test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

My problems with TRIBBLE

1679111217

Comments

  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,554 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    > @artan42 said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > > @angrytarg said:
    > > Well, unless specifically addressed I assume this is another one of those one-off macguffins. The next time it would be really handy they won't use it
    >
    > Problem is there are too many Macguffins in that show.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm going to need a full catalogue of so called 'Macguffins' from DSC. However, you're also going to have to produce a detailed catalogue doing the same for every single one of the other series as well in order for your claim of 'too many' to stand. This includes the films as well.
    > jonsills wrote: »
    >
    > Subspace comms can't use quantum entanglement, because in TOS there were frequently long communications delays between Enterprise's current position and Starfleet Command. (It's why the response to the Romulan incursion in "Balance of Terror" was completely up to Kirk - they didn't get a response until the very end of the episode. And there was another, I don't recall the ep, where they said it would take several days to get an answer to a transmission.) ENT explained the difference between that and subspace comms in TNG (pretty much instantaneous no matter where you are) as having to do with subspace-comm relays. (NX-01 was laying them as she went.)
    >
    > OTOH, quantum entanglement is a perfectly valid Treknobabble for Vulcan telepathy, particularly since there's evidence that interneural communication within the human brain also uses quantum physics.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I haven't seen TOS for a good long while but it's always feasible things changed between TOS and TNG. Though DS9 did show us that a Runabout can make it from DS9 to Earth in a day or so, so I guess it's slightly possible there may have always been a tiiiiiiny bit of making sh|t up as you go along with Trek technology .​​

    I can't off the top of my head but I can think of a VERY bad offender.

    Burnham having access to the ship's computer while in the brig for mutiny.

    Hell in Star Trek V, Scotty had to blow a wall out to get Kirk, Spock and McCoy out of the Enterprise's brig, but for some reason I cannot even begin to fathom Burnham had access and even managed to trick the computer to let her out.

    Do you realize how utterly stupid that is on so many levels? And how many times that could of been utilized previously by officers stuck in that kind of situation but couldn't, but because Burnham...

    Really explain that one to me Lucy.

    It couldn't have used before, because I do not remember a time where the brig was losing atmosphere while people were inside the brig containment.

    I think it was a very clever way of reusing the old Kirk trick of outsmarting a computer with logic, without it resulting in something ridicilous as the computer exploding from it.

    Why shouldn't the computer listen what the person in the brig has to say? What if the prisoners wants to reveal important information to its captors?
    But just because you can talk to it doesn't mean you can make it open the containment field. It needs a very good reason. And the prisoner going to die if it isn't release in some manner is a good reason.
    If a fire breaks out in prison, you'd need to let the inmates leave their cells and maybe even the entire prison complex, too, before you let them burn in it.

    If there had been an officer in the brig (alive), he would have made the same decision. But there wasn't. (Not sure if there was no officer at all,or if he was killed during the battle.)


    ---

    The Vulcan long-range telepathy between Burnham and Sarek was described as being based on Sarek using a dangerous and rarely used Vulcan telepathic technique he used to save his life. So it's has little universal applications, because you don't want to perform dangerous telepathic rituals if a subspace communication link could do the same. It seems to me the occassions it was used and played a part in the story, it was used where it made sense and not conveniently forgotten.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    Now Vulcans being able to do that somehow means there is no need to have subspace comms in the first place and so forth. Plus, again, just too many superpowers at that point in my opinion xD

    There's not enough Vulcans to render subspace communication useless.

    What you've basically said is that because there's hundreds of humans that can run to Olympic levels we don't need cars as a species.

    Also, there is the fact that not every Vulcan will have the same amount of skill in telepathy to achieve interstellar communication. Like every other ability, it requires talent and training to get the most out of it. Even if a Vulcan has the talent to achieve interstellar communication, that doesn't mean they have the training to. So it might be 20 out of a million Vulcan that can communicate with anyone in the Vulcan star system, 20 out of a billion Vulcans that can communicate with anyone in Federation space, and 20 out of a trillion Vulcans that can communicate with anyone in the Milky Way Galaxy.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 34,483 Arc User
    Maybe, just maybe Starfleet realised how daft it was to give prisoners access to the ship's computer and removed it from later designs?
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,809 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    patrickngo wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Maybe, just maybe Starfleet realised how daft it was to give prisoners access to the ship's computer and removed it from later designs?

    lol, no ****.

    No, I'm with @mustrumridcully0 on this one (bottom of page 8 of this thread). IRL if there's a natural disaster of some kind in a prison, like a flood or a hurricane or a major fire, at least in the United States the Department of Corrections in question is required to evacuate the inmates. (Yes, even death row inmates, which you may note, DSC's version of the Federation explicitly outlaws capital punishment per Admiral Cornwell. If it didn't, Burnham might have been sentenced to death for what she did given it was basically a "time of war".) Similarly, with the brig on Shenzhou decompressed and the emergency force fields failing due to battle damage, Burnham's life is in danger. Ergo, her talking the computer into a "humanitarian release" on the grounds that she's going to effing asphyxiate if she isn't set loose is completely plausible.

    If Shenzhou had been intact, it wouldn't have come up.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,241 Arc User
    > @starswordc said:
    > patrickngo wrote: »
    >
    > ryan218 wrote: »
    >
    > Maybe, just maybe Starfleet realised how daft it was to give prisoners access to the ship's computer and removed it from later designs?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > lol, no ****.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > No, I'm with @mustrumridcully0 on this one (bottom of page 8 of this thread). IRL if there's a natural disaster of some kind in a prison, like a flood or a hurricane or a major fire, at least in the United States the Department of Corrections in question is required to evacuate the inmates. (Yes, even death row inmates, which you may note, DSC's version of the Federation explicitly outlaws capital punishment per Admiral Cornwell. If it didn't, Burnham might have been sentenced to death for what she did given it was basically a "time of war".) Similarly, with the brig on Shenzhou decompressed and the emergency force fields failing due to battle damage, Burnham's life is in danger. Ergo, her talking the computer into a "humanitarian release" on the grounds that she's going to effing asphyxiate if she isn't set loose is completely plausible.
    >
    > If Shenzhou had been intact, it wouldn't have come up.

    Except the fact the security officer should of been the one to let her out, not the damn computer.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 34,483 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    > @starswordc said:
    > patrickngo wrote: »
    >
    > ryan218 wrote: »
    >
    > Maybe, just maybe Starfleet realised how daft it was to give prisoners access to the ship's computer and removed it from later designs?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > lol, no ****.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > No, I'm with @mustrumridcully0 on this one (bottom of page 8 of this thread). IRL if there's a natural disaster of some kind in a prison, like a flood or a hurricane or a major fire, at least in the United States the Department of Corrections in question is required to evacuate the inmates. (Yes, even death row inmates, which you may note, DSC's version of the Federation explicitly outlaws capital punishment per Admiral Cornwell. If it didn't, Burnham might have been sentenced to death for what she did given it was basically a "time of war".) Similarly, with the brig on Shenzhou decompressed and the emergency force fields failing due to battle damage, Burnham's life is in danger. Ergo, her talking the computer into a "humanitarian release" on the grounds that she's going to effing asphyxiate if she isn't set loose is completely plausible.
    >
    > If Shenzhou had been intact, it wouldn't have come up.

    Except the fact the security officer should of been the one to let her out, not the damn computer.

    You mean the security officer that was dead? That security officer? Her cell was the only thing in the Brig not enjoying the experience which is explosive decompression. There was no one down there left alive to let her out.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,809 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    talonxv wrote: »
    Except the fact the security officer should of been the one to let her out, not the damn computer.

    Assumes the security officer is A: still alive and B: not dealing with stuff like the ship being half-destroyed. (On a ship in combat, damage control is everybody's job.)
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 2,642 Arc User
    Wasn’t the Power failing?
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 34,483 Arc User
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Wasn’t the Power failing?

    It was. In fact, the computer kept the cell sealed until Burnham devised a plan with the computer that allowed her a decent chance at survival, as opposed to just waiting for the forcefield to fail and blow her out into space.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 9,881 Arc User
    She talked the computer to death since she argued with it that releasing her was the ethical way to go. Which I thought was one of the not-so-terrible things because I love that trope. The following void dive was a bit too much, but the show lives for and from the big pictures.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,554 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    ryan218 wrote: »
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Wasn’t the Power failing?

    It was. In fact, the computer kept the cell sealed until Burnham devised a plan with the computer that allowed her a decent chance at survival, as opposed to just waiting for the forcefield to fail and blow her out into space.
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Wasn’t the Power failing?

    the whole setup was really badly conceived and executed, the proof being the discussion here, (and here on the forums when it aired originally). They were trying to show off how 'clever' Burnham was, but to make the scene make sense, she didn't have to do anything "Clever", just wait for the systems to follow their programming naturally. (the only way her release makes sense).
    The computer wouldn't have come up with that idea on its own, however. It is not something a programmer would have come up and already programmed in the computer, and Starfleet ship computers never show initiative.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,273 Bug Hunter
    talonxv wrote: »
    I can't off the top of my head but I can think of a VERY bad offender.

    Burnham having access to the ship's computer while in the brig for mutiny.

    Hell in Star Trek V, Scotty had to blow a wall out to get Kirk, Spock and McCoy out of the Enterprise's brig, but for some reason I cannot even begin to fathom Burnham had access and even managed to trick the computer to let her out.
    Do you realize how utterly stupid that is on so many levels? And how many times that could of been utilized previously by officers stuck in that kind of situation but couldn't, but because Burnham...

    Really explain that one to me Lucy.

    When has a main character been in the brig when the ship was under attack? Burnham only got out as the brigs protocols are set up so the prisoners aren't allowed to die.

    As for why prisoners have computer access? Well prisoners now can have computer access. Oddly enough they tend to be blocked from accessing the parts of the network that can shut down the prison but they can use it to browse pre-allowed legal help sites or medical sites.

    Also, it's mentioned in VGR that the computer records the dreams of the crewmembers so it's obvious that every single life form on board is under surveillance. Why wouldn't Burnham be able to talk to the omnipresent computer that is specifically keeping a sensor out for prisoner welfare?

    Also note that there was a guard. He died. So I suppose if there's nobody to let them out the prisoners just go down with the ship? As above, we don't do that now in the civilised world so the Federation wouldn't.


    So Lucy says it's a feature not a bug and to try again with these endless examples of 'McGuffins' you found.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,241 Arc User
    > @artan42 said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > I can't off the top of my head but I can think of a VERY bad offender.
    >
    > Burnham having access to the ship's computer while in the brig for mutiny.
    >
    > Hell in Star Trek V, Scotty had to blow a wall out to get Kirk, Spock and McCoy out of the Enterprise's brig, but for some reason I cannot even begin to fathom Burnham had access and even managed to trick the computer to let her out.
    > Do you realize how utterly stupid that is on so many levels? And how many times that could of been utilized previously by officers stuck in that kind of situation but couldn't, but because Burnham...
    >
    > Really explain that one to me Lucy.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > When has a main character been in the brig when the ship was under attack? Burnham only got out as the brigs protocols are set up so the prisoners aren't allowed to die.
    >
    > As for why prisoners have computer access? Well prisoners now can have computer access. Oddly enough they tend to be blocked from accessing the parts of the network that can shut down the prison but they can use it to browse pre-allowed legal help sites or medical sites.
    >
    > Also, it's mentioned in VGR that the computer records the dreams of the crewmembers so it's obvious that every single life form on board is under surveillance. Why wouldn't Burnham be able to talk to the omnipresent computer that is specifically keeping a sensor out for prisoner welfare?
    >
    > Also note that there was a guard. He died. So I suppose if there's nobody to let them out the prisoners just go down with the ship? As above, we don't do that now in the civilised world so the Federation wouldn't.
    >
    >
    > So Lucy says it's a feature not a bug and to try again with these endless examples of 'McGuffins' you found.​​

    I can see many of you have never dealt with security so I'm not even going to bother anymore.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,629 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    As for why prisoners have computer access? Well prisoners now can have computer access. Oddly enough they tend to be blocked from accessing the parts of the network that can shut down the prison but they can use it to browse pre-allowed legal help sites or medical sites.
    ​​

    So...you are saying that prisoners today can have computer access...but not to prison critical systems. Likes say a system that controls the doors of said prisons. You know the system that they gave access to Burnham...because reasons. Seriously, why are people even protecting this level of stupid?!? Have we gotten so dumb that we can't even realize how stupid of an idea it is to give PRISONERS access to systems that CONTROLS THE FRAKING PRISON?!? Like did you even think about this at all before you posted this?!? By your own words, she should NOT have had access to the system she did.

