View Single Post
Old May 21 2014, 09:51 AM   #21
Re: Transporters Vs. Hovercars

It is not even certain that civilian transporters (or civilian USE of transporters) can beam to random locations outside of their counterpart stations.
For the record, the original question did not touch upon Star Trek transporters at all - it was a question on personal preference, with all the facts about the Star Trek situation (in which the answer explicitly is "both" and the question need not be asked) already known.

But civilian transporters certainly are mentioned in Star Trek, and not in a context that would involve pad-to-pad operations, either. Sisko beamed directly to the family's living room during his early Academy days, and I can't see Joe Sisko having truck with a "transporter room" inside his living room. Jake in turn mentioned "beaming in the furniture", which would be an excellent time to use the well-established ability of transporter technology to deliver loads to the exact spot where they are needed. And "Realm of Fear" has all this talk about "millions" of daily transports, which would hardly be the case if Starfleet had exclusive rights to the tech.

But let's concede a little bit of magic here: your movers ARE capable of beaming directly to the work site and not to the transporter station down the street. But instead of getting to the work site on time, they're at Sarpinos finishing a deep dish pizza and they are half an hour late. There is, incidentally, no transporter pad at Sarpinos, so they still have to walk down to Wells and Lake and use the transporter station there to beam to your house.

So you're waiting.
What nonsense is this? A "vehicle" wouldn't alter any of that in any way. The furniture and the people involved in the scenario could be delivered where needed, when needed, by a teleporter. The "waiting" (an odd term for life simply going on) would not affect the deliveries or call for a moving storage closet.

If you're sitting in the teleportation machine staking out the house, then the teleportation machine is a vehicle.
No, it's not - it doesn't move, so it's not a vehicle.

But why would you sit inside a teleportation machine? This makes no sense. You choose a spot that allows you the best possible view or concealment, and any vehicle is a massive handicap in that regard (unless vehicles are commonplace, which would be untrue in a society with access to teleportation - and even that conceit would only cover the "concealment" angle while leaving the "view" handicap).

If he escapes the initial assault, they have no means to pursue him once he gets to his car, and they cannot even force him OUT of his car once he's in it
Even in Star Trek, none of the above is remotely true. A suspect fleeing in a hovercar is as good as caught already: he can be beamed out of the car, or the entire car can be beamed to custody. Hell, spacecraft can be captured by transporter easily enough!

What makes you think my shop is equipped with a transporter pad?
So your defense is that you are a luddite?

Of course, you wouldn't have a pad. You would have a bracelet similar to what Tom Paris wears in "Non Sequitur". There could be a pad farm in Sausalito, or in orbit. And the tourists could always go to the Old Town Station to see how it was done a century ago, and enjoy the rustic ride, before taking a more modern site-to-site to lunch.

You have entirely ceased to talk about anything that anyone in this thread would recognize as a "transporter" in the context of Star Trek.
Which means I'm on topic and you are not.

But beaming individual tools or the like is routine in TNG. See for example "Peak Performance"... Doing it site-to-site with a bracelet remote is simply the civilian approach.

There's no such thing as "real teleportation technology" because such a thing is logically impossible in the first place.
It's an expression among others: "real" as in "true to the definition", rather than "existing today and available at Wal-Mart".

Star Trek is logically impossible in the first place, though. So please stop mixing it into this.

We're discussing Star Trek transporters, which -- while also impossible -- have certain built-in limitations in the context of their fictional universe. This entire discussion is pretty meaningless without taking those constraints into account
You certainly aren't doing a good job at that, believing that a hovercar can escape a transporter in the Trek universe...

Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a single Trek (TNG) constraint you would have pointed out so far that would make vehicles or both/and the preferable choice.


"Which would you rather have, Transporters, Hovercars, or both?"
I would have transporters. The way they are portrayed in TNG, only without the military encumbrances. And in this thread, I get to choose. Star Trek has already made its choice and thus is excluded from the poll.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote