FriendOfDeSoto

Starfleet is not good at operational security. Why does the landing party contain half or more department heads? I would start there, either by revamping their guidelines or as viewers suspending disbelief.

I think the shuttle solution is elegant and I'm sure a writers room has discussed it. Today this would be (comparatively) trivially easy to CGI; I suppose during TOS it would have necessitated extra work days for the model unit and a permanent shuttle set, which I don't think we get until TNG.

Several aspects of the universe were developed over time and several writers will have been involved. The insane scarcity of spots for the academy is something from early TNG that pretty much falls by the wayside later on and goes unremarked. Like Chief O'Brian starts off as a nameless con/nav officer with lieutenant pips and then somehow becomes a non-com with a rich war history, a wife that hates him, and a child lost in time temporarily.

They needed to keep the Wheaton out lukewarm in case the child actor wanted out or had to go for another reason. So they dangled his acceptance to the academy in front of us so it wouldn't be a surprise when they finally got rid of the boy (the boy?). It's a bit far fetched that super warp genius tapped to become a traveler of space and time would not get in as many times as he didn't, for various questionable reasons.

You have just landed on the only angle that could get me to watch a movie about bitcoin: macabre schadenfreude.

I was looking for something similar late last year. I dare say there is no good and FOSS solution right now on Android.

From the way you phrased that, I suspect you already have a opinion and you're not looking for a reasonable debate. New account also just for this one. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

I get it, you're okay with it. And I would allow then to continue funding it if their environmental conscience demanded it. And if they sailed there or even flew economy I'd still allow them to pull a trigger themselves. But I think overall this idea that rich and most likely Caucasian asshole money is required to keep conservation projects in Africa going smacks of a school of post colonial thinking that I don't subscribe to. Africans are not solely motivated by asshole money to preserve their ecosystems.

As I said, I agree with you. As another commenter said, big tobacco lied and got caught and punished. Big booze hasn't risen to quite that level. Additionally and unfortunately, alcoholics and gambling addicts are probably a relatively small part of the population and less likely to vote. And politics is a numbers game. We live in a relatively fucked up world. Where convicted sexual assaulters can still be president. Where the only person convicted from a pedophile gang is a woman. And where you need to be stronger than most of us to not fall off the wagon. But you can translate this justified anger into political change. This must be an issue that has an action group in politics somewhere, which you could seek out and support.

How is that legal?

Those considerations are always a trade-off. How much government should interfere with an industry, especially one that's been around since we monkeys climbed down from the trees? There isn't just the plight of alcoholics to consider. An advertisement ban would affect business and jobs. It would take a considerable chunk out of the advertising market that when gone world affect media, an already struggling industry. And AA doesn't quite have the deep pockets for lobbying. It's legal because it's complicated, not because it's just.

I happen to agree with you here; ads for alcohol should be banned along with those for any sort of gambling and prescription medication while I'm at it. This "drink responsibly" campaign is an effort to make it harder for lawmakers to decide. I'm reminded of that Soviet Union quote and i'm paraphrasing: we know that they know that we know that they know they're lying yet the lying continues.

One day at a time.

Hunting is part of conservation efforts. Hunting tourism is not necessary. Rich assholes flying around the world in private jets just at that they can shoot at a different type of animal than at home is questionable.

And I know they weren't hunting elephants. It's just if I were charged by a herd of elephants and I happened to hold a rifle in my hand, I'd probably be tempted to make use of it in self defense. And the animals could have hurt themselves while acting in self defense from their POV as well.

Keep in mind that you are talking about a German supermarket chain and you want to protest a company headquartered in Israel. Their reaction may lack rationality.

Do what you think is right. Just be aware of the possible consequences.

Unnecessary or annoying are perhaps not the standard to judge this by. I think legally you could be in trouble. Inside your local supermarket isn't the place for a protest. Trying to dissuade customers from buying certain products by tempering with the merchandise, even if it's just a post it note, will at the very least get you barred from shopping there and at worst a day in court. If you are unlucky, this has the potential to be a decision you'll rue.

Look at what kind of protest is allowed where you are. Because the rules aren't universal. But holding a placard on the public space in front of the store may be the safer option.

The fact that this hunting tourism exists is more than infuriating. When people die it cannot be mildly infuriating; even when a-holes kick the bucket. So why is this story here? Which bit is only mildly infuriating?

I hope the elephants are alright.