A.
Anyway, I always thought whats-her-name there was very cute.


English is his second language. I forgive him.

>> ^blankfist:

I don't get what people see in Star Trek.


I don't get what people see in watching professional sports. I get playing sports. I get watching your friend/partner/child playing sports. I just don't understand the allure of watching professional athletes.

As for what people see in Star Trek? It's escapist wish fulfillment, like any fantasy. The idea that our (or our descendants) lives in the future, while still recognizable, will be better than they are now. That we can overcome the petty, backwards, theist-stained bullshit our lives are currently mired in. That was Roddenberry's dream. Everything before most of DS9, and ALL of Voyager, is his vision. A vision shared by thousands (maybe millions?) of people...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - without stepping into the issue of theism/atheism in real life - labelling this clip as 'atheist' is moronic because Worf was actually a deeply religious person according to the Klingon belief system. He in fact chided the Federation a bit in a couple TNG & DS9 episodes because they lacked a spiritual aspect. Interpreting this as an "atheist" clip is quoting two words of a fundie preach who said, "Christ died" and calling him an atheist. Stupidly inaccurate.


You forgot about the "they were more trouble than they were worth" part.

Theism/atheism and following ancient traditions are two completely separable things.

Sigh - without stepping into the issue of theism/atheism in real life - labelling this clip as 'atheist' is moronic because Worf was actually a deeply religious person according to the Klingon belief system. He in fact chided the Federation a bit in a couple TNG & DS9 episodes because they lacked a spiritual aspect. Interpreting this as an "atheist" clip is quoting two words of a fundie preach who said, "Christ died" and calling him an atheist. Stupidly inaccurate.

The TNG movies aren't canon! >> ^quantumushroom:

Yeah, and because Worf is an atheist and therefore cherishes life more than those kooky religious: in First Contact he was ready to ram the Defiant into the Borg Cube, which wouldn't have damaged the cube in the slightest but sure would've killed everyone on board his ship.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Yeah, and because Worf is an atheist and therefore cherishes life more than those kooky religious: in First Contact he was ready to ram the Defiant into the Borg Cube, which wouldn't have damaged the cube in the slightest but sure would've killed everyone on board his ship.

>> ^Deano:
Oh Worf. A millennium is 1,000 years. But he said "A millennia". Which is the plural. Should have dropped the A.
Anyway, I always thought whats-her-name there was very cute.


It's that bizzaro Klingon/CHiPs accent he has. Also, "what's her name" ended up marrying the doctor. When her character had Keiko's baby placed in her, it was to cover the fact she was having Bashir's kid.

Yeah, I was expecting to facepalm or cringe. Instead, this looks like it has a better basic plot than 50% of the actual Star Trek movies.

What gives, did an ex-TNG writer decide this was the only way to get his script to see the light of day?
>> ^Sarzy:

That looks like they're actually trying to tell a semi-credible Star Trek story. Not nearly as hilariously terrible as I thought it was going to be.