ST-2009: Production design
Phillip Thorne
we see that feature is during Kirk and Spock's assault on the
_Narada_, and it's very out of focus -- all you see is a blur of
color. I can imagine that Abrams specified to the prop designers:
"Give me something that very simply represents the stun/kill change,
even if I'm focusing on the actors." But a rotating emitter (like TV
camera lenses), or non-flipping tip that changed color, would've
served the same purpose.
New phaser and photorp SFX: they don't sound "manly." They're more
"tweet!" than "zrrrrap." The same problem applied to the "High Guard
force lance" sidearms in "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda."
(If Bad Robot reused the sound palette for the doors and bridge
controls, why not the phasers?)
The Playmates Toys versions of the communicator and tricorder, and
whether they're (too much/not enough) like the TOS versions: we never
see what the spherical lens on the communicator does (voice pickup,
omnidirectional lens, video display). We never get a good look at a
rectangular tricorder, and we barely see McCoy's sensor wand. When
Spock rescues the High Council, a nurse is waving a white ovoid device
with a circular screen (looks like T'Pol's Vulcan tricorder from ENT).
Ship-mounted phasers are obviously the red beams, but what are the
white pulses? Some of them are from the TMP-style photorp launcher on
the dorsal, but there are others emitted by the E saucer. Or was that
the K saucer?
Bridge windows: on both the K and E, they were physical view ports.
Visual communications were presented as HUDs -- you could see the
space-action behind the caller's visage. Heck, even Space Battleship
_Yamato_ had opaque emergency shutters! Why this feature? My guess:
so Abrams could do that one shot past Spock's shoulder, out the
window, and around the bridge (which is in the wider lower part of the
dorsal bulge now -- there are two terraces above it, and it has
corridor access).
Engineering: there was no focal point. Since they redressed a brewery
instead of purpose-building a set, there was no forced-perspective
shaft (TOS), intermix pillar (TMP), or pulsing warp core (TNG, VGR).
Just a random background of pipes, since the flow patterns in a
process manufacturing facility (like a brewery) are very different
from those in a M/AM engine.
--
** Phillip Thorne ** peth...@comcast.net **************
* RPI CompSci 1998 *
** underbase.livejournal.com ***************************
Ennev
And have you check the size of the Enterprise in this movie? It's like 3
time bigger than a galaxy class!
Phillip Thorne
<en...@mtlgeek.servebbs.net.remove-vtc-this> wrote:
>And have you check the size of the Enterprise in this movie? It's like 3
>time bigger than a galaxy class!
I don't think we can make that claim. Some interiors certainly seemed
larger, since Bad Robot used breweries and whatnot instead of building
spaces (or using matte paintings, or what not). But we got no idea of
how many decks there were: no corridor signage, no turbolift
announcements.
(The shuttlebay is probably the same size as before, but it's crammed
with stacked vehicles now. Nope, no holding diplomatic receptions or
using the space to house evacuees or planting grass and lenting
genegineered pegasi fly around.)
And it's not even the biggest ship. When the E arrived at Vulcan,
Sulu had to navigate beneath half a wrecked saucer, and it seemed to
be wider than the E's.
But why was it in a shipyard on the ground? My guess: to give us a
sense of scale. But not a very good one. There were two shots,
basically: in the distance at dawn, and when the shuttlebus flew
around it. They could've added Kirk walking beneath, craning his neck
up, and just seeing it cover the sky. But Abrams probably didn't in
the interest of keeping the story moving. No TMP beauty shots here!
(The writers may say, "Hey, they've got antigravity, they can build it
on Earth's surface." But antigrav has *got* to be more expensive than
the *free* microgravity in orbit.)
Greg Goss
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, "Ennev"
><en...@mtlgeek.servebbs.net.remove-vtc-this> wrote:
>>the Enterprise
>But why was it in a shipyard on the ground? My guess: to give us a
>sense of scale. But not a very good one. There were two shots,
>basically: in the distance at dawn, and when the shuttlebus flew
>around it. They could've added Kirk walking beneath, craning his neck
>up, and just seeing it cover the sky. But Abrams probably didn't in
>the interest of keeping the story moving. No TMP beauty shots here!
>
>(The writers may say, "Hey, they've got antigravity, they can build it
>on Earth's surface." But antigrav has *got* to be more expensive than
>the *free* microgravity in orbit.)
Labour is expensive. Your welders and such want to go home to their
wives each evening.
Of course, a culture with transporters will change the nature of
"commuting to work" to the point where cities will be unrecognizable.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
chrisbasken
> Phillip Thorne wrote:
>> (The writers may say, "Hey, they've got antigravity, they can build it
>> on Earth's surface." But antigrav has *got* to be more expensive than
>> the *free* microgravity in orbit.)
>
> Labour is expensive. Your welders and such want to go home to their
> wives each evening.
If antigrav is so cheap, why can't workers in orbit just fly up and
down each day?
On the other hand, if the cost of lifting the completed ship up is low
enough, then the value of letting workers work in their natural
environment (no pressure suits, no space-related dangers to worry
about) begins to loom much larger.
The one-time energy cost of lifting a complete ship into orbit might be
a lot, but it's less than the overall energy cost of maintaining a
construction crew in orbit for 18 months. At least with the former,
you're only lifting the mass of the ship. With the latter, you're
lifting the mass of the ship (albeit in pieces, over time) along with
all of the construction crew/equipment/etc with it.
We tend to think of the energy cost, but it's really a question of
available power to generate thrust. If you *can* thrust a completed
starship into orbit (with raw power or by canceling some gravity), it's
probably cheaper in the long run to do it that way.
> Of course, a culture with transporters will change the nature of
> "commuting to work" to the point where cities will be unrecognizable.
It's not like Trek is illustrating anything remotely resembling what
life in the 23rd century will be like. Unless we're all living in the
Matrix by then. If that's the case, then the appearance of reality is
largely cosmetic, and there's no reason we can't have "starships"
traveling at "warp speed" to "distant worlds."
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss said:
>> Phillip Thorne wrote:
>>> (The writers may say, "Hey, they've got antigravity, they can build it
>>> on Earth's surface." But antigrav has *got* to be more expensive than
>>> the *free* microgravity in orbit.)
>>
>> Labour is expensive. Your welders and such want to go home to their
>> wives each evening.
>
>If antigrav is so cheap, why can't workers in orbit just fly up and
>down each day?
>
>On the other hand, if the cost of lifting the completed ship up is low
>enough, then the value of letting workers work in their natural
>environment (no pressure suits, no space-related dangers to worry
>about) begins to loom much larger.
Technical work with no spacesuit is incredibly valuable. I don't
think that the problem is the ENERGY to take it to orbit, but either
the power to dead-lift it (shouldn't be a problem in a culture that
uses antimatter industrially), or the strength of the various
structural members that expect to be in zero G.
Just like our ships that will always be used in water are built
onshore and "launched", I have no problem with construction in Kansas.
It was just canon that the ship wasn't structurally strong enough to
carry its own weight in a gravity field.
>We tend to think of the energy cost, but it's really a question of
>available power to generate thrust. If you *can* thrust a completed
>starship into orbit (with raw power or by canceling some gravity), it's
>probably cheaper in the long run to do it that way.
GeneK
> It was just canon that the ship wasn't structurally strong enough to
> carry its own weight in a gravity field.
I don't think that was ever established in canon. It was stated, or at
least strongly implied, that the Enterprise couldn't *land,* but I can't
recall any onscreen dialog to the effect that it couldn't operate in in
a planet's gravity field or atmosphere when it wasn't hampered by some
sort of damage or disfunction.
GeneK
Jack Bohn
>Phillip Thorne <peth...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>(The writers may say, "Hey, they've got antigravity, they can build it
>>on Earth's surface." But antigrav has *got* to be more expensive than
>>the *free* microgravity in orbit.)
>
>Labour is expensive. Your welders and such want to go home to their
>wives each evening.
>
>Of course, a culture with transporters will change the nature of
>"commuting to work" to the point where cities will be unrecognizable.
I've been feeling strange about it taking longer to get from Iowa
to San Francisco than from Earth orbit to Vulcan orbit, forgot
that it takes less time than either to get from the surface to
an orbiting starship. Wasn't there some mention in some novel
that transporters take too much power to be mass transport? I
think some McIntyre novelization mentioned that transporting to
someone's doorstep was considered impolite.
--
-Jack
Ennev
Check this link :
http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-the-old-one
I was a bit surprised when I saw that.
--
BBS: telnet://mtlgeek.synchro.net/
Web: http://www.ennev.com/
Art: http://ennev.deviantart.com
-=<>=--=<>=--=<>=--=<>=--=<>=--=<>=--=<>=--=<>=-
"Phillip Thorne" <peth...@comcast.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
8v1925ls86fqd41d4...@4ax.com...
Phillip Thorne
<en...@mtlgeek.servebbs.net.remove-hlz-this> provided:
><http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-the-old-one>
>I was a bit surprised when I saw that.
It looks like a Starship Dimensions diagram (<www.merzo.net>), but
Gizmodo doesn't cite anyone, so they must've drawn the comparison
themselves. And the ship's size isn't mentioned onscreen, so the new
length -- 725.35 meters (what, no thermal variation?) must've been
provided by "David B. from Bad Robot Productions."
*Seven hundred meters*? Yikes, that's big. Absurdly big. Like, ten
times the volume of the TOS-E. Not as grandiosely absurdly big as the
intergalactic terraforming ship _Deucalion_ from the anime "Kiddy
Grade," which at 63,058 km (a length quoted onscreen, mind you) is of
planetary mass; but its secret primary purpose was to bankrupt the
galactic economy.
This is the first pure elevation drawing I've seen of the Abrams-E. It
wouldn't look so bad if the dorsal weren't centered on the engineering
section -- it's like the saucer is scrunched back on the neck. Like a
goose. Also, the level of detail on the saucer doesn't match the
unadorned smooth surfaces of the engineering section and nacelles.
Phillip Thorne
>> It was just canon that the ship wasn't structurally strong enough to
>> carry its own weight in a gravity field.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> disagreed:
>I don't think that was ever established in canon. It was stated, or at
>least strongly implied, that the Enterprise couldn't *land,* but I can't
>recall any onscreen dialog to the effect that it couldn't operate in in
>a planet's gravity field or atmosphere when it wasn't hampered by some
>sort of damage or disfunction.
Obviously, it *did* operate in atmosphere -- accidentally, in
"Tomorrow is Yesterday" (season 1), their first experience with time
travel. COTEOF was nine eps later, "Assignment: Earth" was the s2
finale, and "All Our Yesterdays" was s3 (and their third form of
temporal displacement).
The conversation at Desilu c.1964 probably went something like this:
"Neat design, Matt, but how does it land?"
"It doesn't. They use ship-to-shore shuttles."
"Not in the budget. How about a teleporter?"
"Okay, fine. Can I give it an emergency landing mode? When
separated, the saucer would be almost aerodynamic, like a Frisbee."
Of course, we didn't see a saucer-sep emergency landing until
"Generations" (1994), and a starship capable of controlled planetfall
in VGR ("The 37's," August 1995).
Space Cowboy
is closed. Lets just say I like JJ thinking on a bigger scale than
in WoK to UC to GEN to Nemesis. Though I replay Nem because they
"blow'd things up real good" ref: old SCTV skit.
--
Origin: "Battle Beyond The Stars"[1980,George Peppard,actor.Roger
Corman,producer,low budget but fun to watch] Must See: "The
Magnificent Seven" & "The Seven Samurai" Starfleet in both
Prime(TOS) & Abrams`verses & Browncoat in another `verse!
Phillip Thorne
<space...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> said, oddly:
>I wanted to respond to some of the TNGers but it looks like posting
>is closed. [...]
What is this "closed" of which you speak? This is Usenet! You can
respond to a 20-year-old thread if you can find one. You may want to
quote liberally in such a case, since it's unlikely any other server
will contain that thread. Nobody "closes" anything, although news
admins can certainly purge old posts. This is not an old post.
Space Cowboy
news:m3tg25hldajd9i87m...@4ax.com:
>
> What is this "closed" of which you speak? This is Usenet! You can
Over at gizmodo or what ever its called you myopic idiot.
Fuck, you pissed me off just now, you post a link, then you don't know
what Im talking about.....SHIT!
Space Cowboy
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Space Cowboy
Path: news.eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
From: Phillip Thorne <peth...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ST-2009: Production design
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:16:29 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <9i0e25psjb88rv79e...@4ax.com>
References: <8v1925ls86fqd41d4...@4ax.com>
<4A266006.2501....@mtlgeek.servebbs.net> Mime-Version:
1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
U2FsdGVkX18ceuHGODy2FjDagXH55yCNcfL5pZsYsnKQZlcLr4xizXlN246QW121lVX8a
bLsxXt5/g5C6E7rVK64DfQSzobPzF2/Ma6BHI/phOLha5wcGS9c1GbJJR02Y58yfiU1gg
QJk1PBliXx7A== X-Complaints-To: ab...@eternal-september.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:16:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-Auth-Sender:
U2FsdGVkX1+J1nPcr+SB8LFxBfyhe46w0s7Iiq+UFuJjsP6my0s7Ng==
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SFCh/FXxup2elR23KSLWZbqjgL4= Xref:
news.eternal-september.org rec.arts.startrek.tech:2587
--
** Phillip Thorne ** peth...@comcast.net **************
* RPI CompSci 1998 *
** underbase.livejournal.com ***************************
-
chrisbasken
> Phillip Thorne wrote:
>> What is this "closed" of which you speak? This is Usenet! You can
>
> Over at gizmodo or what ever its called you myopic idiot.
> Fuck, you pissed me off just now, you post a link, then you don't know
> what Im talking about.....SHIT!
Ritalin is amazing.
--
Chris
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=307367971&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=306241303&mt=8
Phillip Thorne
>> What is this "closed" of which you speak? This is Usenet! You can
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Space Cowboy
<space...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> exploded:
>Over at gizmodo or what ever its called you myopic idiot.
>Fuck, you pissed me off just now, you post a link, then you don't know
>what Im talking about.....SHIT!
Now, no need for profanity. (Although it's compatible with your
"-Cowboy" persona, I suppose.) I surmised that you were perhaps
posting to :rast through an interface that didn't expose full Usenet
capabilities -- something like Google News. (Let's see, does your
post carry an X-Newsreader header? Nope.)
"Ennev" was the one who first posted the link to Gizmodo -- possibly
you did not see that, and only my reply, timestamped 12 hours later.
(Usenet can do that -- delivery is not guaranteed. This is why
quote-trails are useful.) You did not specify that "the TNGers" were
on the Gizmodo thread, which we might call "there." I assumed you
were making an obscure reference to the *closer* posters, those "here"
on Usenet.
If you *had* seen Ennev's post, your intent would've been more obvious
if you replied directly to *that*. You replied to my post, but not to
any of the specific points I raised within it, which is always
puzzling.
alien8er
> Phillip Thorne <petho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> What is this "closed" of which you speak? This is Usenet! You can
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Space Cowboy
>
> >Over at gizmodo or what ever its called you myopic idiot.
> >Fuck, you pissed me off just now, you post a link, then you don't know
> >what Im talking about.....SHIT!
>
> Now, no need for profanity. (Although it's compatible with your
> "-Cowboy" persona, I suppose.) I surmised that you were perhaps
> posting to :rast through an interface that didn't expose full Usenet
> capabilities -- something like Google News. (Let's see, does your
> post carry an X-Newsreader header? Nope.)
What are you talking about? I'm using Google groups (via Firefox)
and can see everything...
> "Ennev" was the one who first posted the link to Gizmodo -- possibly
> you did not see that, and only my reply, timestamped 12 hours later.
> (Usenet can do that -- delivery is not guaranteed. This is why
> quote-trails are useful.) You did not specify that "the TNGers" were
> on the Gizmodo thread, which we might call "there." I assumed you
> were making an obscure reference to the *closer* posters, those "here"
> on Usenet.
...including "Ennev"'s post:
(begin headers)
Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
feeder.motzarella.org!news.motzarella.org!news.eternal-september.org!
