View Single Post
Old May 20 2013, 08:29 PM   #71
Re: Would you use a transporter?

To me, that suggests the possibility that there might be the need to allocate transporter frequencies in metropolitan areas, for the same basic reason that radio frequencies are allocated IRL today, in order to avoid interference.
Doing it by wire rather than by broadcast should solve that problem.

Are you kidding me? Driving from your place to somewhere else is going to be nearly always faster than public transport, walking or cycling.
How so? To drive, you need to get to the car, move the car from A to B, and to ditch the car. To transport, in the worst case scenario you need to get to a transporter station and that's it. No time spent going from A to B, no vehicle to ditch. And you can probably forgo going to the transporter station in most cases, too.

Vehicles can't beat instantaneous travel. They're just a bloody nuisance the traveler is better off without.

You just said that a car "cannot do anything more, or more efficiently or affordably or faster, than a suitable combination of the alternatives..." and yet now you are saying that a car can sometimes be faster than a bike?
No contradiction there. The car isn't faster than the train or the plane. The car doesn't carry more cargo than the train or the ship. The car isn't cheaper than the bike. It's just a comfortable compromise between such features.

Anyway, I love this "A car is not always faster than a bike" thing. You commute ten kilometers to work on a bike, then try it in a car, and then tell me which one is faster.
Anyway, I love this "brainless opponent" thing. What possible relevance does you ranting have on either whether cars or bikes are faster, or anything else?

You're just guessing. The fact is that we see another person in the tram with Kirk, and there is nothing to indicate that she is anything more than just another passenger.
She attends Kirk to the door, then watches him leave. That's what stewardesses do. "Passengers" walk away at the destination, because that's the whole point of the exercise.

And also notice the two other air trams that were already there? If this is a limo service, then it's awfully busy.
That's pretty lame even coming from you. Why is three limos an unlikely occurrence in a place that already has one? Typically, limos are flock animals: when a VIP arrives, it is to a location where other VIPs also gather.

Perhaps Starfleet routinely hires limos for its officers to get around on Earth.
This is exactly what I think is going on. The common folks travel by transporting; the opulent and the idle move by vehicles.

No you didn't. You just guessed.
A guess has an outcome. Clearly, Trek doesn't provide an outcome: we only get what we see. Hence, what I have is a quoting of simple evidence, that of Earthlings spending massive energies for domestic purposes when they could do with literally less than a trillionth of it and simply grow beets instead of replicating them.

Yes, I'm sure that Star Trek still uses fossil fuels and has poor traffic management.
Feel free to have that odd belief and many more. I'm only sure of what I see: they don't use vehicles except once in a blue moon, and they never have "traffic" of them.

This is possible only by three means:

1) The vehicles all travel underground. Indeed, we see subway stations in "Non Sequitur". But that's the exact opposite of having cars, as underground traffic is not feasible with individual vehicles.

2) The vehicles all travel in space. But where are the starports in that case? Why aren't the skies full of arriving and departing vehicles? Only Starfleet Headquarters has any appreciable number of them, and they all come with the arrowhead symbol and the red cheat lines.

3) Vehicles are not in use. Well, except in Iowa.

If we assume that the transporters are like the ones on the ships
You are now describing how you would commute through a city in a Challenger tank. Don't mix military hardware with (so far unseen) civilian systems; it never works. Obviously, civilian transporters would be more like your passenger train: instead of four pads per station, there'd be four thousand channels for site-to-site, say.

Well, working on starships, they're in a privledged position, aren't they?
The "beaming in furniture" reference from "Paradise Lost" had nothing to do with people working on starships, and even less to do with the starships themselves. It described civilian life in New Orleans.

Sure, perhaps New Orleans is a theme park for the privileged, and perhaps only people closely related to Starfleet are safe from being shot at the gates. But I'm not sure old Joe Sisko would have much truck with such life, and he's the one suggesting nobody else has trucks, either.

Ben Sisko in turn was the very opposite of privileged: he was a Starfleet Cadet, being forced to undergo hardship and discipline. He can't even choose what he wears; why should he be able to use the transporter as freely as his civilian friends?

And beaming in furniture does make sense, because it removes the risk of damage as you bring them in through narrow doors, or up stairs etc. But that's not public transport, is it?
No - it's private transport. Which obviously is handled by transporters in the 24th century, although the prominent lack of vehicles in the late 23rd makes one wonder, too.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote