I think Hollywood has a lot to do with our common misperception of space travel. Star Trek, Star Wars, and other sci-fi tales make it look like planetary systems are relatively close together and easy to travel to. This is a necessary premise for the development of the story. This is also incredibly wrong.

"Existence" by David Brin (2012)

Well, let's be realistic. It's comparative. I'll grant the "late-night stoners discussion" metaphor. But given Hollywood, that's head-and-shoulders above other films. You're not going to get Kierkegaard or Dennett on the silver screen. Hell, we're lucky to get Lewis Black or Tina Fey.

What?! What movie did you see??? Prometheus was all cerebral.

Along with Ashisyou, I am one of the few who absolutely loved TRON: Legacy. I bought the Blu-ray as soon as it came out.

Actually, let me state it another way. Given that we have already found the necessary requirements for life elsewhere in the galaxy (liquid water, hydrocarbons, amino acids, energy), the odds of life forming are dwarfed by the opportunities available for life.

Okay, if not nukes...can we at least launch some Patriot missiles at the next one? Or we could go old school with some napalm and burn it out!!

Your use of the word "rare" is subjective and doesn't mean much given the scales of the universe.

Not even remotely true.

You're absolutely correct. I apologize.

You are correct. I mistyped.

Perhaps...perhaps not.

There may not have been any Cronenberg involvement, but it was a continuation of the same storyline and it even featured the pompous prick editor from the first movie. I'd say that's a sequel.

Actually, Smeagol was one of the River Folk, not a Hobbit...although they are distantly related. Neither are human.

Agreed.

An English teacher once told me the word "that" is rarely used correctly and can usually be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. I agree.

I've only read 4 Trek novels. Ashes of Eden (Shatner), Crossover (Friedman), Mere Anarchy (Barr, Bennet, et al), Federation (Reeves-Stevens). The last one is the only one I recommend.

Points 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 say the same thing — have a point and get to it. (I think this author could have taken his own advice.)

You would think so, but my experience is that most people will only reply to the first point/question. They stop reading after a few lines. If I want comments/answers on multiple points, I have to send multiple emails.

Agreed. I have a long sigs for outside contacts and short sigs for internal emails and replies. Short sig has name, department, phone extension. Second replies and onward don't need sigs at all.