Your video, Star Trek: Worf on Religion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Worf is TNG, I will accept no substitute!

>> ^Arkaium:

This is actually from Deep Space Nine.


This is actually from The Empire Strikes Back

We have established in earlier discussions that it is a rule, so don't go around confusing new members by saying it's not. Just because whoever writes this stuff down has dropped the ball, doesn't mean all of us have to suffer. This is not legal territory, just because it's not written down, doesn't mean it's not there.

By your logic, because we have this http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-TNG-Live-Stream-24-7 all TNG clips are dupes of it. And that's quite frankly idiotic.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'star trek, tng, parody' to 'star trek, tng, parody, gay, picard' - edited by Fusionaut

Thats really how they should have dealt with her on TNG

>> ^budzos:

I wish that was a turbolift.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The same "rational" Picard who snapped the cybernetic spine of the Queen Borg instead of taking it back to Starfleet for study.


I think RedLetterMedia answers that observation perfectly.
http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-First-Contact-is-the-3-967th-Worst-Film-Ever-Made

The movies were shameless attempts to make badarse action heroes out of the TNG crew.

Inner Light is by far the best TNG because Patrick Stewart is brilliant. Also the very ending, because I just love Q and it's also a Picard heavy episode.
>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^gwiz665:
Temba, his arms wide.
>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^gwiz665:
Shaka!
(Who gets the reference? )

When the walls fell down!


We're a couple of nerds, aren't we?
That's one of my favourite episodes, by far.

I'm continually surprised by how well the LCARS design has dated. Even looking back at TNG season 1, it still looks like a darned futuristic interface.

I was really impressed with this. This really puts the ethics embedded in star trek that I really enjoyed under the microscope.

One of the difficulties of lifting the underlying ethics out of the series is that the series itself spans its creation over an incredible period of time; I'm not sure Gene Roddenberry was thinking 30 years ahead when he first came up with it =P. Also, Gene died shortly into the 4th season of start trek TNG...he wasn't around to be really involved with deep space 9, voyager, or enterprise. This is reflected in TOS vs. TNG; in TOS, the goal was to, "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." TOS was about adventure; they had the people fly out to find a new world, fly down 'n meet 'em, and then get in all kinds of trouble. They seemed to focus on meeting civilizations that were approximately as technologically advanced as starfleet's. In TNG, the stated mission is the same, but the show has a much stronger anthropological sentiment to it. They actually fly down to places where they would be considered gods (and occasionally are, when they screw up).

From the anthropological perspective, the prime directive really does make a lot of sense...to a point. Suppose that you do come across some relatively underdeveloped civilization, and you have the chance to immediately save a lot of citizens of that civilization. Your direct interference with that civilization will indeed mess up your experiments concerning the study of how civilizations develop, so it's something that you generally want to avoid. Trying to save a civilization from one problem necessarily induces another problem. By solving a civilization's problem, their behavior may change to become reliant, and therefor dependent, upon you. Then, what are the ethics of *not* stopping your mission to explore out new civilizations? What are the ethics of *not* creating a supply line to suit the needs of your newly dependent civilization? Should you try to make that civilization self-sufficient to solve their own problems, what are the ethics of giving them technology without the social infrastructure for them to be able to deal with that technology? Finally, after all that, suppose that you give a new civilization new technology and a new social infrastructure to be able to deal with that technology responsibly; you've just committed a much more interesting and philosophical upset, and you've essentially wiped out an entire culture, and replaced it with another. From an anthropological standpoint, that's complete disaster.

That said, there are still times when it's a much bigger disaster to let things fall their course. Suppose a natural disaster is about to occur in which an entire planet will be destroyed. In this case, by not intervening, the entire culture and population will be eradicated, which is completely unacceptable from both anthropological and humanitarian standpoints. What do you do? In one episode of TNG (I can't remember which one), the solution was to transport the entire civilization to their holodecks, and transfer them to a new planet, all the while they believe that they are migrating to some new location on their homeworld. They preserved both the life and the culture, and satisfied both standpoints, which is a great and rare solution.

This video illustrates this caveat and many others by showing that the prime directive should *not* be considered a dogma that should be followed by every anthropologist blindly, but rather should be a rule of thumb. In a tough spot, it'll get you the best outcome most of the time. At other times, advanced levels of thought are necessary in order to fish out the actual best solution. For someone to break this rule of thumb very frequently might raise some eyebrows about what they are doing, as is the case seen in the clip where the senior officer was putting Picard in the hotseat about breaking the directive on 9 separate occasions in a short span of time.

The fact of the matter, though, is that it is *not* treated as a dogma in the series; it *is* treated as a rule of thumb. The fact that Picard broke it on 9 occasions in a short span of time truly shows this. In several other clips that was shown in this video, they actually *did* end up breaking the prime directive.

I believe that the person who created this video was just upset that he was never issued a starfleet academy textbook on the prime directive which spells out every detail and nuance of the directive =P. Of course they don't go into high levels of detail on it; the mass wouldn't be interested, or would just take a course on ethics & philosophy instead. Instead of going into high detail, they did as entertainers do, and just presented the rule in its most frustrating (and therefore interesting) fashion, by showing all of the situations when it makes us violate our own compulsion to follow our own set of moral standards. I believe that the prime directive in the series does come close to that which the author of the clip wants, but is merely stifled in its presentation by drama and intrigue.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^deathcow:
Yep so data has about 45 2 TB hard disks in him.

He actually has about 45 thousand 2 TB had disks in him.


Thanks for the correction. Google says:
800 quadrillion bits = 90 949.4702 terabytes

>> ^deathcow:

Yep so data has about 45 2 TB hard disks in him.


He actually has about 45 thousand 2 TB had disks in him.

If you liked that, you'll love this:

http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-TNG-fan-writes-and-sings-lyrics-for-the-theme-song

That looks to be TNG, so I approve.

Like Sean Connery, he was born that awesome.
>> ^MarineGunrock:

Holy shit, Johnathan Frakes was young. Apparently Stewart never ages.