I now know what it feels like...

[Firefox]

They also seem to forget that there's not always a necessity in making your androids look human. I've heard that some people may be creeped out by the sight of a machine that looked and moved exactly like a person, almost or completely indistinguishable from an organic person.

He should be asked if his band saw or power drill should look humanoid. Droids are built the way they are for utility, not aesthetics.

[Bounty]

They also seem to forget that there's not always a necessity in making your androids look human. I've heard that some people may be creeped out by the sight of a machine that looked and moved exactly like a person, almost or completely indistinguishable from an organic person.

I think that was the whole reason why Lore was dismantled and Data didn'(t get emotions - people were scared of Lore, even before he became a mass-murdering maniac.

[Deathstalker]

Somebody else weighs in:

Absolutely no offense intended, here, but there really is no debate; the most
telling aspect of Trek's technical superiority (as opposed to "Gee-Whiz"
superiority, which, for me, SW wins hands down) is the "fact" that in the Trek
universe, ships conduct combat at warp speeds. Star Wars ships have to drop out
of hyperspace to do battle.
In his Designer's Notes for SPI's venerable "Starforce: Alpha Centauri", the
late Redmond Simonsen wrote: "A ship that can leap between stars is not going to
have any trouble evading something as sluggish as a laser beam." Arguably,
Trek's phasers already violate so many fundamental laws of physics (along with
the notion of Faster-Than-Light and Time-travel) that, what the hell, why not
let them be effective at FTL too? And so they are.
Now, SF:AC was published in 1974, five years after the original "Star Trek" went
off the air, and three years before "Star Wars" appeared in theatres, but given
Lucas' original notions about what TIME Magazine called his "refreshingly
lived-in, even beat up, space world", all of the indicators - and Lucas
interviews - established a space technology relatively equivalent to air-naval
technology around the time of the Second World War.
That's the one here, on Earth.
All this being said, assuming the actual existence of two such space fleets, and
ignoring the utterly unplayable mish-mosh glopped onto both "myths" by game
designs based on them, I can't see how a Star Wars fleet would even be aware of
the Star Trek fleet as it zipped about at Warp 4 and obliterated the pride of
the Emperor without suffering so much as a ding in its shields in response.
"Return fire on what?!?! They are attacking us at FTL speeds!"
Now, hopefully, we can move on from this ridiculous geek-debate and address a
genuine, important issue:
Who would win in a fight? Superman or Mighty Mouse?

I know where to begin to answer this, I just can't decide if I should.

[The Spartan]

I know where to begin to answer this, I just can't decide if I should.

You absolutely should. Don't let the little dingbats get away with this. The asshole actually thinks that the damned phasers will be able to get through SW shields. He must be educated. Clockwork Orange style if necessary.

[Darth Servo]

I know where to begin to answer this, I just can't decide if I should.

Unless they are clearly being a troll, you always should.

Trek ships seldom if ever fight at warp. When they do, the ship they are attacking is ALSO at warp, moving at the same speed and in the same direction (ie Nemesis)

Even if they could fight at warp, that won't stop the Imperial ships from bombing Federation planets back into the stoneage.

He's also clearly a fan of the "duh, looks are everything" school of thought. Why bother checking which side has superior firepower and shields when you can just say, "Side X looks like a bunch of antiques and side Y looks shiny and plastic like"

And WHEN did phasers ever time travel?

[Nick Lancaster]

Absolutely respond.

1. No one fires anything and then blips around at FTL speeds. This is the functional equivalent of dancing around in front of someone firing off an MPSD5 submachine gun.

2. FTL does not imply combat maneuverability. You're not going to fire on the ISD's port side, then blip over to the starboard side. Go look at the warp vs. distance chart (Technical Manual, Encyclopedia) and do a little math to see how far you'd go if you punched the warp engines. You'd overshoot your target horrendously.

3. FTL does not imply invisibility from sensors or necessarily eyesight. YOU may be travelling faster-than-light, but the light bouncing off your shiny little hull is travelling like it always does.

4. Real-world example: the Close-In Weapons Systems mounted on naval vessels are essentially rapid-fire machine guns, designed to blanket an area and destroy incoming missiles. Similarly, an ISD has sufficient firepower to blanket key approach vectors. Dance around all you want; a couple of shots from turbolasers will cut you off at the knees.

5. Bear in mind the ISD's shields are rated for weapons of their caliber (terawatt) vs. Starfleet's phasers. Dance around all you want, you're not destroying anything.

5A. Furthermore, the positioning of phaser arrays on most starships are horribly ineffective for massed firepower attacks. Even if you *could* penetrate an ISD's shields, you'd be dancing around for hours before you even made a dent. (Oh, right - shoot the Bridge and we go down in flames. Wrong. First, there are likely to be blast shields, but the fastest, most direct way of protecting the ship would be to intensify the forward batteries (see the description of CIWS, above)).

I swear there's a factory where they turn out idiots like this.

[Batman]

I find the Warp strafing argument rather baffling, myself. I mean Trek ships can barely hit each other when they're at a dead stop 2 kilometres apart but they'll hit a target zipping by at 30 million KPS?
Warp combat occurs when the relative velocities of participants are seriously FTL.
Time travelling phasers? Have I missed something?

[Batman]

3. FTL does not imply invisibility from sensors or necessarily eyesight. YOU may be travelling faster-than-light, but the light bouncing off your shiny little hull is travelling like it always does.

And get to the target eons after you do. That one doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
Not that the Imps are limited to c sensors, of course.

4. Real-world example: the Close-In Weapons Systems mounted on naval vessels are essentially rapid-fire machine guns, designed to blanket an area and destroy incoming missiles.

And being horrendously bad at it.

Similarly, an ISD has sufficient firepower to blanket key approach vectors. Dance around all you want; a couple of shots from turbolasers will cut you off at the knees.

So, how many quadrillions of turbolaser bolts do you thing you can fire in the fraction of a second the Fed ship will be in effective firing range?

5. Bear in mind the ISD's shields are rated for weapons of their caliber (terawatt)

teratons/petatons.

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Those are terawatt or thereabouts (or at leat used to be).

Dance around all you want, you're not destroying anything.

Especially as you're not going to hit anything in the first place.

[Deathstalker]

The Deathstalker's reply!:

> Absolutely no offense intended, here, but there really is no debate; the most telling aspect of Trek's technical superiority (as opposed to "Gee-Whiz" superiority, which, for me, SW wins hands down) is the "fact" that in the Trek universe, ships conduct combat at warp speeds. Star Wars ships have to drop out of hyperspace to do battle.

There is one, maybe two instances of warp speed combat in ST. Every other time ships drop to sublight and blast away.

> In his Designer's Notes for SPI's venerable "Starforce: Alpha Centauri", the late Redmond Simonsen wrote: "A ship that can leap between stars is not going to have any trouble evading something as sluggish as a laser beam." Arguably, Trek's phasers already violate so many fundamental laws of physics (along with the notion of Faster-Than-Light and Time-travel) that, what the hell, why not let them be effective at FTL too? And so they are.
> Now, SF:AC was published in 1974, five years after the original "Star Trek" went off the air, and three years before "Star Wars" appeared in theatres, but given Lucas' original notions about what TIME Magazine called his "refreshingly lived-in, even beat up, space world", all of the indicators - and Lucas interviews - established a space technology relatively equivalent to air-naval technology around the time of the Second World War.
> That's the one here, on Earth.

Lucas modeled his movie shots on WW2 combat and movies. The technolgy is no where near equivlant. When did you see a P-51 cross a galaxy in few hours or days? The dogfights are similar, but that's it.

> All this being said, assuming the actual existence of two such space fleets, and ignoring the utterly unplayable mish-mosh glopped onto both "myths" by game designs based on them, I can't see how a Star Wars fleet would even be aware of the Star Trek fleet as it zipped about at Warp 4 and obliterated the pride of the Emperor without suffering so much as a ding in its shields in response. "Return fire on what?!?! They are attacking us at FTL speeds!"

ST ships cannot catch, much less hurt SW ships. It's like a cabin cruiser armed with a .50 cal machinge gun (Enterprise-D) vs the USS New Jersey(Imperial Star Destroyer). A Star Destroyer will jump in, slag a planet and be long gone before a ST ship even knew it was there. If ST happened to pick the right planet to defend and were there in force, they couldn't do anything to stop SW ships anyway.

> Now, hopefully, we can move on from this ridiculous geek-debate and address a genuine, important issue:
> Who would win in a fight? Superman or Mighty Mouse?
>

Read the site I posted. It should end any and all future SWvsST debastes
I have no futher wish to clutter the group with off topic posts.

[Nick Lancaster]

3. FTL does not imply invisibility from sensors or necessarily eyesight. YOU may be travelling faster-than-light, but the light bouncing off your shiny little hull is travelling like it always does.

And get to the target eons after you do. That one doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
Not that the Imps are limited to c sensors, of course.

It does when the pro-Trek yo-yo is equating FTL with invisibility, as in 'which way did they go, George'? Even if you do the fantastic Picard maneuver, a beam weapon transits through space. It doesn't just materialize at the target; the Picard Maneuver posits enemy fire coming from convergent angles in addition to target-then-fire procedures.

4. Real-world example: the Close-In Weapons Systems mounted on naval vessels are essentially rapid-fire machine guns, designed to blanket an area and destroy incoming missiles.

And being horrendously bad at it.

Which does not invalidate the principle, only the implementation.

Similarly, an ISD has sufficient firepower to blanket key approach vectors. Dance around all you want; a couple of shots from turbolasers will cut you off at the knees.

So, how many quadrillions of turbolaser bolts do you thing you can fire in the fraction of a second the Fed ship will be in effective firing range?

Irrelevant. If I'm blanketing the area, even if you're travelling at FTL speeds, if you're IN the area, you risk getting hit.

Concerns over rate-of-fire are Darkstar-brand fertilizer. We can see the turbolaser bolt, therefore it's not faster than light, therefore a starship at warp can't be hit, right? Baloney.

There's a tradeoff between speed and maneuverability. FTL speeds mean a reduction in maneuverability, and there won't be any of this flitting around like Muhammad Ali. (In addition to which, IIRC, the TNG Tech Manual dispels the 'combat at warp' brain bug.)

5. Bear in mind the ISD's shields are rated for weapons of their caliber (terawatt)

teratons/petatons.

Thank you.

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Those are terawatt or thereabouts (or at least used to be).

Never have been, IIRC. Additionally, the specs for the Enterprise-D give the phasers a maximum of fifteen minutes combat effectiveness at full power.

[Batman]

3. FTL does not imply invisibility from sensors or necessarily eyesight. YOU may be travelling faster-than-light, but the light bouncing off your shiny little hull is travelling like it always does.

And get to the target eons after you do. That one doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
Not that the Imps are limited to c sensors, of course.

It does when the pro-Trek yo-yo is equating FTL with invisibility, as in 'which way did they go, George'?

If you limit invisibilty to c-speed sensors (as you did by bringing up light), yes it does.

4. Real-world example: the Close-In Weapons Systems mounted on naval vessels are essentially rapid-fire machine guns, designed to blanket an area and destroy incoming missiles.

And being horrendously bad at it.

Which does not invalidate the principle, only the implementation.

Nevertheless shows that the implementation is severley flawed.

Similarly, an ISD has sufficient firepower to blanket key approach vectors. Dance around all you want; a couple of shots from turbolasers will cut you off at the knees.

So, how many quadrillions of turbolaser bolts do you thing you can fire in the fraction of a second the Fed ship will be in effective firing range?

Irrelevant. If I'm blanketing the area, even if you're travelling at FTL speeds, if you're IN the area, you risk getting hit.

A risk of one in number of the hydrogen atoms in the universe squared is NOT a risk. The area you need to blanket and the time you have to do it in means while this MAY work once, it would be a fluke of universe-shattering proportions.

Concerns over rate-of-fire are Darkstar-brand fertilizer. We can see the turbolaser bolt, therefore it's not faster than light, therefore a starship at warp can't be hit, right? Baloney.

Of course it can. The propability of it being, however, is infinitesimally low.

There's a tradeoff between speed and maneuverability. FTL speeds mean a reduction in maneuverability, and there won't be any of this flitting around like Muhammad Ali. (In addition to which, IIRC, the TNG Tech Manual dispels the 'combat at warp' brain bug.)

TNG is non-canon, and there ARE canon examples of Warp combat. Against other Warp targets with relative velocities being seriously STL

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Those are terawatt or thereabouts (or at least used to be).

Never have been, IIRC. Additionally, the specs for the Enterprise-D give the phasers a maximum of fifteen minutes combat effectiveness at full power.

What specs, what has it to do with Fed phaser firepower, and check the main site.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

I always wonder, these guys who constantly have to say how geeky versus debates are, and how only geeks conduct them, do they have something they need to constantly be proving to themselves? Or are they frankly just too stupid to think of the subject in analytical sense?

