Treknology infograhic

[Boris Skrbic]

But McCoy isn't using his devices as salt shakers, yet Spock is using a device which looks like a slide graphic calculator in a manner consistent with a slide graphic calculator. Are you saying Spock's device is actually a highly advanced, paper-thin tablet computer, with a telepathic interface which doesn't require a viewscreen? Or that there is no way a tablet computer could work without being connected to the main computer, so Spock must resort to antiques instead? And it's not just Spock; other people are using the same devices.

The goal of TOS producers was to design a futuristic yet functional world, which they couldn't fully predict, but now it is on film and still canon. We must understand the rules of that world as they are, how technology evolved in that world, and not try to twist TOS into something ridiculous.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A slide graphic calculator has one advantage over something more technological: No power requirements. For that matter, no need to take up any computer memory.

Also, Spock could be using it to keep the ol' mind sharper by doing the work himself instead of delegating the job to the computer. Just one of the things he does to amuse himself.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

As noted, it's not just Spock, but other crew members as well. Look at the linked thread again. If power and memory are a problem, why are we using pocket calculators, smartphones and tablet computers? Why aren't slide graphic calculators still in widespread use? The answer is that saving a tiny bit of battery power is less important than ease of use.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Part of a Starfleet program to encourage its personnel to not become so dependent on the computers that they never learn how to do the work themselves. After all, they're not always going to have a computer to rely upon.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

That's seriously pushing it, since slide rules are antiques even today. At least they should have access to pocket calculators. What about the robotic voice and the accompanying, unnecessary chatter? The noise doesn't bother anyone?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Think of it as an auditory version of the hourglass cursor. Just there to tell the user that the computer is working on it.

 

[Timo]

And, additionally, that the computer is working on it. You know, the device with the uniquely tinny voice, rather than, say, one of the many female crew members whose voices uncannily and confusingly resemble that of the other available output setting?

I could see the military evaluating three options here:

1) The tin man voice. Perhaps the clearest one in a noisy environment, with a tone commanding attention. Being nerve-grating is a big plus, too.

2) The other scifi cliche, the female deep alto air traffic controller voice that equally calmly counts down to Armageddon or reports on an approaching scheduled meeting. Less likely to be heard over combat noise, but soothing and with a tone carrying authority of another sort.

3) The later Trek option, a mundane human voice that speaks jus' like yer fellow crewwoman. The least likely to be heard over noise, the least likely to carry authority, the least likely to be trusted or feared. IMHO the least realistic of the three...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But if we extrapolate voice reply from what we are familiar with today (car navigation etc.), 1) becomes extremely unlikely and 3) becomes the most likely option. You don't need that much noise to indicate that the computer is working on a reply; it is enough to make a short "blip" sound every few seconds or so, or use an indicator light. Also, even if there is potential for confusing such voices with those of other people, because someone just happens to have a similar voice, the intonation is usually slightly more formal, so misunderstanding becomes unlikely. It is pushing it to think that background chatter and a robotic pronunciation could be preferred by anyone.

 

[blssdwlf]

..yet Spock is using a device which looks like a slide graphic calculator in a manner consistent with a slide graphic calculator. Are you saying Spock's device is actually a highly advanced, paper-thin tablet computer, with a telepathic interface which doesn't require a viewscreen? Or that there is no way a tablet computer could work without being connected to the main computer, so Spock must resort to antiques instead? And it's not just Spock; other people are using the same devices.

I mentioned what I thought it was, a backup for calculating something when the computer is not available due to damage. Whether it is powered or purely a manual-use device is up to your imagination.

Afterall, how do you know that the "recreational antique" Spock is using wasn't updated to calculate space warp fluctuations along a gravitational gradient or some technobabble and is used as a backup when the computer gets fused in every other tenth episode? Military's tend to like to have old-fashioned backups.

But McCoy isn't using his devices as salt shakers,

Still you know that they're salt shakers and just choose not to be bothered by it but can't do that for the handheld device? Are we ever shown a close-up of it to discern the labels on it or anything else beyond those screen shots?

The goal of TOS producers was to design a futuristic yet functional world, which they couldn't fully predict, but now it is on film and still canon. We must understand the rules of that world as they are, how technology evolved in that world, and not try to twist TOS into something ridiculous.

I agree. I'd just say that the twisting TOS into something ridiculous is rather subjective

But if we extrapolate voice reply from what we are familiar with today (car navigation etc.), 1) becomes extremely unlikely and 3) becomes the most likely option.

