I would think so. But, then again, the Enterprise library computer seems to be presented as an archive of every single bit of knowledge from every world they've ever encountered. That's alot of searching.
Is there any technology in TNG that's already outdated?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
What?!
That's just silly. Being in a holodeck would be a million times better than using a VR interface. Seriously, how can you not see that? Virtual Reality sucks, a holodeck practially creates any reality that you wish. That's like saying "why go to all the trouble to create a universal translator when you can use the kind of web translator that already exists.
^Can we not rehash this again? Go back and read all my posts on the subject. I've already clarified my position in great detail, in response to people who questioned it far, far more politely than you just did.
Sorry, I'm new to this. I thought the first page was all that there was and I was posting on the assumption that this issue hadn't been adequately addressed.
Also, apologies if I came across as rude. It really wasn’t my intention; it was more enthusiasm for the discussion than anything else.
Also, apologies if I came across as rude. It really wasn’t my intention; it was more enthusiasm for the discussion than anything else.
Sorry, I'm new to this. I thought the first page was all that there was and I was posting on the assumption that this issue hadn't been adequately addressed.
Also, apologies if I came across as rude. It really wasn’t my intention; it was more enthusiasm for the discussion than anything else.
Also, apologies if I came across as rude. It really wasn’t my intention; it was more enthusiasm for the discussion than anything else.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
No, you weren't rude ( all you said was that his idea was 'silly') and I don't really care what VR really is like anyway...I agree with you that his idea that holodecks would be outdated sounded odd too.
You'll learn how to take Christopher's posts after w awhile here!
This is the best post I've read in a while, and something I scratched my head at the other day watching some episode or other where Data was playing Troi in chess. (Maybe Peak Performance?)
Snaploud said:
All I know is I'm not playing against a mind (or at least emotion) reader without a handicap.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
^^ That was a really good post about chess in Trek.
It bugged me when I'd watch and Kirk or Deanna would beat the other and say how chess was more than just cold logic or whatnot. I know they were attempting to show that sometimes our human emotions and intuition can help solve problems more than logic, but chess was not the best way to show that.
I think that's also why technobabble was used from time to time but in a useful way. If you show the ship stuck somewhere in space and all the ship's power won't help them escape, then perhaps not pushing hard and reversing polarity or some such thing will let the ship get free. So you can see the writers were trying to use the way the crew uses their technology as a way of showing how intelligent and clever they are.
That only works once or twice though!
It bugged me when I'd watch and Kirk or Deanna would beat the other and say how chess was more than just cold logic or whatnot. I know they were attempting to show that sometimes our human emotions and intuition can help solve problems more than logic, but chess was not the best way to show that.
I think that's also why technobabble was used from time to time but in a useful way. If you show the ship stuck somewhere in space and all the ship's power won't help them escape, then perhaps not pushing hard and reversing polarity or some such thing will let the ship get free. So you can see the writers were trying to use the way the crew uses their technology as a way of showing how intelligent and clever they are.
That only works once or twice though!
Yes, I was thinking that this is probably one of the most obvious visual issues that makes TNG look dated. The desktop display in Picard's Ready Room, combined with similar desktop units elsewhere, look bulky. At the time, they looked right on the money, but by the time TNG was ending production, they were starting to look rather steampunk.
I also think the TNG tricorders looked funny, even back then. There's something that should've looked like an iPhone, right from the beginning.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I think a few of us fans thought that the tricorder should've been a touch screen right from the start...like an iPhone.
It's pretty easy to come up with that idea since the control panels on the Enterprise D were all touchscreens already...so it was a little odd that the tricorders had a tiny screen with physical buttons .
How many cute colorful touchscreens are there in NASA or Russian spacecraft? You need ruggedness and reliability. It's not an ipod, it's an incredibly powerful device, as is the computer terminal in Picard's office.
I'm not sure I understand this logic that all the designs for technology we see on the Enterprise should flow directly from what we have today.
Just because we are commonly using LCD monitors for our computers today, does that mean that the unit sitting on Picard's desk is any less realistic? We don't have the slightest idea what the actual technology behind it is, so how do we know what it should look like? And particularly the tricorders. Look like iPhones? Based on what? Hell, if nothing else, the tricorders may have been designed that way because that's the fad of the 24th century. People aren't going to like the look of the iPhone forever.
Frankly, I find it more jarring to me as a viewer when they try to connect with modern technology. In Nemesis, for example, the monitor Picard uses to communicate with Admiral Janeway. That to me was more of a "oh, look, they've stuck an LCD monitor on Picard's desk" moment. It didn't feel realistic; it felt as if they hadn't bothered to design a prop. I frankly liked the computers on Picard and Janeway's desks better.
Just because we are commonly using LCD monitors for our computers today, does that mean that the unit sitting on Picard's desk is any less realistic? We don't have the slightest idea what the actual technology behind it is, so how do we know what it should look like? And particularly the tricorders. Look like iPhones? Based on what? Hell, if nothing else, the tricorders may have been designed that way because that's the fad of the 24th century. People aren't going to like the look of the iPhone forever.
Frankly, I find it more jarring to me as a viewer when they try to connect with modern technology. In Nemesis, for example, the monitor Picard uses to communicate with Admiral Janeway. That to me was more of a "oh, look, they've stuck an LCD monitor on Picard's desk" moment. It didn't feel realistic; it felt as if they hadn't bothered to design a prop. I frankly liked the computers on Picard and Janeway's desks better.
