unyon: Good article, Phil.The one I really have a problem with is when people go 'out of phase', like the TNG episode with Geordi and Ensign Ro. Apparently, they were out of phase with the walls and people, but not with the floor or artificial gravity. As soon as they went out of phase, they should have been spat out into the emptiness of space with the first velocity or course change.
ArcadianRefugee: I've always wondered, though, how the communicator knew who you wanted to call. I mean, yes, you said, "Riker to Data" and then it hooked you up to Data, but Data would hear you say, "Riker to Data". So either it somehow hooked you up to him before you even spoke, or it recorded and then replayed your greeting upon connection. More likely the latter, obviously, but I always thought it weird, especially since (when people didn't answer immediately) the caller would repeat the greeting, as if the person should have responded in the 0.68 seconds when they were first hearing your greeting.
Niveras: The inconsistency in being able to use the transporter to fix all sorts of genetic and other microscopic problems can probably be explained by the rarely-overtly-described philosophy that one lives one's natural life as given without, generally, seeking to prolong it or improve it beyond combating or repairing external conditions.This is most obvious in any episode that touches on genetic modification. Improving one's physical body in that way is extremely taboo - at least in Starfleet - and it would not be a stretch to imagine that that taboo applies to any improvement, including the use of transporters to "reset" one's aging process (and we assume such a thing is possible). It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."Whether that philosophy actually makes sense is never really argued. While certainly it helps prevent a race to improve one's self or one's children, it also seems shortsighted. Humanity is going to evolve one way or another (and really, this sort of this "corrective" philosophy might even hamper natural evolution), why not take the reins ourselves?
Professor Science: There is no science in Star Trek; it's fantasy with the magic horses and swords and wizards replaced by magic space ships and phasers and Vulcans.
fusillade762: 0Icky0: The mistake that bugs me the most is very simple;When spaceships happen upon each other in space, it would be an incredible coincidence if they were oriented in the same plane, as if the universe was 2D.Yet this ALWAYS happens in the Star Trek universe.Except when it doesn't (Star Trek II). Though of course they seem to think they're geniuses for considering it.Oh, also, this scene from "All Good Things" comes to mind:[www.startrek.com image 320x240]And I'm sure the Defiant attacked from above or below a number of times, but I can't find any pics.
unyon: The thing that bothers me about Firefly is that it apparently all occurs in the same solar system. A solar system with way too many planets to be plausible and where somehow both China and America managed to get to at some point.I think they all got there at the same time, and the cultures may well have been well on their way to merging well prior to leaving earth-that-was. The solar system is a multi-solar system, with red dwarfs orbiting a central white sun. Each of those systems has planets and moons, which is where the 'dozens of planets and hundreds of moons' numbers come from. So it's solar systems inside a solar system.
timujin: they will orient themselves to be facing you, as that is the direction their weapons generally face.
Befuddled: One thing I always hated about Star Trek is how the crew of the various ships can miraculously come up with ways to do things or technologies which are better than the existing ways or technologies. Like how one engineer on the Enterprise can somehow figure out how to make their engines more efficient while all of Starfleet Research, many people whose job it is to figure those things out, can't. Then instead of having to do lots of testing and get approval from the higher ups for such a change, they just say "What the hell, screw safety and established methods, make those changes and fire up those engines."
AdrienVeidt: The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.
0Icky0: timujin: they will orient themselves to be facing you, as that is the direction their weapons generally face.Which is kind of stupid, when you think about it.Even old sailing ships had a few guns that could turn around in any direction, not to mention battleships with their swiveling turrets.
unyon: AdrienVeidt: The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.That never occurred to me before, but it makes complete sense for the reasons you mentioned.Goddamn, this I'd the very first thing that tells me somebody doesn't know WTF they're talking about and can be ignored on all subsequent points.So my description of a fictional stellar system is inaccurate because of stellar nomenclature? Boy, you went from corrective criticism to dickwad at FTL speed. Besides, the white giant at the centre of the Firefly stellar system goes unnamed through the series. This system is humanities new home. How are we to know that they didn't call it Sol 2?
mark12A: No, the biggest mistake of the reboot was some punk ass kid who didn't even graduate Star Fleet Academy getting command of a frikin' Starship.We can argue, speculate and whine about the different technologies and MacGuffins they use in Trek, but what I absolutely DEMAND is a future where people act rationally, and a Starfleet that acts like responsible adults
AdrienVeidt: In all honesty, the FireFly star system is laughably implausible. Any system of 4 stars orbiting another won't remotely have enough orbital stability for any of the daughter stars to keep planets, much less enough for 30 'Earths'. Add in the spectacular amounts of radiation that would likely come from a white giant - whatever that is - and any such planets would be sterile rocks.