Actually, I'd see 1 and 2* more likely than 3*. You want a voice to stand out not blend in.

*Unless the voice is also part of a visual of an attractive woman representing the computer/ship systems

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ ala Andromeda?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

blssdwlf: you mentioned what you thought it was, but it doesn't make sense because you're trying too hard. Today we can use a graphing calculator or an offline smartphone as backup, yet the Enterprise crew can't? Are they skillfully hiding their touchscreens from the camera? And are you sure that the computer was unavailable in all the episodes which featured the device? You're starting with an assumption and twisting facts to suit it.

Yes, it may be necessary to squint a little, in case HD screencaps reveal the markings on that particular slide graphic computer and they don't match the story point, but there is no need to pretend it wasn't a slide graphic computer in the first place, one whose purpose is to avoid wasting mainframe processing power on trivial calculations. Occam's Razor, especially given all the other evidence of robotic voices, unnecessary noise and typewritten text. If a company today made the Enterprise robotic voice and noise mandatory on its devices, it would go out of business. I'm not following why you think it's acceptable on Star Trek.

If you watch the movie 2001, you will not pretend that the extrapolated technology is actually more advanced than ours in 100% of ways just because they went that far into space and had an intelligent computer. The correct approach is to review background materials for what the designers and technical consultants had in mind with their extrapolation, then treat it as a fictional universe in which technology actually evolved in that manner (and in which the Soviet Union survived longer). Why can't you do the same for Star Trek, instead of twisting it into a ridiculous retro-fest? Courier stylesheets, deliberate robotic voices, deliberate chatter...seriously?

 

[blssdwlf]

a backup for calculating something when the computer is not available due to damage. Whether it is powered or purely a manual-use device is up to your imagination."

blssdwlf: you mentioned what you thought it was, but it doesn't make sense because you're trying too hard. Today we can use a graphing calculator or an offline smartphone as backup, yet the Enterprise crew can't?

Depends on what you're backing up for. We've seen the Enterprise's electronics get fused, overloaded, etc due to alien and space phenomena. A manual-use device would still work in those cases. Your example is fine about a backup smartphone and calculator only because we're not concerned about a power source to re-charge them and we're not concerned about electrical interference that could disable them. I wouldn't be surprised if the Enterprise crew occasionally had to break out paper and pencil in emergencies.

Are they skillfully hiding their touchscreens from the camera? And are you sure that the computer was unavailable in all the episodes which featured the device? You're starting with an assumption and twisting facts to suit it.

One, what touchscreens are you referring to? And two, having the device out and the computer's availability do not need to be connected. We don't know if they just have them out to use for practice and availability. I've not tried to check each event where they had it out and what they were using for, have you?

Yes, it may be necessary to squint a little, in case HD screencaps reveal the markings on that particular slide graphic computer and they don't match the story point, but there is no need to pretend it wasn't a slide graphic computer in the first place, one whose purpose is to avoid wasting mainframe processing power on trivial calculations.

We don't know what they are. Were they identified as slide graphic calculators in dialogue?

Occam's Razor, especially given all the other evidence of robotic voices, unnecessary noise and typewritten text.

You're still preceding on the knowledge of what that prop is and your specific expectations of future technology. Occam's Razor would at best say that the crew "routinely" used a manual-use device that resembles a 1960's slide graphic calculator. I suppose I could say I "routinely" use my pencil and paper rather than an iPad or desktop out of habit. Does that tell you the level of technology that I have if you see me using a pencil and paper?

If a company today made the Enterprise robotic voice and noise mandatory on its devices, it would go out of business. I'm not following why you think it's acceptable on Star Trek.

Read your statement again. "If a company today..." I'm assuming in the Real World, as well? Versus "If a company in Star Trek made a computer with a robotic voice and noise mandatory on its devices." Obviously, the characters in Star Trek favored the robotic voice. We even have dialogue from Kirk requesting it back.

If you watch the movie 2001, you will not pretend that the extrapolated technology is actually more advanced than ours in 100% of ways just because they went that far into space and had an intelligent computer.

I don't know. I haven't watched 2001 in two decades. Maybe back then I might have a different perspective, but now I just take it as it is without reading to much into it since to me it's a parallel universe and I more than likely don't have enough information to draw a conclusion either way.

The correct approach is to review background materials for what the designers and technical consultants had in mind with their extrapolation, then treat it as a fictional universe in which technology actually evolved in that manner (and in which the Soviet Union survived longer). Why can't you do the same for Star Trek, instead of twisting it into a ridiculous retro-fest? Courier stylesheets, deliberate robotic voices, deliberate chatter...seriously?

