or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Star Trek Technology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek Technology - Page 3

post #31 of 95
by the way i dont know if anyone is interested but i have a signed by Shatner limited edition 5 movie set (VHS from way back) mint condition
post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mharwitt View Post
you and your siege mentality

at the time i was about 7, hadn't thought about things like the religions or personalities of the people on the show, and like a lot of kids liked to pretend that it was real. the meeting ruined my suspension of disbelief and when i watched it afterwards i just saw a bunch of actors.

later on, it also struck me as weird that he carried around autographed fan fiction for such occasions. i didn't ask for it, he just wrote my name in it and handed it my mother.

Really? You get offended when a celebrity gives you a free gift but I have the problem for thinking that's odd?

That's a sign of a "siege mentality"?

Isn't the person who got offended by a nice gesture more likely to suffer from a "siege mentality"?
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard View Post
y replicators (and maybe phasers) are the most theoretically plausible ST tech, though, so that's cool. Cloaking is probably also theoretically possible, though with current technology, it would be a very clunky solution driven by cameras and mirrors.
Don't know if someone else has said this but nope - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQ...eature=related Kind of a shit video but you get the point. Quite a few people are working on 'metamaterials' that bend light. I have seen better demonstrations than the one in the video, but that was all I could be bothered to find.
post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Really? You get offended when a celebrity gives you a free gift but I have the problem for thinking that's odd?
i wasn't offended, i was confused and 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Isn't the person who got offended by a nice gesture more likely to suffer from a "siege mentality"?
possible. i had just experienced overt anti-semitism for the first time, so maybe the cross image struck a chord.
post #35 of 95
The thing is, there are a lot of enthusiastic Christians who are not anti-Semites. I think they outnumber the anti-Semites about 99-1 or more. They can be annoying. But usually if you just smile and be nice, they go away.
post #36 of 95
Of course there's a world of difference b.w cloning and replicator machines. We have cloning today, and that takes live cells; inanimate objects like coffee cups cannot be cloned, anymore than fossils (and why the whole premise behind all those Dino movies is, while entertaining, just plain silly). Then, live cells cannot be replicated at the moment either in a replicator ST sense, but with a proper genetic pattern (and the sequential DNA in the soup) can be grown, and in time, it's feasible that the process of "growing" your steak or coffee beans or the blend necessary to make Earl Gray tea from the living plant from which they come can be done over nignt like a bread machine, or even sooner (and I don't mean Swanson, but actual ingredients). That we are only now beginning to understand 3D structures, does have some promise moving forward, but it's rudimentary. One must learn to walk before they can run much less embark on inter-galactic adventures (though it is fun to dream, and necessary I think also). As to the variety of actors in the serials, yes, I quite like Picard as well (Patrick Stewart is classically trained, once a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, as was William Shatner, who performed for the Shakespearean Stratford festival in Ontario, and apparently did so to rave reviews; Burton, well ... if you put him hypothetically speaking into a theoretical box and give him a bunch of fiction novels in said box, there is a 50% chance that he might set them on fire to keep warm and in the process choke on fumes, but there is also a 50% chance that he might sign them to pass the time, break out of the box and live to hand out those autographed novels to his adoring fans ... (LOVE the paradoxical cat comment, and yes, it does say it all
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
The thing is, there are a lot of enthusiastic Christians who are not anti-Semites. I think they outnumber the anti-Semites about 99-1 or more. They can be annoying. But usually if you just smile and be nice, they go away.

maybe you can use one of the time machine's on the Enterprise to explain that to my 7 year old self. my current self has no problem with people of any religion, save maybe those bahai hippy fucks. perhaps you are mistaking me with one of the irritating "atheists are smartur! religionzdumb!" teenagers from a CE thread.
post #38 of 95
Back on track people: The correct answer to this question is Borg.
post #39 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
Back on track people:

The correct answer to this question is Borg.

I always thought it would be a cool, Planet of the Apes style twist if the Enterprise went back in time and discovered that we created the Borg. The Borg were remnants of a human colony or project that had been messing around with cybernetics. But the show moved in directions that would invalidate such a revelation.

Maybe if the Borg get used in the JJ Abrams reboot universe, this will be the case?

Anyhow, Firefly/Serenity basically ran with this sort of plotline for its villain race. So maybe it's old hat by now.
post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexthedestroyer View Post
In SG, the humans have no problem wiping out whole civilizations with nukes.

Nukes are for small timers. If you want the very best in mass destruction technology you need something called red matter. One drop gets a whole planet. Light up a bunch of it and it'll probably suck up an entire galaxy or two. Of course a genesis device ain't bad either. Not only do you get to wipe out your enemy you also get a nice new place to colonize as well. Just keep in mind it's a bit unstable but oh well. Then there's that star eating missile that some lunatic who wanted to be in the nexus developed. One shot and good bye solar system.

Courtesy of your friendly neighborhood 24th or so century arms dealer.
post #41 of 95
You know, it always annoyed me that they had no nukes in Star Trek. Their weapons are obviously far less powerful than a nuke and they frequently encountered situations when a nuke would have been perfect but they never had one. I assume the reasons were political (on the writers' part).

BSG was more realistic on this point. Not only did the battlestars carry nukes but the Cylons attacked the colonies with 100 MT (!) warheads. That'll get some shit done.
post #42 of 95
If I remember right a nuke is ineffective against a ST starship. You'll need a bunch of photon torpedoes and phasers/disrupters to bring her down. It seems if you needed more than that you could always dump the warp core and detonate it. There's nothing like the smell of an anti matter explosion in the morning.

I digress.
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
But usually if you just smile and be nice, they go away.
That's pretty much what I tell my daughter about bumblebees.
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post
If I remember right a nuke is ineffective against a ST starship. You'll need a bunch of photon torpedoes and phasers/disrupters to bring her down. It seems if you needed more than that you could always dump the warp core and detonate it. There's nothing like the smell of an anti matter explosion in the morning.

I digress.

I don't recall nukes ever being discussed on Star Trek, except in the context of the past ("We did these terrible things with these terrible weapons.")

I can't see any reason why nukes would be less effective that what they have, which often appear to be extremely ineffective.
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
You know, it always annoyed me that they had no nukes in Star Trek. Their weapons are obviously far less powerful than a nuke and they frequently encountered situations when a nuke would have been perfect but they never had one. I assume the reasons were political (on the writers' part).

BSG was more realistic on this point. Not only did the battlestars carry nukes but the Cylons attacked the colonies with 100 MT (!) warheads. That'll get some shit done.

Classic Trek does actually reference nukes IIRC. In "Balance of Terror" where we first see the Romulans... when the damaged Romulans jeetison their wreckage to fool the Enterprise they included an "old nuclear device" I believe. And it's detonation damaged the Enterprise...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Star Trek Technology