They obviously didn't foresee multi-tasking when showing PADD's.
Most ridiculous thing about TOS
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
They obviously didn't foresee multi-tasking when showing PADD's.
-
COGLEY: I'd be delighted to, sir, now that I've got something human to talk about. Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied.
SHAW: Your Honor, that is ridiculous. We produced the witnesses in court. My learned opponent had the opportunity to see them, cross-examine them.
COGLEY: All but one. The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. The computer log of the Enterprise. Can ask this court adjourn and reconvene aboard that vessel.
SHAW: I protest, Your Honor.
COGLEY: And I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us. I ask that my motion be granted, and more than that, gentlemen. In the name of humanity, fading in the shadow of the machine, I demand it. I demand it!
---------------------------------
Ok Cogley, overblow much?
I agree with Shaw. This is a really overwrought way of getting at the idea of questioning the computer (which, frankly, is absurd, as the computer is NOT a person as contemplated by ANY of those documents!). Not to mention that in the phrases "And I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must" he undercuts his whole preceding argument---if a machine has no rights, how can it be an accuser? To me, as an adult, it sounds like Cogley is creating a huge-ass smokescreen and just trying to trip emotional circuits by reciting revered bases of law. Which I guess is the real idea here? Or are we really supposed to get misty-eyed in remembrance of our grand march of legally constituted civilization? I suspect that in the real-world this would have been accomplished in a private meeting with both counsels in the judge's chambers.
I know Cogley is known for these theatrics, but you'd think maybe he could be a little less cheesy.
When I was a teenager in the 70s though it sounded cool.
I'm not going to say this exchange is the most ridiculous thing in TOS, but it has been a whopper to me ever since I was more than 20. I watch it and I either chuckle or my jaw drops:Or the books in "Court Martial" which were acknowledged to be anachronistic.
Go on.... What are they here to say?
COGLEY: I'd be delighted to, sir, now that I've got something human to talk about. Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied.
SHAW: Your Honor, that is ridiculous. We produced the witnesses in court. My learned opponent had the opportunity to see them, cross-examine them.
COGLEY: All but one. The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. The computer log of the Enterprise. Can ask this court adjourn and reconvene aboard that vessel.
SHAW: I protest, Your Honor.
COGLEY: And I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must. My client has the right to face his accuser, and if you do not grant him that right, you have brought us down to the level of the machine. Indeed, you have elevated that machine above us. I ask that my motion be granted, and more than that, gentlemen. In the name of humanity, fading in the shadow of the machine, I demand it. I demand it!
---------------------------------
Ok Cogley, overblow much?
I agree with Shaw. This is a really overwrought way of getting at the idea of questioning the computer (which, frankly, is absurd, as the computer is NOT a person as contemplated by ANY of those documents!). Not to mention that in the phrases "And I repeat, I speak of rights. A machine has none. A man must" he undercuts his whole preceding argument---if a machine has no rights, how can it be an accuser? To me, as an adult, it sounds like Cogley is creating a huge-ass smokescreen and just trying to trip emotional circuits by reciting revered bases of law. Which I guess is the real idea here? Or are we really supposed to get misty-eyed in remembrance of our grand march of legally constituted civilization? I suspect that in the real-world this would have been accomplished in a private meeting with both counsels in the judge's chambers.
I know Cogley is known for these theatrics, but you'd think maybe he could be a little less cheesy.
When I was a teenager in the 70s though it sounded cool.
Here is one of the things I always thought would make for an interesting background aspect of one of the TOS fan series... what would current (at the time of TOS) people of Earth think of the technology being utilized by Starfleet on the starship Enterprise?
Here's the thing... my guess is that they'd find the devices and equipment clunky, dated and underpowered compared to the consumer technology that they'd be used to on Earth. And this is reflected in how I'm sure people might react to technology that we use in our space program today.
