RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,392
Posts: 5,505,361
Members: 25,129
Currently online: 496
Newest member: oorang

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Deep Space Nine

Deep Space Nine What We Left Behind, we will always have here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 15 2008, 03:34 PM   #61
King Moonracer
Vice Admiral
 
King Moonracer's Avatar
 
Location: Brian
Re: Why hate replicator????

Longinus wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
How would that be done? Do the food slots have little harvester robots that go to the ship's celery garden to pick that stuff for each plate?
Food dispenser transports celery from ships kitchen, where there is small selection of real foodstuff.
That's my thought. We know that the Enterprise has a galley (in "Charlie X", dialogue indicates that they put meatloaves in the ovens and they turned into real turkeys; and we finally saw the galley in Star Trek VI).

IMO, there are real people preparing the food and it "somehow" gets to the food slots, maybe via short range transporters (or some kind of "wired" transport, to avoid all that beaming of energy/matter streams amidships).
__________________
Rut nga’chuq loDpu’, rut nga’chuq be’pu’. yiqimHa’!
King Moonracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2008, 01:10 PM   #62
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

I rather doubt it would be as simple and monobloc as that. More probably, futuristic technologies would blend in with traditional cooking methods, with the latter being favored in preparing VIP meals for the officers and their guests, and the former in the daily feeding of the crew.

(And really, celery as the single real element in a synthetic meal? What were they thinking?)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2008, 02:44 PM   #63
King Moonracer
Vice Admiral
 
King Moonracer's Avatar
 
Location: Brian
Re: Why hate replicator????

I've been reading The Physics of Star Trek, and in the chapter on transporters, he discusses how they made up a piece of tech to determine the "quantum resolution" of the matter being transported. He went on to say that transporters use quantum resolution and replicators only use molecular resolution, which is why replicated food tastes "off" and also why people can't be replicated.
__________________
Rut nga’chuq loDpu’, rut nga’chuq be’pu’. yiqimHa’!
King Moonracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2008, 04:39 PM   #64
cultcross
Say my name...
 
cultcross's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Why hate replicator????

Apogeal Alpha01 wrote: View Post
brian wrote: View Post
Which never made sense to me. If a replicator just uses transporter technology to materialize a pattern stored in memory and it doesn't taste like the real thing, what does that say about the efficacy of transporter travel?

If they can't transport a steak that tastes right, why would you step into the chamber yourself?

That's a brilliant observation!
I've seen this argument before, and my answer comes from Our Man Bashir. Remember how complicated and massive the data was to store the transporter patterns? You couldn't have that kind of detail for every replicatable item stored in the computer memory, you'd need a second station to store it all. I always assumed that the data for the replicator was a 'compressed' version of the date you'd send if you were transporting something. a gif file to the transporters bitmap, if you like. Hence, you lose some quality.
__________________
This post terminates here. Please do not attempt to board.
cultcross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2008, 09:04 PM   #65
Apogeal Alpha01
Rear Admiral
 
Apogeal Alpha01's Avatar
 
Location: SoCal
Send a message via Yahoo to Apogeal Alpha01
Re: Why hate replicator????

If I remember, wasn't the difficulty storing their brain patterns in particular? They contain millions and billions of chemical connections stored as memories, that could not be contained in or replicated by ordinary computer memory, hence the massive storage needs. A steak is a lot less complex.
__________________
I'm a lucky guy, and I'm happy to be with the Yankees. And I want to thank everyone for making this night necessary. -- Yogi Berra at a dinner in his honor
Apogeal Alpha01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 08:35 AM   #66
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

Yes, it's said (by Odo, though, not by one of the technoheads) that storing the neural patterns is more complex than storing a regular transporter pattern.

Which makes no sense. Wouldn't every "normal" transporter pattern contain a neural pattern or six? That is, unless you were transporting steaks.

We do know that a starship computer can store a neural pattern, be it part of a transporter signal or a separate construct - this happens in "Lonely Among Us" and "The Schitzoid Man", without crashing the computer. (Advanced aliens can use far more compact computer storage means, though, as in "Return to Tomorrow" and "The Passenger"!)

And apparently, a holodeck is a valid alternate storage medium for transporter patterns of "lower than quantum" resolution. So we are to believe that the trick in "Our Man Bashir" was to sort of "decapitate" Sisko and the others, let the holodeck take care of the matter streams, and place the highest-resolution patterns of their minds elsewhere in the computer system.

