Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The worst science mistakes of Star Trek, or why any self-respecting geek should actually hate this show. Ha, "self-respecting" geek   (slate.com) divider line 192
    More: Obvious, Star Trek, geeks  
•       •       •

7635 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 May 2013 at 1:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 03:52:54 AM  
"OK, this one breaks my own rule about ignoring tech mistakes..."

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-17 06:22:41 AM  

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.


Also why aren't they "out of phase" with the air around them? I can sort of see the artificial gravity still working on them potentially, but then if it did it should push them through the floor.
 
2013-05-17 07:02:38 AM  
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?
 
2013-05-17 07:29:48 AM  

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.


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.
 
2013-05-17 09:21:37 AM  
The first season of Enterprise is Worst Trek for scientific mistakes.  I re-watched it recently and they weren't just doing the usual Trek pulling-shiat-out-of-thin-air technology thing, they were making BASIC ARITHMETIC ERRORS.  I've already suppressed the memories of watching the show, but there were two or three episodes where I stopped and said "what the hell?" because the mistake was so glaring.
 
2013-05-17 09:57:28 AM  

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?


It seems to go back to all the nastiness they had with the Augments. Basically, Kahn has probably replaced Hitler in the future when it comes to Godwin'ing a conversation about genetic augmentation.
 
2013-05-17 10:35:51 AM  

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.


No. It's "Wagon Train" in space.

At least, that's how it was pitched.
 
2013-05-17 10:46:22 AM  

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.


Perhaps there are some established flight corridors just like we have for airplanes? Or some automatic course correction to assure optimal alignment with regard to magnetic fields and whatnot? Or the ships' navigation systems automatically negotiate a common plane upon approach as a form of interstellar etiquette or perhaps for mutual safety (even bad guys usually want their ship to get out unharmed)?

Related: the Enterprise E in a plane of two-dimensional beings:
2.bp.blogspot.com

On the other hand, the creatures in Encounter at Farpoint do move in parallel with the E's Z-axis.

You'd almost think they don't want to overcomplicate these things unless the plot calls for it.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:30 AM  
Can we convert people who think fantasy should treated as reality into Soylent Green??
 
2013-05-17 11:00:28 AM  

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.


JESUS FARKING CHRIST, Y'ALL. There is exactly and precisely ONE Solar system in all the universe, and that's all there ever will be, forever and ever and ever.

Sol is the proper name for our local star, and the system of planets, moon, and assorted debris is named after it as 'the' Solar system. In this context, 'Solar' is always capitalized.

Specific systems around other stars are named similarly, i.e. the Vegan system, the Rigellian system, the Eta Carinid system.

The general term for 'a star and whatever all orbits it' is STELLAR SYSTEM.

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.
 
2013-05-17 11:37:12 AM  

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.
 
2013-05-17 12:00:20 PM  

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."


Gore-Tex was made when Robert Gore got mad. They were playing with PTFE (which Robert had also developed as Teflon), trying to make a thread of it into something soft, but the process of getting it into something that could be used as a fabric was non-existent at that point... everything they did seemed to indicate that PTFE would be too hard, too brittle, and just plain not work as a textile. In a fit of rage, Gore took a small cylinder of PTFE (about the dimensions of a glue stick) and gave it a good, hard yank, trying to pull it apart in two... what he got from the uncareful, rapid application of force was a restructured ptfe (in between the parts he was holding) that was soft, thin, and able to be used in a fabric. His dad (Wilbert, iirc), and a woman (can't remember her name) had been working on the project for years, but the big break was a biatch fit. So ya, occasionally one good engineer can solve a problem that has vexed entire teams of well-qualified people (sometimes even including themselves) pointing in that direction for years. Frankly, history is littered with inventions that happened by accident, by necessity, or rapidly resulting from the work of just a couple people who found a solution that thousands were searching for. Ceteris Paribus, that's the most believable part of the Star Trek inventions construct.
 
2013-05-17 12:08:14 PM  

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?
 
2013-05-17 12:18:42 PM  

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.