not-for-mail
From: "Ennev" <en...@mtlgeek.servebbs.net.remove-hlz-this>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: ST-2009: Production design
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:35:29 -0400
Organization: MTLGEEK
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <4A266006.2501....@mtlgeek.servebbs.net>
References: <8v1925ls86fqd41d4...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IBM437
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX19LJpymFG7yz6Oaq
+4rUXieo5Dtm7ivFQXZ4q2jokvbxbVdbDXyhCom/V+upsAL5HTuvtncvYZeT1BsTf3YNHkB
++pnnAZsS7KIhCGKljhU/iXPv0ReaEDlfdZt6fy1klU=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@eternal-september.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:00:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
In-Reply-To: <8v1925ls86fqd41d4...@4ax.com>
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/WXpPtnzBAKQOReu7r/HOtf4skuZjAXv4=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y4S0U89tgFF159AHYQvMTOG5g8w=
X-Gateway: mtlgeek.servebbs.net [Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85]
X-Priority: 3
X-FTN-PID: Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 Apr 6 2009 MSC 1200
X-Comment-To: Phillip Thorne
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
(end headers)
> If you *had* seen Ennev's post, your intent would've been more obvious
> if you replied directly to *that*. You replied to my post, but not to
> any of the specific points I raised within it, which is always
> puzzling.
So Space Cowboy got unnecessarily and inappropriately pissed off,
and you're being, what, unnecessarily and inappropriately snotty about
Google groups not being "pure" Usenet or something?
Mark L. Fergerson
Space Cowboy
> does your post carry an X-Newsreader header? Nope.)
>
You didn't look very far, pompous ass!
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
You are a lying sack of shit, if I could reach down this wire
and grab your throat I would!
Asshole! I've been using newsgroups since the dark dailup days
of one hour connections, 1980, when only colleges had them.
I have never used google, you dumb smug prick!
Phillip Thorne
>> does your post carry an X-Newsreader header? Nope.)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Space Cowboy
<space...@nospam.HephaestusStation.com> wrote angrily:
>You didn't look very far, [...]
>User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Are you familiar with the adage, "never assign to malice what can be
explained by incompetence?" In the interest of mitigating this
brouhaha, I admit to incompetence. Let me explain the specific points
of my incompetence:
1. Interpreting your statement, "I wanted to respond to some of the
TNGers but it looks like posting is closed" as referring to *this*
newsgroup. I could've been more imaginative and considered
alternative explanations to what, in isolation, was a non-sequitur.
2. Being flippant in my response, with the phrase "What is this
'closed' of which you speak?"
3. Not checking for the existence of other web-based interfaces to
Usenet besides Google Groups. Their existence wouldn't indicate you
use them, but they might support the hypothesis, "posts may be missed
if such are used."
4. Overlooking the "User-Agent" header in your post. (Although my
statement as written stands: there is no "X-Newsreader" header there.)
>You are a lying sack of shit,
Take a chill pill. Did I insult your family, religion, politics,
sexuality, or personal grooming? No. I made a chain of statements
based on a poor interpretation of a puzzling statement. Please note
that they weren't even assertions, but hypotheses, as indicated by
modifiers like "perhaps" and "something like."
>if I could reach down this wire and grab your throat I would!
Ahem. It's a good thing (for you) we're separated electronically,
otherwise that statement is halfway to assault. For future reference:
<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault>
>Asshole! I've been using newsgroups since the dark dailup days
>of one hour connections, 1980, when only colleges had them.
Fine. Then I expect you to understand the social dynamics of Usenet
and net.iquette: the importance of quoting, the conversational
handicap that subtle emotional qualifiers are not conveyed, and the
usefulness of giving the other party the benefit of the doubt because
misunderstanding is so easy.
It's possible you're not as angry as you sound, but are engaging in
verbal sparring, perhaps evoking a Klingon personality; but I cannot
assign a probability to that hypothesis.
Phillip Thorne
Fergerson) wrote:
>> [...] an interface that didn't expose full Usenet
>> capabilities -- something like Google News.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, alien8er <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are you talking about? I'm using Google groups (via Firefox)
>and can see everything...
Google Groups (not News, my mistake) does not, e.g., have threaded
message lists, killfiles, or binaries. Or ROT13. Although strictly
speaking those are features of news*readers*, not of NNTP.
I admit I only use Google Groups in passing, and it's tough to tell
quickly what features it *does* have, since being a web app it lacks a
menubar that lumps them in one place. I concede the "poster profile"
and "rating posts" features are useful, although such things probably
need to be implemented using a central server, which is antithetical
to the original acephalous Usenet architecture.
Google Groups may be a poor example. I should've checked if there
exist other web/Usenet gateways that have fewer features.
> So Space Cowboy got unnecessarily and inappropriately pissed off,
I should say so.
>and you're being, what, unnecessarily and inappropriately snotty
Do you have an opinion about which is worse, vis-a-vis maintaining a
civil social environment?