Yeah, but in the future, you would expect the military to have harder alloys and plastics than modern day iphones, too. There's the need for durability, but there's also the need for a simplistic interface in dangerous situations. Military- and construction-issued laptops, for example, can do everything a normal notebook can do and more, but they've got more padding and protection, and their interface is certainly sleeker than, say, a computer from the late 70s.
ANYway, my problem with PADDs wasn't about their size or appearance, but rather how they were used. Even 10 years ago, before the popularity of the Kindle, I was annoyed when the superstudious characters like Jake Sisko and Janeway would have piles of PADDs around, as if they were hard copy notebooks. A Kindle can store tons of information all by itself and it looks extremely primitive to the PADD, but the selling points of a PADD are:
1. easy access to information
2. efficient storage devices (the PADDs, or at least their predecessors, probably went a long way towards making a truly paperless work environment! How green!
)But having piles and piles of PADDs around just looked sloppy and invalidated both points. There should be no need to have a library of PADDs (as opposed to libraries WITHIN them). Additionally, we see PADDs connected to a local network, say the ship's or the station's or the planet's network, which makes multiple PADDs even more superfluous. I realize there's a lot of info in galaxy 400 years from now, but Ensign Kim is no Lt. Cmdr. Data.
Last edited:
^ I think you have to allow some leeway for dramatic purposes, though. Obviously the piles of PADDs were meant to visually demonstrate that the people using them were up to their necks in work. While it certainly makes more logical sense to think that a single PADD could hold all the information they need, the desk covered in PADDs does achieve the desired dramatic effect.
Yeah, I'm aware of dramatic leeway. I still don't like it
LaForge would get exasperated to show how much work he had to do. He didn't need piles of PADDs!
^ True. There are other ways to do it. But directors tend to like lots of visual cues. I don't think that always makes sense, but that seems to be the thing.
Look at Nicholas Meyer and the two Trek films he directed. He kept insisting there be more "stuff" going on. In TUC, for example, he tossed the smooth touch screen consoles, which make alot more sense given the level of technology, and went back to lots of buttons, dials, and switches, because he thought that was more interesting. Same thing with the "running out the guns" scene in TWOK where, for no apparent reason, photon torpedoes suddenly go through a complex and time consuming loading sequence down a big track that a bunch of cadets have to open up first.
Again, my point is not that I agree with those things, but that I understand why the decisions are made.
One other thing that does occur to me, though, about PADDs is that sometimes it might be desirable to have more than one so that you can have multiple things open and viewable at the same time, rather than having to switch back and forth between what information you're displaying. That might justify 2 or 3 PADDs though, not a whole pile of them.
Look at Nicholas Meyer and the two Trek films he directed. He kept insisting there be more "stuff" going on. In TUC, for example, he tossed the smooth touch screen consoles, which make alot more sense given the level of technology, and went back to lots of buttons, dials, and switches, because he thought that was more interesting. Same thing with the "running out the guns" scene in TWOK where, for no apparent reason, photon torpedoes suddenly go through a complex and time consuming loading sequence down a big track that a bunch of cadets have to open up first.
Again, my point is not that I agree with those things, but that I understand why the decisions are made.
One other thing that does occur to me, though, about PADDs is that sometimes it might be desirable to have more than one so that you can have multiple things open and viewable at the same time, rather than having to switch back and forth between what information you're displaying. That might justify 2 or 3 PADDs though, not a whole pile of them.
Assuming cost is not an issue:
I can see wanting to have 20 PADDS (each opened up to a particular item) while working in certain environments. It's sometimes a lot easier to keep track of physical items than it is to keep track of 20 program windows. You also have more of a sense of accomplishment when you finish an item (physically moving it to the "done" pile).
I'm sure there are many counter-arguments to this work style, but it only has to be an appropriate work-style for the character in question (not for all of starfleet).
Edit: Also, who doesn't like to see their libraries on a wall? You could have twenty PADDS on a shelf (each with a book label on the side). You can even reprogram your library wall for later (or just press a button to shift all the books farther in the library--from books A-B to books D-E). It would really help with browsing, and you could always shift the books back to you "favorites" display at the end. [You could probably do something roughly equivalent without all those PADDS (using a simple large display screen), but there are going to be people who prefer the multiple PADDS (especially in certain environments).]
I can see wanting to have 20 PADDS (each opened up to a particular item) while working in certain environments. It's sometimes a lot easier to keep track of physical items than it is to keep track of 20 program windows. You also have more of a sense of accomplishment when you finish an item (physically moving it to the "done" pile).
I'm sure there are many counter-arguments to this work style, but it only has to be an appropriate work-style for the character in question (not for all of starfleet).
Edit: Also, who doesn't like to see their libraries on a wall? You could have twenty PADDS on a shelf (each with a book label on the side). You can even reprogram your library wall for later (or just press a button to shift all the books farther in the library--from books A-B to books D-E). It would really help with browsing, and you could always shift the books back to you "favorites" display at the end. [You could probably do something roughly equivalent without all those PADDS (using a simple large display screen), but there are going to be people who prefer the multiple PADDS (especially in certain environments).]
The obvious problem with the tricorders though is that useless tiny screen.
Most Trek tricorders have screens that are too small to be useful.
Agreed on that, but then again, one of the points of this thread is about how technology is depicted in the first place. If there's an inconsistency, then that's what the thread is for
It seems rather counter-intuitive considering that we've seen characters using LCARs and switch between windows and screens more quickly than we can with our Vistas and Safaris. Then again, we do see PADDs of various sizes, so maybe the larger ones are akin to a "widescreen" version, while others are closer to a PDA in function.
Similar threads