Take, for example, the Juno spacecraft that just arrived at Jupiter. Launched 5 years ago, people might assume that the technology powering it's computers must be about the equivalent of what was state of the art when the spacecraft was constructed. But the processor used in Juno is roughly equivalent to a 1997 Power Macintosh G3 (Juno's RAD750 processor is based on the PowerPC 750 and runs at about the same clock speed of Apple's 1997 desktops).
Surely this is a special case, right?
Well, the Curiosity rover on Mars uses the same processor. And the Orion spacecraft (our first real hope for humans venturing beyond low Earth orbit since the Apollo program) uses a PowerPC 750FX running at about 900 MHz (or equivalent to a 2003 Apple iBook G3 laptop). New Horizons uses a Mongoose-V processor which is based on the MIPS R3000, the same processor used in Silicon Graphics entry level IRIS Indigo workstations from 1991. Both Opportunity, Spirit and Dawn used RAD6000 processors, based on the PowerPC 601 (used in Apple's first generation Power Macintosh desktops from 1994).
So yeah, I'd guess that if someone from Earth was visiting the Enterprise during TOS, they might look at tricorders, communicators, pads and computers being used by the crew as painfully dated and bulky compared to what they were used to using. The same way that many people today look at those devices from the original series as being painfully dated and bulky. But the Enterprise as her crew need proven technology that they can easily serviced while isolated from the rest of the Federation, and technology seen in TOS reflects that type of functionality quite nicely even by today's standards.
And I should note that I'm a collector of old computer systems, so I have a 1994 Power Macintosh 8100, a 1997 Power Macintosh G3 Mini Tower, a 2003 iBook G3 and two Silicon Graphics IRIS Indigo workstations... all still functioning quite nicely (one of the Indigos is in need of a hard drive, but otherwise works great).
Here's the thing... my guess is that they'd find the devices and equipment clunky, dated and underpowered compared to the consumer technology that they'd be used to on Earth. And this is reflected in how I'm sure people might react to technology that we use in our space program today.
Take, for example, the Juno spacecraft that just arrived at Jupiter. Launched 5 years ago, people might assume that the technology powering it's computers must be about the equivalent of what was state of the art when the spacecraft was constructed. But the processor used in Juno is roughly equivalent to a 1997 Power Macintosh G3 (Juno's RAD750 processor is based on the PowerPC 750 and runs at about the same clock speed of Apple's 1997 desktops).
Surely this is a special case, right?
Well, the Curiosity rover on Mars uses the same processor. And the Orion spacecraft (our first real hope for humans venturing beyond low Earth orbit since the Apollo program) uses a PowerPC 750FX running at about 900 MHz (or equivalent to a 2003 Apple iBook G3 laptop). New Horizons uses a Mongoose-V processor which is based on the MIPS R3000, the same processor used in Silicon Graphics entry level IRIS Indigo workstations from 1991. Both Opportunity, Spirit and Dawn used RAD6000 processors, based on the PowerPC 601 (used in Apple's first generation Power Macintosh desktops from 1994).
So yeah, I'd guess that if someone from Earth was visiting the Enterprise during TOS, they might look at tricorders, communicators, pads and computers being used by the crew as painfully dated and bulky compared to what they were used to using. The same way that many people today look at those devices from the original series as being painfully dated and bulky. But the Enterprise as her crew need proven technology that they can easily serviced while isolated from the rest of the Federation, and technology seen in TOS reflects that type of functionality quite nicely even by today's standards.
And I should note that I'm a collector of old computer systems, so I have a 1994 Power Macintosh 8100, a 1997 Power Macintosh G3 Mini Tower, a 2003 iBook G3 and two Silicon Graphics IRIS Indigo workstations... all still functioning quite nicely (one of the Indigos is in need of a hard drive, but otherwise works great).
Wow. Well put. I never really thought about it much, but it makes sense.
But our probes are out of reach after they have been launched, so years later yes, their hardware will be painfully outdated. The Enterprise can visit starbases and earth itself for equipment updates whenever Starfleet orders or Kirk wants (or Spock advises, same thing).
Why not?
