That's some pretty bold Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before music

"To boldly go where white people have no business going!"

>> ^MayaBaba:

Fly, fly little wing
Fly beyond imagining
The softest cloud, the whitest dove
Upon the wind of heaven’s love
Past the planets and the stars
Leave this lonely world of ours
Escape the sorrow and the pain
And fly again.
Fly, fly precious one
Your endless journey has begun
Take your gentle happiness
Far too beautiful for this
Cross over to the other shore
There is peace forevermore
But hold this memory bittersweet
Until we meet
Fly, fly do not fear
Don’t waste a breath, don’t shed a tear
Your heart is pure, your soul is free
Be on your way, don’t wait for me
Above the universe you’ll climb
On beyond the hands of time
The moon will rise, the sun will set
But I won’t forget.
Fly, fly little wing
Fly where only angels sing
Fly away, the time is right
Go now, find the light.(unknown)


Mark Gormley?...

Your video, The Voyager Probes Boldly Go Where None Have Gone Before, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^phyman:

They sure knew how to build'em in the 70's. I remember when those things were launched! The fact that they are still going is an impressive example of human engineering indeed!


Yeah, it's quite awe inspiring. I do hate it when people criticize NASA for wasting millions on space instead of houses, when NASA's budget is only 0.6% of the American federal budget. We use to be dreamers and explorers, kids wanted to be astronauts and the improbably became the possible.

I'm glad that people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and technology like YouTube are helping put the sexy back into science. Like in a previously related Tyson video, science needs some PR help.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@BoneRemake I'm just saying that, as a matter of practice, it seems more appropriate to have one video = one sift
See:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secret-Life-Of-Brian-Monty-
Pythonreligion-documentary
http://videosift.com/video/the-making-of-star-trek-2009-to-boldly
-go-part-one
http://videosift.com/video/Talking-to-the-Taliban-it-s-a-triba
l-civil-war-stupid
http://videosift.com/video/Why-We-Fight-BBC-Storyville-US-war
-machine-documentary


So then you are just vaguely telling others what to do ? after understanding your point I do not understand why it was brought to discussion. Was the point of that to make it a rule ? or bring light to the issue ? You offer your opinion, which is digested and respected, but after that fact, that is all it is, is opinion. Because as of now I know of no videosift ruling that states you are not allowed to do so. With all that being said the base of the paragraph, I wanted to know is what do you want to be done about it ?

**editors note: Not to edit what I said above, I understand by discussing it you are bringing light to it, but I think a sift poll or talking through a direct sift talk post would be best to get a concrete solution of terms.

@BoneRemake I'm just saying that, as a matter of practice, it seems more appropriate to have one video = one sift

See:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Secret-Life-Of-Brian-Monty-Pythonreligion-documentary
http://videosift.com/video/the-making-of-star-trek-2009-to-boldly-go-part-one
http://videosift.com/video/Talking-to-the-Taliban-it-s-a-tribal-civil-war-stupid
http://videosift.com/video/Why-We-Fight-BBC-Storyville-US-war-machine-documentary

"Marriage... The final frontier... These are the voyages of two geeks at comic con. Their continuing mission: To explore strange new positions... To create new life; new generations of geeks... To boldly go where all her ex-boyfriends have gone before!"

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.

It's 5 minute mission: To boldly go where no model starship has gone before.

Boldly go where no one has gone before...into a good Star Trek PC game.

>> ^HaricotVert:
I'd put this in happy too if I could.


I went one step further and placed this into future, as well.

Boldly going where what?

An incredible journey through the formation of the universe, firstly on the creation of our Solar System and continuing with the following:
Part Two: Staying Alive
Part Three: Blackholes (Farhads Sift)
Part Four: Are We Alone?
Part Five: New Worlds
Part Six: Boldly Go