    Seriously, the scene would have worked better if the system protocal automatically just flushed her towards the opened door after doing a quick risk analysis instead of trying to once again show off how fraking awesome Michael effing Burnham is because she can out smart a computer. Bloody moronic in everyway.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 12,800 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    > @artan42 said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > I can't off the top of my head but I can think of a VERY bad offender.
    >
    > Burnham having access to the ship's computer while in the brig for mutiny.
    >
    > Hell in Star Trek V, Scotty had to blow a wall out to get Kirk, Spock and McCoy out of the Enterprise's brig, but for some reason I cannot even begin to fathom Burnham had access and even managed to trick the computer to let her out.
    > Do you realize how utterly stupid that is on so many levels? And how many times that could of been utilized previously by officers stuck in that kind of situation but couldn't, but because Burnham...
    >
    > Really explain that one to me Lucy.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > When has a main character been in the brig when the ship was under attack? Burnham only got out as the brigs protocols are set up so the prisoners aren't allowed to die.
    >
    > As for why prisoners have computer access? Well prisoners now can have computer access. Oddly enough they tend to be blocked from accessing the parts of the network that can shut down the prison but they can use it to browse pre-allowed legal help sites or medical sites.
    >
    > Also, it's mentioned in VGR that the computer records the dreams of the crewmembers so it's obvious that every single life form on board is under surveillance. Why wouldn't Burnham be able to talk to the omnipresent computer that is specifically keeping a sensor out for prisoner welfare?
    >
    > Also note that there was a guard. He died. So I suppose if there's nobody to let them out the prisoners just go down with the ship? As above, we don't do that now in the civilised world so the Federation wouldn't.
    >
    >
    > So Lucy says it's a feature not a bug and to try again with these endless examples of 'McGuffins' you found.​​

    I can see many of you have never dealt with security so I'm not even going to bother anymore.

    The problem is, you are applying modern-day standards to a ficitonal scenario set hundreds of years into the future.



    3U3C0SJ.jpg

  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,629 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    The problem is, you are applying modern-day standards to a ficitonal scenario set hundreds of years into the future.

    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 12,800 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    The problem is, you are applying modern-day standards to a ficitonal scenario set hundreds of years into the future.

    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    Access to prison controls?

    Maybe I missed something? I don't recall Burnham saying "Computer, open the cell" and it happening. Pretty sure there would have been a guard too if not for the fact that most of the brig had been obiterated! These were not normal circumstances!

    As for the method she did use to escape - I find it plasuable. Is it REALLY that big a stretch to beleive that Burnham's query prompted the computer to reference Starfleet policy on ethics and treatment of prisoners (something a computer that advanced could do in seconds) on the matter and determined that she was in fact correct?
    3U3C0SJ.jpg

  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,554 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    The problem is, you are applying modern-day standards to a ficitonal scenario set hundreds of years into the future.

    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    It seems to me that you're making a fundamental different assumption: That Burnham, under the given circumstances, should not be allowed to escape her cell, and you're assuming she exploited a security hole.

    Where in reality, she was using a feature.The fact that she engaged the "ethical subroutines" of the computer was clearly an intended part of the design. The fact that there is an ethical subroutine in the first place should already tell you that. Why would the brig computer ethical subroutines, if it is not supposed to make decisions regarding the prisoners like that in a crisis situation?

    It's kinda like a smoke detector installed in a prison cell. If it detects the smoke in the room reaching life-threatening levels, it opens the cell door.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,273 Bug Hunter
    talonxv wrote: »
    I can see many of you have never dealt with security so I'm not even going to bother anymore.

    Well there's not really any need for you to bother any more as it seems every one of your points have been addressed by people including me. Yes, you made silly points, and yes they were nicely answered, but sure, you're winning bud.
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So...you are saying that prisoners today can have computer access...but not to prison critical systems. Likes say a system that controls the doors of said prisons. You know the system that they gave access to Burnham...because reasons. Seriously, why are people even protecting this level of stupid?!? Have we gotten so dumb that we can't even realize how stupid of an idea it is to give PRISONERS access to systems that CONTROLS THE FRAKING PRISON?!? Like did you even think about this at all before you posted this?!? By your own words, she should NOT have had access to the system she did.

