Your Garage Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Maxwell Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

"Star Trek" and Real Science


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 511 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 10:03:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 18, 2010 10:10:07 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Actually, it was Spock that had the Tricorder, but there is a new handheld medical device called a lab-on-a-chip. A drop of blood and fifteen minutes for results. This could revolutionize medical diagnoses on the street or in remote areas."

This isn't a tricorder other than by the journalist's imagination. Sadly it is more limited than that article or related news releases indicate. At present it only includes a means of detecting anti-HIV antibodies or syphilis markers, with a variant that can detect prostate disease markers.

There's a more meaningful description of the device here:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/lab-fits-your-hand

Simply nicknaming a device a tricorder doesn't make it anything like one, and the name has been applied to other commercial devices such as Vital Technologies Corporation's official tricorder, which simply included a few meters and a clock, and there have been others.

Rather than illustrating a connection between Star Trek and 'real science' this serves to demonstrate how much Star Trek has penetrated the popular imagination. Lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices are becoming more common but they also suffer a variety of drawbacks such as a reduction in accuracy compared with conventional analysis.

Posted on Oct 18, 2010 11:58:28 AM PDT
The Dukester says:
"Listen, jerk, if six billion people decided to jump up and down in unison one day, I GUARANTEE you there would be some sort of worldwide geological repercussion ..."

The single funniest thing I have ever read. God, I love the internet.

(Also the single STUPIDEST thing I've ever read. I mean that literally; I've never encountered such a stupid thought. That's a separate topic, though).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 5:08:25 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
"(And, for the record, I never called RC a 'Amazon-paid attack-troll'. Just more inflammatory gibberish so he can get attention at any cost ...)"

Sorry, folks, but Marilyn is lying and I'm not going to let it go. In the Psychology forum on August 23 in her "Beyond Mean - Girls Who Are Violent Are On The Rise" thread, Marilyn posted:

"You've obviously got buds at Amazon protecting you, otherwise you would have been banished years ago. So what, did they hire you as their attack-poster to try and run off the more intelligent and sensitive posters, who might have something interesting and relevant to offer? Well, I'm not going anywhere. I can smell evil a mile away anymore, and anti-intellectual cyber-parasites like you are no longer going to bully me."

Yes? Do you deny posting that? Or had you forgotten it? That was part of a rant that followed another goof that also resulted from your having misread and misunderstood something posted on ... wait for it ... my dot-Mac/MobileMe homepage! I bet you rue the day you found and posted a link to that old site, huh? LOL

You're never going to admit you made a mistake, are you? :)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 7:36:58 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

OK, I'm cool. I just wanted to point out the pitfalls of "painting with a broad brush," as the saying goes.

TO: Everyone
It would be nice, however, if the acrimony would cease and we could get back to a topic of discussion - any topic.

Posted on Oct 18, 2010 7:53:43 PM PDT
The Dukester says:
Walter --

Acrimony?!?! BITE ME!

Ha! Kidding!

Here's a new topic: you are named after one of my favorite baseball players ever. Seriously.

Unless ... wait a minute ... you're not THAT Walter Johnson, are you? That would be too cool.

(Of course, you'd be about 140 years old now, too ...)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 7:54:35 PM PDT
TO: Marilyn Martin

Thanks for the heads-up on the new handheld medical device. Actually, there are already many HMDs on the market. Just Google "handheld medical devices."

I'm sorry to say that your link didn't work, both when I clicked on it and when I copied and pasted. I have seen the article earlier today, but perhaps it has been taken down.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 7:57:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 18, 2010 8:03:30 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
I have to wonder, Walter, about the quality of "discussion" possible with people who neither admit nor even acknowledge their continuing errors and misrepresentations.

Edit: I just tried the link and, for a change, it worked. There's also this URL in the blurb, with more info:

http://news.columbia.edu/record/2189#

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 8:44:16 PM PDT
TO: The Dukester

RE: "...you are named after one of my favorite baseball players ever."

