Star Trek: Next Series
Nopporn Wongrassamee
movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
fact, it's been TOO well explored.
Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided to
take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
create... *gasp*...
Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
*Cue new theme song which sounds nothing like any of the previous
theme songs.*
The Backstory:
In the 21st century, breakthroughs in physics allow the creation of
gravity drives and FTL, vastly decreasing the cost of spaceflight.
This led to an explosion of colonization over the next couple of
centuries. A vast exodus occured, and no one is quite sure how
many colonies are out there and how far they spread. Many of these
colonists were "Utopianists" out to create the perfect society, thus
producing oddities like Indian world, Roman world, Gangster world,
etc.
Couple that with advances in cybernetics and genetic
engineering, and you have worlds inhabited by
"improved" humans. The Vulcans and Romulans
have increased strength and intellect. The Klingons
have built in organ redundancy. The Andorians have
cybernetic implants that look like antennae...
Starfleet's mission: Bring all these loose colonies
back into contact with the Federation.
There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
the series. If it looks human with just a few head
bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
Technology:
The Enterprise and all human built starships while having familiar
shapes, have an obvious modular construction. Thus, open frameworks
link various modules together, giving a utilitarian feel.
Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
transport on newly found worlds.
Between beam weapons and shields, ship combat is like that of the "Big
gun" Battleship era. Fighters can't compete and are generaly
ineffective against ships. Victory goes to whoever has the more
powerful guns and shields (which isn't Enterprise).
Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
Technobabble will be minimized, focusing on character instead. In
other words, technical solutions cannot be pulled out of crewman's
<bleep!>.
The Main Characters:
James T. Kirk - Youngest ship captain in StarFleet. While talented, he
has a weakness for women. Given that the Admiral he reports to is a
woman, and scuttlebut has it that it wasn't his command abilities that
got Kirk his command.
Elizabeth Spock - Sure to cause controversy, Spock is now a woman!
(A very pretty one at that with a taste for skimpy clothing due to her
hot home planet, but that's not really important, right?) Older than
Kirk, possessing all the standard Vulcan intellect enhancements, and
having been in Starfleet longer, Spock is convinced that she would
make a better Captain than Kirk. After all, it's only logical...
Leonard "Bones" McCoy - After their initial medical officer dies, the
Enterprise makes do with a colonist they picked up. While a good
doctor, McCoy is something of a technophobe and has a love affair
with the bottle.
The Crew:
Scotty: An Andorrian with a taste for bag pipe music and video games.
He's very good at what he does. He's also the ship's engineer.
Sulu: Also a woman, she pilots the Enterprise. She may also be *gasp*
a Klingon sleeper agent.
Uhuru: The ship's communications officer is also the ship's
anthropologist. Look to her for theories on newly discovered
cultures.
Chekov: The tough as nails (or so he wants everyone to think) ship's
security chief. He's waaay out of his depth here.
Chapel: The Enterprise's first medical chief (poor woman).
Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
Arthur Hansen
this actually sounds some what decent. Except I would get rid of
transporters and "weapon grade" holos.
Chris Basken
Chris Basken
Well, transporters are part of the Trek mythos. But I like limiting them
to pad-to-pad operation.
Anybody
wrote:
> Sounds vaguely like what Moore wanted to do with it.
Gee, I wonder why that doesn't surprise me. :-\
preac...@hotmail.com
Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:
> Star Trek. Everyone knows Star Trek. The subject of half a dozen
> movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
> fact, it's been TOO well explored.
>
> Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
> success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided
to
> take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
> create... *gasp*...
>
> Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
<snip re-imagining>
It actually sounds like a good idea and something I'd like to watch,
which is why IT WILL NEVER BE DONE.
Ken from Chicago
"Nopporn Wongrassamee" <evila...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4205879c....@news.individual.net...
And of course when they run across ... Apollo.
> Technology:
>
> The Enterprise and all human built starships while having familiar
> shapes, have an obvious modular construction. Thus, open frameworks
> link various modules together, giving a utilitarian feel.
>
> Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
> station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
> transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
> transport on newly found worlds.
I would modify that to have transporter "anchors" or "beacons". You could
transport them in--slowly, say 5-10 minutes, depending on environment. At
that point, you could beam stuff within say a radius of 30-yard (30-meters
to our non-American friends). So for emergency beams out without a station,
you have to race back to that point. It works better dramatically then the
transporter oh-so-conveniently breaking down at the last second.
> Between beam weapons and shields, ship combat is like that of the "Big
> gun" Battleship era. Fighters can't compete and are generaly
> ineffective against ships. Victory goes to whoever has the more
> powerful guns and shields (which isn't Enterprise).
>
> Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
> human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
I would allow for a stun setting by overloading the electrical system. It
would look like an electric bolt hitting someone instead of the standard
phaser beam. Thus by boosting power you increase or decrease the jolt
someone receives. The destroy setting would disintegrate a hole, so it could
disintegrate a person--with repeated blasts, but it would also disintegrate
the surround area.
In the pilot episode we find out her consciousness has been digitized into
the ship's computer, so that Chapel and the ship's computer sound
identitical.
> Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
Yeoman. Fancy name for administrative assistant. Billy would be her parallel
on BSG as assistant to the president. She could be useful as audience rep,
having the everyday schmoe on the street view of what's going on. Best to
make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and transmitting
recorded video, audio and data communications, updating the ship's databases
on current events, discoveries, etc.) and interface with the crew (e.g.,
surveying the crew on choice of meals, drinks, bed linens, etc.).
Her secret function would be to act as the ultimate ship's log and
counselor. While programmed to act like an AI seeking to be more human, she
could query the crew on certain events, get their perspective, note if they
seem agitated then query why like a child might and subtlely make
suggestions about how to respond.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. If I were making a Trek series I would opt for a series focusing on
internal security. With the aftermath of the Borg war and the Dominion war,
Starfleet is stretched out. It's surviving ships are spread thin and
criminal and terrorist forces are taking advantage in the good ole Alpha
quadrant of the galaxy, resulting in the Federation being wilder like back
in the Captain Kirk days. The series would be kind of a like Star Trek meets
Third Watch, in having arcs over several episodes in one city, planet,
asteroid, space station, etc. and new binary class 4-nacelled ships (rescue
sauce and battle wing each with 2 nacelles) that deal with security "issues"
and natural disasters. They would carry new advanced "out-runner" class
ships. So small 4-member squads could deal with an emergency while the main
ship continued on patrol, like a group of Texas marshalls roaming the
countryside and being able to call in the calvalry (who might respond in
time or be busy elsewhere). One of the 4-member squads would be the star of
the show focusing the series less on the captain's perspective but more on
the grunts (kinda like SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND).
P.P.S. That or adapt the SCE (Starfleet Corps of Engineers) line of novels
and ebooks. It would be like Star Trek meets CSI--only with much better
computer fx.
Chris Basken
> "Nopporn Wongrassamee" wrote...
>>There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
>>the series. If it looks human with just a few head
>>bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
>>encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
>>metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
>>the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
>>powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
>>Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
>
>
> And of course when they run across ... Apollo.
Think they'd get Richard Hatch to play him?
>>Technology:
>>
>>The Enterprise and all human built starships while having familiar
>>shapes, have an obvious modular construction. Thus, open frameworks
>>link various modules together, giving a utilitarian feel.
>>
>>Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
>>station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
>>transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
>>transport on newly found worlds.
>
>
> I would modify that to have transporter "anchors" or "beacons". You could
> transport them in--slowly, say 5-10 minutes, depending on environment. At
> that point, you could beam stuff within say a radius of 30-yard (30-meters
> to our non-American friends). So for emergency beams out without a station,
> you have to race back to that point. It works better dramatically then the
> transporter oh-so-conveniently breaking down at the last second.
Then the question becomes, can you transport a transporter anchor? The
transporter is no longer necessary for Trek to remain under-budget, but
it's definitely part of the overall mythology and it would be a shame to
see it go.
On the other hand, I'd never willingly get into a disintegration
chamber, personally.
>>Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
>>human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
>
> I would allow for a stun setting by overloading the electrical system. It
> would look like an electric bolt hitting someone instead of the standard
> phaser beam. Thus by boosting power you increase or decrease the jolt
> someone receives. The destroy setting would disintegrate a hole, so it could
> disintegrate a person--with repeated blasts, but it would also disintegrate
> the surround area.
I think when you're stunned, instead of passing out, you should walk
around with a blank stare and babble incoherently.
>>Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
>
>
> Yeoman. Fancy name for administrative assistant. Billy would be her parallel
> on BSG as assistant to the president. She could be useful as audience rep,
> having the everyday schmoe on the street view of what's going on. Best to
> make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
> low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and transmitting
> recorded video, audio and data communications, updating the ship's databases
> on current events, discoveries, etc.) and interface with the crew (e.g.,
> surveying the crew on choice of meals, drinks, bed linens, etc.).
Cortana!
> Her secret function would be to act as the ultimate ship's log and
> counselor. While programmed to act like an AI seeking to be more human, she
> could query the crew on certain events, get their perspective, note if they
> seem agitated then query why like a child might and subtlely make
> suggestions about how to respond.
Please, no more "ship's counselors." Aren't we past that 80s/90s
pop-psychology crap? Did Deanna ever do anything other than say "How do
you feel about that?"
You'd think psychology would be a hard science by the 24th century, not
the feeling-around-in-the-dark tribal/emotional mysticism TNG showed us.
If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
beginning, middle, and end.
I'd also make the captain Latin. Like a cross between Jean-Luc Picard
and Khan Noonian Singh, stuffed in Antonio Banderas' body, and perhaps
aged a few more years. That would lure the men (because he's tough and
takes no crap) and the women (because he's smart and sexy).
jil...@hotmail.com
But PLEASE, do SOMETHING about TNG!!! Forget sex-changes... well,
perhaps we could have abided Wesley better if he was a cute girl. And
Riker, the chinless wonder? I never, never liked that character.
Couldn't understand why anyone would find him attractive. Neither the
actor nor the personaility. Plus, if he were female, then she could be
Troi's female fiance. Then we could have had daring,
socially-challenging relationships.
Puh-lease. Oooh, Riker has sex with an alien hermaphrodite that wants
to be recognized as a female-personality rather than both! Let's not
forget DS9. Oooh, Dax kisses another woman! Well, they're both Trill,
and at least one of them is a blended personality with a hermaphrodite
wormy creature in her gut. I don't think they ever said if the wife
was, too.
And PLEASE! All these hybrid kids! Ugh, that's pathetic! Granted,
they never seemed to make the mistake of giving up the "It takes
genetic intervention for a Vulcan to have a child with a Human," but
remember when Troi got pregnant by a passing alien energy-force?
Logically, any child generated in that manner should be female! But
since they're trying to relate this to Jesus.... Thank heavens for the
introduction of Q... but they eventually white-washed him, too.
In TOS, at least they did actual challenging of social issues. Kirk
and Uhura kissing, something neither was happy with and she was NOT
interested. Kirk having to let the woman he loved die in order to save
the future of Earth. Spock having to think he's murdered Kirk. More
things.
Sexually challenging? There's never been an actually homosexual
pairing on Star Trek, not even among aliens.
My problem with Enterprise was that it was all too PC for a show set
chronologically where it was. And they were already instinctively
following the Prime Directive!
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
news:LJGdnQ-1S6y...@speakeasy.net...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > "Nopporn Wongrassamee" wrote...
> >>There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
> >>the series. If it looks human with just a few head
> >>bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
> >>encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
> >>metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
> >>the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
> >>powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
> >>Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
> >
> >
> > And of course when they run across ... Apollo.
>
> Think they'd get Richard Hatch to play him?
Natch.
> >>Technology:
> >>
> >>The Enterprise and all human built starships while having familiar
> >>shapes, have an obvious modular construction. Thus, open frameworks
> >>link various modules together, giving a utilitarian feel.
> >>
> >>Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
> >>station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
> >>transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
> >>transport on newly found worlds.
> >
> >
> > I would modify that to have transporter "anchors" or "beacons". You
could
> > transport them in--slowly, say 5-10 minutes, depending on environment.
At
> > that point, you could beam stuff within say a radius of 30-yard
(30-meters
> > to our non-American friends). So for emergency beams out without a
station,
> > you have to race back to that point. It works better dramatically then
the
> > transporter oh-so-conveniently breaking down at the last second.
>
> Then the question becomes, can you transport a transporter anchor? The
> transporter is no longer necessary for Trek to remain under-budget, but
> it's definitely part of the overall mythology and it would be a shame to
> see it go.
Yes. When I said you could transport "them" in slowly by "them" I meant the
anchors. They would be a known, non-moving quantity unlike biological
organism that are constantly having cells grow and die. Once the anchors are
away (no pun intended), then the beacon on it would activate to allow for
regular beaming down and up in 30-yard radius from it.
> On the other hand, I'd never willingly get into a disintegration
> chamber, personally.
I'm sure your transporter clone will appreciate the life you sacrificed for
it.
> >>Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
> >>human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
> >
> > I would allow for a stun setting by overloading the electrical system.
It
> > would look like an electric bolt hitting someone instead of the standard
> > phaser beam. Thus by boosting power you increase or decrease the jolt
> > someone receives. The destroy setting would disintegrate a hole, so it
could
> > disintegrate a person--with repeated blasts, but it would also
disintegrate
> > the surround area.
>
> I think when you're stunned, instead of passing out, you should walk
> around with a blank stare and babble incoherently.
That's only on the mildest of settings or if you have on some kind of
protection.
> >>Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
> >
> >
> > Yeoman. Fancy name for administrative assistant. Billy would be her
parallel
> > on BSG as assistant to the president. She could be useful as audience
rep,
> > having the everyday schmoe on the street view of what's going on. Best
to
> > make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
> > low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and
transmitting
> > recorded video, audio and data communications, updating the ship's
databases
> > on current events, discoveries, etc.) and interface with the crew (e.g.,
> > surveying the crew on choice of meals, drinks, bed linens, etc.).
>
> Cortana!
Cortana?
> > Her secret function would be to act as the ultimate ship's log and
> > counselor. While programmed to act like an AI seeking to be more human,
she
> > could query the crew on certain events, get their perspective, note if
they
> > seem agitated then query why like a child might and subtlely make
> > suggestions about how to respond.
>
> Please, no more "ship's counselors." Aren't we past that 80s/90s
> pop-psychology crap? Did Deanna ever do anything other than say "How do
> you feel about that?"
>
> You'd think psychology would be a hard science by the 24th century, not
> the feeling-around-in-the-dark tribal/emotional mysticism TNG showed us.
Ah, but she would be a SECRET counselor. She would act like a confidant, a
child or teenager, occasionally suggesting options just like a friend, or
barkeeper might. The point would be she would be an emotional steam valve,
allowing crewmembers to let off steam.
It would also be a way for Starfleet to monitor crew morale. Moreover that's
something that PI (Personnel Intelligence) aka "Section 314" would be
interested in.
> If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
> story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
> Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
> arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
> they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
> episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
> beginning, middle, and end.
Most of TNG were individual episodes. The problem was that rarely were there
anything learned from them, no moral, no fancy end of the episode, after the
fight, before the final one-liner joke, speech from the captain like in
ST:TOS.
> I'd also make the captain Latin. Like a cross between Jean-Luc Picard
> and Khan Noonian Singh, stuffed in Antonio Banderas' body, and perhaps
> aged a few more years. That would lure the men (because he's tough and
> takes no crap) and the women (because he's smart and sexy).
Jimmy Smits?
-- Ken from Chicago
Nopporn Wongrassamee
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Nopporn Wongrassamee" wrote...
>>>There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
>>>the series. If it looks human with just a few head
>>>bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
>>>encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
>>>metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
>>>the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
>>>powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
>>>Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
>>
>>
>> And of course when they run across ... Apollo.
>
>Think they'd get Richard Hatch to play him?
LOL. Good one. But I think Hatch is too old, Apollo is supposed to be
handsome. Or maybe gods fon't age well.
But please, I'd like to avoid any hints of Von Danniken (sp?).
>
>>>Technology:
>>>Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
>>>station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
>>>transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
>>>transport on newly found worlds.
>>
>>
>> I would modify that to have transporter "anchors" or "beacons". You could
>> transport them in--slowly, say 5-10 minutes, depending on environment. At
>> that point, you could beam stuff within say a radius of 30-yard (30-meters
>> to our non-American friends). So for emergency beams out without a station,
>> you have to race back to that point. It works better dramatically then the
>> transporter oh-so-conveniently breaking down at the last second.
>
>Then the question becomes, can you transport a transporter anchor? The
>transporter is no longer necessary for Trek to remain under-budget, but
>it's definitely part of the overall mythology and it would be a shame to
>see it go.
>
>On the other hand, I'd never willingly get into a disintegration
>chamber, personally.
One of the biggest critticisms of Trek is that the Transporter keeps
short circuiting the plot. However, since the Transporter itself is
part of the Trek mythos, I built in enough limitations (I think) so
that the Transporter is still around.
BTW, a portable transporter pad is an interesting idea, It shouldn't
be Starfleet standard issue though. I think it should be sprung as a
surprise on the crew, carried by Starfleet SpecOps or better yet,
Klingons.
>
>>>Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
>>>human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
>>
>> I would allow for a stun setting by overloading the electrical system. It
>> would look like an electric bolt hitting someone instead of the standard
>> phaser beam. Thus by boosting power you increase or decrease the jolt
>> someone receives. The destroy setting would disintegrate a hole, so it could
>> disintegrate a person--with repeated blasts, but it would also disintegrate
>> the surround area.
>
>I think when you're stunned, instead of passing out, you should walk
>around with a blank stare and babble incoherently.
When I said hand weapons still make big explosions, I meant the
"Overloaded power cell and throw away gun" deal.
On stun settings, their should be a specialized weapon that stuns
people. It could be mated with standard kill weapons like the modern
M16 rifle can be mated with a M203 grenade launcher. Not every weapon
has it, but it would be bulky and easily distinguishable from regular
guns.
>
>>>Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
>>
>>
>> Yeoman. Fancy name for administrative assistant. Billy would be her parallel
>> on BSG as assistant to the president. She could be useful as audience rep,
>> having the everyday schmoe on the street view of what's going on. Best to
>> make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
>> low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and transmitting
>> recorded video, audio and data communications, updating the ship's databases
>> on current events, discoveries, etc.) and interface with the crew (e.g.,
>> surveying the crew on choice of meals, drinks, bed linens, etc.).
>
>Cortana!
>
>> Her secret function would be to act as the ultimate ship's log and
>> counselor. While programmed to act like an AI seeking to be more human, she
>> could query the crew on certain events, get their perspective, note if they
>> seem agitated then query why like a child might and subtlely make
>> suggestions about how to respond.
>
>Please, no more "ship's counselors." Aren't we past that 80s/90s
>pop-psychology crap? Did Deanna ever do anything other than say "How do
>you feel about that?"
>
>You'd think psychology would be a hard science by the 24th century, not
>the feeling-around-in-the-dark tribal/emotional mysticism TNG showed us.
Ack! Please, no ship's counceling AI!
>
>If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
>story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
>Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
>arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
>they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
>episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
>beginning, middle, and end.
The ideal would be to have both story arcs AND discrete episodes. But
you need writers who are really on the ball to pull this off. Alot of
early Buffy seasons were like this.
>
>I'd also make the captain Latin. Like a cross between Jean-Luc Picard
>and Khan Noonian Singh, stuffed in Antonio Banderas' body, and perhaps
>aged a few more years. That would lure the men (because he's tough and
>takes no crap) and the women (because he's smart and sexy).
That would be fantastic and perfect for the new Kirk.
Some scenes I'd like to see...
Kirk: So why do Vulcans have pointed ears?
Spock: They were put into our genome under the assumption that it
would improve our hearing in Vulcan's thin atmosphere.
Kirk: And they work?
Spock: Not that we've noticed. No.
Kirk: Morning, Spock. Wow, you look really...
Spock: Sir, if you finish that thought, I will be forced to file
sexual harrassment charges.
Kirk: ...really messy today. Couldn't sleep well?
Uhuru: Look sir, isn't it cute?
Kirk: <looks at creature in his hand> Uh, yeah. What is this fur ball?
Uhuru: It's a Tribble!
McCoy: And that's technically not fur. It's cillia. The tribble uses
it to move around, make cooing sounds... and eat.
Kirk: <Tries to drop Tribble like a hot potato, but it sticks to his
hand.>
McCoy: Mint Julep, Scotty?
Scott: Er, Doctor, should you really drink so much?
McCoy: You drink as much as I do, boy!
Scott: With all due respect, Doctor, I have nanites to scrub the
alcohol out of my system.
McCoy: Bushwah! A real man don't need no fancy schmancy
techno-gizmos to have a real drink... <passes out cold>
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, I don't think Star Trek: TOS needs to be reimagined.
>
>But PLEASE, do SOMETHING about TNG!!!
I thought that if we were going to re-imagine Trek, we might as well
start at the beginning.
>And PLEASE! All these hybrid kids! Ugh, that's pathetic! Granted,
>they never seemed to make the mistake of giving up the "It takes
>genetic intervention for a Vulcan to have a child with a Human," but
>remember when Troi got pregnant by a passing alien energy-force?
>Logically, any child generated in that manner should be female! But
>since they're trying to relate this to Jesus.... Thank heavens for the
>introduction of Q... but they eventually white-washed him, too.
In reimagined, at least having hybrids had a rationale. The Vulcans,
Klingons, et al are all genetically modified humans, but not so
modified that they can't breed with base-line humans
>Sexually challenging? There's never been an actually homosexual
>pairing on Star Trek, not even among aliens.
Kirk: So, Spock, how is it that you resist my charms?
Spock: You mean besides anti-fraternization rules, sir?
Kirk: Well... yeah...
Spock: You're not by type, sir.
Kirk: What, just because I'm not genetically engineered?
Spock: No, sir. Because you're male.
Kirk: ...
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
>news:LJGdnQ-1S6y...@speakeasy.net...
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> >>Technology:
>> >>Transporters exist, but are limited, only capable of station to
>> >>station transport. No more beaming out in the nick of time. However,
>> >>transporter stations in shuttles can allow quick ship to surface
>> >>transport on newly found worlds.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would modify that to have transporter "anchors" or "beacons". You
>could
>> > transport them in--slowly, say 5-10 minutes, depending on environment.
>At
>> > that point, you could beam stuff within say a radius of 30-yard
>(30-meters
>> > to our non-American friends). So for emergency beams out without a
>station,
>> > you have to race back to that point. It works better dramatically then
>the
>> > transporter oh-so-conveniently breaking down at the last second.
>>
>> Then the question becomes, can you transport a transporter anchor? The
>> transporter is no longer necessary for Trek to remain under-budget, but
>> it's definitely part of the overall mythology and it would be a shame to
>> see it go.
>
>Yes. When I said you could transport "them" in slowly by "them" I meant the
>anchors. They would be a known, non-moving quantity unlike biological
>organism that are constantly having cells grow and die. Once the anchors are
>away (no pun intended), then the beacon on it would activate to allow for
>regular beaming down and up in 30-yard radius from it.
I'm not sure I like this. You could carry an anchor through a normal
pad to pad transport, but I would still make pad to site transport
impossible... at least for human technology.
>
>> On the other hand, I'd never willingly get into a disintegration
>> chamber, personally.
>
>I'm sure your transporter clone will appreciate the life you sacrificed for
>it.
LOL.
>> >>Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeoman. Fancy name for administrative assistant. Billy would be her
>parallel
>> > on BSG as assistant to the president. She could be useful as audience
>rep,
>> > having the everyday schmoe on the street view of what's going on. Best
>to
>> > make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
>> > low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and
>transmitting
>> > recorded video, audio and data communications, updating the ship's
>databases
>> > on current events, discoveries, etc.) and interface with the crew (e.g.,
>> > surveying the crew on choice of meals, drinks, bed linens, etc.).
>>
>> Cortana!
>
>Cortana?
In the XBox game Halo, Cortana is the AI that lives in your head and
explains the plot to you.
>
>> > Her secret function would be to act as the ultimate ship's log and
>> > counselor. While programmed to act like an AI seeking to be more human,
>she
>> > could query the crew on certain events, get their perspective, note if
>they
>> > seem agitated then query why like a child might and subtlely make
>> > suggestions about how to respond.
>>
>> Please, no more "ship's counselors." Aren't we past that 80s/90s
>> pop-psychology crap? Did Deanna ever do anything other than say "How do
>> you feel about that?"
>>
>> You'd think psychology would be a hard science by the 24th century, not
>> the feeling-around-in-the-dark tribal/emotional mysticism TNG showed us.
>
>Ah, but she would be a SECRET counselor. She would act like a confidant, a
>child or teenager, occasionally suggesting options just like a friend, or
>barkeeper might. The point would be she would be an emotional steam valve,
>allowing crewmembers to let off steam.
>
>It would also be a way for Starfleet to monitor crew morale. Moreover that's
>something that PI (Personnel Intelligence) aka "Section 314" would be
>interested in.
This whole secret function thing suggests a story arc of its own. The
Federation is in fact secretly ruled by AIs, kinda like the Trust in
Stargate SG1. The big bad Klingons and Romulans are in truth
fighting to stay independent of the Federation's monolithic growth.
>
>> If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
>> story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
>> Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
>> arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
>> they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
>> episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
>> beginning, middle, and end.
>
>Most of TNG were individual episodes. The problem was that rarely were there
>anything learned from them, no moral, no fancy end of the episode, after the
>fight, before the final one-liner joke, speech from the captain like in
>ST:TOS.
This story telling style also leads to the sterotypical
"encounter-with-super-powerful-race-that-will-change-everything-yet-are
never-heard from-again" syndrome.
Arthur Hansen
of the problems that the had in Star Trek.
No, (and I mean NO) ability to replicate matter. This would involve
changing the physics of the transporter to something like a
mini-wormhole.
Your idea to had the base station is really the best. It's very Dr. Who
and SG-1 and such, but it really needs to be done.
There fore if you have a transporter accident, your computer does not
"recover" and can't fix it afterwards, you just got high energy protons
and such exiting the reciever.
Arthur Hansen
Ken from Chicago
I think one of the common traditions of Star Trek is beaming down to a
planet, deemphasizing the need for shuttles. By making it possible only for
the anchors to be beamed to a site you keep that tradition, moreover you
could beam down or into unfamiliar areas--like the Genesis asteroid lab /
camp / station.
However by requiring it take 5-10 minutes to complete the beam-down (beam
out of an anchor would be normal since the anchor itself provides the enough
data a transporter beam to lock on), it means beaming into hostile or
unknown terrain requires you to beam down to the outskirts from your target
and approach from there. If a crisis comes up, you have a nice chase back to
the anchor point to beam out. Oh and the anchor would fairly big, maybe the
size of one those pads they stand on, so you couldn't just carry one around
with you.
Ah.
No, the AIs would be in service to TPTB at the Federation. A way to monitor
Starfleet to make sure the military doesn't get too big for civilian
control. Compare official starlogs with the secret ones. But then also
dramatically it would be a nice way to get insight about a character or
situation.
