So in episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY something goes amiss with the holodeck that almost costs someone their lives. So I ask you: Where is the off button? Or at least unplug the thing. And why would safety protocols ever be a thing you can turn 'off'? I play a lot of video games and I don't want to be killed by them because Moriarty got too smart or Seska hates me. Seriously though I do enjoy those episodes but come on people recreation should be less dangerous.
how exciting a plot would it be if they could simply say "holodeck off," or "cut power to holodeck?" But yes, no approved recreational system would really have the problems the holodeck has on Star Trek. They took it to an absurd level.
"Spirit Folk" is definitely my "favorite" Holodeck Abuse episode, given that holographic characters are able to inflict real damage on the control systems using firearms generated by the holodeck itself...while the safeties were on to begin with. Well heck, Jammer said it best- "The holo-characters throw a net over Tom and Harry, and shoot a computer console with a shotgun. This shouldn't be remotely possible. (1) If the safeties are on, how can bullets destroy the computer console? (2) Why would destroying the computer console just automatically disable the safeties? (How very nice.) (3) Why can't Paris yell out "Computer, freeze program!" rather than telling the holo-character not to shoot? (This episode makes one want to scream at the characters not to be so bone-headed.)"
^^Agreed, Spirit Folk is quite possibly the most idiotic holodeck storyline. Computer terminals being damaged by holographic bullets while the safeties were on, the holographic characters are actually aware of the Voyager crew's manipulations of the program, on and on. It would be terrible it if weren't unintentionally amusing.
Motorcycles haven't been banned yet despite their tendency to kill the user. Nor have ultralight aircraft. Or boxing. Or bars. Even fewer safeties on those, and definitely no off switch for when things go wrong (only for when things go right, if you get lucky). Safety just isn't that big a deal. Everybody dies. And aboard a starship, a holodeck malfunction is probably one of the more pleasant ways to go. Timo Saloniemi
Wouldn't motorcycles be classed as more a means of transportation rather than a recreational device. Sure you could use if for recreational purposes but is that it's primary purpose? Besides in the grand scheme of things perhaps holodeck malfunctions are a rare event. Remember if they are used Federation wide you are talking about hundreds if not thousands of worlds with perhaps hundreds of thousands of holodecks on each planet, not to mention tens of thousadns of starships and starbases fitted with them. The actual malfunction rate might only be 0.0001%
Only in the same sense as the holodeck is a training device rather than a recreational device. The world could trivially do without motorcycles. But the world can afford to lose motorcyclists, too. Timo Saloniemi
motorcycles and aircraft are known to be risky machines and crashes can be caused by driver/pilot. And how is boxing a comparable comparison? All those activities are known to be risky. A holodeck is supposed to be like an interactive Xbox. If Xboxes were malfunctioning and killing their users, they'd be taken off the market.
Well, i'd bet after the Enterprise D missions, the Holodeck became known as a "risky machine and problems can be caused by operator" lol M
So, exactly like holodecks, then! Useless, prone to killing their users, and impossible to secure against the user himself causing the fatality. And nobody really cares. It's done for fun, and there's no interest in making it safe. Indeed, the very point is to cause bodily harm and an occasional death. That's what makes it fun. A very human thing, that. Or the price might be tripled. On a ship as big as the E-D, no doubt, although we never got a name or a face. Perhaps we saw him or her in "The Big Goodbye" where the solving of a purely holotechnological problem was tackled by a team of engineers? But anything having to do with Moriarty would go beyond holodeck engineering issues and mainly involve command decisions; the computer itself would do the diagnosis and repair once persuaded to do so. On smaller ships such as Voyager, probably not. Timo Saloniemi
What are the health demographics on people who spend protracted peroids of time playing with their Xboxes? Obesity, diabetes, heart disease? Alcohol kills (various ways) two and a half million people a year worldwide, despite this I've been known to have a rare cocktail on occasion. Like the hopefully well informed people who enjoy the holodeck, when I take my snowboard down a double black diamond ski run, I know the dangers and the corresponding thrills that come with it. Even a simple hike in the local forest brings the possibility of interacts with hungry brown bears and territorial cougars. Surviving your resent visit to the holodeck is part of the excitement and entertainment.
Where are you guys pulling this idea out of that people go into holodecks with the knowledge that they're risky? They clearly show over and over that there are holodeck SAFETIES unless they're deliberately shut off or they malfunction. There's no on-screen evidence that people go into holodecks expecting danger or risk.(unlike with a snowboard on a mountain, a motorcycle, or some other non-comparable situation.) And we see children go into holodecks at various times. Alcohol is not inherently damaging or risky. It is dangerous when consumed to excess or if used before operating a car. A glass of wine doesn't turn against the drinker and try to kill him or her. Again I don't see the comparison.
