I now know what it feels like...

[Deathstalker]

to bring education to the unenlightened. Someone brought up sci-fi ranakings on the SW Mini Battle group I'm on, and of course someone said Trek had better tech, and of course I had to speak up. I tried to refrain from posting to much, in that it is not on topic for the group, but I'm tempted to reply again because of this.

Star Wars has a far far superior level of technology than Star Trek, specifically the Federation's tech. >

This is the geekiest of all possible discussions, but that
won't stop me from
speaking up. Sorry, much as I prefer SW, Trek has about the
highest tech
level you can have. Matter creation, transporting, and
semi-reliable time travel
all pretty much trump the lightsaber. The SW universe is
incapable of making a
vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere; amd
the mightiest war
machine ever assembled, which wholly relied on technology,
was brought down by a
bunch of backwater pilots, fish people, and teddy bears.
You might say the
Force gives SW an edge, but that's hardly tech level. And
let's not even have a
discussion about how much more advanced the androids are.
Of course, it isn't
SW's aim to have the highest tech, but merely workable
tech, and that's great.
But just as a matter of (dorkus maximus) discussion...

This is after I had brought up a few points of superior SW tech. I can't decide to refute each thing or simply let it go.

[Zaia]

Er, I'm pretty sure this is what the SW vs. ST forum is for. Thread moved.

[Frank Hipper]

Matter...creation?

The Fleshlight folks need to make us an SSD dildo for times like these...has anyone explained to moronicus horribili that replicators need a store of raw materials?

[Deathstalker]

After class tonight I may post again to refute everything he said. I'm just as tempted to let it go, as it isn't relevant to the group. I posted a link to the main site in an earlier post, apparenetly he didn't read it. The whole can't build a flying vehicle bigger than a car is what i focused on.

[Dillon]

the mightiest war
machine ever assembled, which wholly relied on technology,
was brought down by a
bunch of backwater pilots, fish people, and teddy bears.

That has to be worst use of the style over substance fallacy I've ever seen.

And what the hell does "it wholly relied on technology" mean? What else does he expect a technological device to rely on?

You can just tell he was when he wrote this:
"Trek has about the
highest tech
level you can have."

God Almighty.

[Nick Lancaster]

This is the geekiest of all possible discussions, but that
won't stop me from
speaking up. Sorry, much as I prefer SW, Trek has about the
highest tech
level you can have.

Trek has an apparent high standard of living, as evinced by the devotion to space and luxury (note Scotty's reaction in TNG: Relics to his quarters).

Matter creation, transporting, and semi-reliable time travel all pretty much trump the lightsaber.

Matter creation? Hello? Einstein needs to RTFTM.

Transporting? Transportation is not applicable in all situations, and carries risks of its own (as highlighted by any number of episodes).

Semi-reliable time travel? Why would you want to use a 'semi-reliable' method of time travel? How is this advanced in any sense of the word?

On the other hand, the lightsaber is a compact plasma weapon with an incredibly small power cell. That's right - it's an electro-plasma stream in a handheld device.

The SW universe is incapable of making a vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere ...

And where have we seen this in Trek? How does one distinguish 'hover' from 'flight'?

... and the mightiest war machine ever assembled, which wholly relied on technology, was brought down by a bunch of backwater pilots, fish people, and teddy bears.

Actually, it was brought down by a bunch of ex-military and commercial pilots, 'fish people' who design incredibly sleek and capable starships, and a kid using this non-tech Force shit and a lightsaber. The teddy bears didn't destroy any ships; they outnumbered the troops on the ground. (There is also no evidence that Federation ground forces would fare any better against the Ewoks.)

You might say the Force gives SW an edge, but that's hardly tech level.

And Q could turn you into a three-toed sloth, but that's hardly tech level.

And let's not even have a discussion about how much more advanced the androids are.

Irrelevant. Soong designed his android to duplicate a broad array of human functions; droids in SW are specialized. You are judging this on the basis of Data's appearance, that is, fully humanoid.

Furthermore, it is shown that Soong-type androids are rare ... Data, Lore, Julianna Tayner, B4. Lal, Data's attempt at creating an android, failed. Droids in SW are plentiful and affordable by most people.

Of course, it isn't SW's aim to have the highest tech, but merely workable
tech, and that's great.
But just as a matter of (dorkus maximus) discussion...

Both have energy weapons; Star Wars' weapons are shown to be more powerful.

Both have interstellar communications; Star Wars' HoloNet is shown to be real-time. Star Trek's subspace radio is not - Kirk was often in the position of having to notify Starfleet and then take action before he got a response.

Both have FTL travel; Star Wars' hyperspace is shown to be superior to warp speed by distance traveled over time.

Point is, anyone can take selected comparators and make a case for either Trek or Wars. And it's rather telling when the 'superior technology of Trek' gets its ass stomped by the Empire.

[Darth Servo]

This is the geekiest of all possible discussions, but that won't stop me from speaking up.

So he admits he's a geek. At least he starts OUT honest.

Sorry, much as I prefer SW, Trek has about the highest tech level you can have. Matter creation, transporting, and semi-reliable time travel all pretty much trump the lightsaber.

IF the light saber were the highest piece of technology in SW, he MIGHT have a point. Unfortunately for him, it its. What about 900 km battlestations that can travel across the galaxy within a day? Why not use THAT as the comparison technology?

As for his examles...

Matter creation: bullshit. See the database on this webpage for numerous examples of things they couldn't replicate. And as pointed out before in this thread, replicators don't create matter. They simply rearrange it at the molecular level.

Transporters: there are SO many things that screw them up that they are essentially a non-issue in combat (just like we see on the show--transporters almost NEVER used in combat and when it is used, its used to board the enemy ship, not transport the crew off or beam bombs in like Trekkie would like it to do).

Time Travel: see Mike's "Favorite Trekkie Arguments" on his "Essays" page for why this would be useless in the debate.

The SW universe is incapable of making a vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere

I guess I was imagining things, seeing those 700 meter Acclamators in AOTC, eh?

amd the mightiest war machine ever assembled, which wholly relied on technology, was brought down by a bunch of backwater pilots, fish people, and teddy bears.

He actually thinks insulting the characters in the film is a valid point? Like MOST Trekkie he thinks he can ignore any canon facts that don't fit his preconceived notions like "superior numbers and strength and knowledge of the terrain" in those "Teddy Bears", the Stormtroopers being handicapped by orders to take prisoners alive, those "fish people" commanding starships that were nerely as powerful as the ISDs, etc.

You might say the Force gives SW an edge, but that's hardly tech level.

So what?

And let's not even have a discussion about how much more advanced the androids are.[/quote]No, no, we wouldn't want to embarass Data again.

Of course, it isn't SW's aim to have the highest tech, but merely workable tech, and that's great.

Yep, workable tech IS superior to tech that breaks down every other episode.

But just as a matter of (dorkus maximus) discussion...

Dorkus maximus discussion in which HE freely participates?

[Stark]

Point out the AOTC repulsor-supported landing pad: a SW ship (with the fuel mass that entails) lands on a maybe meter thick pad sticking out in the middle of nowhere and it doesn't move. The repulsors exactly reacted to the mass before it could sink or roll or whatever. 'No larger than a car' my ass.

[Darth Servo]

Point out the AOTC repulsor-supported landing pad: a SW ship (with the fuel mass that entails) lands on a maybe meter thick pad sticking out in the middle of nowhere and it doesn't move. The repulsors exactly reacted to the mass before it could sink or roll or whatever. 'No larger than a car' my ass.

I thought that was in TPM.

[Lord Revan]

Point out the AOTC repulsor-supported landing pad: a SW ship (with the fuel mass that entails) lands on a maybe meter thick pad sticking out in the middle of nowhere and it doesn't move. The repulsors exactly reacted to the mass before it could sink or roll or whatever. 'No larger than a car' my ass.

I thought that was in TPM.

It on both remember what happened in the beggining of AOTC.

[Old Plympto]

The SW universe is incapable of making a vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere;

Aaaaaand, how did the Acclamators land on Geonosis in the first place? Did they glide in with gravity / airfoils and touch down on landing wheels, then deploy braking thrusters to come to a complete stop?

What about the Acclamators taking off at Coruscant? Cables from some sort of orbital station pulling them up to space before they actually begin their powered flight?

[Ra]

Not only the Acclamator, the Victory-class, which while not able to land, can fly in the atmosphere as well. That's a much bigger ship. What does Starfleet have that can fly in the atmosphere? The Intrepid-class !
- Ra

[Deathstalker]

A Galaxy class can land in an atmosphere, after it loses that pesky engineering hull! I don't have a clue what the hell he was talking about when mentioning the air vehicles. I guess he only remembered the snowspeeders and cloud cars, forgetting the cloud cars were escorting a spaceship in an atmosphere, and the numerous examples of spaceships landing on planets. That settles it, I'll reply tonight and let everyone know the results, if any.

[Darth Servo]

A Galaxy class can land in an atmosphere, after it loses that pesky engineering hull! I don't have a clue what the hell he was talking about when mentioning the air vehicles. I guess he only remembered the snowspeeders and cloud cars, forgetting the cloud cars were escorting a spaceship in an atmosphere, and the numerous examples of spaceships landing on planets.

He was probably thinking about Luke's land speeder and nothing else. Trektards tend to have nasty cases of tunnel vision, as well as their....other bad habbits.

[Mad]

The SW universe is incapable of making a vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere

So what was Cloud City doing?

[Slartibartfast]

If you want hover-only vehicles, don't forget Jabba's barge.

[Darth Yoshi]

The SW universe is incapable of making a vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere

So what was Cloud City doing?

That's a good one. It's blatantly obvious, but people forget about just the same. Well, I certainly did.

As for advanced androids, how many languages does Data know?