As do most of the ships I've seen in science fiction, that's why I used the word "generally".  They have some that point in directions other than straight ahead, but primary batteries that don't.  Perhaps there are design constraints that require a single orientation, I dunno.
 
2013-05-17 12:56:30 PM  

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?


This is the internet. If you get one trifling detail wrong your entire argument is automatically invalid (and my hair is a bird).
 
2013-05-17 01:14:53 PM  

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?


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.

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.
 
2013-05-17 01:24:37 PM  
However, if we allow for the white giant to be Sol2, the proper name would then be Solar2 system. But more likely, they'd reference against the local star by saying Solar2-DaughterStar system.

And to the guy on the first page, in Trek subspace is another universe 'beneath' ours where distance tracks to ours at a smaller ratio. One mile in our universe = ten feet in subspace, or whatnot. There's no one subspace, since there's an infinitude of universes of which about half will have such ratios; you just pick one that's easy to hack into with the ratio you want.
 
2013-05-17 01:40:34 PM  

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



This.
 
2013-05-17 01:56:05 PM  

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.


They actually found a planet in a quad-star system in real life, so it isn't THAT implausible. If a lot of those stars are dwarfs and there is a large separation between them, when you combine the habitable zones being closer in with the smaller gravitation effects of the dwarfs on their neighbors, stable orbits could probably work out that don't have crazy seasons. Since you never really see multiple suns in the sky on Firefly, it seems like there is a pretty big separation between the stars of the system, so the other suns are just bright stars in the sky. The bigger scientific issue seems to be that the stars seem to have colors that don't really match up with stellar lifecycles, like the blue dwarf sun or the white giant.
 
2013-05-17 02:14:21 PM  

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.


It's more of a futurist fiction then science fiction.

But "science fiction" as a genre has always included fantasy stories about space.
 
2013-05-17 02:19:25 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.


In other news, the long and contentious battle over the respective definitions of geeks and nerds has apparently been categorically resolved.

Good to know.
 
2013-05-17 02:27:54 PM  
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.
 
2013-05-17 03:04:53 PM  

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.


Dude. The earliest science fiction movies where shooting a man to the moon in a farking cannon and hitting the moon IN THE EYE!

flavorwire.files.wordpress.com

/scifi as a genre includes fantasy. deal with it.
 
2013-05-17 03:08:15 PM  

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.


Worse, they evolve into newts.

So apparently this guy was repeatedly reproducing while being selectively killed by predators, just so quickly that nobody could see it happening.
 
2013-05-17 03:10:26 PM  
eyeq360:
Or is it just explainable in technobabble?

Technobabble to one degree or another.  You could assume that the dimensions below the ones we experience are "subspace" and those above us are "hyperspace" although I'm not sure if anyone is using those terms to describe such things and yes there are more than 4 dimensions.

The Warp drive is basically an  Alcubierre_drive with some standard scifi bits bolted to it to hide the fact it's your basic space-time cruncher.
 
2013-05-17 03:10:33 PM  
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?
 
2013-05-17 03:51:14 PM  

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?


Did you just compare the civil rights movement to your fantasy stories?
 
2013-05-17 04:51:49 PM  
Did you just completely miss the point?

Also, that movie you reference was made about 20 years before 'science fiction' was coined; do you're wrong on that, too.
 
2013-05-17 05:29:28 PM  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_film

Reality seems to disagree with you.
 
2013-05-17 05:58:47 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Geeks don't care about the science. NERDS do.


You're saying I'm not a geek? In my 54 years of life, nobody has ever suggested that one before! Hell, people thought I was a geek even back when it meant someone who bites the heads off live chickens. ;)

My scientist/professor wife is the nerd. Yes, we have a mixed marriage, but we've made it work.

Both of us care about the science. I just hated the school part.

The Bad Astronomer: And thanks for the submission, Subby, but the article is actually more about why I love Trek. :) I really do.

Hi, I never noticed you here before. We love your work!
 
2013-05-17 06:38:29 PM  

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.