(shrugs) Amusement park rides are known to be risky, sometimes resulting in fatality, but people keep riding them anyway. I think there are an excessively limited number of activities one can engage in that are 100% risk-free.
How many times a year do the safeties fail? And why is there the ability to disengage the safeties at all? Disengaging was mission useful once in FC, but that was a exception. Average year in America, 1,300 children die in motor vehicle accidents, and 180,000 children are injured. Even if a parent doesn't know the exact numbers, they understand the possibility. Impairment begins with the first drink.
safeties can be disengaged for simulating realistic combat scenarios/training I'd guess. Motor vehicles aren't principally for recreation, the parent is merely taking their kid from point A to point B, I don't see how that's a valid comparison. Alcohol causes Impairment of things like alertness and coordination from the first drink, yes, but it's not going to put you in physical danger like malfunctioning holodecks. Again, not comparable.
I'm not sure why realism would call for allowing the device to use lethal force, though. A hail of machine gun bullets that hurt like hell but produce no wounds would be just as effective a training tool as a hail of bullets that tear your body apart. Today, we can't do that because a bullet that flies at a ballistically realistic speed isn't going to be nonlethal. A holodeck could give the bullet realistic flight characteristics, sounds, even taste, but then refuse to give it the penetrating power at the point of impact. The few times we have seen safeties disengaged, this has been in order to ensure bodily harm (ST:FC) or to give the user an adrenaline rush (VOY "Extreme Risk"). We don't know what exactly was different from the safed holodeck, though. Did the computer normally have a routine that intercepted and aborted/modified any situation where the user might come to harm (with settings varying from "I don't want to get hurt" to "I don't want to die"), and now it stopped caring? Or did the computer start inserting extra risk to the programs (going from PG rating to R rating, so to say) which originally did not feature any elements that could jeopardize the user? If the computer just stops caring about a holographic submachine gun, this shouldn't necessarily turn the weapon lethal, as apparently it's "just a hologram" to begin with, a silly prop in a make-believe game. Why would it not be? Similarly, if the computer stops caring about whether a character will jump from the top of a cliff, this shouldn't necessarily be lethal, as the character is in reality jumping from the height of one centimeter anyway. There has to be an active element to the jeopardy, more or less: the computer has to decide to suddenly construct a real gun, and to carefully utilize tractor beams that impose lethal forces when the user hits the ground "half a mile down". It's a bit different if a user is to be strangled by a holo-character. Now the holographic element is capable of being lethal by default: its normal interactive capabilities that make its body feel real allow it to block the user's windpipe. If the computer stopped caring about whether the user playing action hero really manages to elbow his way out of the grip of the holo-villain, and simply kept running the villain character according to its logical behavior parameters, the villain would kill the user. Of course, there might be a separate routine that ensures that the user always wins, unrelated to any safety concerns... Then there's a third level of risk. A putative moral routine would stop the computer from using a murderous character to kill the user. But what if the user wants to do something benign and fumbles it? What if he dives in a deep cave, enjoying the feel of real, replicated water - and has a seizure and drowns? What if he can't handle the facesitting 280 lb holo-woman he requested but isn't in a position to call it quits? Stopping from caring would be lethal there, too, and "secondary" routines dealing with morals or winning conditions or user preferences would fail to kick in as well. But ST:FC seems to require the holodeck not just to stop caring, but also to actively start ramping up the risk, to "realistic" levels and perhaps beyond. How else could it know that Picard wants a lethal tommy-gun when he never says so? On the other hand, if the holodeck was capable of giving Picard a real Thompson, why did he also key in this whole Dixon Hill charade? Why not just ask for the gun, or perhaps the gun plus twenty US Marines with twenty more guns and a sudden burning desire to kill some Borg? It would appear that keying in the Dixon Hill program was the easy way to get the gun. In which case we might speculate that Picard had carefully requested (for whatever reason) a real weapon for his holoprogram when originally creating it, and remembered this helpful tidbit now. Many (if not most) of them are. And those tend to be the ones most likely to kill the user. Recreation and lethal risk are an acceptable and even desirable combination in the real world. Malfunctioning alcohol kills you with the first sip. Or worse. Yet consumption of alcohol prone to malfunctions is significantly greater than consumption of carefully safed alcohol... Timo Saloniemi