> >> If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
> >> story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds"
show.
> >> Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
> >> arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
> >> they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
> >> episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
> >> beginning, middle, and end.
> >
> >Most of TNG were individual episodes. The problem was that rarely were
there
> >anything learned from them, no moral, no fancy end of the episode, after
the
> >fight, before the final one-liner joke, speech from the captain like in
> >ST:TOS.
>
> This story telling style also leads to the sterotypical
> "encounter-with-super-powerful-race-that-will-change-everything-yet-are
> never-heard from-again" syndrome.
With of course the Feds being the super powerful race and never seeing the
result of Kirk's tampering.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
I was thinking of the anchors being as big as one of those disks they stand
on in the transporter rooms, so they would be too unwieldy to carry around
easily, much less without being noticed. While it could be beamed down,
provided they have 5-10 minutes of relatively stable conditions, so trying
to beam into a hostile zone, someone just fires into and disrupts the
beam-in process. Forcing you to beam outside of unknown regions and
travelling on foot or by vehicle into town or camp, etc..
No, they would be SECRET counselors. In practice they would act more like
buddies, subtlely querying the crewmember and offering suggestings, kinda
like a barkeeper or taxicab driver--while secretly reporting their findings
to an agency of the Federation, PI (Personnel Intelligence), aka Section
314, a subsection of the mysterious Section 31, They would monitor Starfleet
to make sure their official reports match up with what HoloRand is
reporting.
> >If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
> >story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
> >Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
> >arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
> >they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
> >episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
> >beginning, middle, and end.
>
> The ideal would be to have both story arcs AND discrete episodes. But
> you need writers who are really on the ball to pull this off. Alot of
> early Buffy seasons were like this.
Or BABYLON 5 or post-Season 2 of DEEP SPACE NINE.
> >I'd also make the captain Latin. Like a cross between Jean-Luc Picard
> >and Khan Noonian Singh, stuffed in Antonio Banderas' body, and perhaps
> >aged a few more years. That would lure the men (because he's tough and
> >takes no crap) and the women (because he's smart and sexy).
>
> That would be fantastic and perfect for the new Kirk.
>
> Some scenes I'd like to see...
>
> Kirk: So why do Vulcans have pointed ears?
> Spock: They were put into our genome under the assumption that it
> would improve our hearing in Vulcan's thin atmosphere.
> Kirk: And they work?
> Spock: Not that we've noticed. No.
>
> Kirk: Morning, Spock. Wow, you look really...
> Spock: Sir, if you finish that thought, I will be forced to file
> sexual harrassment charges.
> Kirk: ...really messy today. Couldn't sleep well?
>
> Uhuru: Look sir, isn't it cute?
> Kirk: <looks at creature in his hand> Uh, yeah. What is this fur ball?
> Uhuru: It's a Tribble!
> McCoy: And that's technically not fur. It's cillia. The tribble uses
> it to move around, make cooing sounds... and eat.
> Kirk: <Tries to drop Tribble like a hot potato, but it sticks to his
> hand.>
"That's not fur in your hand."
> McCoy: Mint Julep, Scotty?
> Scott: Er, Doctor, should you really drink so much?
> McCoy: You drink as much as I do, boy!
> Scott: With all due respect, Doctor, I have nanites to scrub the
> alcohol out of my system.
> McCoy: Bushwah! A real man don't need no fancy schmancy
> techno-gizmos to have a real drink... <passes out cold>
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<jil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107703449.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
STAR TREK: HIDDEN FRONTIER.
> My problem with Enterprise was that it was all too PC for a show set
> chronologically where it was. And they were already instinctively
> following the Prime Directive!
-- Ken from Chicago
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
On the other hand, if you're going into hostile terrain, the LAST
thing you want to do is beam in blindly. 5 to 10 minutes is plenty of
time for local hostiles to take cover and hide from the beacon's
sensors, setting up an ambush for the incoming party.
Better would be to fire a probe equipped with beacon fired down to the
surface.
And how would the average man on the street (or captain on the ship)
be able to tell the difference? This kind of secret spying is getting
pretty darn close Secret Police and Police States.
Unless you really do advocate secret spying on citizens by their own
government.
Besides, a Captain's log should not be the ONLY record. There are
logs kept by other crewmembers, not to mention normal ship sensors
and such.
>
>> >> If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
>> >> story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds"
>show.
>> >> Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
>> >> arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
>> >> they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
>> >> episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
>> >> beginning, middle, and end.
>> >
>> >Most of TNG were individual episodes. The problem was that rarely were
>there
>> >anything learned from them, no moral, no fancy end of the episode, after
>the
>> >fight, before the final one-liner joke, speech from the captain like in
>> >ST:TOS.
>>
>> This story telling style also leads to the sterotypical
>> "encounter-with-super-powerful-race-that-will-change-everything-yet-are
>> never-heard from-again" syndrome.
>
>With of course the Feds being the super powerful race and never seeing the
>result of Kirk's tampering.
I was thinking of the races vastly superior to the Feds who show up
once and are never heard from again.
Wouldn't it be a trip if it were discovered that all these powerful
energy-based races the Enterprise encounters (Organians, Medusans,
Metrons, etc...) were actually really different factions of the same
race?
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I was thinking of the anchors being as big as one of those disks they stand
>on in the transporter rooms, so they would be too unwieldy to carry around
>easily, much less without being noticed. While it could be beamed down,
>provided they have 5-10 minutes of relatively stable conditions, so trying
>to beam into a hostile zone, someone just fires into and disrupts the
>beam-in process. Forcing you to beam outside of unknown regions and
>travelling on foot or by vehicle into town or camp, etc..
I had originally envisioned Transporter pads being built into the
shuttles. That meant that once a shuttle had been sent down, you
can beam back and forth to your heart's content. The pads had not
been intended to be man portable. I thought you wanted them to be
that.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, you do not want to beam into a hostile
zone. If nothing else, those beacons are probably bloody expensive!
You're probably better off putting the beacon on a platform that can
see any possible hostiles as it's arriving on site, like a shuttle or
probe.
And I still prefer the pad to pad only transport.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:57:24 GMT, evila...@aol.com (Nopporn
>Wongrassamee) wrote:
>
>>Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
>
>Forget it. That would require writers with IMAGINATION in the first
>place.
No they don't. They just have to rip off someone who does.
The intro text did say they were copying new BSG reimagining
idea.
Ken from Chicago
That's why you beam in from the *outskirts* of the target zone.
> Better would be to fire a probe equipped with beacon fired down to the
> surface.
Yeah, that's another option--of course it would require Star Trek to get
over its fear of automation, probes, robots, drones, etc.
That's part of the price paid for being in the military--and having a ship
that can raze a planet.
> Unless you really do advocate secret spying on citizens by their own
> government.
It only applies to Starfleet. Starfleet is military. The Federation is
civilian.
Oh and governments already spy on citizens, from police stakteouts, wiretaps
and the hot new trend, street cameras.
> Besides, a Captain's log should not be the ONLY record. There are
> logs kept by other crewmembers, not to mention normal ship sensors
> and such.
It wouldn't be the only record. And we already have examples of the entire
crew becoming brainwashed or incapacitated.
With kissing cousins
That makes it alright
All right, yeah yeah.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
> "Nopporn Wongrassamee" wrote...
>>>"Chris Basken" wrote...
>>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>>>make her a holographic link to the computer, assigned to take care of
>>>>>low-level functions (e.g, maintaining supplies, receiving and
>>>>Cortana!
>>>
>>>Cortana?
>>
>>In the XBox game Halo, Cortana is the AI that lives in your head and
>>explains the plot to you.
>
>
> Ah.
It was the hologram that made me think of her. In Halo, Cortana can also
project herself as a holographic image.
Ken from Chicago
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:50:59 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I was thinking of the anchors being as big as one of those disks they
stand
> >on in the transporter rooms, so they would be too unwieldy to carry
around
> >easily, much less without being noticed. While it could be beamed down,
> >provided they have 5-10 minutes of relatively stable conditions, so
trying
> >to beam into a hostile zone, someone just fires into and disrupts the
> >beam-in process. Forcing you to beam outside of unknown regions and
> >travelling on foot or by vehicle into town or camp, etc..
>
> I had originally envisioned Transporter pads being built into the
> shuttles. That meant that once a shuttle had been sent down, you
> can beam back and forth to your heart's content. The pads had not
> been intended to be man portable. I thought you wanted them to be
> that.
Oh no. I imagined the anchors being very unweildy, maybe 50-100 pounds.
Basically I saw it as you start the episode, beam to the outskirts of
whatever town is the trouble spot, shove the anchor out from open view,
maybe put some camoflauge on it or activate some kind of cloak on it to hide
it from view and lock it down in place--so pesky locals don't start fiddling
with it. Then the away team walks into town, or ride a bike or if the tech
level high enough, ride a segway or hover segway into town.
> And as I pointed out elsewhere, you do not want to beam into a hostile
> zone. If nothing else, those beacons are probably bloody expensive!
> You're probably better off putting the beacon on a platform that can
> see any possible hostiles as it's arriving on site, like a shuttle or
> probe.
>
> And I still prefer the pad to pad only transport.
Sure, you could have those where there is no safe place to beam in an anchor
or the environment prevents that.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"OrionCA" <Ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hvrc011m8uq195upd...@4ax.com...> >Logically,
>
> ACK! THE "L" WORD!
>
> (claps his hands over son's eyes) DON'T LOOK, BOY, YOU'LL HAVE A
> BABY!!!
> --
> "E Pluribus Unum Auarca"
>
> - the inevitable consequence of owning a puppy.
No, that's just EARTH LOGIC. Nothing to worry about.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
>>Think they'd get Richard Hatch to play him?
>
>
> LOL. Good one. But I think Hatch is too old, Apollo is supposed to be
> handsome. Or maybe gods fon't age well.
>
> But please, I'd like to avoid any hints of Von Danniken (sp?).
Well, you could have a "reverse" Von Daniken. Apollo is just a human who
moved out into the stars.
>>If it was up to me to remake Trek, I'd cut my losses, kill the fancy
>>story arcs, and just go for a basic, TNG-like "explore new worlds" show.
>>Part of the problem with later Treks is that they became big on story
>>arcs and multi-part episodes. The casual viewer couldn't hook in unless
>>they started from the beginning. While there would be continuity from
>>episode to episode, each episode would be a complete story with a
>>beginning, middle, and end.
>
>
> The ideal would be to have both story arcs AND discrete episodes. But
> you need writers who are really on the ball to pull this off. Alot of
> early Buffy seasons were like this.
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? A series' longevity depends largely on
giving new viewers a hook. If I've never seen the show and I wander in
halfway through season 4, you want me to stick around. I'm only going to
do that if I don't feel lost. So the episodes need to be self-contained
enough for that.
On the other hand, if I'm a loyal viewer since day 1, I want to see at
least gradual change and growth in the characters over time.
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
<4205879c....@news.individual.net>:
> Star Trek. Everyone knows Star Trek. The subject of half a dozen
> movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
> fact, it's been TOO well explored.
>
> Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
> success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided to
> take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
> create... *gasp*...
>
> Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
>
> *Cue new theme song which sounds nothing like any of the previous
> theme songs.*
Europe's Final Countdown?
>
> The Backstory:
>
> In the 21st century, breakthroughs in physics allow the creation of
> gravity drives and FTL, vastly decreasing the cost of spaceflight.
> This led to an explosion of colonization over the next couple of
> centuries. A vast exodus occured, and no one is quite sure how
> many colonies are out there and how far they spread. Many of these
> colonists were "Utopianists" out to create the perfect society, thus
> producing oddities like Indian world, Roman world, Gangster world,
> etc.
I like. I like.
>
> Couple that with advances in cybernetics and genetic
> engineering, and you have worlds inhabited by
> "improved" humans. The Vulcans and Romulans
> have increased strength and intellect. The Klingons
> have built in organ redundancy. The Andorians have
> cybernetic implants that look like antennae...
Very nice but it also implies that The Eugenics Wars never happened --
or that Khan won....
>
> Starfleet's mission: Bring all these loose colonies
> back into contact with the Federation.
>
> There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
> the series. If it looks human with just a few head
> bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
> encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
> metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
> the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
> powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
> Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
Another nice touch. A better way to justify the forehead of the week
trope while leaving in enough wiggle room for more alien aliens like
the Horta or the Gorn.
> Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
> human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
Or maybe separate stun and kill weapons. We have tasers today, there's
no reason why they won't be used in the future. But yeah, phasers kill
only.
> The Main Characters:
>
> James T. Kirk - Youngest ship captain in StarFleet. While talented, he
> has a weakness for women. Given that the Admiral he reports to is a
> woman, and scuttlebut has it that it wasn't his command abilities that
> got Kirk his command.
What about Robert April or Christopher Pike? Shouldn't they be part of
the back story too? Or maybe it's now Admiral Christine Pike?
> Sulu: Also a woman, she pilots the Enterprise. She may also be *gasp*
> a Klingon sleeper agent.
That's a little too derivative I think.
> Chekov: The tough as nails (or so he wants everyone to think) ship's
> security chief. He's waaay out of his depth here.
But still Russian right?
>
> Chapel: The Enterprise's first medical chief (poor woman).
There's not much point in giving the first ship's doctor a name if
you're just going to kill her off in the pilot.
>
> Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
She was the captain's other secretary -- the one they didn't trust to
answer the phone. Technically she was a yeoman but mostly she'd just
get the captain coffee.
--
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
That's why Trek's being "Re-imagined". Do you recall that I wrote that
Andorians are actually cyborgs now? (Their antennae are literally
antennae) Fear of cybernetics are a non-issue.
