If you could only have one: Transporter or Holodeck
- Thread starter HIjol
- Start date
Geordi also created Moriarty. I figure a command to create a character who is smart enough to create transporter or replicator or warp technologies would be pretty useful. Maybe a team of engineers!Im going to assume than the holodeck is incapable of inventing new technology by itself without some proper programming our outside stimuli to provoke such development.
Even Geordi worked WITH Leah Brahms....he didnt just drop some pens and paper and say "Yo babe, Im going to grab a pint in ten-forward, have my problem fixed when I get back".
That quote wasn't me, it was Mr. Laser Beam.
But if you look at the holographic doctor, it wasn't just a matter of casually asking for a fully capable doctor, the EMH is the result of a specially designed program that took a lot of time and effort to create.
Moriarty really possessed no specialized knowledge, he was a trickster who could figure a few things out..
In order to create basic Leah Brams,, Geordie just needed a holodeck, for more he need multiple personel files from the main computer, and it not clear if Brams could have actually made anything, Brams was a sounding board, it was only as good as it's programming.
Moriarty really possessed no specialized knowledge, he was a trickster who could figure a few things out..
In order to create basic Leah Brams,, Geordie just needed a holodeck, for more he need multiple personel files from the main computer, and it not clear if Brams could have actually made anything, Brams was a sounding board, it was only as good as it's programming.
In my dumb opinion, i would go with a transporter. When i ask myself these question i often think of obesity. With a holodeck SURE, you could get a lot more exercise in and you could do anything anywhere, i recn' obesity would be non existent soon after commercial holodecks. However if you had a transporter you could actually go to the real places in seconds. Ski down the alpes for real. Also going on holiday would be cheaper, easier, faster, etc. So transporter for me 
I would pick the transporter for the same reasons that have been expressed here earlier. The money I could save on transportation costs and hotels would be huge. Climbing Machu Picchu today then deciding to go Paphos in Cyprus to visit the Kato Archaeological park and swim in the Med afterwards - or any other place I'd want to visit on any given day - that would be amazing.
A thought, a notion. We see a distinct lack of cars and I dont think it is a leap to say the technology is now quite outdated and other methods of transport [transporters, shuttles] are being used. Hence, I like the thought that some roads may have been destroyed.
Eh, plenty of people have their own personal cannons. JJ stuff is supposed to be a reboot, in an alternate timeline. I think im within my rights to discount it with or without your blessing.
Did you see the same film as I did? We saw absolutely NOTHING of Riverside itself. Just the bar, the Starfleet shipyard, and a couple of really huge buildings off in the distance. Nothing of the city itself. So we have no idea what it's like. We did, however, see San Francisco, which had all of its roads and associated vehicles on them.
You don't have a personal CANON. You may have a personal CONTINUITY. These are different words. Look them up.
Being from near the real riverside, that movie looked nothing like the real Iowa, to flat for Johnson/Washington county, no trees, to arid and there are no quarries like that anywhere near here! Those scenes were obviously filmed in California. Heck why is kirk and the star fleet personal getting drunk in riverside when Iowa City (if it's still there) is near by?
For the record I would rather have a holodeck, considering it has a built in replicator meaning you never have to buy food or clothes again. Oh and then there is the fact you make any scenario you want, exotic locations, women, recreate moves, books or video games.
Last edited:
You mean the quarry that the car flies into? Look at the sides - they're obviously artificial. I always thought that was the beginnings of the shipyard that would one day be built on that site. The same shipyard where the Enterprise was built.
I acknowledge I'm nit picking, because I know it was filmed in Cali. But... the geology here wouldn't allow for that. Then again I know issues like this come up in TOS, TNG, Enterprise etc (carpenter street, mountains in Detroit?!)
You know you don't have to get angsty to get your point across. Plenty of fans include and exclude different parts of the franchise. Of course what is on screen is considered cannon but I chose to discount it from my own personal cannon for various reason.
Again, in the prime timeline we are shown very little of transport on Earth. In the prime timeline, it is fun to speculate as to what Earth is actually like.
As I just said: Canon and continuity are not the same thing. Continuity is what you're talking about. Canon is simply what is considered official, i.e. any episode or movie.
Bah! Holodeck wins easy. Why? Because I'd never use the frickin' transporter. Fatal accidents? The thing is fatal when used as directed. Every time that thing disintegrates someone, it's killing that person. The person who materializes at point B is not the person who got on the pad at point A. Similar to the nth degree, but not the person who got on at point A. That person is dead.
I would use the transporter to move goods (and even then not goods that are nonsuches, like the Mona Lisa) or as a flat-out disintegration weapon if possible. But those two uses aren't good enough to beat the holodeck.
But, errrr, could I have one of Quark's holosuites instead? I think my tastes might be a tad, um, particular for the Enterprise computer.
Speaking of which, I assume the whole Enterprise computer wouldn't be needed to run the holodeck. It'd have to be so; Quark was capable of running some pretty sophisticated programs.
I would use the transporter to move goods (and even then not goods that are nonsuches, like the Mona Lisa) or as a flat-out disintegration weapon if possible. But those two uses aren't good enough to beat the holodeck.
But, errrr, could I have one of Quark's holosuites instead? I think my tastes might be a tad, um, particular for the Enterprise computer.
Speaking of which, I assume the whole Enterprise computer wouldn't be needed to run the holodeck. It'd have to be so; Quark was capable of running some pretty sophisticated programs.
Actually, per Moore's Law (in this case, Ron Moore
), in the six years between the launch of the -D and the beginning of DS9, the computers in Quark's might have been 3 times as powerful (or more) as the core on the Enterprise-D, - assuming that Quark keeps his equipment current to entice customers with the latest and greatest holo-experiences, like a smart businessman would. 
...and one would assume that Quark, being the Businessman that he is, would indeed have his computing power at its ultimate maximum...which brings to mind a couple of interesting plot lines for Ferengi attempts at power grabs...with computers that powerful, and a couple of Dabo Girls...well...
Similar threads
