Why would we need them?
Hows today's tech match Star Treks?
- Thread starter Lighthammer
- Start date
Why would we need them?
I see you totally skipped over the part where I said we don't have computers capable of handling the work of a transporter because we don't have transporters. Part of developing that technology would also mean developing appropriate supporting hardware, such as computers and storage.
The only technology currently conceivable would be a quantum computer, and hey, we're working on those.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Robert Maxwell
"I see you totally skipped over the part where I said we don't have computers capable of handling the work of a transporter because we don't have transporters."
'totally skipped'?
I resonded specifically to that statement, Robert Maxwell:
We don't have star trek computers decause we don't KNOW how to make computers so powerful, NOT because we don't need them.
Even if we need such computers (and, in some areas, computers faster than the ones currently possible would be welcomed/needed) we DON'T KNOW how to build such computers.
You would be surprised.
My point is - star trek tech is largely fantasy AKA in part, scientifically unrealistic. Due to the fact that trek tech is largely fantasy, some of it will remain forever out of our reach - out of anyone's reach, no matter how technologically advanced this 'someone' is.
For example - in a multitude of sitations, trek computers were clairevoyant - they had information they had no way of obtaining either by input of computation; the information just...appeared, as needed by the plot.
"I see you totally skipped over the part where I said we don't have computers capable of handling the work of a transporter because we don't have transporters."
'totally skipped'?
I resonded specifically to that statement, Robert Maxwell:
We don't have star trek computers decause we don't KNOW how to make computers so powerful, NOT because we don't need them.
Even if we need such computers (and, in some areas, computers faster than the ones currently possible would be welcomed/needed) we DON'T KNOW how to build such computers.
You would be surprised.
My point is - star trek tech is largely fantasy AKA in part, scientifically unrealistic. Due to the fact that trek tech is largely fantasy, some of it will remain forever out of our reach - out of anyone's reach, no matter how technologically advanced this 'someone' is.
For example - in a multitude of sitations, trek computers were clairevoyant - they had information they had no way of obtaining either by input of computation; the information just...appeared, as needed by the plot.
Last edited:
We will need them because Office 2030 will specify in it's minimum system requirements:
- 100 gigaquads of storage
- an isolinear processing matrix
- gel packs
- Optional: holo-emitters for Clippy, your holographic office assistant.
Also optional: Holographic Non-Tactile Interface.
I, and I'm sure Apple, agree that in the long term and for most applications a touch screen is not the most efficient way of interacting with a computer. Instead of moving your arm 30 or 60 cm you can move the mouse 3 or 4 cm, its a no brainer which requires more effort. But, I think there are many instances where having a large horizontal touch screen would be a fantastic interface.
Tactile interfaces are also something that's "needed." I've never used a screen-interface phone but I cannot imagine being able to use one without having to look at it to know which key is where. Unlike, say, a keyboard where you can feel the keys and know what letter is where without looking.
Hey, everyone. Well I still stick to what I said, we are no where near star trek tech. But like said above the reason being we don't have the same needs, but If that arguement can be made so can the one about the difference between cellphones and communicators being different, one military-one civilian.
Whether something has a military or civilian use has no relationship whatsoever to how advanced (or not) it is. GPS was originally built for military use and now it's widely used by civilians. Is it thus considered a less advanced technology now because it's popular among civvies? 
Its not the same. The only reason why the military GPS became civilian used is becuase the military had something far better. We didn't see civilian communicators, we only saw star fleet communciators, the civilians could have had a cellphone like thing.
But even in star trek I bet anything that the civilian communicators were not as good as star fleet's communicators.
But even in star trek I bet anything that the civilian communicators were not as good as star fleet's communicators.
^Yeah, wrong again there. The military still uses the GPS system. It at one point did not allow civilian use of the satellites, but descrambled them eventually to allow for civilian gps. Civilian GPS devices are far superior in capability to military. There's 2 reasons for this.
1) The military depends on reliability. They don't want equipment that might "lockup" and need to be "rebooted" at critical moments. Therefore equipment will be made without the latest and greatest bleeding edge capabilities in favor of %100 reliability. That's why you don't see military issue smart phones. Too much potential for failure.
2) durability. Military gear is designed to withstand the rigors of combat situations. The less parts, the less chance of damage, the less chance of having to replace it. making something "rugged" comes with a price. It either becomes larger and heavier than the civilian version, or it loses some capability to stay the same size.