Two issues of interest here: one, living bodies do not require quantum resolution in order to survive a transport process (although the transporting or replication of steaks might utilize an even lower type of resolution) - and two, the computer apparently sorted the victims' minds and bodies all on its own, as if this weren't a big deal at all. In "The Schitzoid Man", it took a supergenius to do the same... Perhaps it's time to relinquish all R&D work in the Federation to unsupervised computers?

Timo Saloniemi

Last edited by Timo; September 19 2008 at 09:32 AM.
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19 2008, 02:52 PM   #67
King Moonracer
Vice Admiral
 
King Moonracer's Avatar
 
Location: Brian
Re: Why hate replicator????

They could call it Skynet.
__________________
Rut nga’chuq loDpu’, rut nga’chuq be’pu’. yiqimHa’!
King Moonracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 01:32 PM   #68
votd
Commander
 
votd's Avatar
 
Location: Blighty
Re: Why hate replicator????

There was an episode where Eddington was discussing replicated food with Sisko; he said it was "replicated protein molecules and textured carbohydrates"; you could infer from that that it wasn't an actual replica of food, but generic protein shaped coloured and flavoured to taste similar to real food - similar to Quorn/other meat free products claiming to be meat.
__________________
I'll let future me deal with this
votd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 03:10 PM   #69
cultcross
Say my name...
 
cultcross's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Why hate replicator????

Timo wrote: View Post
Yes, it's said (by Odo, though, not by one of the technoheads) that storing the neural patterns is more complex than storing a regular transporter pattern.
No, what he says is that the neural information is much much larger than the physical information. This of course makes no sense if you follow the scientific, secular-humanist type angle that the 'mind' is just a precise chemistry within the brain - ie, it has physical existence just like the heart or liver. If the computer isn't storing that level of data about your liver, what exactly do you get back when you rematerialise? a compressed liver, with Jpeg artefacts?
But rememebr that in Star Trek often the 'mind' is seen as separate from 'the body', and as such this hugely complicated 'consciousness' needs a lot of computer memory to store it.

We do know that a starship computer can store a neural pattern, be it part of a transporter signal or a separate construct - this happens in "Lonely Among Us" and "The Schitzoid Man", without crashing the computer. (Advanced aliens can use far more compact computer storage means, though, as in "Return to Tomorrow" and "The Passenger"!)
Even more stupidly, we know that a transporter can hold someone and their 'neural information' in a pattern buffer for 70 years - see Relics. It's stupid that no-one considered this possbility, given all the transporter pattern buffers that must be available to them - the Defiant, the runabouts, the station units, the shuttles...

and two, the computer apparently sorted the victims' minds and bodies all on its own, as if this weren't a big deal at all. In "The Schitzoid Man", it took a supergenius to do the same... Perhaps it's time to relinquish all R&D work in the Federation to unsupervised computers?
Well on this score it's more The Schizoid Man that's at fault - we've seen computers on Trek handle that kind of information probably dozens of times. No-one seems to think it's unrealistic when the concious, sentient and very intelligent program Moriarty is compressed into a computer the size of a tennis ball on TNG.
__________________
This post terminates here. Please do not attempt to board.
cultcross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 03:24 PM   #70
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

No, what he says is that the neural information is much much larger than the physical information.
Why "no"? Odo says that the neural information won't fit anywhere easily, but he also literally says that this is because handling a neural pattern is more complicated than handling a "standard" transporter pattern.

If the computer isn't storing that level of data about your liver, what exactly do you get back when you rematerialise? a compressed liver, with Jpeg artefacts?
I'm sure our livers could withstand a bit of compression. The processes underway there don't really suffer if they are rudely interrupted and then restarted slightly askew - the liver will cope. Not so with the processes that comprise our mind - we might cope on the long term, but the short term effect would be very disruptive.

It would be disastrous, of course, if every cell in our bodies suddenly "hiccuped", say, lost the electric gradient across the cell membrane. But I take it that the lower resolution used by the holodeck would be more about mercilessly "averaging" the cells - not an issue of resolution as such (because the ability to see where each molecule goes would be "low resolution" already, something the replicators must be capable of), but of saving memory. An "averaged" cell would do the job as nicely as a "customized" one, in all likelihood.