Seriously I could ask why can't you accept what Star Trek is showing us without trying to filter it through your expectations of the future? If you can't, then of course everything in Star Trek will look retro to you.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

So you think this is only an emergency device, but one which is actually used routinely, for practice, despite the adverse effects it would have on efficiency, and in reality they have much more advanced technology? Your analogy with pencil and paper is incorrect, because a camera filming you routinely using pencil and paper would also show other people using smartphones, tablet PCs, notebooks, with perhaps a few graphing calculators. There is no evidence of anything like that in TOS, unless you're looking for a giant twist in which they left all of that precisely where the camera never goes. Also, you know that Kirk didn't request back the robotic voice specifically, he wanted a non-seductive voice.

In conclusion, you know what the problem is. The TOS producers had 1960s technology to extrapolate from and couldn't foresee what it would look like even in our present day, so they made a number of false predictions. Not even a highly researched movie such as 2001 got it right, although its task should've been easier since it was looking only thirty years into the future. Despite that, our interpretation of onscreen elements should follow closely that of TOS producers and the 1960s viewer, in order to avoid twisting the idea of a state-of-the-art, functional semi-military ship into a retro fest where the crew is using Courier stylesheets, unnecessarily robotic computers, inefficient analog devices, all just because it's SF.

 

[blssdwlf]

So you think this is only an emergency device, but one which is actually used routinely, for practice, despite the adverse effects it would have on efficiency, and in reality they have much more advanced technology?

If you haven't noticed, the TOS Enterprise operates routinely with human intervention (helm control, phaser gun crews, etc) even though we've seen that the ship can operate completely automated in "The Ultimate Computer". You could assume there is an "adverse effect on efficiency" but in their reality there might not be and that they're doing this by choice, not necessarily technical limitation.

Your analogy with pencil and paper is incorrect, because a camera filming you routinely using pencil and paper would also show other people using smartphones, tablet PCs, notebooks, with perhaps a few graphing calculators.

Since I operate in the real world, there are no such restrictions on where I'm at so you'd even see me with my smartphone. However, if I were in an organization that had specific policies on equipment use, perhaps all you would see are people making sure they can use the approved devices efficiently.

There is no evidence of anything like that in TOS, unless you're looking for a giant twist in which they left all of that precisely where the camera never goes.

Since we never visited Kirk's contemporary Earth and only glimpsed at some off world colonies and Starbases but not enough to gauge their citizen's tech use, who knows?

Also, you know that Kirk didn't request back the robotic voice specifically, he wanted a non-seductive voice.

But they still got back the robotic voice without the personality, didn't they?

In conclusion, you know what the problem is. The TOS producers had 1960s technology to extrapolate from and couldn't foresee what it would look like even in our present day, so they made a number of false predictions. Not even a highly researched movie such as 2001 got it right, although its task should've been easier since it was looking only thirty years into the future. Despite that, our interpretation of onscreen elements should follow closely that of TOS producers and the 1960s viewer, in order to avoid twisting the idea of a state-of-the-art, functional semi-military ship into a retro fest where the crew is using Courier stylesheets, unnecessarily robotic computers, inefficient analog devices, all just because it's SF.

Alternatively, an interpretation could be straight "Thermian"-esque and work with what was actually produced. That way one can see a "state-of-the-art, functional semi-military ship where the crew is using Courier stylesheets, preferred robotic-sounding computers, manual handheld devices and systems, all just because it's Star Fleet in Star Trek." Besides, why the big hate on retro? Aesthetics and form follow cycles too

 

[Boris Skrbic]

We will never agree, because you just don't want to abandon a mere assumption that all Star Trek technology must by definition be more advanced than ours, so you're twisting Star Trek into a retroverse, one where strange ideas of form are preferred over function. The fact that you think it feasible that we just didn't see the advanced technology, because it was only on Earth at the time, only goes to show that you're not interested in Occam's Razor.

I'm saying that they just don't have the technology to implement a non-robotic voice, to abandon all typewriters, to extend processing power into smaller devices. Sure, they can automate the workings of an entire starship, at least as an experiment, but that doesn't mean they have touchscreen technology. I'm not sure how you can't see that. Asimov's Foundation universe, twenty thousand years in the future, still contains slide rules (used for hyperspace jump calculations) as well as voice-controlled typewriters. Will you assume that they're functionally unnecessary?

