Transwarp

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:55 pm

If a person is taller than another, then he is quite probably tall. But if everyone was as tall as that person, he is no longer tall. It's all a matter of relation - tall, big, small, ontop, behind... All relation to your perspective. In the matter of trans/warp, your perspective is warp. So anything faster than warp is transwarp.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:26 am

Good point, Thorin.

Teaos wrote:In my book you dont give something a new name unless its new and not just a modification.

I don't like it too much either, but it is done all the time - esp. in military or paramilitary parlance.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:53 am

Look at TV's. We have Plasma, LCE and the old fashion ones yet we still call the TV's and only sometimes refer to them by the more specific term.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:58 am

But the people who invented the technology would absolutely call it something to differentiate it from the previous generation - as Starfleet did in our little hypothesis.[/quote]

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:40 pm

Teaos wrote:Look at TV's. We have Plasma, LCE and the old fashion ones

You mean the CRT ones

A flow of electrons that cause light and magnets move this light about

Hardly old fashioned, they're still better than all other types of TV except plasma (which cost some bazillion quid).

DarkOmen · Post by **DarkOmen** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:15 pm

As far as i know, the best CRT's are still better than plasmas as far as accuracy of picture with regards to correct Chrominance and luminance.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:22 pm

Exhibit B; Transwarp to Plasma TVs.

'Nuff said...

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:20 pm

DarkOmen wrote:As far as i know, the best CRT's are still better than plasmas as far as accuracy of picture with regards to correct Chrominance and luminance.

You are correct. Old-style tube TV's have better color reproduction - esp. black - and a far wider viewing angle without loss of apparent resolution. Plus, they're relatively cheap. The only problem is that they only go up to 34" diagonal, and they weigh a buttload.

PS Peabody - you don't have to build a case. We already know what happens here - in fact, we've even named it. It's called "TR-116 syndrome."

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:30 pm

I was always under the impression plasmas were better, not because they are more expensive or bigger, simply because they make a better picture.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:58 pm

Not only that but when you buy a plasma a mount it on your wall you prove what a big man you are

DarkOmen · Post by **DarkOmen** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:37 am

well this is what wikipedia had to say about it...

Wikipedia wrote:CRTs are also still popular in the printing and broadcasting industries as well as in the professional video, photography, and graphics fields due to their greater color fidelity and contrast, better resolution when displaying moving images, and better view from angles, although improvements in flat panel technology increasingly alleviate these concerns.

i know its not plasma specifically, but plasma and lcd can be grouped together as flat panel

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:50 am

Plasma and LCD are getting closer, but still aren't quite as good as tube TV's.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:36 am

Plasma also throws out a lot of heat. It is almost like having a heater in a room.

But the convenience of having a TV you can hang on the wall is worth it to some people.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:40 am

And while it's not really a factor for most people, plasmas only last for a few tens of thousands of hours of operation.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:50 pm

How the hell did the conversation change from transwarp, to TVs?

Damn TR-116 syndrome...