Yes, I know. He was a pitcher for the Washington Senators. Here's another one for you. There was a Walter Johnson who played for the Cleveland Browns and, at the end of his career, for the Cincinnati Bengals. In fact, he and I went to the same high school - he was four years ahead of me. There's also a Walter R. [same initial] Johnson who's a professor emeritus in theoretical physics at Notre Dame University.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 8:49:39 PM PDT
TO: Ronald Craig

Thanks for the link; it was very informative.

Posted on Oct 18, 2010 8:50:53 PM PDT
SandRider says:
Photoscribe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]
To SandRider....
You SPHINCTER!! If you don't take that BS down that RIGHT-FREAKING-NOW, I [[WILL]] sue your bleeding arse DRY!!! And apologize profusely after you do, you son of a......
Dude, you just opened a can of worms that's going to feast on your body!!
Reply to this post

ummmmmm ...... no.
I'll not delete or retract anything; apparently you completely missed my point about empty threats of legal action;
BTW, do you not realize how stupid a Philly goomba sounds using a phrase like "bleeding arse" ? Or a fifty-eight year old
sci-fi Geek saying "Dude" ? And my goodness, such namecalling .... and cyber-bullying, too, simply ORDERING me to
delete a post, in such threatening tones ....

ah well. this here ain't my first rodeo, pardner ... like I said before : sue me.
I triple dog-dare you ....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 9:33:23 PM PDT
Photoscribe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2010 9:42:39 PM PDT
The Dukester says:
" ... I fully intend to talk to a lawyer at the earliest convenience ... "

Empty words uttered by every Internet Tough Guy since the beginning of time. Sound and fury, signifying less than nothing.

You won't be talking to anyone. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Stop wasting our time, Jethro.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 1:27:23 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 3:45:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2010 3:48:03 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 19, 2010 4:31:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2010 4:34:24 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
La la la, blithely she blunders on... "Me, make a mistake?! What mistake, where?! Misunderstanding? What did I not understand?! Misrepresentation?! Who, me?! Oh, perish the thought!"

Marilyn, you are beyond belief and beneath contemptible. And showing yourself to be thoroughly dishonest and lacking in personal integrity.

Behold the reality of the courageous "seeker of truth"! Utterly ridiculous.

And to think I was actually starting to feel a little sorry for you, fearing you might actually be going senile early. Hah! I won't make that mistake again.

Posted on Oct 19, 2010 4:42:26 AM PDT
SandRider says:
Steven Turner sez:"Now...one more chance...TAKE IT DOWN AND APOLOGIZE!!! "

well ... I've already said "no" once, and then triple-dog-dared you ... I don't think there's another level after that ....
and, "at your earliest convenience, you intend to talk to" :
A) "a lawyer." ?
B) "your lawyer." ?

like I said, this ain't my first rodeo, but it is apparently yours ...
in the interest of leveling the playing field for you, allow me to make some suggestions:

The Thistle Law Firm
1845 Walnut St., Suite 2350 Philadelphia PA 19103-4799
Phone: 866-711-1879
-personal injury lawyers, firm has 2 of the Top Ten Rainmakers in Philadelphia, but they specialize in suing doctors & hospitals for malpractice ... there may be a junior partner willing to take on internet troll cases ... I'm sure they'd be willing to take a retainer from you to look into it ...

Richard Seidel
Law Offices of Richard S. Seidel, PC
121 South Broad Street, 20th floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 267-343-9270
Fax: 267-809-8224
- Rich is NOT on the Top Ten Rainmakers in Philadelphia list, he specializes in suing small mom&pop businesses for slip&fall, & etc; he'll be willing to take a retainer as well, but only in cash delivered by hand to his office ...