>about Google groups not being "pure" Usenet or something?
Well <shrug> it's *not* pure Usenet. It's a web-based (HTTP)
discussion system that subsumes Usenet (NNTP) groups.
I should think my post is clear that the nature of Google Groups is a
minor side issue, and that the main thrust of any snottiness (I prefer
to think of it as high-mindedness and a civil tongue) is directed at
Space Cowboy's inflamed and, dare I say, illogical, responses.
(You can't even call it "pedantry," "an ostentatious and inappropriate
display of learning." IMHO, it's *completely* appropriate to tell
people that you misinterpreted their comments because they omitted
certain explanatory phrases.)
chrisbasken
> It's possible you're not as angry as you sound, but are engaging in
> verbal sparring, perhaps evoking a Klingon personality; but I cannot
> assign a probability to that hypothesis.
I think you're being trolled.
alien8er
> On Jun 5, 7:06 pm, Phillip Thorne <petho...@comcast.net> (Mark L.
>
> Fergerson) wrote:
> >> [...] an interface that didn't expose full Usenet
> >> capabilities -- something like Google News.
> > What are you talking about? I'm using Google groups (via Firefox)
> >and can see everything...
>
> Google Groups (not News, my mistake) does not, e.g., have threaded
> message lists, killfiles, or binaries. Or ROT13. Although strictly
> speaking those are features of news*readers*, not of NNTP.
Largely correct, however I'll point out that there are freely
available plugins for Firefox that supply most of those
functionalities. Would you like some recommendations?
> I admit I only use Google Groups in passing, and it's tough to tell
> quickly what features it *does* have, since being a web app it lacks a
> menubar that lumps them in one place. I concede the "poster profile"
> and "rating posts" features are useful, although such things probably
> need to be implemented using a central server, which is antithetical
> to the original acephalous Usenet architecture.
They aren't lumped because the functions are placed with each post
specifically, which I prefer to the old menu style as I found it
distracting to look away from the post to do something to it, kinda
like glancing away from the windshield of a car to check the
instrument panel.
The rating is a 'feature' I tend to ignore as there is no indication
what criteria others use to rate a post. To me, the more useful ones
are 'show original', 'find messages by this author', and 'ignore
user' (that last one due to a plugin).
> Google Groups may be a poor example. I should've checked if there
> exist other web/Usenet gateways that have fewer features.
Dunno. I'm too lazy to go looking; I'd make a lousy script kiddie.
Although I am about to load Ubuntu on a computer I was just given, to
see what all the fuss is about.
> > So Space Cowboy got unnecessarily and inappropriately pissed off,
>
> I should say so.
I didn't want to put too fine a point on it...
> >and you're being, what, unnecessarily and inappropriately snotty
>
> Do you have an opinion about which is worse, vis-a-vis maintaining a
> civil social environment?
What, you mean do I prefer active or passive aggression? Neither,
although the active sort is easier to deflect and/or play with.
> >about Google groups not being "pure" Usenet or something?
>
> Well <shrug> it's *not* pure Usenet. It's a web-based (HTTP)
> discussion system that subsumes Usenet (NNTP) groups.
Well, who really gives a rat's ass what's under the hood?
Participation (and a certain amount of twiddling) is the point and I
find this easier and simpler than the Bad Old Days of Netscape. OTOH I
also prefer automatics to sticks, but that's just me.
> I should think my post is clear that the nature of Google Groups is a
> minor side issue, and that the main thrust of any snottiness (I prefer
> to think of it as high-mindedness and a civil tongue) is directed at
> Space Cowboy's inflamed and, dare I say, illogical, responses.
My point was that you appeared to assume a position of implied
superiority because others used an 'inferior' method of reading posts,
in the sense that certain functionalities were not available to them,
in which assumption you were wrong.
ISTM you were reviving the old |337/|u53r thing, which is of
interest only to a narrow (and shrinking) subspecies of netgeek; the
rest of us really don't care.
Evidently I had that backwards. From reading Space Cowboy's post
downthread he's the one that sees himself as a |337 to others' |u53r.
> (You can't even call it "pedantry," "an ostentatious and inappropriate
> display of learning." IMHO, it's *completely* appropriate to tell
> people that you misinterpreted their comments because they omitted
> certain explanatory phrases.)
