Even if Cygnet 14 was an official repair stop, it sounds like they had just gotten the job or assigned it to a culturally inexperienced crew. They made a beginner's mistake with that voice, which according to Spock would take several WEEKS to fix at a starbase. I see no problems with Cygnet 14 being, say, a relatively new Federation member who later contributed to the solution for the ro-bo-tic-voice.
Treknology infograhic
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
We have "postcedent" for Starfleet using repair services it does not wholly comprehend, by employing people more advanced than the Starfleet norm and allowing them a freedom of operation. The Bynars misused Starfleet's trust to a dramatic end; the Cygnet folks did, too, but to a humorous end.
For the joke to work, naturally the Cygnet geeks would make doubly sure that the flirtatious voice could not be easily erased. And while Spock is a computer genius of sorts, there's no reason to assume he's the UFP top authority on those things, or even anywhere near the top. Doesn't really mean that Cygnet would be a major deviation from the UFP norm on technology levels, then.
Timo Saloniemi
For the joke to work, naturally the Cygnet geeks would make doubly sure that the flirtatious voice could not be easily erased. And while Spock is a computer genius of sorts, there's no reason to assume he's the UFP top authority on those things, or even anywhere near the top. Doesn't really mean that Cygnet would be a major deviation from the UFP norm on technology levels, then.
Timo Saloniemi
No need for a major deviation, just large enough to account for a high-res computer voice.
The need for that seems dubious, as other UFP parties have been shown doing convincing voice simulations already. OTOH, it appears fairly clear-cut that the Cygnetians did the voice for fun, simply because it was contrary to Starfleet practices and regulations - so the idea that tin man voices are a Starfleet regulation gets a confirmation of sorts there already! 
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
^^ Imagine when those space hippies get aboard the Enterprise. One less reason for them to call the crewmembers, Herbert, if they heard the fun female voice. But the stuffy, robotic voice of Star Fleet... 
@Boris - I think you're trying too hard to show that it wasn't possible for natural voice synthesis in TOS, IMHO.
@Boris - I think you're trying too hard to show that it wasn't possible for natural voice synthesis in TOS, IMHO.
I remember reading that story - didn't the technician end up revolutioninising warfare by allowing for human piloted bomber planes instead of the costly computer driven ones?Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
I'm merely making it a minor technical limitation, consistent with the production design which is a direct consequence of the show having been made in the 1960s on a low budget, while you're coming up with strange cultural reasons (actually, no stated reasons) for an advanced society to resurrect 1960s SF TV, motivated by your desire to explain TOS from the POV of 2011. I suppose it is also mere accident that the original designs just happened to fade away as our real-world technology progressed? If your theory were correct, the TNG era should not have shied away from the proud retro-aesthetics of Starfleet, it should have embraced every switch and slide rule of it, regardless of viewer expectations.
And that argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that the spinoffs came out in a non-linear internal-chronology order. That is, our 21st century was introduced to Star Trek via its 22nd, after the late 20th had been represented by its 24th.
Essentially, TNG is just as extreme retro as TOS was - it's just eighties retro where TOS is sixties. And ENT is 2000s retro. None of those are plausible as anything but retro; technology wouldn't have stagnated even for the 1.5 centuries separating ENT from us. And the combination cannot be explained as stagnation no matter what, because it first goes "up" for ENT and then "down" for TOS and the only slightly "up" again for TNG!
If TOS and TNG and ENT all are retro, then we have a pattern there. And it's not a particularly implausible one, since retro is always in fashion. Or at least has been as long as there have been recording media.
Timo Saloniemi
Essentially, TNG is just as extreme retro as TOS was - it's just eighties retro where TOS is sixties. And ENT is 2000s retro. None of those are plausible as anything but retro; technology wouldn't have stagnated even for the 1.5 centuries separating ENT from us. And the combination cannot be explained as stagnation no matter what, because it first goes "up" for ENT and then "down" for TOS and the only slightly "up" again for TNG!
If TOS and TNG and ENT all are retro, then we have a pattern there. And it's not a particularly implausible one, since retro is always in fashion. Or at least has been as long as there have been recording media.
Timo Saloniemi
Great link. Thanks.Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
LOL. FWIW, this is an interesting opinion on touchscreen UIs:
http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/
It would be this story.I remember reading that story - didn't the technician end up revolutioninising warfare by allowing for human piloted bomber planes instead of the costly computer driven ones?Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power
This way, they can all be advanced relative to their airdates.
That's it, thanks! I have a desire to go off and read some Asimov, it's been too long...Great link. Thanks.Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
LOL. FWIW, this is an interesting opinion on touchscreen UIs:
http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/
It would be this story.I remember reading that story - didn't the technician end up revolutioninising warfare by allowing for human piloted bomber planes instead of the costly computer driven ones?Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power
That's a great find BK613 Thanks!
I'll share another one: a favorite of mine about rediscovering lost technology is Harry Turtledove's "Half the Battle"
Thanks!I'll share another one: a favorite of mine about rediscovering lost technology is Harry Turtledove's "Half the Battle"
Great link. Thanks.Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
LOL. FWIW, this is an interesting opinion on touchscreen UIs:
http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/
It would be this story.I remember reading that story - didn't the technician end up revolutioninising warfare by allowing for human piloted bomber planes instead of the costly computer driven ones?Wasn't it Isaac Asimov that wrote a story about a highly-computerized future in which a technician reinvents the pen and notepad and changes the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power
The guy has it all wrong, using touchscreens isn't about interactivity and tactile feeling, it's about the expansion of options over simple touch and response doing just one function. STNG really got this right...surely they are not the first to show it, but they really ingrained it in our heads over 176 episodes. The interfaces are very interactive and allows for endless customization...instead of going backwards and having to grip things or push mechanical buttons, we should be thinking of how expands possibilites...
Of course all this could be moot in a virtual future world tied to reality where we use our brain to access a convergence of tech in a futuristic "net"...hands will be superfluous!
I see this spouted fairly often on the web...does the fact that we are a biological, sexual species negate every other human interest and endeavor?
RAMA
Well, you don't want the screensaver to kick in at the wrong moment....
That reminds me of a 1989 discussion I had with a colleague wherein we talked about what would come next after the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) interface. The future surely won't work the way we depict it now.LOL. FWIW, this is an interesting opinion on touchscreen UIs:
http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/
Similar threads