Heiligman & Mogul, P.C.
135 South 19th Street, Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (866) 626-3073
- firm also has 2 of the Top Ten Rainmakers in Philadelphia, one being the named partner, S. Stacy Mogul; (Heiligman's officially retired, after successfully suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals & Barr Laboratories over the YAZ oral contraceptive controversy - netted the firm over $6billion, of which he received 97% - last seen in the American Virgin Islands, but he might be willing to look into your case - for an adequate retainer ... you can contact him at Lavender Hill, St. John, USVI (914) 725-7800)

Gay Chacker & Mittin, P.C.
1731 Spring Garden Street
Philadelphia, PA 19130
Phone: 215-789-9359
Toll Free: 866-371-5853
Fax: 215-567-6809
- this firm "se habla espanol"s, if that's important to you;
they also have a satellite office in Bustleton:
1726 Welsh Road, First Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19116

if you're looking for something a little more down-scale,
Dansky,Katz,Ringold,& York have a Philadelphia office:
One Liberty Place
52nd Floor, 1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ph: 1-800-609-7577
you'll never meet any of the named partners, but they have
a big staff of young go-getters; the firm specializes in
nursing home abuse, so maybe you could play your age
angle with them ... they take Social Security and SSI
checks for retainers, so it'd be no money out of your
pocket (up front, anyway)

oh, and I almost forgot Metzger & Kleiner;
I'd say something about what kind of sharks these
two are, but they WOULD sue me ...
2 Penn Center, Suite 1204
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-567-6616
Toll Free: 866-847-4170
Fax: 215-561-6326

also, here is FBI guidelines for reporting Internet Crimes:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.htm

but that's just going to tell you to report your complaint
to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (ICCC):
http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

in the mean time, I'll be debating if I want to follow thru with the second phase of this,
as promised in my OP, and post the libelous statement about you on each of your book
pages here at amazon - that WOULD most likely get this account banned, tho - and the
good lord knows I cringed at having to purchase a product thru this site all those years
ago just to get posting privileges on their "customer pages" in the first place; but,
sometimes sacrifices have to be made, I suppose, if only to prove a point ...

wait ... what was that point again ?

oh yeah ... people who type IMMA SUE U in all caps on public forums are internet cancer ...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 7:03:24 AM PDT
The Dukester says:
"Watch me, jackass."

Whatever, retard.

(Seriously, are you really trying to claim some sort of moral high ground while spewing all of these insults? You do more name-calling than a third-grader.)

Posted on Oct 19, 2010 8:24:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2010 9:36:42 AM PDT
Yog-Sothoth says:
...and so, what could have been an interesting discussion has devolved into infantile name-calling and pre-pubescent threats...

My first impression of the OP was to point out that many of the "fantastic, sci-fi" gadgets and gizmos of the 1966 series has, indeed become reality today. Despite the opinion of a previous poster that Star Trek was not only bad science, but bad entertainment as well, ponder the "gadgets and gizmos" that were presented as only available in the 23rd Century:
1. a communication device that is no bigger than a man's wallet (actually they are smaller)
2. A hand-held computer (could any computer from the 1960's out-perform one of today's IPhone or Droid?)
3. Computer data storage media containing gigabytes of info, no larger than a soda cracker (again, we have devices even smaller)
4. The "ship's computer" - a primitive example of today's WWW.
5. "Medical scanners" which give 3-D images of the internal structure of the body, that can be rotated, manipulated in virtual reality to see effects of possible progression of injuries, and ways to "virtually practice/trial-and-error" medical procedures, without actually cutting someone open. McCoy's med beds could't do that (not on TV anyway)

Those are just a few examples. Much of the technology we have TODAY, if it had been written into a Star Trek script, could very well have been rejected as "too way out, even for the 23rd Century".

So lighten up. This IS the "Science FICTION" Forum - not "Plausibility Fiction", or even "Hard Science (ONLY) Fiction"; such a narrow acceptance would exclude many of the "classics", from Verne and Wells to Bradbury, Heinlein, and Pohl.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 8:48:31 AM PDT
The Dukester says:
" ... what could have been an interesting discussion ..."

Um ... you realize this is the same discussion where some are claiming that lots of people jumping up and down at the same time can actually affect the planet, right?

