Hows today's tech match Star Treks?

[Lighthammer]

I've been thinking about this quiet a bit over the last two weeks ever since Michio Kaku, on his show Science Fantastic, talked about the idea of some sort of faster then light speed being closer then we think thanks to research with the Hadron Collider.

I'm starting to think that there's a lot things in the Star Trek universe we're ahead of the curve compared to Star Trek and I'm really interested to see what you guys think.

Here's some instances:

iPadds / Nocks / Kindles - I think many everyone of these tools have easily surpassed PADDs now. They've accomplished everything a PADD does and better.

Computer Interfaces - I think our computer interface system very shortly is going to start to look very different then Star Trek's LCARs UI looks and maybe more similar to the HUI Interface in Earth: Final Conflict. Think about it, we've already developed tactile interfaces (iPad, Windows Mobile 7), virtual interfaces (Microsoft Kinect) and the base design of the UIs of the LCARs system seems very much inferior to what we can design today.

Computer Mainframes - With Quantum Computers getting closer and closer to being a reality, we're getting close to the point where we could easily imagine our computers are going to be (at base level) stronger then what was seen at the end of Voyager. Voyager's computers were scaled based on the idea it could move a Terraflop of information and information is measured in Terraquads. Welp, we're already at the point on the edge of computer development that we can already do that, but Quantum computers simply are capable of doing the most advance commands seen in Star Trek.

So, what do you guys think ? How do we compare ?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

In terms of portable information devices I think we've at least met if not exceeded that shown in Trek.

Warp drive and transporters are still way, way, way off--assuming they're even possible, which is doubtful.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a practical implementation of a quantum computer anytime soon, either.

I do think efforts to design 3D displays that don't require glasses bring us closer to holodeck-like technology. We're missing the forcefield part of it, though.

Also not even close to having replicators.

I guess we're not doing too badly, given that the stuff that's fairly realistic we've actually made a lot of progress on.

 

[RedShirt]

iPadds / Nocks / Kindles - I think many everyone of these tools have easily surpassed PADDs now. They've accomplished everything a PADD does and better.

I don't recall we the audience ever being shown everything the PADD can do, just what the writers thought it might be used for in a given scene. How do you justify such an assertion?

Computer Interfaces - I think our computer interface system very shortly is going to start to look very different then Star Trek's LCARs UI looks and maybe more similar to the HUI Interface in Earth: Final Conflict. Think about it, we've already developed tactile interfaces (iPad, Windows Mobile 7), virtual interfaces (Microsoft Kinect) and the base design of the UIs of the LCARs system seems very much inferior to what we can design today.

LCARS was created by graphic designers almost a generation ago to look cool on TV screens, not by programmers to be a practical user interface. As with so many other aspects of the shows it wasn't designed to stand up to too much scrutiny, just give us the broad strokes of the potential future technology while allowing us to fill in the blanks with our imagination. Seems like apples & oranges to me.

Computer Mainframes - With Quantum Computers getting closer and closer to being a reality, we're getting close to the point where we could easily imagine our computers are going to be (at base level) stronger then what was seen at the end of Voyager. Voyager's computers were scaled based on the idea it could move a Terraflop of information and information is measured in Terraquads. Welp, we're already at the point on the edge of computer development that we can already do that, but Quantum computers simply are capable of doing the most advance commands seen in Star Trek.

Considering that most computer technology & terminology was kept intentionally vague so as not to date the shows too fast it seems like another case of apples & oranges to me. We can infer that their capabilities must be staggeringly vast just from transporter functions alone: your typical transport pattern would have to include the position and state of every particle in a given body (thank you Heisenberg Compensators!), neuro-chemical and electrical interactions throughout the nervous system, musculature actions such as the heart & diaphragm, chemical reaction in progress on the cellular level, etc., etc., etc. - and all without a stated mass restriction on the system! What kind of storage capacity would be needed to handle every pattern for every item in a food replicator's menu (especially when crew members are adding to & personalizing the menu all the time)? How about tools and other equipment? Apparently there's still so much room left over that they can store patterns for various non-essentials such as toys and gifts.
Now try to take into account the computing power needed to handle the flight dynamics of warping the local space-time continuum... or charts and navigational data, including ALL pertinent information on any system, nebula, black hole, star, or planet already cataloged... or all the programs needed to work together to run just one holodeck (or any other entertainment / training system the crew could use)... and all of it being overseen by a benevolent AI!
Oh, you'll probably want to leave dock with at least 90% free space on your mainframes so that you'll have room to catalog all of the cool stuff you'll run into while seeking new life and exploring new worlds.

So, what do you guys think ? How do we compare ?

Considering that TPTB will always up the ante with each new iteration of the franchise - and so much is left vague anyway - there's not much to compare.

 

[ngc7293]

Here's some instances:

iPadds / Nocks / Kindles - I think many everyone of these tools have easily surpassed PADDs now. They've accomplished everything a PADD does and better.

Have you ever Tossed an iPad or Kindle on the table after looking at it? Sure there are people that have iPods that they have kicked around, but the majority have not. Trek's Padd is treated as very durable. Any device that is durable NOW is in a large cumbersome case

Computer Interfaces - I think our computer interface system very shortly is going to start to look very different then Star Trek's LCARs

My view is that the computer interface will stay the same for a while. For example, if people need to wear goggles to watch 3D TV it won't take off like people think. If HUD is going to need a cumbersome device, then it won't take off either.

Now, there was some mention some years back that there are devices comparable to the TOS tricorders. I am not sure where I read that though.

 

[Jadzia]

Computer Interfaces - I think our computer interface system very shortly is going to start to look very different then Star Trek's LCARs

I'm reminded of an old joke, "I don't like this computer; it's too user friendly."

But there is some truth to that statement. Some time this past decade, computers became mainstream, and the average user is no longer one of the 'technically minded minority'.

The average user thinks of a computer much like they think of their mobile phone or television. As market competition grows, the manufacturers will have to gradually shift their focus towards pleasing this new majority.

We've seen the start of this already with 3d enhanced desktops, and similar eye candy, and the loss of some technical things like dos (the command console) from windows.

I expect the future will further this trend towards richly graphical designs with simplified icon+menu driven interfaces. That will make computers increasingly attractive to the casual consumer, but hurt the productivity of the most technically minded.

 

[sojourner]

^Huh, funny, my Windows 7 still has a command prompt.

 

[Jadzia]

I don't have a windows 7 to verify, but I've been led to believe it has no dos subsystem.

How I interpret this is that your command prompt is a faked dos interface, and unable to run dos software.

 

[Ronald Held]

Yes it does, I run DOS programs from the command line.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Which DOS programs do you run? Just because something runs from the command line doesn't mean it's DOS-based. There is no DOS subsystem in Windows 7. You have to use DOSBox or the like.

 

[sojourner]

^Which is still not the same as not having a command prompt as Jadzia stated.

 

[Jadzia]

^Which is still not the same as not having a command prompt as Jadzia stated.

I stated dos. I included 'command console' in brackets for the benefit of those who don't know what dos is.

 

[Reverend]

Though it performs a similar function and looks more or less the same, the command prompt (cmd.exe) in Vista, 7 and I think XP is not DOS based like the old (and aptly named) DOS prompt (COMMAND.COM) on 95, 98 and the like.

 

[skep155]

We are no where near warp drive IMO.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^Which is still not the same as not having a command prompt as Jadzia stated.

What?? I don't understand what you're saying.

Though it performs a similar function and looks more or less the same, the command prompt (cmd.exe) in Vista, 7 and I think XP is not DOS based like the old (and aptly named) DOS prompt (COMMAND.COM) on 95, 98 and the like.

Yes, this is what I was saying. "Command prompt" and "DOS" are often treated synonymously but they aren't the same thing.

 

[sojourner]

Though it performs a similar function and looks more or less the same, the command prompt (cmd.exe) in Vista, 7 and I think XP is not DOS based like the old (and aptly named) DOS prompt (COMMAND.COM) on 95, 98 and the like.

That's because 95, 98 and the like were DOS based with just a pretty graphic interface built on top. Vista, 7, XP are all based on NT.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

How does today's trech match star trek's?

We're primitives.

And star trek tech is really eclectic.

 

[Bisz]

Apple is working on an iMac (or at the very least, they have patents for this technology) that can swivel from vertical (display only) to horizontal so that the whole screen can become a touch interface. That's going to be pretty cool if they get it working right and a big step towards Trek like computer interfaces.

 

[sojourner]

^Don't they call that an Ipad?

 

[Bisz]

The iPad is a handheld device akin to the Trek PADD, what they are working on now is making their desktop displays have the capacity to swivel down so they can also be used for multi touch input as well.

 

[Trekker4747]

In terms of "looks like the same thing and and sort of does the same things" some of our everyday technology is, more or less, on par with Treks. But in "reality" it's still far, far off.

As someone above said Trek's PADDs were very, very, durable. Not only that the information they could hold is orders of magnitude greater than the few megabytes or gigabytes your iPod can hold. Further, Trek's computer systems also ran faster than light. So, yeah, you might be able to download a digital copy of a movie onto your iPod Touch and watch with a nifty UI but it's a unicellular organism in the evolutional history leading up to Trek's PADDs.

Cellphones? Let me know when I can pick up my cellphone and call an orbiting space-craft or have more-or-less real time communication with someone living 1000 light-years away then I'll tell you we're matching Trek's technology. Most people on AT&T's network can barely call the other side of their own town without their cellphone having a stoke.

Superficially -as far as looks, interconnectivity and usage- we're matching or surpassing Trek's similar technology. But in "reality" all of the devices we use today, well, if Riker would think of your Blackberry as being "quaint" and "like looking at ENIAC" he'd be paying it a complement.