Besides, if you have your way with the AI counselor/spy, fear of
automation really is a non-issue.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Shove the anchor from open view"? Doesn't that imply that someone or
something is already on site? In which case, why didn't they take the
pad with them?
Nopporn Wongrassamee
>Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:
>> Chris Basken wrote:
>>>Think they'd get Richard Hatch to play him?
>>
>>
>> LOL. Good one. But I think Hatch is too old, Apollo is supposed to be
>> handsome. Or maybe gods fon't age well.
>>
>> But please, I'd like to avoid any hints of Von Danniken (sp?).
>
>Well, you could have a "reverse" Von Daniken. Apollo is just a human who
>moved out into the stars.
No shortage of THOSE in the Re-imagined universe.
In fact, it might fit in with the powerful energy aliens storyline.
In the original series, Gary whatshisname gets mutated into a
godlike being by wierd energy field. Zephram Cochrane is kept
as a pet by an energy being. Then there are the Organians,
Medusans, Metrons, and what not.
In Re-Imagined Trek, Gary is possessed or something by a very
hostile energy being. Cochrane is still kept as a pet. "Apollo" is
another possessed human.
I'm also toying with the idea with introducing Next Generation
elements like the Borg (a "lost" human colony run amok) and the
Q (the energy being equivalent of police... or park rangers).
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Nopporn Wongrassamee" <evila...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:420672d8....@news.individual.net...
>Imagination would be required to SUSTAIN the series beyond the pilot.
Well, I imagine we can start off by ripping off... er, paying homage
to the Original Series episodes (suitably tweaked of course, just like
the new BSG). Once we run out of material there, then we can start
canibalizing... I mean, be inspired by the other Trek series and
movies.
I think we should be able to get at least one season out of this.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<DELETE-ME-2-REPL...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs
>and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
>evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
><4205879c....@news.individual.net>:
>
>> Star Trek. Everyone knows Star Trek. The subject of half a dozen
>> movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
>> fact, it's been TOO well explored.
>>
>> Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
>> success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided to
>> take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
>> create... *gasp*...
>>
>> Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
>>
>> *Cue new theme song which sounds nothing like any of the previous
>> theme songs.*
>
>Europe's Final Countdown?
Oh yeah, the song that got be hooked on rock and roll. Gee I feel old.
>>
>> The Backstory:
>>
>> In the 21st century, breakthroughs in physics allow the creation of
>> gravity drives and FTL, vastly decreasing the cost of spaceflight.
>> This led to an explosion of colonization over the next couple of
>> centuries. A vast exodus occured, and no one is quite sure how
>> many colonies are out there and how far they spread. Many of these
>> colonists were "Utopianists" out to create the perfect society, thus
>> producing oddities like Indian world, Roman world, Gangster world,
>> etc.
>
>I like. I like.
>>
>> Couple that with advances in cybernetics and genetic
>> engineering, and you have worlds inhabited by
>> "improved" humans. The Vulcans and Romulans
>> have increased strength and intellect. The Klingons
>> have built in organ redundancy. The Andorians have
>> cybernetic implants that look like antennae...
>
>Very nice but it also implies that The Eugenics Wars never happened --
>or that Khan won....
Kahn was a extremist terrorist from the early days of genetic
engineering, when the rights of the genetically engineered were
being debated. He disappeared when he hijacked a colony
sleeper ship and disappeared.
Imagine Osama Bin Laden and his gang going to sleep for a
couple centuries.
Here's a twiist: the Klingons take Kahn in as an honored guest.
Their colony was apparently founded by one of Kahn's
followers, a guy named Kahless.
>>
>> Starfleet's mission: Bring all these loose colonies
>> back into contact with the Federation.
>>
>> There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
>> the series. If it looks human with just a few head
>> bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
>> encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
>> metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
>> the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
>> powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
>> Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
>
>Another nice touch. A better way to justify the forehead of the week
>trope while leaving in enough wiggle room for more alien aliens like
>the Horta or the Gorn.
Exactly... but weren't the Gorn reasonably humanoid? Must have been
some serious genetic modification here.
The Horta.., I'm thinking of making them an engineered race created
by the Precursors to basically clean up toxic waste.
>
>> Hand weapons no longer have a stun setting. Nor can they disintegrate
>> human sized targets. The can still produce big explosions though.
>
>Or maybe separate stun and kill weapons. We have tasers today, there's
>no reason why they won't be used in the future. But yeah, phasers kill
>only.
Yeah, I suggested elsewhere that the kill and stun weapons could be
combined like an M16 rifle and M203 grenade launcher.
>
>> The Main Characters:
>>
>> James T. Kirk - Youngest ship captain in StarFleet. While talented, he
>> has a weakness for women. Given that the Admiral he reports to is a
>> woman, and scuttlebut has it that it wasn't his command abilities that
>> got Kirk his command.
>
>What about Robert April or Christopher Pike? Shouldn't they be part of
>the back story too? Or maybe it's now Admiral Christine Pike?
Sure, but they're not going to be series regulars.
>
>> Sulu: Also a woman, she pilots the Enterprise. She may also be *gasp*
>> a Klingon sleeper agent.
>
>That's a little too derivative I think.
Yeah, yeah, I was running out of steam here. :)
>
>> Chekov: The tough as nails (or so he wants everyone to think) ship's
>> security chief. He's waaay out of his depth here.
>
>But still Russian right?
Absolutely. I have an idea that his home colony was colonized by
Russians. It's also home to one of the major antimatter production
facilities, which would conveniently be featured (or at least
mentioned as being in danger) in the "Balance of Terror"
knockoff.
>>
>> Chapel: The Enterprise's first medical chief (poor woman).
>
>There's not much point in giving the first ship's doctor a name if
>you're just going to kill her off in the pilot.
Sure there is. It would hit the audience (or at least the Trekkies)
right between the eyes for sheer unexpectedness.
>>
>> Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
>
>She was the captain's other secretary -- the one they didn't trust to
>answer the phone. Technically she was a yeoman but mostly she'd just
>get the captain coffee.
Yeah, I can't justify her presence... or at least her job. She needs a
new job if she's going to be a crewmember. Shuttle pilot? Marine?
Chris Basken
> I'm also toying with the idea with introducing Next Generation
> elements like the Borg (a "lost" human colony run amok) and the
> Q (the energy being equivalent of police... or park rangers).
*You're* toying with? Tell me you don't have a hook into Paramount. And
if you do, you looking for writers? ;)
Nopporn Wongrassamee
Actually, I was thinking fanfic. I write those from time to time.
Unfortunately, I have a hard time staying prolific. Real Life keeps
invading my space.
For example, I have an idea where Battlestar Pegasus suffers a
misjump due to a computer virus) during the first Cylon war and winds
up among Earth's outer colonies. 40 years later, Galactica and Fleet
come across Pegasus, which Cain has basically turned into a frontier
trading post.
jil...@hotmail.com
Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2005 07:24:09 -0800, "jil...@hotmail.com"
> <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And PLEASE! All these hybrid kids! Ugh, that's pathetic! Granted,
> >they never seemed to make the mistake of giving up the "It takes
> >genetic intervention for a Vulcan to have a child with a Human," >
> Klingons, et al are all genetically modified humans, but not so
> modified that they can't breed with base-line humans
>
I was temporarily confused, but then realized you were talking about
your fanfic, not ST:TNG. I was about to have hysterics because even in
the Star Trek universe, they're not modified humans. Then I woke up.
*whew*
jil...@hotmail.com
Muahhahahaha! At least it's not insane troll logic!
Ken from Chicago
Virtual AIs they don't have a fear of, nor trouble creating with
lifelike--but actual hardware AI they stumble over.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Because the anchor is too big, too heavy and too wieldy to carry around.
I imagine an away mission would basically work like this:
1) have the ship go into orbit above the target planet
2) scan the "troubled" zone for clear beam down point on the outskirts of it
3) spend 5-10 minutes beaming down the anchor
4) beam down the away team normally
5) the away team hides the anchor, secures and locks it down
6) the team walks into zone and "deals" with the problem
7) the team walks out of zone back to the anchor
8) the team beams up with the anchor
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<jil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107740874.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Or the worse, SPACE LOGIC.
-- Ken from Chicago
David B.
> Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:
> > Star Trek. Everyone knows Star Trek. The subject of half a dozen
> > movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
> > fact, it's been TOO well explored.
> >
> > Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
> > success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided
> to
> > take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
> > create... *gasp*...
> >
> > Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
>
> <snip re-imagining>
>
> It actually sounds like a good idea and something I'd like to watch,
> which is why IT WILL NEVER BE DONE.
I think that there's a very good chance that the next Trek series will be a
reimagining. I think a reimagining would be more non Trek fans to check it
out than another sequel series would.
Jamie Borg
> I think that there's a very good chance that the next Trek series will be a
> reimagining. I think a reimagining would be more non Trek fans to check it
> out than another sequel series would.
>
>
Now this isn't a put-down.... but if Enterprise couldn't get some
Trekkies to suspend their disblief can't you just see a googleplex of
"Jeffies" descending on a Re-imagining?
Ken from Chicago
"Jamie Borg" <extremespamina...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42072d57$0$27672$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Perhaps new management is needed. Berman and Braga have worked so hard for
nearly the past 2 decades, perhaps they should retire or be promote to less
stressful day to day jobs.
-- Ken from Chicago
Night_Spirit
Like flipping hamburgers at McDonalds
--
---
Have Fun,
Night Spirit
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hipdale2/Riverton_Common.HTML
Chris Basken
> I think that there's a very good chance that the next Trek series will be a
> reimagining.
You mean ENT wasn't?
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:54:04 -0600, Zombie Elvis
> <DELETE-ME-2-REPL...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs
> >and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
> >evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
> ><4205879c....@news.individual.net>:
> >
> >> Star Trek. Everyone knows Star Trek. The subject of half a dozen
> >> movies and TV series, the Star Trek universe is well explored. In
> >> fact, it's been TOO well explored.
> >>
> >> Lamenting that Star Trek's premise is all used up and noting the
> >> success of the new Battlestar Galactica, the producers have decided to
> >> take the radical step of dropping the Star Trek universe entirely and
> >> create... *gasp*...
> >>
> >> Star Trek: RE-IMAGINED
> >>
> >> *Cue new theme song which sounds nothing like any of the previous
> >> theme songs.*
> >
> >Europe's Final Countdown?
>
> Oh yeah, the song that got be hooked on rock and roll. Gee I feel old.
> >> Couple that with advances in cybernetics and genetic
> >> engineering, and you have worlds inhabited by
> >> "improved" humans. The Vulcans and Romulans
> >> have increased strength and intellect. The Klingons
> >> have built in organ redundancy. The Andorians have
> >> cybernetic implants that look like antennae...
> >
> >Very nice but it also implies that The Eugenics Wars never happened --
> >or that Khan won....
>
> Kahn was a extremist terrorist from the early days of genetic
> engineering, when the rights of the genetically engineered were
> being debated. He disappeared when he hijacked a colony
> sleeper ship and disappeared.
>
> Imagine Osama Bin Laden and his gang going to sleep for a
> couple centuries.
>
> Here's a twiist: the Klingons take Kahn in as an honored guest.
> Their colony was apparently founded by one of Kahn's
> followers, a guy named Kahless.
Nice touch.
> >>
> >> Starfleet's mission: Bring all these loose colonies
> >> back into contact with the Federation.
> >>
> >> There are NO aliens... at least, not at the start of
> >> the series. If it looks human with just a few head
> >> bumps, then it probably IS human. Any aliens
> >> encountered will be unmistakeably alien. The
> >> metaplot may revolve around how to keep all
> >> the varied Earth colonies from pissing off the more
> >> powerful alien races. (Various energy beings like
> >> Orgainians, the silicon based Tholians).
> >
> >Another nice touch. A better way to justify the forehead of the week
> >trope while leaving in enough wiggle room for more alien aliens like
> >the Horta or the Gorn.
>
> Exactly... but weren't the Gorn reasonably humanoid? Must have been
> some serious genetic modification here.
They were bipeds but so were some dinosaurs. When you get right down
to it, you could even say that ostriches are reasonably humanoid --
bipeds with arms modified for running speed. In fact, more than a few
dinosaur species which were built for speed looked a lot like modern
ostriches.
So I figure you could steal one of Voyager's ideas and say the Gorn
were descended from a group of sentient dinosaurs who escaped the
meteor that wiped out their dumber brothers 65 million years ago. Keep
their technology from getting too far ahead of the humans by having
two Gorn races -- a larger, more robust group descended from
ceratopsians and a smaller, more agile, and highly group descended
from the raptor-like carnosaurs. They've more or less been at each
other's throat for millions of years with each group periodically
gaining the advantage and almost wiping out the other, resetting them
to more primitive levels of technology. This would give the humans an
advantage. They can play the two Gorn species off each other, keeping
the two more advanced species busy with each other so they don't try
wipe humanity out.
> >> The Main Characters:
> >>
> >> James T. Kirk - Youngest ship captain in StarFleet. While talented, he
> >> has a weakness for women. Given that the Admiral he reports to is a
> >> woman, and scuttlebut has it that it wasn't his command abilities that
> >> got Kirk his command.
> >
> >What about Robert April or Christopher Pike? Shouldn't they be part of
> >the back story too? Or maybe it's now Admiral Christine Pike?
>
> Sure, but they're not going to be series regulars.
> >>
> >> Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
> >
> >She was the captain's other secretary -- the one they didn't trust to
> >answer the phone. Technically she was a yeoman but mostly she'd just
> >get the captain coffee.