[General Zod]

I always wonder, these guys who constantly have to say how geeky versus debates are, and how only geeks conduct them, do they have something they need to constantly be proving to themselves? Or are they frankly just too stupid to think of the subject in analytical sense?

likely because they're too much of a chickenshit to come out and state what their position is. like many who play devil's advocate so they don't actually have to come out and saying they're honestly defending the position in question.

[SirNitram]

Absolutely no offense intended, here, but there really is no debate; the most
telling aspect of Trek's technical superiority (as opposed to "Gee-Whiz"
superiority, which, for me, SW wins hands down) is the "fact" that in the Trek
universe, ships conduct combat at warp speeds. Star Wars ships have to drop out
of hyperspace to do battle.
In his Designer's Notes for SPI's venerable "Starforce: Alpha Centauri", the
late Redmond Simonsen wrote: "A ship that can leap between stars is not going to
have any trouble evading something as sluggish as a laser beam." Arguably,
Trek's phasers already violate so many fundamental laws of physics (along with
the notion of Faster-Than-Light and Time-travel) that, what the hell, why not
let them be effective at FTL too? And so they are.
Now, SF:AC was published in 1974, five years after the original "Star Trek" went
off the air, and three years before "Star Wars" appeared in theatres, but given
Lucas' original notions about what TIME Magazine called his "refreshingly
lived-in, even beat up, space world", all of the indicators - and Lucas
interviews - established a space technology relatively equivalent to air-naval
technology around the time of the Second World War.
That's the one here, on Earth.
All this being said, assuming the actual existence of two such space fleets, and
ignoring the utterly unplayable mish-mosh glopped onto both "myths" by game
designs based on them, I can't see how a Star Wars fleet would even be aware of
the Star Trek fleet as it zipped about at Warp 4 and obliterated the pride of
the Emperor without suffering so much as a ding in its shields in response.
"Return fire on what?!?! They are attacking us at FTL speeds!"
Now, hopefully, we can move on from this ridiculous geek-debate and address a
genuine, important issue:
Who would win in a fight? Superman or Mighty Mouse?

There's something geekier than folks who debate this stuff, and that's folks who pretend to be 'superior' and 'above' such pursuits, while constantly pulling complete fabrications from their nether regions for their fan favorite. It's kinda scary how this pattern repeats itself, really. It's always just a manner of time before the 3000 word manifestos.

The 'They always fight at warp!' stuff amazes me. It's not from the original series. It's not from the NextGen. It's not from DS9, or Voyager(Ugh), or Enterprize(Double Ugh). It's entirely a fabrication of fanboys desperate to make their sci-fi seem 'kewl'. How do I know, gentle viewer? I'm a true-blue Trekkie. Watched all of TNG and the original series. The one time Warp is used in combat, it becomes so famous it's Picard's(That's the bald white Captain of NextGeneration, for those who aren't into this) signature move.. And he did it once. And it wasn't 'zooming over like an F/A-22 attacking a Sopwith Camel'. It was essentially using it as a 'Get up close' button so he could hammer away with his guns. He didn't stay in it at all.

That's it, folks. The only time someone went faster than light in combat. Of course, it was a brilliant trick, but he didn't even bring it out for the big enemies of his day. Guess it wasn't really that great a trick? The only other time Warp is claimed for use in combat is one of the old original series... But they're calling out range like submarine divers, and anyone whose mastered the art of subtraction(Do people still master that, in this Internet age? They don't seem to master English, in so many cases..) can work out.. It's not even doing one percent of lightspeed. Well, warp is dandy for high speed combat, I guess, but this fantasy realm of 'attacking from Warp' never did pan out. They fight while both ships are at warp, but that's getting into topics that apply to real life, and require knowledge of concepts like 'relative velocity' for why you can't apply it to 'attacking from warp'.

Then we get into the old nonsense of 'SW is based on WW2!!!'. I wish I knew who made this one up, just so I could sign him up for spam. Are there stylistic measures taken? Yep; in the same way that Star Trek is Horatio Hornblower in space(Think about it: Two wallowing juggernaughts pounding at each other, one grabs the other with hooks(Tractor beams), and then sends boarders(Transporters).), SW is WW2 in space: Big battles, with warships, armoured vehicles, and huge emplacement guns. I don't know what stylistic form the ground combat of ST is supposed to be. Pajama Men vs. Vikings? Moving along..