AdrienVeidt: It's just a spectacularly dumb workaround to not have warp engines, imho. I loved FF as much as any other, but it ain't *remotely* Science fiction just because it's set in space.
ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.
AdrienVeidt: Didn't know about that one Radhu. Most interesting, but they do stress how close it is to it's parent binary, meaning the other pair act as one big planet farther out, gravitationally speaking. The FF system is a central star with four independent stellar system orbiting it, a drastically more complex super-system that simply isn't gonna have 30 terraformable planets in it. That's 7.5 Earths in each one!And no, Science Fiction does not include space opera, dammit. Asserting that setting = genre is just dumb. May as well say Blazing Saddles and Leaving Las Vegas are Westerns.
RexTalionis: ManateeGag: DamnYankees: The list begins and ends with Threshold.which one was that?Tom Paris and Janeway go beyond Warp 10 and they turn into gigantic newts and have sex with each other.
AdrienVeidt: I am dealing with it, by telling you you're wrong. We used to classify black folks as subhuman monkeys, but we don't any longer because they were wrong. What do you gain by being wrong about classifying stories that have dick-all to do with science as science fiction?
The Bad Astronomer: And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do.
AdrienVeidt: And no, Science Fiction does not include space opera, dammit. Asserting that setting = genre is just dumb. May as well say Blazing Saddles and Leaving Las Vegas are Westerns.
Lodger: Revek: Its for entertainment purposes only. Get over it and accept that.The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.
Revek: Lodger: Revek: Its for entertainment purposes only. Get over it and accept that.The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.Thank you Mr. Romero. While true it doesn't change any part of my statement.
Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."
Lodger: Revek: Lodger: Revek: Its for entertainment purposes only. Get over it and accept that.The people who have been influenced by the series and helped provide technology back to YOUR life would say otherwise.Thank you Mr. Romero. While true it doesn't change any part of my statement.If you agree, then this part of your statement is no longer correct. Entertainment doesn't necessarily or always mean inspiring or influential. I'm sure you've watched countless entertaining stories and not been influenced to do a damn thing.
fusillade762: Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."They didn't seem to mind upgrading Geodi's eyes to see infrared and zoom and stuff.[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x399]
Mad_Radhu: (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).
fluffy2097: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_filmReality seems to disagree with you.
Mad_Radhu: fusillade762: Niveras: It's fine to fix problems, like Geordi's blindness, or infections or diseases, to bring you back to "normal." It's not okay to go from "normal" to "improved."They didn't seem to mind upgrading Geodi's eyes to see infrared and zoom and stuff.[cdn.uproxx.com image 650x399]I never quite understood why Geordi and Data were so emo about being post-human. It seemed like the Star Trek universe, for all it's talk about open mindedness, had a weird undercurrent of showing people being miserable if they didn't conform to the ideal of the Federation, so they were always trying to fit in with the rest of the regular humans. The message seemed to be that if you were a round peg, you had to do your damnedest to fit into that round hole, otherwise you'd be ostracized like Barclay. Data was the saddest, because he was always struggling to be what he wasn't instead of embracing what he was (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).
Revek: Yes you are still missing the point. The point being the that the shows themselves are there only to entertain. To get upset that some of it doesn't track with science matters not at all.
dittybopper: ArcadianRefugee: I've always wondered, though, how the communicator knew who you wanted to call....It wouldn't have to know. I see them more as radios, than devices like cellphones.With a simple radio, you pick a specific frequency or channel for a specific purpose, and it gets monitored continuously. When I want to keep tabs on the distaffbopper at the mall, we pick a common FRS radio channel and we both monitor it. When I call her, she hears it immediately, and vice versa.Likewise, I have a more powerful VHF radio at home, that I keep on the "calling frequency" (146.520 MHz) of the most commonly used ham radio band (2 Meter Band). Because I have a bigger antenna that is higher up, I can talk to people using handheld radios much farther than the handhelds could talk between themselves.That's what I imagine is going on with the communicators. They pick a specific "channel" for different purposes (command, away teams, etc.) and it all gets monitored from the ship. In fact, that's all Lt. Uhura did: Work the radios.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 20 2017 20:41:51
Runtime: 0.438 sec (438 ms)