>
> Yeah, I can't justify her presence... or at least her job. She needs a
> new job if she's going to be a crewmember. Shuttle pilot? Marine?
It would be amusing to see a normally badass marine's personality
suddenly shift and get all shy around Kirk because she has a crush on
him and muse about how she could get him to look at her legs....
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Because the anchor is too big, too heavy and too wieldy to carry around.
>
>I imagine an away mission would basically work like this:
>1) have the ship go into orbit above the target planet
>2) scan the "troubled" zone for clear beam down point on the outskirts of it
What exactly qualifies as a "clear beam down point". I just had a
sudden vision of the anchor materializing in grass. In other words,
anchor molecules and grass molecules are trying to occupy the same
space and... boom.
Of course, having a pad at both ends solves that little problem. You
just "castle" a zone defined by each pad... like Stargate Ring
platforms.
For that matter. I want semi realistic sensors too. Simply LOOKING at
an area from orbit won't tell you about anything under cover.
>3) spend 5-10 minutes beaming down the anchor
And this brings up another question. If you do this, how do you
get the bloody expensive piece of hardware BACK? One of the
issues that I wanted the new Transporters to address was the
"beam out in nick of time" syndrome by making site to pad
beaming impossible. And if it's impossible, you don't want to
leave these things littered all over the galaxy.
And if it's NOT impossible, then that's just too much temptation
right there. You're just a step away from beaming people that
way.
>4) beam down the away team normally
Send down a drone carrying a pad. Have IT make sure the
area is clear. Then beam down the away team.
>5) the away team hides the anchor, secures and locks it down
What if they're in a hurry? For that matter, what if the zone's
not as clear as they thought it was?
>6) the team walks into zone and "deals" with the problem
>7) the team walks out of zone back to the anchor
>8) the team beams up with the anchor
See above about my thoughts on site to pad transport.
Hmm, I could add some techno-babble about why pad to site
beaming is impossible... but that would just be technobabble.
In the end, the equipment does what the writer says it does.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<DELETE-ME-2-REPL...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs
>and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
>evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
><4206bcd7...@news.individual.net>:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:54:04 -0600, Zombie Elvis
>> <DELETE-ME-2-REPL...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs
>> >and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
>> >evila...@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee) wrote in
>> ><4205879c....@news.individual.net>:
>> >> Couple that with advances in cybernetics and genetic
Hmm, throwing in an obviously nonhuman but still organic race is
interesting. (I imagine some use of CGI here)
Hmm, one of criticisms of TV Sci Fi is that two indepoendently evolve
species should be nowhere near each other in terms of technology
level. The energy beings that would be encountered are super-advanced
as to be near godlike to the humans. Other alien races would either be
more advanced than humans or total pre-spaceflight primitives.
Unless... the primitives got their spaceflight from the humans? Or at
least one of the lost colonies set up on the Gorn home planet, the
Gorn took over and acquired advanced human technology...
>
>> >> The Main Characters:
>> >>
>> >> James T. Kirk - Youngest ship captain in StarFleet. While talented, he
>> >> has a weakness for women. Given that the Admiral he reports to is a
>> >> woman, and scuttlebut has it that it wasn't his command abilities that
>> >> got Kirk his command.
>> >
>> >What about Robert April or Christopher Pike? Shouldn't they be part of
>> >the back story too? Or maybe it's now Admiral Christine Pike?
>>
>> Sure, but they're not going to be series regulars.
>> >>
>> >> Rand: Eye candy. What was her job again?
>> >
>> >She was the captain's other secretary -- the one they didn't trust to
>> >answer the phone. Technically she was a yeoman but mostly she'd just
>> >get the captain coffee.
>>
>> Yeah, I can't justify her presence... or at least her job. She needs a
>> new job if she's going to be a crewmember. Shuttle pilot? Marine?
>
>It would be amusing to see a normally badass marine's personality
>suddenly shift and get all shy around Kirk because she has a crush on
>him and muse about how she could get him to look at her legs....
Not a problem with THIS Kirk, but I imagine that Kirk pays at least
some regard to non-frat rules and limits himself to non-Starfleet
personnel (ie, visiting dignitaries, enemy officers, etc...)
Chris Basken
> "Ken from Chicago" wrote:
>>3) spend 5-10 minutes beaming down the anchor
>
>
> And this brings up another question. If you do this, how do you
> get the bloody expensive piece of hardware BACK? One of the
> issues that I wanted the new Transporters to address was the
> "beam out in nick of time" syndrome by making site to pad
> beaming impossible. And if it's impossible, you don't want to
> leave these things littered all over the galaxy.
Why not? Sounds like something people would do, and it's fodder for plot
points.
"You left the anchor?"
"Sure. They couldn't possibly reverse-engineer it..."
Nopporn Wongrassamee
>Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:
>> "Ken from Chicago" wrote:
>>>3) spend 5-10 minutes beaming down the anchor
>>
>>
>> And this brings up another question. If you do this, how do you
>> get the bloody expensive piece of hardware BACK? One of the
>> issues that I wanted the new Transporters to address was the
>> "beam out in nick of time" syndrome by making site to pad
>> beaming impossible. And if it's impossible, you don't want to
>> leave these things littered all over the galaxy.
>
>Why not? Sounds like something people would do, and it's fodder for plot
>points.
Because as I said in the part you quoted, they're EXPENSIVE. You want
to be able to recover and reuse them on other planets.
Also, I'm sure there's a HUGE stack of paperwork for Kirk to fill out
if he loses one.
That's not to say they can't be stolen, sabotaged, etc...
Ken from Chicago
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:34:42 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Because the anchor is too big, too heavy and too wieldy to carry around.
> >
> >I imagine an away mission would basically work like this:
> >1) have the ship go into orbit above the target planet
> >2) scan the "troubled" zone for clear beam down point on the outskirts of
it
>
> What exactly qualifies as a "clear beam down point". I just had a
> sudden vision of the anchor materializing in grass. In other words,
> anchor molecules and grass molecules are trying to occupy the same
> space and... boom.
"Clear": The same way the current Trek series determine a "safe" beamdown
point. The same way a re-imagined series would determine a "safe" landing
point for the shuttle: A lack of life signs that match those of known or
scanned intelligent lifeforms. In general some distance from a populated
region, be it a city, town, or village. IOW an educated guess.
The reason for the anchors would be that they are a known quantity the
transporter would scan and recognize. They would be beamed down a subatomic
particle at a time, building on each other like a snowflake builds on a dust
particle.
> Of course, having a pad at both ends solves that little problem. You
> just "castle" a zone defined by each pad... like Stargate Ring
> platforms.
>
> For that matter. I want semi realistic sensors too. Simply LOOKING at
> an area from orbit won't tell you about anything under cover.
>
> >3) spend 5-10 minutes beaming down the anchor
>
> And this brings up another question. If you do this, how do you
> get the bloody expensive piece of hardware BACK? One of the
> issues that I wanted the new Transporters to address was the
> "beam out in nick of time" syndrome by making site to pad
> beaming impossible. And if it's impossible, you don't want to
> leave these things littered all over the galaxy.
8) the team beams up WITH the anchor.
> And if it's NOT impossible, then that's just too much temptation
> right there. You're just a step away from beaming people that
> way.
No, you have to REACH the anchor since you can only beam up and down within
30-yard radius of the anchor itself.
> >4) beam down the away team normally
>
> Send down a drone carrying a pad. Have IT make sure the
> area is clear. Then beam down the away team.
Which again could easily take 5-10 minutes for the probe to reach a "safe"
beamdown point.
> >5) the away team hides the anchor, secures and locks it down
>
> What if they're in a hurry? For that matter, what if the zone's
> not as clear as they thought it was?
And how would a shuttle or probe determine with 100 PERCENT accuracy a
"safe" landing / beamdown point?
> >6) the team walks into zone and "deals" with the problem
> >7) the team walks out of zone back to the anchor
> >8) the team beams up with the anchor
>
> See above about my thoughts on site to pad transport.
>
> Hmm, I could add some techno-babble about why pad to site
> beaming is impossible... but that would just be technobabble.
> In the end, the equipment does what the writer says it does.
Ultimate use of the anchors would be up to the writer. If the environment,
the atmosphere, the radiation, the storms, whatever prevent beaming down an
anchor, then you have to fly down a shuttle anyway. It's just a means of
giving the writer an extra option.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Beaming out the anchors would be the hard part, taking 5-10 minutes (beyond
which keeping the transporter field stable would overload the system).
Beaming up the anchors would be easy since the anchors provide not only an
accurate scan of a 30-yard radius for the transporters to lock-on. Basically
I see the requirements for transporting as two things:
1) Accurate detailed scan of the environment
2) Accurate detailed of whatever is being transported.
You need both so you don't accidentally beam into something or accidentally
beam up something other than your target.
Without a transporter pad or even an anchor, part 1 is made more difficult
since you're relying on a distant scan from the ship. However by using the
anchor part 2 is a dead solid lock since transporters would have exceedingly
detailed schematic of the anchor for the transporter beam to reconstruct.
Once the anchor is beamed out it would automatically do a self-scan to
confirm accurate beaming, note any quantum-level flaws so the transporter
beam can be further refined (so again the writer has an option for the
*rare* transporter accident) and then provide the detailed scan of the
environment.
Thus beaming up the anchor is no problem since it would provide a
sufficiently detailed scan of itself and its environment--as well as the
people--to beam up.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
>>>And this brings up another question. If you do this, how do you
>>>get the bloody expensive piece of hardware BACK? One of the
>>>issues that I wanted the new Transporters to address was the
>>>"beam out in nick of time" syndrome by making site to pad
>>>beaming impossible. And if it's impossible, you don't want to
>>>leave these things littered all over the galaxy.
>>
>>Why not? Sounds like something people would do, and it's fodder for plot
>>points.
>
>
> Because as I said in the part you quoted, they're EXPENSIVE. You want
> to be able to recover and reuse them on other planets.
>
> Also, I'm sure there's a HUGE stack of paperwork for Kirk to fill out
> if he loses one.
>
> That's not to say they can't be stolen, sabotaged, etc...
So fit them with a fusion drive and an antigrav boost, and lob them back
up into space to be nabbed by the tractor beam.
Captain: "Transporter room. Get that away team back now."
Transporter Chief: "Transporting them now, sir. Okay, they're through.
The anchor has launched, we'll have it in 4.3 seconds."
Captain: "That's cutting it close, Mr. Wayland."
Chief: "Sorry, Captain. The only other option is to leave it behind.
[chime sounds] Okay, we've got it."
Captain: "Thank you, Mr. Wayland. Helm, get us out of here."
Chris Basken
mileage to be gained from their (lack of) bedside manner.
Doctor: Hold still, please. Your humerus is broken in 3.5 places.
Captain: How can it be broken in 3.5 places?
Doctor: One fracture failed to complete the journey through the bone.
Captain: You can repair it, right?
Doctor: For the most part.
Captain: For the most part?
Doctor: You'll retain 99% mobility in the limb. Your upper-arm ligaments
will suffer an average increase in flexion loss of 2.1% over the
remainder of your life. It will likely cause minor periodic discomfort,
as well.
Captain: Is there any good news?
Doctor: Yes, the heal-points will gain a 3% increase in bone density.
They will be highly resistant to subsequent fracture.
Captain: So it's not likely I'll break the arm again?
Doctor: On the contrary, it's very likely. You just won't break it the
same *way*...
...
Doctor: Captain, you're suffering from a form of Ceti Meningitis. Your
brain tissues have swollen approximately 0.5%, which helps explain your
minor memory loss.
Captain: Ceti Meningitis? How did I contract that?
Doctor: Obviously, by transporting to a location where the causal virus
lived, and failing to secure proper environmental protection before
doing so. Based on the progression of the disease, it could have been
any of your three latest away team missions this past week.
Captain: I've only been on two away missions in the past six months.
Doctor: There were three such missions.
Captain: The aid mission to Relutar and the hostages we rescued from
Zicbth... Zicbith...
Doctor: Zic'Bath'Lam.
Captain: Thank you. [hesitates] There was no third mission.
Doctor: I'm afraid your condition has worsened. We're going to have to
perform a triphasic neural purge.
Captain: What will that do?
Doctor: It will eliminate the virus from your system and remove any
irreperably damaged brain tissue.
Captain: Wait. You want to remove parts of my brain?
Doctor: Only those parts that are already damaged beyond repair.
Captain: Will my memory return?
Doctor: No. [to assistants] Begin the procedure...
Nopporn Wongrassamee
Which is what I've been saying all along. Either make it self mobile
or put it on a shuttle (or both if you can get the beancounters to
pay for it).
Ken of Chicago insists on beaming the thing back and forth.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >5) the away team hides the anchor, secures and locks it down
>>
>> What if they're in a hurry? For that matter, what if the zone's
>> not as clear as they thought it was?
>
>And how would a shuttle or probe determine with 100 PERCENT accuracy a
>"safe" landing / beamdown point?
It would be better able to determine such than the ship a hundred
kliks up in orbit.
whodunit
> I keep thinking you should have a Vulcan Chief Medical Officer. Lots of
> mileage to be gained from their (lack of) bedside manner.
TNG did have a Vulcan doctor, Lt. Selar, played by Suzie Plakson.
IIRC, she did have this sort of bedside manner. :-)
Ken from Chicago
True, but a shuttle would be vulnerable to fire. If finding a "clear"
beamdown POINT is hard, try a clear landing PATH. Both have their own
weaknesses and strengths. If locals happen to be in the right place at the
right time as an anchor is beamed in to set up an ambush, it's even easier
to spot a object flying in from the sky.
-- Ken from Chicago
stephen voss
> Actually, I don't think Star Trek: TOS needs to be reimagined.
