Spoilers Tech issue with 1x06
- Thread starter RobertCardassian
- Start date
But how do we know you didn't edit those Wikipedia pages?you should have googled it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
Sure, the showrunners will do an about face "in due time", right? Well season one is already in the can, so it's not happening this year. How many more years will you wait before you admit you were wrong?
Just watch they're going to have a ship in the bottle type episode then it'll unravel everything said in here.
Google it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
these were also the points I made in defense of your side, not mine.
Well, unless he's edited lots of other sites as well, you could corroborate his statements via several sources. It does seem suspicious though that someone with a proven history of editing public databases didn't JUST suggest Googling but linked you to a specific open-source site like Wikipedia. Edit: I see he now has
http://www.nethistory.info/History of the Internet/beginnings.html
Might have more to say on the matter.
That will be the last episode this year. Then there will be a Trek fandom civil war for a few months and then the first episode next year will show that the "Ship in a Bottle" type episode was just a "These Are the Voyages..." type episode.
Just watch they're going to have a ship in the bottle type episode then it'll unravel everything said in here.
We were doing so well for a moment there that I shall resist my impulse to reply snarkily with nothing but a link to the Wikipedia article for "slippery slope fallacy"...*resist! resist!*
As others have said, it seems to me like they know generally what they're about and where the lines are, and while they may try to push and bend them a little—they're perfectly allowed and perhaps even obligated to do that, dramatically speaking—I don't think they'll deliberately break them, unless it's to a purpose. There are always inconsistencies that creep in unintentionally from writers not having fully understood the source material—"Flashback" (VGR) is rife with them; it isn't just this "issue" about holodecks and replicators—but we'll work them out. (Though we don't always fully understand the source material, either!)
Ah, but you see, these real-world examples illustrate my point too, now that I look: early "0G" wireless mobile phones were not truly cellular phones at all (let alone "cellphones" or later "smartphones"), and before that there were phones that were mobile, but relied on wires. If someone said there was "no internet in the 1970s" or "no World Wide Web in the 1980s" they wouldn't be wrong even though most or all of the precursors to them existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
That video is indeed a great concise little summary. I somehow missed it at first, so thanks for pointing it out again.
Last edited:
I see that, it does get lonely at the top
You're welcome
I'd recommend the channel EC Henry in general. There is some really great (and positive) stuff about Star Trek that even made me appreciate the new movies more.We really have to move this discussion to a certain place where we can insult each other. How much more fun would that be
If you want company, you could try posting your insights to the comment section of a Trekyards video.
Holosuite and Holodeck were used interchangeably in Star Trek First Contact:
So are you calling Take Me Out to the Holosuite non-canon?Holosuite and Holodeck were used interchangeably in Star Trek First Contact:
Thought that was a pretty good break down between the differences. It's never established in TNG that was the first time the tech existed. So many complaints (not all mind you to be fair) I've noticed about Discovery really seem to come from people not really knowing their own Trek information they're trying to use as a comparison. This is a good example of where this works and matches what has been said in previous series.
Last edited:
So which of the conflicting door signs do you consider to be canon, and which one NON-CANON? The one more prominent camera-wise, or the one that matches the internal Okudagram and the dialogue? It's quite a dilemma. Assuming they're in fact the same door? (Can't watch the scene right now, sorry.) Why shouldn't the Enterprise-E's holodeck complex incorporate multiple holosuites, exactly?Holosuite and Holodeck were used interchangeably in Star Trek First Contact:
Every square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are square. Holosuites are rectangles. Holodecks are squares. Which means they are also rectangles. But not all rectangles are squares. Who's on first?
Your original claim was: "they were in an environment that turned into a room. That's called a holodeck." There are many different environments that turn into rooms, and rooms that turn into environments, but they are emphatically not all called holodecks.
Don't think so, no. We got to this point via his claim that the mere fact of DSC's simulator being a virtual environment created via holograms automatically makes it a holodeck, and therefore (I gather) non-canon because of what Harry Kim said that one time in VGR. I used the DS9 example to illustrate that even contemporary to TNG there are holographic facilities that aren't referred to as holodecks even by those whose custom it would otherwise be to use that term, if it in fact referred to any such facility. That example only had to be reached for because apparently TAS, ENT, and DSC are all, again, NON-CANON.
I think that might be the "is Starfleet a military?" thing you're thinking of, there.
It seems like you managed to stumble upon a point the rest of us have been trying to get you to see since the beginning of the week. Progress!
Now would it be too much to ask you to consider that Farpoint, Relics, and Flashback had somewhat ambiguous lines about "holodecks" as well? That perhaps they could have meant something other than "any and all forms of rooms with virtual environments that have ever existed"?
Similar threads