It's stupid that no-one considered this possbility, given all the transporter pattern buffers that must be available to them - the Defiant, the runabouts, the station units, the shuttles...
I don't think Odo and Eddington had the luxury of moving the matter stream between devices or spacecraft in the time available to them; it had to be done within the station. However, that solves nothing, as the station ought to have dozens if not hundreds of transporter stations. We have to assume that these units aren't cross-linked, which I'm sure is typical Cardassian engineering but something our heroes might have wanted to rectify. And it then strains credibility that the holodecks could talk with the Ops transporter when transporters can't talk with each other...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 04:10 PM   #71
cultcross
Say my name...
 
cultcross's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Why hate replicator????

Timo wrote: View Post
No, what he says is that the neural information is much much larger than the physical information.
Why "no"? Odo says that the neural information won't fit anywhere easily, but he also literally says that this is because handling a neural pattern is more complicated than handling a "standard" transporter pattern.
You're quite right, my apologies, I should have checked the script - what an odd line, I can only assume a 'normal' transporter pattern must refer to an inanimate one, like equipment. Or Odo just says something dumb in the heat of the moment.

If the computer isn't storing that level of data about your liver, what exactly do you get back when you rematerialise? a compressed liver, with Jpeg artefacts?
I'm sure our livers could withstand a bit of compression. The processes underway there don't really suffer if they are rudely interrupted and then restarted slightly askew - the liver will cope. Not so with the processes that comprise our mind - we might cope on the long term, but the short term effect would be very disruptive.
It's not the fact that the liver would be stopped and restarted that bothers me, but the concept that appears to be displayed in this episode that the minds of the people in the transporter are stored in such huge detail while the rest of their physical forms are not. Memories and conciousness is just chemistry, like anything else in the body - what gives the need for the greater resolution on them that wouldn't be needed elsewhere? Action potentials are transported along nerves by chemical concentration gradients so could survive momentary interruption during transport as long as the gradients returned as they were left on re materialisation, so I don't see that being an issue - essentially the only thing that explains the massively greater amount of computer space necessary is the concept that the people in the runabout have some ethereal conciousness or 'soul' which is incredibly complex, more so than simply body chemistry.



And it then strains credibility that the holodecks could talk with the Ops transporter when transporters can't talk with each other...
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant - they can transfer this information anywhere on the station but apparently not through another transporter unit.
__________________
This post terminates here. Please do not attempt to board.
cultcross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 05:21 PM   #72
SoM
Commander
 
SoM's Avatar
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

cultcross wrote: View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant - they can transfer this information anywhere on the station but apparently not through another transporter unit.
They panicked - and none of the people involved in doing stuff (for some strange reason) were trained engineers. If O'Brien had been there, rather than one of the victims, he'd probably have got it done.
SoM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 24 2008, 06:55 PM   #73
Good Will Riker
Admiral
 
Location: Southern California, USA
Re: Why hate replicator????

Renvar wrote: View Post
You mean we're not already?

Who said Quark serves "real food"? Quark has a replicator behind his bar, and used it to create food and drink regularly. In fact, in "Babel" Quark nearly went out of business because his replicators were down.
People use food and beverage for socializing. Think of bars and restaurants as a good example. Sure, we can open up a can of beer and watch a game at home, but you can also hang out with a bunch of friends at the sports bar and drink from the tap.

Same with restaurants. It's about the atmosphere and variety. Plus, there are games at Quarks. People still need to eat and drink while playing games and hanging out with other people, you know?
Good Will Riker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 08:18 AM   #74
jealousblues
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

pimp wrote: View Post
Hi

I was wondering why people tend to hate replicated food??, because on DS9 everyone seems to go to Quarks bar and order real food (supposedly real, you can never trust Quark lol) and pay good money for it. Is replicated food not that accurate in terms of taste or are people cautious because it is replicated???

Thanks

I assume its nasty, or its designed to replicate food but with specific health standards or something that would make it not as tasty as real food.


What I wonder about is where do these Federation types get their money from in the first place...?

I can recall an Episode of TNG where Riker goes to some bar and talks to a lady with four arms playing piano, and says he doesnt have any money to bribe her...I would assume the entire ship had none or they would have called on that?

I know DS9 is way differnt than the fleets flagship but still



and I guess the number one reason for it was probably just to give a more interesting setting in the show and have more of Quark ect...
jealousblues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2008, 08:19 AM   #75
jealousblues
Lieutenant
 
Re: Why hate replicator????

darkshadow0001 wrote: View Post
I thought it had to due to the fact the replicators didn't work as well as the ones on the Enterprise. Either that, or they were trying to make DS9 more like real life.
yeah, and didnt they have like 20 year old Cardassian ones or did they ever replace them?
jealousblues is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
replicator

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.