    Seriously, the scene would have worked better if the system protocal automatically just flushed her towards the opened door after doing a quick risk analysis instead of trying to once again show off how fraking awesome Michael effing Burnham is because she can out smart a computer. Bloody moronic in everyway.

    Oh I'm sorry. Did Burnham say' Computer open the door please' and the computer say 'okaydokey mate' and comply? No. Burnham basically used the equivalent of pressing the red panic button used for medical emergencies.
    Did you even think about anything before you posted or just think you were being clever?
    Next time do one of two things (though preferably both) watch the episode you're complaining about or read the post your replying to properly.
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    Never mind the above then. You clearly don't want to. Firstly you imply Star Trek has ever done things sensibly rather than dramatically and secondly you just use another chance to b|tch about DSC. Grow up.
    It seems to me that you're making a fundamental different assumption: That Burnham, under the given circumstances, should not be allowed to escape her cell, and you're assuming she exploited a security hole.

    Where in reality, she was using a feature.The fact that she engaged the "ethical subroutines" of the computer was clearly an intended part of the design. The fact that there is an ethical subroutine in the first place should already tell you that. Why would the brig computer ethical subroutines, if it is not supposed to make decisions regarding the prisoners like that in a crisis situation?

    It's kinda like a smoke detector installed in a prison cell. If it detects the smoke in the room reaching life-threatening levels, it opens the cell door.

    Suuuush! You're doing it wrong. You're reasoning out the correct answer. We're not supposed to do that. It's DSC we're supposed to switch off the reasoning function we're required to use on all other Trek in order to make lazy whining rants about new things.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 34,255 Arc User
    talonxv wrote: »
    > @azrael605 said:
    > Not to mention it only worked with Sarek and Michael because Sarek left a piece of his Katra in Michael to save her life after her school was bombed.

    I guess it's not driving her insane because it was only a piece? And I guess now it can be just split off as needed? Macguffin anyone?
    It only drove McCoy crazy because he had the whole thing and didn't even know what had happened.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,589 Arc User
    > @markhawkman said:
    > talonxv wrote: »
    >
    > > @azrael605 said:
    > > Not to mention it only worked with Sarek and Michael because Sarek left a piece of his Katra in Michael to save her life after her school was bombed.
    >
    > I guess it's not driving her insane because it was only a piece? And I guess now it can be just split off as needed? Macguffin anyone?
    >
    >
    >
    > It only drove McCoy crazy because he had the whole thing and didn't even know what had happened.

    Besides which Archer handled Surak's Katra just fine. Some people really need to take off the rose colored glasses and actually watch the shows for once.
    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,589 Arc User
    Hey guys, lets see someone explain how a guy with no tech at all could block a transporter beam by shear force of will. It's TNG by the way. Nothing? Thats what I thought.
    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 33,270 Arc User
    uh, when did that happen? the only time i remember a transporter beam failing in TNG was when one of those supersoldiers some alien government created to a fight a war, then imprisoned when the war was over, punched his way out of the beam and caused a huge explosion​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    How Game Devs SHOULD be interacted with:
    http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/157238832062/i-remember-your-52080-rule-and-it-was-an-awesome

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"

    "Beware of dog. Or possibly, enhanced, psycho-addicted, cybernetically-enhanced nightstalker death-dealing dog from hell."
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.

    Stand with Star Trek: The Animated Series content for STO! #TASforSTO
  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,629 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    The problem is, you are applying modern-day standards to a ficitonal scenario set hundreds of years into the future.

    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    It seems to me that you're making a fundamental different assumption: That Burnham, under the given circumstances, should not be allowed to escape her cell, and you're assuming she exploited a security hole.

    Where in reality, she was using a feature.The fact that she engaged the "ethical subroutines" of the computer was clearly an intended part of the design. The fact that there is an ethical subroutine in the first place should already tell you that. Why would the brig computer ethical subroutines, if it is not supposed to make decisions regarding the prisoners like that in a crisis situation?

    It's kinda like a smoke detector installed in a prison cell. If it detects the smoke in the room reaching life-threatening levels, it opens the cell door.

    So...now computers are even more stupid than they are now? Designed in a manner that is less efficent than what we have? Okay, so now the stupidity goes from security procedures to the computer programmers than. So there is a ethical program in the computer that is by design there to keep prisoners from dying. Fine. I actually don't have a problem with that. However the computer if it had that should have run the % numbers of different scenerios for that situation, come up with the solution the super Michael effing Burnham had and executed it on it's own. Just like a smoke detector would. A prisoner doesn't have to argue with a smoke detector as to why it should open the door...if the requirements are met, it opens the door...if not, it does not. And that is how a prison control system should work. Not because the prisoner "win" an arguement with it. There should be no arguement period.
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 33,270 Arc User
    we're talking about a people who have forgotten how to build fuses and seatbelts...you expect them to program intelligent security systems?​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    How Game Devs SHOULD be interacted with:
    http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/157238832062/i-remember-your-52080-rule-and-it-was-an-awesome

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"

    "Beware of dog. Or possibly, enhanced, psycho-addicted, cybernetically-enhanced nightstalker death-dealing dog from hell."
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.

    Stand with Star Trek: The Animated Series content for STO! #TASforSTO
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 12,800 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    uh, when did that happen? the only time i remember a transporter beam failing in TNG was when one of those supersoldiers some alien government created to a fight a war, then imprisoned when the war was over, punched his way out of the beam and caused a huge explosion​​

    'The Hunted'

    And I wish those who view TNG through their rose-tinted spectacles would remember that TNG had it's fair share of awfulness. This episode, and that scene in particuar, being a good example.

    Honestly - I can't even think about 'The Hunted' without laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of Danar being able to force his way out of a beam-out. Genetically engineered or not, that's just STUPID.

    I wish those who keep critising every little thing about DSC would keep this sort of nonsense in mind.
    3U3C0SJ.jpg

  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,629 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So...you are saying that prisoners today can have computer access...but not to prison critical systems. Likes say a system that controls the doors of said prisons. You know the system that they gave access to Burnham...because reasons. Seriously, why are people even protecting this level of stupid?!? Have we gotten so dumb that we can't even realize how stupid of an idea it is to give PRISONERS access to systems that CONTROLS THE FRAKING PRISON?!? Like did you even think about this at all before you posted this?!? By your own words, she should NOT have had access to the system she did.

    Seriously, the scene would have worked better if the system protocal automatically just flushed her towards the opened door after doing a quick risk analysis instead of trying to once again show off how fraking awesome Michael effing Burnham is because she can out smart a computer. Bloody moronic in everyway.

    Oh I'm sorry. Did Burnham say' Computer open the door please' and the computer say 'okaydokey mate' and comply? No. Burnham basically used the equivalent of pressing the red panic button used for medical emergencies.
    Did you even think about anything before you posted or just think you were being clever?
    Next time do one of two things (though preferably both) watch the episode you're complaining about or read the post your replying to properly.
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So...hundreds of years in the future, we have becomes so stupid that the security procedure is to give prisoners access to prison controls. k. I didn't realize we were watchinh idiocracy...I thought we were watching star trek. But you know what...with TRIBBLE, you maybe right...it is idiocracy after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    Never mind the above then. You clearly don't want to. Firstly you imply Star Trek has ever done things sensibly rather than dramatically and secondly you just use another chance to b|tch about DSC. Grow up.

    ​​

    When you press a big red emergency button in a PRISON, the prison system does not just open your cell door. It summons a PERSON to make the call. Remember that the computer AI does not have REAL intelligence. That does not happen with an AI until Soong makes Lore and Data and possibly whatever models that comes before...like B4. If you design a prison system where you could just press the big red button and the door opens...guess what sweet pea, you have a security system from idiocracy. I would ask if you think before you post...but your reply gives me a pretty clear idea of the answer to that question. And yes I did watch and read the replies before posting. At least you did that part too.

    As for dramatic over sensible...yeah I get that. But there is a differance between doing the long shot choice and having it work...vs just pure stupidity of the situation to begin with. I am okay with drama that is made by doing the hard thing and having it work out...or not. It gives insight into why a character may do what they do. Stories would really be boring is everyone always made the most sensible choice. But in this case, the drama is caused by shear stupidity of either the security procedure...or the computer programmers being completely inept in application of security procedures. And I didn't realize that me critising a show was me being childish. Or are we not allowed to critise a show YOU like at all. Because you know, going nah nah, you can't say bad things about anything I like is SOOO grown up. Grown ups when faced with critism actually proicess said critism instead of plugging their ears and going nuh uh.
Sign In or Register to comment.