I think you're wrong on that one. For one thing, in the earlier days of the space program, the electronics on the space missions was more advanced than anything else in the world, like the Apollo nav computer. In-universe within Trek, the computers were always considered bleeding-edge. That's the plot behind The Ultimate Computer, for instance, trying out experimental tech--or the gel-packs on Voyager. There's no need for rad hardening in Trek because they have navigational deflectors. Besides, I'd assume electronics in Trek are radiation-hardened by default due to the use of new materials sciences.
If something seems outdated to us now it's not because it was written in-universe to be somewhat shy of state of the art but because time has marched on.
Isn't that the very issue being fought in courts over traffic cameras?
A more valid comparison would be to compare the bridge of a modern day aircraft carrier (or any navy ship) with the computer capabilities in civilian life at, oh, say, some large fortune 500 company and what their employees have in their home.
Yes, in some areas military and government tech seems to lag behind but in other areas it's much more sophisticated.
Everyone knows never to run updates when they pop up. They just bog your system down.
Thanks!
That is okay, I think you're wrong too.
TOS doesn't take place in an environment like the early space age... almost nothing about TOS was meant to be that new in-universe. Heck, the Enterprise is some twenty years old during TOS. She is a starship with a lot of light years under her belt the first time we see her.
Wait, in that episode the computer system of the Enterprise is described and the age of the technology is given...
Kirk: Genius is an understatement. At the age of twenty four, he made the duotronic breakthrough that won him the Nobel and Zee-Magnes prizes.
McCoy: In his early twenties, Jim. That's over a quarter of a century ago.
McCoy: In his early twenties, Jim. That's over a quarter of a century ago.
Seems like the computer technology on the Enterprise isn't so bleeding edge in that episode.
And as for technology post-TOS, it falls into the Mary Sue category... and there are other sections of the forums for them.
Again, consider the difference between consumer technology and something that needs to be serviceable... Spock repairs a communicator in Patterns Of Force and is able to extend the abilities of a tricorder in The City On The Edge Of Forever. Mobile phones and home electronics today aren't designed to be repaired, their meant to be replaced. The Enterprise can get stuck out in the middle of nowhere for months or years... and was stranded in one solar system for quite a few months in The Paradise Syndrome (the warp engines damaged beyond their ability to repair and having to wait for rescue).
I would think they'd steer clear of state-of-the-art, because it hasn't been tested and trusted to do the job. I would imagine deep space craft would be a generation or two behind, because the bugs would've been worked out of that hardware.
Last edited:
While that may follow current naval parlance, I never liked it for Star Trek.
When Kirk said, "Mr. Sulu you have the conn." I don't feel his fellow officers on the bridge started addressing him as captain.
However, in STV:TFF when Kirk and the crew went planet side, Chekov remained behind and became "Captain Chekov" when speaking to Sybok (though this was a ruse).
Not comfortable with that "acting captain" nomenclature in the current film series.
Doesn't bother me. Makes sense that you need people to respond to whomever is in the center seat like they are the captain.
Fair point.
Just can't remember it being used in TOS, except "The Tholian Web", when Spock was "declared" captain.
It wasn't. But, things change. Chekov calls the team sent to the drill an "Away Team" in Star Trek (2009).
As long as the heart is there, changes in looks and nomenclature don't really phase me.
Yeah, another "tolerable" annoyance. Some of the TOS novels also use that.
In the John Byrne Forum - TOS section, anyone saying away team, gets a screaming LANDING PARTY! LANDING PARTY! from JB.
JB's a stickler!
Which is silly. Things change as your audience changes. Things get updated as new additions to the core work are made. Byrne being a creator himself should understand that.
I think "audience change" is what scares ol' JB!
I made a comment (this is an aside from the current thread) about McCoy's characterization with his use of "pointy-ear" to Spock, which in today's world would be considered racist, as part of '60's culture and only he could get away with it, not the junior officers, and that Spock "tolerates" McCoy's jabs because of their mutual underlying respect for each other.
That earned me a suspension from Mr. Byrne's forum.
Ah, well.
Similar threads