 

[blssdwlf]

We will never agree, because you just don't want to abandon a mere assumption that all Star Trek technology must by definition be more advanced than ours,

We're not agreeing now because I'm just disagreeing with your assertions that specific technology like speech synthesis, manual devices and systems are inferior to our current technology.

so you're twisting Star Trek into a retroverse, one where strange ideas of form are preferred over function. The fact that you think it feasible that we just didn't see the advanced technology, because it was only on Earth at the time, only goes to show that you're not interested in Occam's Razor.

Actually, I think we are seeing the advanced technology, only masked as what you would call 60's retro aesthetics

I'm saying that they just don't have the technology to implement a non-robotic voice,

"Tomorrow is Yesterday" would show they do have the technology.

to abandon all typewriters,

Did we ever see a typewriter in use (other than in time travel episodes) ?

to extend processing power into smaller devices.

Define processing power and the tricorder, communicator, McCoy's operating equipment.

Sure, they can automate the workings of an entire starship, at least as an experiment, but that doesn't mean they have touchscreen technology.

Then again, they might have never developed touch screen technology or we never saw it being developed in an earlier time frame and being discarded for different technology. How can you make that assumption since you've not seen the entire history of Star Trek played out? I mean, did you ever ask, hey where are the keyboards and mice? How do they play FPS games in Star Trek? Do you think in 20-40 years we'll be an all touchscreen swipe the pad culture and lose the mouse?

I'm not sure how you can't see that. Asimov's Foundation universe, twenty thousand years in the future, still contains slide rules (used for hyperspace jump calculations) as well as voice-controlled typewriters. Will you assume that they're functionally unnecessary?

That's Asimov's Foundation.

In any case, how can you see certain things "not existing" without first accounting for Star Trek's entire tech history? Certainly Occam's Razor would point out that you're making one too many assumptions.

Now, if I were arguing this as a Real Life 1960's production and the aesthetics we see now from our fan/viewer perspective, I would still ask how do you know what tech they did and did not develop given the sketchy information we have from the designers and creators of the show?

I was going to mention something about the lack of motion controlled devices, but then there was Spock from "The Menagerie/The Cage" doing his MS Kinect thing with the screen display. Interestingly, they discarded that use. Starfleet's IT department are just a bunch of oddballs, IMHO

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But I don't understand why you feel free to assume "retro aesthetics" on a functional, semi-military starship which is supposed to be the most advanced starship at the time of TOS. Are you going to find such notions on any modern warship or a 1960s warship? Yes, the tricorder has certain advanced functionality, but its CRT display is obviously limited, while the communicator is obviously powerful but has a speaker and dials resembling those of old-style radios. In addition, you can see 1960s buttons and switches all over the bridge, so why not accept that they didn't have better technology, and that text which looks like it came from a typewriter was actually created on a typewriter?

Just because we didn't see the entire history between the 1960s and the time of TOS, you're assuming that they must have had our technology and then discarded it in favor of more advanced technology with 1960s retro aesthetics. Why does such an approach make sense to you, when you know full well that Star Trek only looks that way because it was made in the 1960s, with corresponding ideas about future technology. Retro aesthetics on a semi-military ship are Occam's Razor to you, as opposed to a function-driven design based on the best available technology (as predicted in the 1960s)?

I'm sorry, but you'll find few who agree with such an interpretation of TOS, especially since we know full well that its timeline doesn't match our real-world timeline. Perhaps you haven't spent enough time studying Matt Jefferies' design intent, the writers' guides and other materials which point to a desire for believability that included consulting various experts, e.g. from the RAND corporation. You don't acquire believability by making your ship of the line into a retro-fest; the point is that the technology wasn't seen as retro by a 1960s audience, and we must look at the ship in the same manner if we are to retain the spirit of TOS.

 

[blssdwlf]

But I don't understand why you feel free to assume "retro aesthetics" on a functional, semi-military starship which is supposed to be the most advanced starship at the time of TOS. Are you going to find such notions on any modern warship or a 1960s warship?

I'm not comparing the TOS Enterprise to our modern warship or our 1960s warship. I'm just looking at the TOS Enterprise relative to what shown in their universe. Maybe that's what is tripping you up in understanding where I'm coming from.

Yes, the tricorder has certain advanced functionality, but its CRT display is obviously limited, while the communicator is obviously powerful but has a speaker and dials resembling those of old-style radios. In addition, you can see 1960s buttons and switches all over the bridge, so why not accept that they didn't have better technology, and that text which looks like it came from a typewriter was actually created on a typewriter?

Because I'm not linking their aesthetics with our history. How do you know the tricorder's CRT display is "obviously limited"? Is it that hard for you to separate their use of speaker and dials that resemble our 1960's buttons from the functionality of their devices? Were you able to produce an episode where we see them using a typewriter?

Just because we didn't see the entire history between the 1960s and the time of TOS, you're assuming that they must have had our technology and then discarded it in favor of more advanced technology with 1960s retro aesthetics.

Actually, we cannot say one way or another whether they had something like our technology since we don't know their history. It is possible that they had used technology and stopped using it for whatever reason that we are not aware of or could comprehend. The natural voice from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and Spock's Kinect-motion screen operation from "The Menagerie/The Cage" serve as examples.

Why does such an approach make sense to you, when you know full well that Star Trek only looks that way because it was made in the 1960s, with corresponding ideas about future technology. Retro aesthetics on a semi-military ship are Occam's Razor to you, as opposed to a function-driven design based on the best available technology (as predicted in the 1960s)?

It makes sense to me because I'm not trying to assume to know more than the characters of the show. I'm not trying break the 4th wall and go, that's a 1960's slide rule calculator, and oh yeah, 1960's magic jewel buttons, groovy! If that's what the characters in the time of TOS came up with in aesthetics and function, at most I'd say is, yeah, kinda retro-looking but functionally, they still have natural voice capability and a fondness for our Courier font

I'm sorry, but you'll find few who agree with such an interpretation of TOS, especially since we know full well that its timeline doesn't match our real-world timeline. Perhaps you haven't spent enough time studying Matt Jefferies' design intent, the writers' guides and other materials which point to a desire for believability that included consulting various experts, e.g. from the RAND corporation. You don't acquire believability by making your ship of the line into a retro-fest; the point is that the technology wasn't seen as retro by a 1960s audience, and we must look at the ship in the same manner if we are to retain the spirit of TOS.

Or perhaps you've spent too much time studying the background information, the suppose-to-have-beens, the sets behind the show, the props and the guides and no longer can watch TOS as TOS?

Just to boil it back down to the original point(s) of disagreement: the technology limits you claim that exist on the Enterprise doesn't appear to be an actual limitation but a choice from their in-universe POV. It would be one thing if there was an episode that had Scotty complaining to Kirk that he can't make the voice sound natural. Or if you found the episode where they used a typewriter on the ship. But as far as we've gone back and forth, you haven't and I haven't found it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I was going to mention something about the lack of motion controlled devices, but then there was Spock from "The Menagerie/The Cage" doing his MS Kinect thing with the screen display. Interestingly, they discarded that use. Starfleet's IT department are just a bunch of oddballs, IMHO

Umm....that wasn't an example of motion sensor stuff, he was signalling to a female crewman who was seated just off screen. The wider shot can be seen at startrekhistory.com on the page concerned with the production of "The Cage".

 

[Boris Skrbic]

blssdwlf: even if I found an official with a typewriter, you would assume he was another Sam Cogley who had a personal preference for antiques. If you saw Scotty complaining about the voice in another episode, you could probably assume that the technology was being deliberately limited by Starfleet orders in order to maintain uniform retro aesthetics across starships.

You start by assuming that their technology is more advanced than ours in all respects, which means the only way you can see their buttons and switches is through some kind of retro aesthetics. The explanation suffers because those are real, physical humans out there, with the same sense perceptions as our present-day humans who needed to evolve those 1960s tools and interfaces for practical reasons. Thus when I ask you why those humans aren't bothered by robotic voices and typewritten text, the reply is that we don't know what happened in their world. Your explanation requires radical changes in the way those humans think about technology, as opposed to humans on a present-day warship.

I'm proposing a much simpler explanation, which is that the TOS universe is one of myriad fictional worlds whose creators couldn't fully predict the future, so the reason regular humans aren't bothered by rob-o-tic-voi-ces-which-make-it-hard-to-per-ceive-sen-tence-struct-ure is simply that they don't have the technology to implement changes (perhaps the planet from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" had slightly better technology, but they refused to adapt it for another voice or there were minor technical limitations which would soon be overcome). It requires no changes in the way humans think, no retro aesthetics on a semi-military ship, only that you abandon a mere assumption that their technology is more advanced than ours. That is what I mean by applying Occam's Razor in this case: there is no need for the radical assumption that future humans wouldn't be bothered by so much form over function.