Most ridiculous thing about TOS
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
Perhaps the "cold sleepers" in 2001 would be denser than a normal person, but every effort would still be made to avoid stresses upon the tissues. Odds are such cold sleep would be very different from the deep cold currently used by cryonics facilities. (Granted, 2010 is a different movie, but Floyd wakes up with a beard. So he was not under complete stasis.)
2010 made the same "mistake" by having the sleepers in the revolving habitat. But then, 2010 also had a scene with Floyd and Curnow casually slouching around the kitchen eating crackers and talking about baseball and growing good hotdogs indoors. At that time, the habitat was not rotating because Leonov was attached to Discovery. (Oops.)
The point is, Kubrick's jarring use of silence, or the somewhat creepy sound of the astronaut breathing during the EVA scenes was an aesthetic choice, and not a sign of the movie's hardcore adherence to physical reality. A ship with an engine pod as large as Discovery's could manage a reactor powerful enough to make a VASIMR-type engine's theoretical performance a reality. The trip to Jupiter would then be so fast that cold sleep would be unnecessary. And HAL's CPU would likely be a fraction of the size seen in the movie.
Well, if you want to play that game then technically there could only be one uniform. For everybody. Because even two completely identical uniforms are not the exact same uniform.
Because no women served in the Roman army, making the entire discussion about Roman tunics completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. My original comment pretty obviously referred to services comprised of both genders.
Yes, there's no predicting the future with certainty, but you can extrapolate existing trends and make an educated guess. And the existing trend in military uniforms is towards a unisex design, as they're more practical and more uniform. That has been the trend for a couple of centuries now. Compare the field uniforms the British army wore in 1776 to to any and all following wars. They are increasingly simplified and practical. It's a good bet that such a trend will continue.
Last edited:
There is a real evidentiary issue here, Cogley has that right. But the accuser is known, it's no mystery in the courtroom or on the Enterprise: it's the state. The computer is only an instrumentality of the state; it is its eyes for any perceived transgression of this kind (gods know what it saw in The Enemy Within. But Rand didn't try to bring charges.). Any and all evidence created by the computer would be subpoenable by defense, and anything known by prosecution disclosed on discovery, in US jurisprudence.
I'm not familiar with the traffic camera cases. I have to believe the camera records are fully discoverable. What more should we ask for, given cameras? Don't get me wrong though, I detest the idea of traffic cameras on hey-welcome-to-the-police-state grounds, but I assume in jursidictions where they are law that their records are subpoenable?
But I am assuming that the Articles of Federation of the Federation specify the same right to confront the accuser--funny how that isn't in Cogley's list!--and so he need only cite that paragraph and section of actual governing law to the judge.
Man is a thwarted actor. Oh wait he is an actor. er...
Last edited:
The context of Lester's statement clearly states that she is speaking directly about how Kirk's status as captain affected their relationship and not about any gender-discrimination policy against women. The exact quote is "Your world of starship captains doesn't admit women." In another context these very same words could admittedly be interpreted to mean exactly the latter. But again, the context of the situation clearly dictates that Janice is speaking about how the responsibilities of starship captains leave them little time or opportunity to pursue serious or lasting relationships. And again, as others have noted, there's the nut factor too.
In the US Navy all commanding officers of ships and submarines are called "captain" regardless of actual rank. However, a subordinate officer in temporary command is not addressed as "captain". He or she is addressed by rank or as Mr. or Ms. (Name).
I could be wrong, but I don't recall a single instance in the TOS where one of Kirk's subordinates was addressed as "captain" when in temporary command. In The Tholian Web Spock was called captain when it appeared that Kirk was gone for good, and it was assumed that Spock would be promoted to CO. But Spock or whoever taking the con while Kirk was away did not get called captain, nor should they have.
Perhaps, but not on the desks..or the tables
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/i...triangle-schematics-theenterpriseincident.jpg
And we really didn't know what was behind all those bridge monitor panels..or the main viewscreen..
At least Col. Edward McCauleIy had a flatscreen on his desk at Moonbase
Bad example, considering that display was three sided.
You should do one of those for the debate over whether Schrodinger's cat is dead.
No one used the bathroom, only Kirk and Spock had sex (Bones had it once with Natira). Everyone else had secret booty calls for five years or lived like monks
Ok I'll call you and raise you
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monitors/monitor-tos-shine-theparadisesyndrome.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monitors/monitor-tos-defiant-thetholianweb.jpg
Again, at least Col. McCauleIy had a flatscreen on his desk at Moonbase
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monitors/monitor-tos-shine-theparadisesyndrome.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/monitors/monitor-tos-defiant-thetholianweb.jpg
Again, at least Col. McCauleIy had a flatscreen on his desk at Moonbase
Yes, I see how it could be ambiguous but I still hear it as a male dominated accusation, Todd! And so do a lot of others as well...
JB
Nope. The antennae assembly was stationary except when Dave when out to service it, and only then it rotated to a different position and stopped (presumably so he could access the AE-35 unit).
More likely they had the antenna spinning to make the shot more dynamic, then "stopped" it because it made lighting the scene much easier with the full-scale model. You'll notice that the antenna is spinning the whole time David is making his jump, then is stopped only in the full-scale shot. The antenna would have been parked long before the astronaut began his manual approach. Likewise when Frank EVAs, the antenna is still spinning when he tumbles past with a cut air line. Suddenly it is pointed straight back again as David's pod races away after Frank. If facing the stern were the correct direction for Earth, why would HAL point the antenna that way?
In most shots, the antenna is pointed precisely back along the main axis of the ship, which it would not be doing since Earth would be off at an angle to the flight attitude of a ship under constant (though very minor) thrust. Discovery was lit mostly from the port side. At that distance, Earth would be no more than a few degrees away from the Sun. So the antenna should have been facing the light at all times.
In many of those EVA shots, such as the full-scale shots of David working on the antenna, the background stars are moving by very rapidly. The sky would appear to be static because everything is so far away. For that matter, it is doubtful the stars would even be visible when the camera was stopped down to properly expose the hull of the ship, the pod, the spacesuited figures.
The transporter.
Entire budget and FX driven, I understand, but the transporter and what it does is even more 'out there' than the concept of the warp drive.
Entire budget and FX driven, I understand, but the transporter and what it does is even more 'out there' than the concept of the warp drive.
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.
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).
The fact that Dyson invented duotronics a quarter of a century back from TOS does NOT indicate that the Enterprise's systems are not cutting-edge, simply that no more revolutionary approach has been made since. It says nothing about development within the field of duotronics. How long ago did we invent the microchip? Are we still using them? Yes. Are they still as clunky as the originals? Hell no.
If they had restricted it as a way to get from point A to point B it would have been fine, it's when they started giving it abilities beyond that that it started to be more than a little ridiculous.
Similar threads