[Deathstalker]

Deathstalker's reply, with added thoughts in ( ):

> This is the geekiest of all possible discussions, but that won't stop me from
> speaking up. Sorry, much as I prefer SW, Trek has about the highest tech
> level you can have. Matter creation, transporting, and semi-reliable time travel
> all pretty much trump the lightsaber.

Matter cannot be created, replicators only rearrange matter, and can only do so on a small scale, such as food and tools, not starships. I wouldn't get on a transporter unless my life depended on it, and I surely wouldn't trust "semi-reliable" time travel. If it was reliable, it would be used constantly to fix mistakes.

(Transporter and time travel response was weak on my part, but to make it stronger would have required a much longer response.)

> The SW universe is incapable of making a
> vehicle larger than a car that hovers in atmosphere;

I'm not sure what movies you were watching, but I have seen, in ascending order, airspeeders(Rebel snowspeeders, cloud cars), starfighters(X-wings, Ywings, small transports (Republic Gunships), large space transports (Trade Fed landers and Republic Acclamators), and a floating city(Cloud City) to name a few all operate in an atmosphere. Plenty of other examples in the Expanded Universe, the Floating Fortress from the WEG Imperial Source book comes to mind.

>amd the mightiest war
> machine ever assembled, which wholly relied on technology, was brought down by a
> bunch of backwater pilots,

Former military and commercial pilots

(someone here mentioned this, I couldn't top it, thanks!)

> fish people

Who are capable of building starships that can hold their own against Imperial starships

>, and teddy bears.

Who had a temporary advantage of numbers and knowledge of the terrain. After the initial suprise, the tide was turning against the "teddy bears" until the capture of an AT/ST by a Wookie

You might say the
> Force gives SW an edge, but that's hardly tech level. And let's not even have a
> discussion about how much more advanced the androids are.

I can count on my hand the number of androids in the ST universe. There are billions in use in the SW univers.

Of course, it isn't
> SW's aim to have the highest tech, but merely workable tech, and that's great.

It still has better tech, and tech that works a lot better than ST tech.

> But just as a matter of (dorkus maximus) discussion...
>

I can keep this up all day long.

> Creationism is ignorance writ large.

About the only thing you have right.
(He's not completly ingnorant, this was in his email sig)

I'll post it again for anyone interested in the SWvsST debate:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html

[Old Plympto]

Matter cannot be created, replicators only rearrange matter,...

I can imagine your buddy citing Tom Riker as a reference of "creating matter out of nothing".

[Sephirius]

about the data=more advanced thing, what about Guri (sp) from SoTE? if I recall correctly, she cost 9 million credits (which implies manufacturing ability) and there were other examples of droids of her type around. Plus, they are indistinguishable from human, which clearly trumps Data.

[Firefox]

Don't forget the fact that Data et. al. were apparently very hard to perfect. IIRC, Soong made two prototypes that failed before creating Lore, and even he malfunctioned before Data was made. (Of course, this is ignoring B-4, but I don't know where he fits into this scheme.)

There are also a number of androids shown in TOS, but were never seen again. They weren't examples of Federation technology, however.

And as for hovering objects in Trek, Stratos is the largest one that comes to mind, and it was only floating above an Earth-like planet. The DSII floating above Endor using repulsors is a more impressive example, not to mention that Cloud City was working against the gravity of a gas giant.

[Darth Servo]

Don't forget the fact that Data et. al. were apparently very hard to perfect. IIRC, Soong made two prototypes that failed before creating Lore, and even he malfunctioned before Data was made. (Of course, this is ignoring B-4, but I don't know where he fits into this scheme.)

And anyone who thinks B-4 is superior to your typical SW droid is on drugs.

There are also a number of androids shown in TOS, but were never seen again. They weren't examples of Federation technology, however.

They show how limited Fed tech is in this department.

And as for hovering objects in Trek, Stratos is the largest one that comes to mind, and it was only floating above an Earth-like planet.

And it still wasn't Fed tech.

[NecronLord]

I'm not sure what movies you were watching, but I have seen, in ascending order, airspeeders(Rebel snowspeeders, cloud cars), starfighters(X-wings, Ywings, small transports (Republic Gunships), large space transports (Trade Fed landers and Republic Acclamators), and a floating city(Cloud City) to name a few all operate in an atmosphere. Plenty of other examples in the Expanded Universe, the Floating Fortress from the WEG Imperial Source book comes to mind.

The best example for a large SW air vehicle in the canon would be Jabba's Sail Barge. A bit bigger than a car, non?

[Firefox]

And it still wasn't Fed tech.

Naturally. I wouldn't be surprised if the loon tries to bring that up as an example of "superior" Trek antigravity technology, however.

[Lord Revan]

I find it funny that Data is always compared to C-3PO, R2-D2, some simpler models of droid, when it's clear that Data is Human Replica Droid, dispite that the only way it would more evident that Data is Android in have flashing neon sign pointing it out.