This thread officially died at that point. It's just impossible to recover from something so stupid.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 9:15:34 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 19, 2010 10:08:10 AM PDT
The Dukester says:
LAWL! It's been a while since I was in college, that's for sure.

Christsakes, take a deep breath, man. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Also, there's an easy answer to your question: what sets people off is your childish name-calling and continual use of threats. You're a classic Internet Tough Guy.

Stop acting like a cartoon. Grow up.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 10:44:48 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
LBOM,

Whilst there's a similarity between some of the technology portrayed in the original Star Trek series and technology today, it is often superficial, and one did not follow the other.

"1. a communication device that is no bigger than a man's wallet (actually they are smaller)"

Mobile 'phones have a relatively short range - to the nearest local antenna, and cannot reach up to even near Earth orbit, never mind further. Satellite 'phones do have a greater reach, but they are quite large, and if there's no satellite in range...

"2. A hand-held computer (could any computer from the 1960's out-perform one of today's IPhone or Droid?)
3. Computer data storage media containing gigabytes of info, no larger than a soda cracker (again, we have devices even smaller)
4. The "ship's computer" - a primitive example of today's WWW."

Unfortunately, a tricorder with its triad of functions divided into geological, meteorological, and biological, far out performs any multifunction sensor suite available today. Star Trek's computer technology is a mixture of seriously low powered (limited memory and processing speed) and seriously high powered - the ship's computer seems to have been a far more powerful AI than anything we can build today.

"5 "Medical scanners" which give 3-D images of the internal structure of the body, that can be rotated, manipulated in virtual reality to see effects of possible progression of injuries, and ways to "virtually practice/trial-and-error" medical procedures, without actually cutting someone open. McCoy's med beds could't do that (not on TV anyway)."

No, but McCoy's med beds could perform some significant noninvasive scanning, and his med scanner used with his tricorder still out performed in versatility and capability any hand-held lab-in-a-chip devices.

So some Star Trek predictions are partially in place, but others are still way-out-there.

I note with amusement that my serious and on-topic post at the top of page 5 has gained one (positive) vote, whilst other posts have many more votes. A number on previous pages have actually 'disappeared' due to negative votes... Hmm, it's a good thing we won't be in a First Contact situation any time in the near to far future... "We come in peace... Set phasers to kill!"

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2010 12:05:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2010 12:05:50 PM PDT
TO: Marilyn Martin

Yeah, the link works this time. Thanks. By the way, here's a better article on this HMD: http://news.columbia.edu/record/2189.

Posted on Oct 19, 2010 3:01:49 PM PDT
SandRider says:
college age .... wow ....

for someone who's going to "sue my bleeding arse dry", you haven't done any internet research on me?
(I've certainly done some on you!) from my profile page here, you should've easily tracked me back to
my lair .... some might say your age and lack of l33T webskillz would cover this lack of preparedness ...
surely your website looks to be the work of someone more comfortable with an Atari 2600, but that excuse
really doesn't fly very far with me .... still, again, in the interest of leveling this horribly tilted playing field,
I'll give you a hand ...

now don't get scared by this link, Stevie, it's called a "TinyURL" { tinyurl.com } and people use it
to shorten what would ordinarily be a very long web address, for Twitters and such; I'm using it here
because this discussion page doesn't parse URLs, which means it doesn't make links active (blue, so you
can just click them and the webpage will load) - like walter's link above - you have to highlight the
address and copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser (if you don't understand any of
that, I can explain it to you as well); my home webpage is buried so deep inside another, much
larger, website that the address would line-break, and I don't think you could figure out how to make
it work ...

so don't panic, it's not a trap, or a link to a virus, or to a Russian Mafia child porn site so that your IP
address gets logged by the FBI, it's just a tinyURL ..... mmm'kay?

http://tinyurl.com/2dkekwk

Posted on Oct 20, 2010 1:54:31 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011 2:00:41 PM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  511
Initial post:  Sep 24, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions