Random thought

Trek Books, Games and General chat
Captain Picard's Hair
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 4042
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Right here.

Random thought

Post by Captain Picard's Hair »

Just something that came to mind: the idea that 24th Century packing crates are indestructible might not be so far-fetched in light of the fact some current packaging already is! Namely, the "clamshell" plastic everything seems to come in these days which requires something on the order of a plasma torch to open. :P

---

You may now return to ... whatever it is you do. Yes, I have in fact taken my meds!
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid." Q, Q Who
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Random thought

Post by Mark »

I've often wondered about that packaging. Oh yes, I've battled it many times. Broke a pair of scissors....dulled a knife or two...ran the chainsaw out of gas....that kind of things. Whose bright idea WAS that?
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
thelordharry
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2603
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:20 pm
Location: UK

Re: Random thought

Post by thelordharry »

Is there any canon evidence that they're indestructible?
“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and
the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to
know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is
to have succeeded.”
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6026
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Random thought

Post by Sonic Glitch »

thelordharry wrote:Is there any canon evidence that they're indestructible?
If you sit long enough someone will mention the numerous times people have taken cover from phasers behind them. This means that either they're indestructible or phasers are stupidly weak.(in some schools of thought)
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
kostmayer
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Random thought

Post by kostmayer »

When Sisko and Eddington take cover behind barrels in Blaze of Glory, Sisko says that they made out of Duridium (something like) and should hold off the Jem'Hadars rifle blasts for a while.

And I hate those plastic packages that once ripped open can slice a finger off.
"You ain't gonna get off down the trail a mile or two, and go missing your wife or something, like our last cook done, are you?"
"My wife is in hell, where I sent her. She could make good biscuits, but her behavior was terrible."
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Random thought

Post by Captain Seafort »

Sonic Glitch wrote:If you sit long enough someone will mention the numerous times people have taken cover from phasers behind them. This means that either they're indestructible or phasers are stupidly weak.(in some schools of thought)
Given that phasers will barely burst a modern tire, the "phasers are stupidly weak" argument is definitely the more likely one.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Random thought

Post by BigJKU316 »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:If you sit long enough someone will mention the numerous times people have taken cover from phasers behind them. This means that either they're indestructible or phasers are stupidly weak.(in some schools of thought)
Given that phasers will barely burst a modern tire, the "phasers are stupidly weak" argument is definitely the more likely one.
They really need to put a BOLD statement in the writers guides on this subject. In some episodes and movies a phaser strike vaporizes the person. In others it seems to be a firm punch. Voyager was the worst on this but all the series had problems. The thing is logically you would not use phasers/disruptors over bullets unless they were more deadly, particularly if you were not the Federation.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Random thought

Post by Captain Seafort »

BigJKU316 wrote:In some episodes and movies a phaser strike vaporizes the person. In others it seems to be a firm punch. Voyager was the worst on this but all the series had problems.
That's no problem - the weapons have variable settings so there's no problem. If you were only likely to encounter one or two enemies, you could afford to crank the power up to be certain of a kill. If, however, you were likely to be in a prolonged firefight, you'd be better off reducing the power to a level that will probably kill your enemy, but will give you a much greater number of shots
The thing is logically you would not use phasers/disruptors over bullets unless they were more deadly
Lethality is not the only consideration - if one weapon is slightly less effective than another but has a much greater ammunition capacity, then there's a good case for using the less destructive one. Similarly, if you were the Federation flexibility is important - they apparently want their weapons to be able to stun and heat as well as kill, and are willing the accept reduced stopping power to achieve this. Don't forget that, while phasers are pretty weak against rock, metal, etc, they are very effective against people. Don't mistake their limitations for a lack of lethality.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Random thought

Post by Mark »

I always chalked it up to the shooter choosing "underkill" and opposed to "overkill". They seem to keep the weapon at a lower than optimal setting.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Random thought

Post by BigJKU316 »

Captain Seafort wrote:
BigJKU316 wrote:In some episodes and movies a phaser strike vaporizes the person. In others it seems to be a firm punch. Voyager was the worst on this but all the series had problems.
That's no problem - the weapons have variable settings so there's no problem. If you were only likely to encounter one or two enemies, you could afford to crank the power up to be certain of a kill. If, however, you were likely to be in a prolonged firefight, you'd be better off reducing the power to a level that will probably kill your enemy, but will give you a much greater number of shots
The thing is logically you would not use phasers/disruptors over bullets unless they were more deadly
Lethality is not the only consideration - if one weapon is slightly less effective than another but has a much greater ammunition capacity, then there's a good case for using the less destructive one. Similarly, if you were the Federation flexibility is important - they apparently want their weapons to be able to stun and heat as well as kill, and are willing the accept reduced stopping power to achieve this. Don't forget that, while phasers are pretty weak against rock, metal, etc, they are very effective against people. Don't mistake their limitations for a lack of lethality.
Yeah, I am more or less saying that in a new sereis they ought to exercise much tighter writing control and keep them from having main characters take a shot from a race that clearly won't have a stun setting on a phaser/disruptor in the chest and shake it off in a few minutes.

If you don't want main characters to die then stop having them get shot all the time.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Random thought

Post by Captain Seafort »

BigJKU316 wrote:Yeah, I am more or less saying that in a new sereis they ought to exercise much tighter writing control and keep them from having main characters take a shot from a race that clearly won't have a stun setting on a phaser/disruptor in the chest and shake it off in a few minutes.
Why would any race "clearly not have a stun setting"? Prisoners are useful - you can obtain intelligence from them.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Random thought

Post by BigJKU316 »

Captain Seafort wrote:
BigJKU316 wrote:Yeah, I am more or less saying that in a new sereis they ought to exercise much tighter writing control and keep them from having main characters take a shot from a race that clearly won't have a stun setting on a phaser/disruptor in the chest and shake it off in a few minutes.
Why would any race "clearly not have a stun setting"? Prisoners are useful - you can obtain intelligence from them.
Well I think on screen the Breen and Jem-Hadar both were stated to have only kill settings on their weapons at one point or another. And there are lots of situations where it is clear someone would not be using such a setting and someone gets shot and acts like they were hardly hurt.
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Random thought

Post by Mark »

Or weapons that at least consistantly char a uniform.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Random thought

Post by McAvoy »

Mark wrote:I've often wondered about that packaging. Oh yes, I've battled it many times. Broke a pair of scissors....dulled a knife or two...ran the chainsaw out of gas....that kind of things. Whose bright idea WAS that?
Believe it or not but one of those packages did slice open whatever that fleshy tendon between your thumb and forefinger. I'd rather go through a torture of a thousand paper cuts than go through the healing of that cut!
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
thelordharry
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2603
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:20 pm
Location: UK

Re: Random thought

Post by thelordharry »

Random thought:

I wonder what would happen if, take for example, your personal replicator in your crew quarters on your starship or your quarters on DS9, you ordered something from your replicator, say a cup or tea, Earl Grey, cold but accidentally put your hand in it whilst your order was materialising. Could that happen? If so, would a safety feature stop the process? Is there a temporary forcefield around the replicator as it produces? I'd hate to walk around with a cup in my hand...
“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and
the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to
know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is
to have succeeded.”
Post Reply