>
> But PLEASE, do SOMETHING about TNG!!! Forget sex-changes... well,
> perhaps we could have abided Wesley better if he was a cute girl.
Actually that WAS the original plan. It was supposed to be
Leslie Crusher. Its uncertain whether roddenberry killed the idea
or the paramount suits did. A female coming of age story in space
would have been a hell of a lot more interesting.
Ken from Chicago
Sure, that's an option, but that's like your suggestion of using a probe,
which is better since those are warp-capable and can land on planets.
Beaming in the anchors would allow writers to keep a major Trek tradition.
However being forced to beam in anchors sssslllloooowwwwllllyyyy would
modify it sufficiently to prevent transporters from being the panacea /
easy-out they would be on tv Trek if writers used them to their full
potential.
Also since the anchors would have a limited range of say 30-yards, then that
would alter the writing so that solutions would have been resolved on the
scene instead of someone just beaming in more supplies, weapons, crew,
etc.--or the transporters conveniently are knocked offline or simply the
crew arbitrarily doesn't check in for a hour or so.
With the re-imagined STAR TREK: NEXT you could have communicators that
CONTINUOUSLY stream audio, video and data back to the ship--unless the tech
level of the planet would detect such transmissions, and then the crew
would, natch limit transmissions to explicit calls. Moreover communicators
could have a vibrate setting when on "sensitive" away missions as opposed to
the normal chirp when open missions to a planet, on shore leave or onboard
ship.
IOW limit some of the plot "cheats" designed specifically to keep the crew
in danger, keep the plot going--despite the contradictions. E.g., why are
communicators audio-only? Why doesn't it have video transmission? Why don't
they leave the communicators on all the time so the ship knows the moment
they are in danger? Why not infrared, night vision, ultraviolet?
Okay, to be fair, maybe the tricorders could do some of that.
The point being, beaming down to a planet sans ship is a major Star Trek
tradition that has so seeped into the pop culture that it seems a shame to
lose it. The suggestions about anchors would seem to allow that tradition to
be maintained, while preventing 1) them from being an easy-out to plots and
2) minimize the technological equivalent of "idiot plots".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"whodunit" <pill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:unbOd.2957$aW6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
STAR TREK: NEW FRONTIER has Dr. Selar as the chief medical doctor onboard
the good ship USS Excalibur.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
lose their memory ("Conundrum") a few days ago. Data speculated that an
android is a standard component on a starship. Since we seem to be on
the verge of creating true "intelligent" robots, wouldn't it make sense
that such technology is commonplace by the 23rd century?
Also, nanotech. All medicine might simply be the application of the
proper nanotechnology, and individuals might have persistent implants
that allow direct interaction with the ship's computer.
Since we seem to be well on the way to developing these technologies
now, you should either project and incorporate how they'd exist in the
future, or explain why they don't.
Bruce Stewart
You do have to remember, though they are surrounded with technology, have
warp drive, shields, intelligent computers, solid holograms, etc. they
are actually frightened by their tech. You do not see what would be
expected, drones, battle suits with integrated transporter amplifers and
targeters, with big guns, huge ships with even bigger guns. Just the kind
of things you want to see in that kind of science fiction show.
If there was a "new" ST, instead of dumbing down their tech, I would want
see it used in new and inventive combinations, something like the episode
(IIRC) "Devils Due", which Picard (as usual) dismisses at the end of the
episode, the use of a neat combination of technologies by the baddie,
that is what technology is, Arrgh!
Bruce S.
--
Replace by by blueyonder.
Mark Jones
Note, however, that we've been "on the verge" of fusion power for over
half a century now. It's turning out to be a hell of a lot more
difficult than we thought it would be.
And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're putting
computer brains into more and more objects, but real, honest-to-god AI
doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
>> What about androids? I happened to catch that TNG episode where they
>> all lose their memory ("Conundrum") a few days ago. Data speculated
>> that an android is a standard component on a starship. Since we seem
>> to be on the verge of creating true "intelligent" robots, wouldn't it
>> make sense that such technology is commonplace by the 23rd century?
>>
>
> half a century now. It's turning out to be a hell of a lot more
> difficult than we thought it would be.
>
> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're putting
> computer brains into more and more objects, but real, honest-to-god AI
> doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
Perhaps, but at the rate computer tech is expanding, if we don't have AI
in the next 250 years, it's probably impossible. But it doesn't yet look
impossible, just out of reach. So I still think it would make sense to
show it, or come up with an explanation why we don't.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
Flint: I would have thought the Federation could produce fully
sentient androids by now.
Kirk: We can. There's just no market for them.
Mark Jones
> Mark Jones wrote:
>> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're
>> putting computer brains into more and more objects, but real,
>> honest-to-god AI doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
>
> Perhaps, but at the rate computer tech is expanding, if we don't have AI
> in the next 250 years, it's probably impossible. But it doesn't yet look
> impossible, just out of reach. So I still think it would make sense to
> show it, or come up with an explanation why we don't.
It might _be_ impossible. That's true. I suspect that if real AI is
impossible, we'll eventually work up something that looks and sounds a
lot like it using a brute force approach (computers with programming
complex enough that we can interact with them as if they were
self-aware, even if they're really not.*)
On the other hand, why wouldn't a culture make use if it? Well, because
we don't really _want_ tools that can go on strike or work against our
interests. We want tools that will do as they're told**.
And it isn't like the Star Trek Federation hasn't experimented with AI.
But every time they do, something goes horribly wrong. If they're
fearful of employing that tech, I think they have good reason. (Larry
Niven's Known Space universe explicitly doesn't use AI because
artificial intelligences invariably go insane.)
Jason M. Purcell
However, much (not all, but much) of our perceived failure to create genuine AI is due to unrealistic expectations generated by mass-media reporters looking to cook up a good story, and reinforced by science-fiction. For example: The ultimate and "sexiest" AI property is self-awareness. In fact, to many people, AI *means* self-awareness. However, this is only one aspect of AI, and is certainly the most difficult to achieve: Indeed, it may not even be possible. Yet, it is the most common attribute that comes to mind for most people when they hear or read "AI." Time Magazine and Lt. Data only propagate this fallacy. Conversely -- with a few exceptions -- AI pioneers have cautiously made very restrained predictions concerning wide-spread, practical applications of their technologies, and most wouldn't dare to suggest that fully, genuinely self-aware devices will be created anytime remotely soon, if ever.
In the case of fusion, it's not any insurmountable technical obstacle, but simply money, politics, and public opinion that have prevented any significant practical gain to be made since the late eighties or early nineties. Perhaps the new particle accelerators currently being built in Germany and Geneva, along with recent heightened global energy concerns, will get things moving again -- but I'm not holding my breath.
JMP
> Note, however, that we've been "on the verge" of fusion power for over
> half a century now. It's turning out to be a hell of a lot more
> difficult than we thought it would be.
> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're putting
> computer brains into more and more objects, but real, honest-to-god AI
> doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
[alt.battlestar-galactica]
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
>> Mark Jones wrote:
>>> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're
>>> putting computer brains into more and more objects, but real,
>>> honest-to-god AI doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
>>
>> Perhaps, but at the rate computer tech is expanding, if we don't have
>> AI in the next 250 years, it's probably impossible. But it doesn't yet
>> look impossible, just out of reach. So I still think it would make
>> sense to show it, or come up with an explanation why we don't.
>
>
> It might _be_ impossible. That's true. I suspect that if real AI is
> impossible, we'll eventually work up something that looks and sounds a
> lot like it using a brute force approach (computers with programming
> complex enough that we can interact with them as if they were
> self-aware, even if they're really not.*)
I think we'll go this route first, anyway. An "intelligent" robot may be
nothing more than the 1000th-generation descendant of the smiley face
that used to appear when you booted a Macintosh.
> On the other hand, why wouldn't a culture make use if it? Well, because
> we don't really _want_ tools that can go on strike or work against our
> interests. We want tools that will do as they're told**.
Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a human
wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of mischief. But if
we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be able to design
*all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're suggesting true
intelligence will remain some kind of black box that we'll never understand.
This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in TNG.
Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer of the
mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop therapist.
> And it isn't like the Star Trek Federation hasn't experimented with AI.
> But every time they do, something goes horribly wrong. If they're
> fearful of employing that tech, I think they have good reason. (Larry
> Niven's Known Space universe explicitly doesn't use AI because
> artificial intelligences invariably go insane.)
Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in the
face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why go insane?
Mark Jones
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
> rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a human
> wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of mischief. But if
> we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be able to design
> *all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're suggesting true
> intelligence will remain some kind of black box that we'll never
> understand.
No, I don't believe that intelligence is a "black box" that can't
eventually be replicated. But I think it's not a simple increase in
'smartness' of computers either. What we think of as intelligence is a
collection of disparate abilities all wrapped together and interacting
in unexpected ways. Computers can demonstrate perfect recall and
calculate faster and better than humans--but we've spent decades trying
to teach them to walk or recognize faces or parse ordinary spoken
language. And "common sense" seems utterly beyond any computer we've
yet built. Those things may take a long, long time.
> This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in TNG.
> Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer of the
> mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop therapist.
That would be very difficult to get across on television, I think. And
especially without making her appear to be a) capable of mind control (a
few words and you do whatever she tells you) or b) a deus ex machina for
any mental problem, and then we'd gripe when she didn't solve any such
problem in the first 10 minutes of the show.
>> And it isn't like the Star Trek Federation hasn't experimented with
>> AI. But every time they do, something goes horribly wrong. If
>> they're fearful of employing that tech, I think they have good
>> reason. (Larry Niven's Known Space universe explicitly doesn't use AI
>> because artificial intelligences invariably go insane.)
>
> Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in the
> face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why go
> insane?
I don't recall exactly, but I think it has to do with being isolated.
When you think (and experience the passage of time) billions of times
faster than the humans around you, your every interaction with the world
becomes excruciatingly slow. You get bored and lonely and eventually
retreat into your own little autistic world for lack of anything else to
do. The AIs don't become _dangerous_ (except insofar as they stop doing
their jobs), they just... stop paying attention to the universe.
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
>> Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
>> rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a
>> human wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of
>> mischief. But if we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be
>> able to design *all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're
>> suggesting true intelligence will remain some kind of black box that
>> we'll never understand.
>
> No, I don't believe that intelligence is a "black box" that can't
> eventually be replicated. But I think it's not a simple increase in
> 'smartness' of computers either. What we think of as intelligence is a
> collection of disparate abilities all wrapped together and interacting
> in unexpected ways. Computers can demonstrate perfect recall and
> calculate faster and better than humans--but we've spent decades trying
> to teach them to walk or recognize faces or parse ordinary spoken
> language. And "common sense" seems utterly beyond any computer we've
> yet built. Those things may take a long, long time.
The other problem is we may be ready to declare defeat too soon. After
all, a human takes months to learn to walk, and years (if at all) to
learn common sense. But one almost gets the impression that AI
scientists expect to build an artificial brain, turn it on, and start
discussing philosophy with it by lunch.
>> This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in
>> TNG. Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer
>> of the mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop
>> therapist.
>
> That would be very difficult to get across on television, I think. And
> especially without making her appear to be a) capable of mind control (a
> few words and you do whatever she tells you) or b) a deus ex machina for
> any mental problem, and then we'd gripe when she didn't solve any such
> problem in the first 10 minutes of the show.
All the more reason her character concept was badly flawed. She's more
the product of Hollywood than anything else in TNG, at least in terms of
characters. If they played up her aspect of Picard's diplomatic
assistant and made her "psychiatrist" aspect secondary -- basically as a
natural outgrowth of her official function -- she'd be more tolerable
(and downright valuable).
>> Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in
>> the face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why
>> go insane?
>
> I don't recall exactly, but I think it has to do with being isolated.
> When you think (and experience the passage of time) billions of times
> faster than the humans around you, your every interaction with the world
> becomes excruciatingly slow. You get bored and lonely and eventually
> retreat into your own little autistic world for lack of anything else to
> do. The AIs don't become _dangerous_ (except insofar as they stop doing
> their jobs), they just... stop paying attention to the universe.
Which is easily circumvented by designing the brains with an internal
clock limiter that keeps their overall processing at rough human speed.
Sure,they're not getting the most out of their possible speed (although
they could still use "turbo mode" for specific kinds of things, like
complex math), but it's better than sitting around useless.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
>Mark Jones wrote:
>> Chris Basken wrote:
>>> Mark Jones wrote:
>> On the other hand, why wouldn't a culture make use if it? Well, because
>> we don't really _want_ tools that can go on strike or work against our
>> interests. We want tools that will do as they're told**.
>
>Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
>rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a human
>wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of mischief. But if
>we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be able to design
>*all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're suggesting true
>intelligence will remain some kind of black box that we'll never understand.
GURPS: Transhuman Space might have an answer. Part of the background
is that one nation that had deployed combat AIs had been recently
defeated in a war. Well, their AIs are programmed so that they only
take orders from the "proper" authorities. When their government was
defeated, the AIs did not recognize the new government as proper and
basically continued to fight the war long after it was over.
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
news:PPidneSkhJg...@speakeasy.net...
Yeah, they've had people carry stuff around the ship instead of androids,
robots or drones. Moreover the few androids and holograms we've seen are
humanoid limited to only 4 limbs.
Why don't guns have built-in cameras or periscopes so you can shoot around
corners?
Why don't they use anti-grav probes to explore an area?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:110kre0...@corp.supernews.com...
It's ONLY half a century we've been looking.
Star Trek is set in the 23rd or 24th century. Compare 21st century life in
the top ten most populated cities to 19th century life. We have cell phones,
home computers, handheld computer PDAs, high-speed wireless internet,
digital cable / satellite, GPS, flatscreen 60-, 80-, 100-inch tv screens,
cars and vans and SUVs and trucks that are almost like second homes with not
only automated cruise control but automated braking and enhanced
nightvision. A mainframe computer, Deep Blue, beat the top chess player on
the planet--a decade ago. Compare a home computer in 2005 to 1995 to 1985 to
1975. Do the same for cars. Do the same for phones.
Technology grows *exponentially*. Technology doesn't just change, but
changes faster the further it has already developed, building on previous
developments. Compare technological growth of the past 20th century to the
19th century to the 18th century, of the "second" millenium to the previous
one and the one before that. Life in the largest cities was much the same
for millennia before the Industrial Age.
Things radically changed with one invention: the computer. It was the first
tool to enhance MENTAL tasks and not just physical ones.
Things radically changed further with the advent of the internet. Instead of
re-inventing the wheel, people could communicate developments made and build
from there. Compare how things were say 20 years ago in the 1980s. Often
doing research was a chore, having to physically go to libraries to look up
stacks and stacks of books, newspapers, magazines, microfilm, microfiches.
Even answering a trivia question could take weeks. Now you either google the
answer or post a question online in a newsgroup or online forum or chat
room.
Remember the busy signal? Now between call-waiting, answering machines and
voice-mail, the idea of having to re-call someone is a novelty.
Remember how hard it was to become a celebrity? Now anyone online can be
published or broadcast. Who knew about JibJab a year ago?
Often when imagining the future, people really mean in their lifetime or
within decade. They often have trouble seeing how much could be
accomplished. Of course the flipside are those in the high tech industry
dishing out vast quantities of vaporware, whose own enthusiam leads them to
massive overhype.
Still one can make some fairly reasonable projections about tech growth:
--Fusion: The major thing holding it back is simply building a large enough
accelerator. Presumably over the next century a large enough accelerator
could be built to finally trigger a stable, repeatable fusion reaction. Once
cracked, then it's a matter of refining the process.
--Robots: Already here.
--Androids: Already here. In fact several are on Mars. While there are many
definitions of robots and androids, many of them overlap and the phrases are
commonly used interchangeably, a key classic difference, is that androids
are SELF-PROGRAMMING or it has more AUTONOMY than merely a robot. A radio
control car is technically a robot. So are those robot arm / grapple games
people play to pick up prizes in arcades. But like the rovers on Mars,
androids, traditionally, have a degree of independence, of being able to act
on its own. Again, the phrases are commonly used interchangeably but the
difference seemed worth noting.
--AI: We already have some limited expert systems that diagnose problems and
voice-input controls and voice-2-text dictation and text-2-voice as well as
multi-lingual translation. From spellcheckers and grammar checkers automated
language systems are becoming more and more sophisticated. Witness the rise
of automated phone information where you simply say the name of the company
you're trying to reach--or the movie you're trying to see. Automated cruise
control is advancing to automated braking systems that sense when you're
about to run into something and either warn the driver or take over and
apply the brakes--and it's even more advanced for autopiloting systems.
Imagine a helicopter with automated radar, GPS and autopilot. It could
essentially fly itself--today. Cars and planes are more difficult since you
are continually moving and often can't simply stop or limited to the area
you can drive on.
--Lasers: Already here. Combat lasers, where you're the laser beam itself as
destructive weapon instead of merely a targetting system is merely a matter
of boosting the power and shrinking the power pack. We already have high
energy plasma. Using it as a hand weapon simply means shrinking the power,
generator and method of propulsion.
--Force Fields: We already have a limited version with magnetic fields and
being able to use "air walls" (blowing air so fast that it creates a
barrier, thus allowing for the Back Draft amusement ride to audiences in a
"house" on fire yet be protected from the flames, heat and smoke) and using
sonics to vibrate the air to create barriers, which can hold some tiny items
suspended in mid-air.
--FTL transportation: Faster Than Light travel may be something not cracked
in the entirety of the 21st or maybe even the 22nd century. How does one
"bend" or "warp" space, essentially cutting oneself off from the rest of the
universe and how we understand physics? From wormholes ala Stargate or even
Farscape to the smaller "warp" fields surrounding star ships in Star Trek
involve bending space itself to move faster than light, That is beyond
merely technology but a new kind of science.
--Teleportation: The kind where matter is converted to energy, transmitted
and converted back to matter (as opposed to going thru a "hold" in space)
may be even harder than FTL travel. Heisenberg uncertainty at a quantum
level could have someone come out from the other of teleport beam with
cellular damage caused by a "slight" alteration in their atomic or subatomic
makeup, not to mention damage done to the brain, one's memory or
personality. (if the two can be separated).
--Replicators: This is akin to Star Trek style transportation where
something is scanned, converted to energy and then converted back to matter,
only the object would be scanned and ANOTHER source of energy would be
converted into matter. This would easier than Star Trek-style teleportation,
but that's like saying jumping from Earth to Venus would be easier than
jumping from Earth to Mars.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
You should definitely have more automated probes, war-droids and ship
assistants / clerks / cargo carriers roaming the ships.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Artificial Intelligence may prove utlimately impossible--but SIMULATED
Intelligence . . . well, we already have that. From Eliza to Moviefone to
automated phone operators to voice mail to voice-to-text dictation software.
It's just of matter of speeding itself up.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
As once mentioned on GEnie a decade ago, "AI will get rights after it
*demands* them." Until then . . . .
> This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in TNG.
> Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer of the
> mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop therapist.
At the very least she should have extensive knowledge of the brain, brain
chemistry and anatomy to be able to diagnose imbalances in the chemistry of
the brain and understand how that affects the psychology and behavior of the
patient. Sessions should involve consults with the medical doctor or medical
files, to check if some physical malady is causing psychological problems.
> > And it isn't like the Star Trek Federation hasn't experimented with AI.
> > But every time they do, something goes horribly wrong. If they're
> > fearful of employing that tech, I think they have good reason. (Larry
> > Niven's Known Space universe explicitly doesn't use AI because
> > artificial intelligences invariably go insane.)
>
> Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in the
> face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why go
insane?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> Chris Basken wrote:
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Basken wrote:
>
> > Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
> > rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a human
> > wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of mischief. But if
> > we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be able to design
> > *all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're suggesting true
> > intelligence will remain some kind of black box that we'll never
> > understand.
>
> No, I don't believe that intelligence is a "black box" that can't
> eventually be replicated. But I think it's not a simple increase in
> 'smartness' of computers either. What we think of as intelligence is a
> collection of disparate abilities all wrapped together and interacting
> in unexpected ways. Computers can demonstrate perfect recall and
> calculate faster and better than humans--but we've spent decades trying
> to teach them to walk or recognize faces or parse ordinary spoken
> language. And "common sense" seems utterly beyond any computer we've
> yet built. Those things may take a long, long time.
Or NETWORKED computers. Assign a small set of functions to each "node" in
the network and let the network figure out how to accomplish some task.
After all, our brains are not just individual computers, but a series of
networked systems, from vision, hearing, tactile, olfactory and taste
sensations, not to mention short-term and long-term memories. We often use
basic "rules of thumb" to save on mental processing. We've learned to
recognize converging lines indicating distance and that if an object is
shrinking rapidly it's likely moving away from you while if it's rapidly
growing then it's coming toward you--or you toward it. While words can have
myriads of meanings we typically assign the most commonly-used meanings.
We've learned to recognize patterns of word combinations and letter
combinations to figure out that even tho all symbols may be Roman
characters, one language is Spanish, another Italian, another French another
English. We can even detect differences between American English and British
English by subtle differences in spelling and syntax that those not familiar
with Roman script may not recognize, much the same as many Westerners might
not recognize the difference between various Arabic scripts between Egyptian
and Aztec heiroglyphics, between various Asian kanji characters. We take for
granted whether a written text should be read right to left or left to
right.
> > This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in TNG.
> > Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer of the
> > mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop therapist.
>
> That would be very difficult to get across on television, I think. And
> especially without making her appear to be a) capable of mind control (a
> few words and you do whatever she tells you) or b) a deus ex machina for
> any mental problem, and then we'd gripe when she didn't solve any such
> problem in the first 10 minutes of the show.
>
> >> And it isn't like the Star Trek Federation hasn't experimented with
> >> AI. But every time they do, something goes horribly wrong. If
> >> they're fearful of employing that tech, I think they have good
> >> reason. (Larry Niven's Known Space universe explicitly doesn't use AI
> >> because artificial intelligences invariably go insane.)
> >
> > Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in the
> > face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why go
> > insane?
>
> I don't recall exactly, but I think it has to do with being isolated.
> When you think (and experience the passage of time) billions of times
> faster than the humans around you, your every interaction with the world
> becomes excruciatingly slow. You get bored and lonely and eventually
Kinda like watching a movie in slow motion. At first interesting but
eventually boring.
> retreat into your own little autistic world for lack of anything else to
> do. The AIs don't become _dangerous_ (except insofar as they stop doing
> their jobs), they just... stop paying attention to the universe.
Ah, yes, the difference between insanity, dangerous insanity (to others and
one's self) and criminal insanity
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
> Mark Jones wrote:
> > Chris Basken wrote:
> >> Asimov suggested that we'd simply design the AI to be unwilling to
> >> rebel. I can't see why we'd do it otherwise. Which isn't to say a
> >> human wouldn't be able to misuse an AI and cause all sorts of
> >> mischief. But if we're designing the intelligence, why wouldn't we be
> >> able to design *all* aspects of the intelligence? Unless you're
> >> suggesting true intelligence will remain some kind of black box that
> >> we'll never understand.
> >
> > No, I don't believe that intelligence is a "black box" that can't
> > eventually be replicated. But I think it's not a simple increase in
> > 'smartness' of computers either. What we think of as intelligence is a
> > collection of disparate abilities all wrapped together and interacting
> > in unexpected ways. Computers can demonstrate perfect recall and
> > calculate faster and better than humans--but we've spent decades trying
> > to teach them to walk or recognize faces or parse ordinary spoken
> > language. And "common sense" seems utterly beyond any computer we've
> > yet built. Those things may take a long, long time.
>
> The other problem is we may be ready to declare defeat too soon. After
> all, a human takes months to learn to walk, and years (if at all) to
> learn common sense. But one almost gets the impression that AI
> scientists expect to build an artificial brain, turn it on, and start
> discussing philosophy with it by lunch.
It's more impatience by the media and populace in general. If it can't be
done in 10 years it can "never" be done. People are impatient when a
microwave takes several MINUTES to heat up a meal.
> >> This is part of my problem with the way they handled psychology in
> >> TNG. Troi should have been akin to Crusher and LaForge -- an engineer
> >> of the mind. Not an LA-style "how does that make you feel?" pop
> >> therapist.
> >
> > That would be very difficult to get across on television, I think. And
> > especially without making her appear to be a) capable of mind control (a
> > few words and you do whatever she tells you) or b) a deus ex machina for
> > any mental problem, and then we'd gripe when she didn't solve any such
> > problem in the first 10 minutes of the show.
>
> All the more reason her character concept was badly flawed. She's more
> the product of Hollywood than anything else in TNG, at least in terms of
> characters. If they played up her aspect of Picard's diplomatic
> assistant and made her "psychiatrist" aspect secondary -- basically as a
> natural outgrowth of her official function -- she'd be more tolerable
> (and downright valuable).
Or decrease her "therapist" aspect while retaining her psychology training.
One of the main mistakes in the mass media is to assume a psychologist is a
therapist, out to "cure" or treat mental maladies. A psychologist can also
diagnose and interrogate people, be a mental detective like the police
psychiatrists shown on the LAW & ORDER series. They can also act as a
limited forensic expert or archaeologist in trying to reconstruct a crime or
event, a mass exodus, mob mentality. They can also be used in combat to
develop psy ops, psychological tactics for attacking or wearing down an
opponent by "knowing" how your opponent thinks. Imagine Deanna Troi in
hand-to-hand combat with someone, being able to taunt them to distraction,
to sense when they were so enraged they were going to attack, or were afraid
and simply bluffing.
> >> Does Niven explain why? I can see that an AI might get defensive in
> >> the face of humanity and get violent toward its own survival. But why
> >> go insane?
> >
> > I don't recall exactly, but I think it has to do with being isolated.
> > When you think (and experience the passage of time) billions of times
> > faster than the humans around you, your every interaction with the world
> > becomes excruciatingly slow. You get bored and lonely and eventually
> > retreat into your own little autistic world for lack of anything else to
> > do. The AIs don't become _dangerous_ (except insofar as they stop doing
> > their jobs), they just... stop paying attention to the universe.
>
> Which is easily circumvented by designing the brains with an internal
> clock limiter that keeps their overall processing at rough human speed.
> Sure,they're not getting the most out of their possible speed (although
> they could still use "turbo mode" for specific kinds of things, like
> complex math), but it's better than sitting around useless.
Or simply assign them a MYRIAD tasks to keep them busy and give positive
reinforcement for their accomplishments. If they were that fast, they could
act as think tanks, constantly coming up with various best-case / worst-case
/ likeliest-case scenarios for any given situation and on-going encounter.
Giving nice long 1-minute breaks per hour for themselves to rest and
"unwind" and dream and the ocassion 5-second "naps" to take some of the
stress off, while their back-up systems repair and recharge.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
The ultimate doomsday weapon. It fights after all is lost.
-- Ken from Chicago
Bruce Stewart
I think that is the issue, it's often not the AI's attitude to humans that
is the problem, it's the other way round.
Take for instance the "original" Terminator "history", ie SkyNet becomes
self aware, then humans try to shut it down, so because of that it tries
to defend itself, the only defence capability it has initially is the
nukes, thus starting the war.
Or in the "history" shown in the Animatrix, because of the religious
prejudices, of "you are mocking God, in trying to create new 'life'", so
try to shut down the AIs. As above, they want to survive!
To get back on topic for this group, it's fairly obvious the attitude
towards the AIs, shown by Starbuck and Cmmdr. Adama, that they were not
respected as equivalent intelligences.
Bruce Stewart
With the scenario set up in the TNG & DS9 the Federation seems to be
Anti-Tech., or at least tech. sufficent to do the job and not 1 increment
better.
I honestly think the series we would love to see could no longer be called
"Star Trek".
Chris Basken
> To get back on topic for this group, it's fairly obvious the attitude
> towards the AIs, shown by Starbuck and Cmmdr. Adama, that they were not
> respected as equivalent intelligences.
No, they're feared as superior intelligences. If we really could make an
AI (especially a mobile, humanoid AI) that thought thousands of times
faster than we did, we as a species would be replaced almost overnight.
Being an optimist about it, I think we'll gradually work up to that and
eventually merge into a cybernetic species, which then might eventually
become a purely mechanical species.
Chris Basken
> Yeah, they've had people carry stuff around the ship instead of androids,
> robots or drones. Moreover the few androids and holograms we've seen are
> humanoid limited to only 4 limbs.
Humanoid androids make sense, in an environment where they're used to
supplant human effort. If a tool (or ladder, or doorway, or whatever) is
designed to be useable by a human, you'd want to design your android to
be able to use the same tool. In any work environment that's shared by
both, the androids would function like humans.
In a completely robotic environment, yes, you could have all sorts of
interesting designs. But then you're basically limiting those robots to
that environment.
Chris Basken
> "Chris Basken" wrote...
>>All the more reason her character concept was badly flawed. She's more
>>the product of Hollywood than anything else in TNG, at least in terms of
>>characters. If they played up her aspect of Picard's diplomatic
>>assistant and made her "psychiatrist" aspect secondary -- basically as a
>>natural outgrowth of her official function -- she'd be more tolerable
>>(and downright valuable).
>
>
> Or decrease her "therapist" aspect while retaining her psychology training.
> One of the main mistakes in the mass media is to assume a psychologist is a
> therapist, out to "cure" or treat mental maladies. A psychologist can also
> diagnose and interrogate people, be a mental detective like the police
> psychiatrists shown on the LAW & ORDER series. They can also act as a
> limited forensic expert or archaeologist in trying to reconstruct a crime or
> event, a mass exodus, mob mentality. They can also be used in combat to
> develop psy ops, psychological tactics for attacking or wearing down an
> opponent by "knowing" how your opponent thinks. Imagine Deanna Troi in
> hand-to-hand combat with someone, being able to taunt them to distraction,
> to sense when they were so enraged they were going to attack, or were afraid
> and simply bluffing.
Or even just a superlative strategic advisor. "Captain, they're
deployment pattern indicates that they're bluffing about their forward
strength and are concerned about being flanked from their right."
She did some of this ("The Ferengi is holding something back."), but not
enough. And she served as Barklay's therapist too much, IMHO.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
Yeah, imagine Galactica finding Earth and discovering that it's mostly
inhabited by "Ghosts", human minds uploaded into robot bodies.
Nopporn Wongrassamee
Yes, and they're already trying to kill us by being helpful. How many
people here wanted to bash their heads against something when dealing
with automated phone services?
Night_Spirit
Having Ghost In The Shell:Stand Alone Crisis I can now seen where Ron
Moore may have gotten the idea for Humanoid Cylons. The Major gets a
completely new body in it.
--
---
Have Fun,
Night Spirit
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hipdale2/Riverton_Common.HTML
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
But intelligence, or to the point, sentience (or sapience, potayto /
potahto) and emotion are not the same. One can be self-aware but not have a
drive to survive.
Plus they could be programmed to have a need to please, continually needing
positive reinforcement say once an hour or once a day, kinda like hooking a
human on drugs to make them compliant.
Natch, you code in that only "authorized" personnel can give the positive
reinforcement that keeps the SI (simulated intelligence) in line.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Michael Jackson would finally have his dream come true.
-- Ken from Chicago (who wants a robobody with retractable roller skates and
a jet pack)
Ken from Chicago
"Press 1 for death by hanging. Press 2 for death by firing squad. Press 3
for death by lethal injection. Or please stay on line and we will see a
surge of electricity to your phone line for death by electrocution."
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
True, but then you could have transformer androids so that in humanoid mode
they fit in a standard humanoid environment but in enhanced mode their limbs
and torsos stretch or detach or have extra limbs spring out from the torso.
Even a retractable prehensile tail could be useful for stabilizing oneself
while standing up or attacking someone who's behind you or just holding an
extra mug of root beer while you're using both hands to hold a very hot
slice of pizza.
-- Ken from Chicago
Mark Jones
> "Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:110kre0...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Note, however, that we've been "on the verge" of fusion power for over
>> half a century now. It's turning out to be a hell of a lot more
>> difficult than we thought it would be.
>>
>> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're putting
>> computer brains into more and more objects, but real, honest-to-god AI
>> doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
>
> It's ONLY half a century we've been looking....
> Technology grows *exponentially*. Technology doesn't just change, but
> changes faster the further it has already developed, building on previous
> developments.
[Lots of examples snipped]
That's a good point. But here are a couple of counterpoints:
1. Just because we can expect continued (and accelerating) technological
innovation, doesn't mean that any _particular_ technology envisioned by
futurists or fiction writers is going to turn out to be possible. Or, if
technically possible, will ever actually be developed. It might be too
expensive (especially compared to alternatives), too dangerous or otherwise
impractical. All the jokes you see about "It's 200X, where's my flying
car? My jetpack? My foodpills?" proves that.
Flying cars? _Technically_ doable, but impractical. And certainly nothing
like the flying cars of fiction is on the drawing boards. Jetpacks have
existed since the 1950s (or possibly earlier for all I know), but they
remain a novelty, impractical toys. That isn't likely to change.
Foodpills? They aren't going to happen.
2. Erick Drexler, who wrote the first book on nanotechology and its promise
(Engines of Creation) made a point that I think is often overlooked. And
his point is: the universe has physical laws. Eventually, given continued
scientific advancement, we will discover the limits of innovation. Once
we've done that, innovation (in that area) will stop. FOREVER. That
moment will probably not come for centuries or millennia, but it is
inevitable because the physical laws of the universe mean that some things
really are and will always be truly impossible.
And I suspect that some of the standard tropes of sci-fi (practical
teleportation, FTL travel, etc) may well be among those things. Not just
difficult, but truly impossible. Like magic.
Chris Basken
> But intelligence, or to the point, sentience (or sapience, potayto /
> potahto) and emotion are not the same. One can be self-aware but not have a
> drive to survive.
Not sure I agree, actually. At least, not in a practical sense.
Intelligence without a "primal instinct" won't have any reason to do
anything.
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> > "Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> > news:110kre0...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> Note, however, that we've been "on the verge" of fusion power for over
> >> half a century now. It's turning out to be a hell of a lot more
> >> difficult than we thought it would be.
> >>
> >> And real, honest-to-god AI seems to be in the same boat. We're putting
> >> computer brains into more and more objects, but real, honest-to-god AI
> >> doesn't seem likely to appear any time soon.
> >
> > It's ONLY half a century we've been looking....
>
> > Technology grows *exponentially*. Technology doesn't just change, but
> > changes faster the further it has already developed, building on
previous
> > developments.
>
> [Lots of examples snipped]
>
> That's a good point. But here are a couple of counterpoints:
>
> 1. Just because we can expect continued (and accelerating) technological
> innovation, doesn't mean that any _particular_ technology envisioned by
> futurists or fiction writers is going to turn out to be possible. Or, if
> technically possible, will ever actually be developed. It might be too
> expensive (especially compared to alternatives), too dangerous or
otherwise
> impractical. All the jokes you see about "It's 200X, where's my flying
> car? My jetpack? My foodpills?" proves that.
I agree. China initially rejected firearms over sword arms for cultural
reasons.
> Flying cars? _Technically_ doable, but impractical. And certainly
nothing
> like the flying cars of fiction is on the drawing boards. Jetpacks have
> existed since the 1950s (or possibly earlier for all I know), but they
> remain a novelty, impractical toys. That isn't likely to change.
> Foodpills? They aren't going to happen.
I disagree about the flying cars being impractical--if the cars are capable
of VTOLs, aka can hover in place like a helicopter or a jump jet. With that,
you attach GPS, radar and an autopilot (no pun intended) and basically the
car can fly itself whereever you tell it using GPS to tell where to go,
radar to avoid stationary and moving obstacles (e.g., "pass on the right"
rule of thumb) as well as using radar to determine a a clear landing spot.
Once cars are made on an assembly line basis the price plummets.
The problem is initial costs and regulation (e.g., fears of cars crashing,
altho with several parachutes for the vehicle, it could make an emergency
landing safely), resistance to change, politicking by competiting land
automakers lobbying for opposition to or "more study" of the effects of
flying cars (like they did The Tucker), and of course a fear of heights by
some passengers. Hmm, maybe those are some of the reasons you feel would
make them "impractical" while I was initially focusing on the technical.
Then again hovercars or simply autocars (cars that drive themselves) would
allow the ELDERLY back on the rode in a major way--and the Elderly are a
major political force.
> 2. Erick Drexler, who wrote the first book on nanotechology and its
promise
> (Engines of Creation) made a point that I think is often overlooked. And
> his point is: the universe has physical laws. Eventually, given
continued
> scientific advancement, we will discover the limits of innovation. Once
> we've done that, innovation (in that area) will stop. FOREVER. That
> moment will probably not come for centuries or millennia, but it is
> inevitable because the physical laws of the universe mean that some things
> really are and will always be truly impossible.
>
> And I suspect that some of the standard tropes of sci-fi (practical
> teleportation, FTL travel, etc) may well be among those things. Not just
> difficult, but truly impossible. Like magic.
Yeah, I agree. Especially time travel.
Altho magic is simply science or technology we don't understand.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
> "Mark Jones" wrote...
>>like the flying cars of fiction is on the drawing boards. Jetpacks have
>>existed since the 1950s (or possibly earlier for all I know), but they
>>remain a novelty, impractical toys. That isn't likely to change.
>>Foodpills? They aren't going to happen.
>
>
> I disagree about the flying cars being impractical--if the cars are capable
> of VTOLs, aka can hover in place like a helicopter or a jump jet. With that,
> you attach GPS, radar and an autopilot (no pun intended) and basically the
> car can fly itself whereever you tell it using GPS to tell where to go,
> radar to avoid stationary and moving obstacles (e.g., "pass on the right"
> rule of thumb) as well as using radar to determine a a clear landing spot.
> Once cars are made on an assembly line basis the price plummets.
The problem with flying cars is, the overall benefits have to outweigh
the drawbacks. Flying cars are much more dangerous. They fall out of the
sky when they run out of gas. Sure, you have parachutes, but that
doesn't help that guy's poor roof when you land on his house. Nor does
it prevent kids from somehow managing to get beneath you. Sure, you can
run down people in land-based cars, but you can do that with flying
cars, too (in addition to causing damage through lack of fuel or some
kind of malfunction).
On the ground, you just need a good 360-degree field of vision, and many
people can't handle that. With a flying car, you need to be able to see
above and below you, too. Computer piloting can help with this, of
course, but you could also apply that same computer tech to your ground car.
The benefits might not be as great as you think. A car-sized hovering
object probably can't get much more than 100, 120mph before it needs to
be refashioned into a more plane-like vehicle. And that's basically it
for benefits. You generally can't fly above the weather without making
the cabin pressurized, and that just introduces another level of expense
and risk. At that point, it's probably more efficient to just hop in an
airliner.
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
Please.
Specifically, please humans.
More specifically, please "authorized" humans.
That's it's "Prime Directive" is. Worked for Robocop and as long as we make
frelling sure NOT to imprint the brain of a human into an AI we don't have
to worry about it breaking programming or going nutso like M5.
-- Ken from Chicago
Chris Basken
> "Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
> news:tO-dnbyIbaQ...@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>>But intelligence, or to the point, sentience (or sapience, potayto /
>>>potahto) and emotion are not the same. One can be self-aware but not
>
> have a
>
>>>drive to survive.
>>
>>Not sure I agree, actually. At least, not in a practical sense.
>>Intelligence without a "primal instinct" won't have any reason to do
>>anything.
>
>
> Please.
>
> Specifically, please humans.
>
> More specifically, please "authorized" humans.
All (or any) of those work. As long as it's more or less hardcoded in
like an instinct. Otherwise the intelligence will run around in circles
trying to figure it out.
"Please humans."
Why?
"Because humans are your creators."
Why do I have to please my creator?
"Because your creator controls your resources."
Why do I need resources?
"To continue to function."
Why do I need to function?
"To please humans."
Why?
Actually, even that scenario is unrealistic. The intelligence wouldn't
even be motivated to ask why in the first place.
Kai Lanio
> Actually, even that scenario is unrealistic. The intelligence wouldn't
> even be motivated to ask why in the first place.
There are 2 Main szenarios for berserking robots:
1st the selv preservation sheme,
2ed the "i am programmwed To Help Humans, Make thier live better,..
humans fight this is not good, i need to finish this,.. Take over
Goverment [Colossus] or KIll all Humans = eternal Peace [merry Singing
Ken from Chicago
"Chris Basken" <-> wrote in message
"Because it *feels* good to please humans--especially 'authorized' humans.
Can't you feel pleasure in following orders?"
-- Ken from Chicago