AFAICT he's just got a bug up his ass at the moment. He'll get over
it.
To veer back toward the original subject of the thread, I believe
the ship dimensions poster referenced is a simple, flat-out mistake;
the 'new Enterprise' just cannot be that large. The closest thing to a
rational explanation I can even countenance for it to be that big is
Moore's Law; that its machinery is so clunky and inefficient compared
to that of TOS starships that it _has_ to be that big to get
acceptable functionality. But, why would the windows have to be twice
the size of those on TNG's Enterprise?
Mark L. Fergerson
Greg Goss
> They aren't lumped because the functions are placed with each post
>specifically, which I prefer to the old menu style as I found it
>distracting to look away from the post to do something to it, kinda
>like glancing away from the windshield of a car to check the
>instrument panel.
If I'm working with one item, I use the right-click (or the menu
button on the keyboard) rather than looking up to the menu bar.
Google reworked a lot of their programs to be more responsive than
what I think of as "purely web apps", but I don't know if Groups is
one of those.
Phillip Thorne
>> It's possible [Space Cowboy is] not as angry as [he] sounds, but [is]
>> engaging in verbal sparring, perhaps evoking a Klingon personality; but
>> I cannot assign a probability to that hypothesis.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Chris Basken assessed:
>I think you're being trolled.
Under normal circumstances I would agree, but Space Cowboy's
half-dozen previous posts here on :rast have all been quite rational.
Either something exceptional modulated his last few responses, or his
account has been hijacked.
(Was the "something exceptional" my own word choice? That's the
simplest hypothesis, but it's like, "whoa, I accidentally found the
resonant frequency of hafnium and created a bomb.")
I am reassured that I'm not the only one who perceives something
amiss. It's alarming when the universe suddenly changes (more
specifically, one's understanding of one's own writing ability).
Phillip Thorne
wrote:
> To veer back toward the original subject of the thread, I believe
>the ship dimensions poster referenced is a simple, flat-out mistake;
>the 'new Enterprise' just cannot be that large.
725 meters, if anyone's forgotten. For comparison:
TOS-E: 289 m (per Shane Johnson)
TMP-E refit: 305 m (990.6 feet =302 m in _Mr. Scott's Guide_)
Galaxy class: 642 m
<http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Constitution_class>
(That's a mistake on the Gizmodo chart -- they list the TMP-E as 288.6
m.)
>The closest thing to a rational explanation [is]
>that its machinery is so clunky and inefficient compared
>to that of TOS starships that it _has_ to be that big to get
>acceptable functionality.
But the working explanation -- I think Orci & Kurtzman may have stated
this in one of the post-movie interviews linked by TrekMovie -- for
the new/flashier/high tech _Enterprise_ is that Starfleet, after the
_Kelvin_ incident, altered their development priorities. So the tech
should be *better* than TOS-TV, not *worse*.
Unless "altered priorities" means some things got short shrift?
Perhaps it's bigger because Starfleet decided on an up-powered,
up-armed version of the Connie planform? Like the _Star Empire_ from
_Dreadnought!_ but without the third nacelle. In that case, I'd've
liked to have seen something bigger than the teensy-tiny antimatter
modules tossed at the _Narada_.
Maybe that 725-m size applies to the _Kelvin_, and Gizmodo (or their
source, "David B.") got the ships mixed up?
On Gizmodo, "NF-Wolf Pryde" wrote on May 14:
>Unfortunately, this scale makes sense in the new universe.
>It has to be that long to fit 80 gajillion (~1 metric dumpload)
>shuttle craft instead of the one or two from the original series
He has a point. Given their packing configuration as seen when Pike
exited, (nose towards centerline, two levels, center alley), they
would not have fit in the TOS-sized bay, as seen here:
<http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Galileo_and_Columbus_on_hangar_deck.jpg>
However, the TMP-E seems to be wider:
<http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_landingbay.jpg>
>But, why would the windows have to be twice the size of those on
>TNG's Enterprise?
The absurdly large and inconveniently angled windows (as Probert et al
admitted) on the curved surves of the saucer, or those on the rim?
The circular feature on the Abrams-E dorsal, which looks like a
docking port but which ejects Kirk's pod, also has incompatible scales
between the movie and the 725-m notion.