Both of these things lead to a third item: cost. The military is not going to come out with new models of gear with improved features every week like you see in the commercial market. It would cost too much to get that piece of equipment up to standard of the first two items, never mind the cost of deployment, training on the new gear and disposal of the outdated gear. Heck, the Airforce is flying 50 year old bombers while the commercial market has a new cellphone coming out almost weekly.
1) The military depends on reliability. They don't want equipment that might "lockup" and need to be "rebooted" at critical moments. Therefore equipment will be made without the latest and greatest bleeding edge capabilities in favor of %100 reliability. That's why you don't see military issue smart phones. Too much potential for failure.
2) durability. Military gear is designed to withstand the rigors of combat situations. The less parts, the less chance of damage, the less chance of having to replace it. making something "rugged" comes with a price. It either becomes larger and heavier than the civilian version, or it loses some capability to stay the same size.
Both of these things lead to a third item: cost. The military is not going to come out with new models of gear with improved features every week like you see in the commercial market. It would cost too much to get that piece of equipment up to standard of the first two items, never mind the cost of deployment, training on the new gear and disposal of the outdated gear. Heck, the Airforce is flying 50 year old bombers while the commercial market has a new cellphone coming out almost weekly.
^ From you, "trust me" is insufficient.
The only reason I can think of that a civilian GPS receiver may be inferior to a military one is in the signal it receives. I expect the hardware and/or software of the civilian receiver to be superior in terms of raw performance and features, but inferior in terms of reliability and ruggedness.
The only reason I can think of that a civilian GPS receiver may be inferior to a military one is in the signal it receives. I expect the hardware and/or software of the civilian receiver to be superior in terms of raw performance and features, but inferior in terms of reliability and ruggedness.
How old are you again? I have friends in the military who have been responsible for managing those satellites.
When you say "far better" what you are talking about is the fact that the military builds in I believe a 60 meter error in the signal for civilian use. The military units are able to filter this out for a tighter location lock. This does not mean that the actual GPS units are better. Please, tell us how "modern gps is not reliable"?
When you say "far better" what you are talking about is the fact that the military builds in I believe a 60 meter error in the signal for civilian use. The military units are able to filter this out for a tighter location lock. This does not mean that the actual GPS units are better. Please, tell us how "modern gps is not reliable"?
You have Friends, I have male and female from my extended family in all corners of the Military. Every male besides me, from my dad's side has been in the military. My mom's side is even better. My grandfather from that side actually work in communications in Nam, as a decoder, then moved up in rank as a engineer and communcations officer.
I know people who actaully do the programming and assembly of those GPS and Brag just how much better it is than civilian. So no, its far better, all military tech usually is, and they don't worry a whole lot about cost. Have you actaully looked at the budget that goes into the different areas of the military.
Just come the fact that your expirence in this case isn't anywhere near mine.
Yes, you right about the signal, the parts that make it up are a lot more reliable and portable, but still far more powerful. Picture and zoom quality is through the roof. Its far more updated at a constant rate than civilian GPS. The rest is in tech language I don't quite understand yet.
There's a reason military tech would be more advanced.
US military at the very least eats up most of the nation's money.
At the same time, I can also understand the morons who will never upgrade to something better in order to ensure '100% reliability'.
Well, let's clear something up... '100% reliability' doesn't exist.
Just look at what happened with the NASA shuttles.
Just because something is tried and works, doesn't mean it's more reliable than the newest technology.
Besides, if you want to ensure newest technology works reliably... you DESIGN it as such and put it through various trials before implementing in practice.
By sticking to the old tech, you're simply toying in obscurity and refuse to go forward.
And then you wonder when it blows up in your face.
Go figure.
US military at the very least eats up most of the nation's money.
At the same time, I can also understand the morons who will never upgrade to something better in order to ensure '100% reliability'.
Well, let's clear something up... '100% reliability' doesn't exist.
Just look at what happened with the NASA shuttles.
Just because something is tried and works, doesn't mean it's more reliable than the newest technology.
Besides, if you want to ensure newest technology works reliably... you DESIGN it as such and put it through various trials before implementing in practice.
By sticking to the old tech, you're simply toying in obscurity and refuse to go forward.
And then you wonder when it blows up in your face.
Go figure.
My old '86 Oldsmobile that's been sitting under a cover for the last 10 years and has at least two inactive cylinders is more reliable than the space shuttle.