In the younger days of fandom, we had categories like hard SF, SF, sci-fi, and fantasy. After Star Wars, the genre grew popular enough to get a category in bookstores, and they lumped it all together into "Sci-fi/Fantasy".  I personally think that's when it all got scrambled.

The categories weren't subjective, based on taste, either. There were semi-official written rules about what you could get away with in each category. Now that the genre's even more popular, and bookstores are dinosaurs, maybe it's time for that to come back. Or, maybe I'm an old fart having a "Get off my lawn!" moment. :)

But I guess I'm guilty, too.  Yes, I consider Blazing Saddles a Western, though it'd have to be a compound definition, like "Western-spoof". I also class Quigley Down Under as a Western, though it takes place entirely in the far east. But not Leaving Las Vegas.

Firefly I'd hyphenate as well, as a "SciFi-Western". The setting matters to me, although I suspect the same stories and characters would have worked fine set on a tramp steamer cruising Central America during the early 1900s.
 
2013-05-17 06:57:05 PM  

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.
 
2013-05-17 07:13:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-05-17 07:18:13 PM  

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
 
2013-05-17 07:42:23 PM  

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.


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.  The fact that people watch them and are inspired to create a version of what they see doesn't negate that they are only for entertainment.  None of them would exists if it wasn't for the revenue they produce.   Its just added bonus that it allows the writers,cast,producers to put their dreams and concepts in there.  Getting upset cause some of it is obviously plot filler is a useless waste of time.  Accept it and get over it.
 
2013-05-17 08:54:53 PM  

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).
 
2013-05-17 09:40:14 PM  
One thing that always pissed me off about most space sci-fi combat is that they always do "attack runs" by going straight at their target, which (while minimizing surface area in most cases) makes them practically a stationary target; the smarter move requires them to maximize their transversal movement and make it more difficult to be targeted by turrets.

/EVE Online
 
2013-05-17 10:11:28 PM  

Mad_Radhu: (like Aaron Stack in Nextwave who is always giving the humans shiat about being weak and fleshy).


Never heard of that one. Worth checking out?
 
2013-05-17 10:43:46 PM  

fluffy2097: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_film

Reality seems to disagree with you.


Lol, guess again. A Trip to the Moon came out in 1902, while Hugo Gernsback coined 'scientifiction' in 1926, which slurred into the easier 'science fiction' afterwards. Anything else you'd care to be taught about science fiction?
 
2013-05-17 10:53:44 PM  

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).


When he still had the visor, Geordi saw EVERYTHING, and couldn't tune any frequencies out. IIRC, he even saw non-EM energies. He disliked that he couldn't see things as normals do, while accepting that what he could see was often useful if not vital to helping solve a problem. I believe he also got headaches.

Data was basically programmed to be emo. He was only something like 5 years old when he joined the Enterprise, and simply not experientially complex enough to grow into his own skin yet. His father have him the yearning to be human so he would have *something* to motivate him to become more than a robot.
 
2013-05-18 01:28:29 AM  

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.


It's nowhere near as pointless as the other pastime of geeks:  getting upset because movie adaptations don't match the completely fictional sequence of events in a novel.

I can see how people can get annoyed when a story has a plot hole, or otherwise violates facts or logic.  But it's pretty pathetic when people think it's wrong to change a fictional story in the retelling, as if The Lord of the Rings was a history book, as if there was a version that "really happened" and the other versions are unforgivable lies.
 
2013-05-18 01:32:58 AM  

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.


But you [both] preselect that frequency. In ST, they merely tap their badge to start talking - we never see anyone adjust a dial or press buttons on the thing, they just slap it - and the listening bit is apparently always on (or you'd never hear a call). So either the computer somehow knows who they wish to speak with, or everyone on that band hears the requests. Constantly. For example, on ship, everyone - including the captain - would hear "Picard to Commander Riker", "LaForge to O'brien", "Data to Engineering" (yeek!), "Lt. Word to Sickbay"... etc, all the time. There'd be constant chatter through the things.
 
Displayed 42 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report