WW2 planes = SW fighters? I don't know many WW2 planes that can leave atmosphere, fly to the other side of a nearby gas giant, and fight over an artificial moon with nuclear-grade weaponry. Maybe you guys had different textbooks than me.

As you can guess from this, I'm amazingly geeky. But hey, what else am I gonna do on my day off before my anniversary?

[Nick Lancaster]

And get to the target eons after you do. That one doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
Not that the Imps are limited to c sensors, of course.

It does when the pro-Trek yo-yo is equating FTL with invisibility, as in 'which way did they go, George'?

If you limit invisibilty to c-speed sensors (as you did by bringing up light), yes it does.

I'm curious. Why are you arguing the Trektard position? "Nyah, nyah, we have FTL!"

Our mystery contestant has claimed that FTL combat would leave an ISD's crew clueless as to where the attacks are coming from, and incapable of response. By those lights, all warp-speed combat in the Trek universe MUST be executed at maximum speeds, because you wouldn't want an opponent to gain an edge by going one warp factor faster than you, right?

Are you proposing that a vehicle moving faster than light cannot be seen because light itself can never actually catch up with it?

Regardless, it'd really be amusing to see a starship travelling at warp speeds attempt a tight circle around an ISD.

4. Real-world example: the Close-In Weapons Systems mounted on naval vessels are essentially rapid-fire machine guns, designed to blanket an area and destroy incoming missiles.

And being horrendously bad at it.

Which does not invalidate the principle, only the implementation.

Nevertheless shows that the implementation is severley flawed.
[/quote]

Fine. You want to run in front of me while I'm spraying a few clips of submachine gun fire and demonstrate how ineffective the implementation is? The principle of covering/suppressing fire remains sound, and whether or not CIWS works in our world does not establish the effectiveness of similar practices by the Empire.

Similarly, an ISD has sufficient firepower to blanket key approach vectors. Dance around all you want; a couple of shots from turbolasers will cut you off at the knees.

So, how many quadrillions of turbolaser bolts do you thing you can fire in the fraction of a second the Fed ship will be in effective firing range?

Irrelevant. If I'm blanketing the area, even if you're travelling at FTL speeds, if you're IN the area, you risk getting hit.

A risk of one in number of the hydrogen atoms in the universe squared is NOT a risk. The area you need to blanket and the time you have to do it in means while this MAY work once, it would be a fluke of universe-shattering proportions.
[/quote]

You're hit once. You immediately initiate continous, suppressing fire against the probable attack vector used by your enemy.

Concerns over rate-of-fire are Darkstar-brand fertilizer. We can see the turbolaser bolt, therefore it's not faster than light, therefore a starship at warp can't be hit, right? Baloney.

Of course it can. The propability of it being, however, is infinitesimally low.

If turbolasers fired single beams, you might have a point. However, turbolaser fire consists of pulsed fire, and even travelling at FTL, you're going to be hard-pressed to dodge continuous fire.

There's a tradeoff between speed and maneuverability. FTL speeds mean a reduction in maneuverability, and there won't be any of this flitting around like Muhammad Ali. (In addition to which, IIRC, the TNG Tech Manual dispels the 'combat at warp' brain bug.)

TNG is non-canon, and there ARE canon examples of Warp combat. Against other Warp targets with relative velocities being seriously STL

Why is something Okuda wrote non-canon? Are you confusing the TNG Technical Manual with the TOS Technical Manual, or even Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?

What is the basis for this claim?

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Those are terawatt or thereabouts (or at least used to be).

Never have been, IIRC. Additionally, the specs for the Enterprise-D give the phasers a maximum of fifteen minutes combat effectiveness at full power.[/quote]
What specs, what has it to do with Fed phaser firepower, and check the main site.[/quote]

Are you telling me the main site (startrek.com) contradicts the specifications in TNG Technical Manual, which was derived from the Writers' Guide for the show?

The startrek.com library section only has listings for Type 1-4/8 phasers, and do not include power ratings.

[Deathstalker]

The Deathstalker is big enough to ask for help from SD.net. I think I need help in wording things better. I guess I am so used to people seeing the obvious superiority of SW that I don't know how to deal with people who can't some to the same conclusion. I can answer most of these, but need help in the transporter and time travel departmen.

> Matter cannot be created, replicators only rearrange matter, and can
> only do so on a small scale, such as food and tools, not starships. >
>

Untrue. Well, the first part you're right on, of course, the replicators work
on deuterium slush (should we maybe be having this discussion off list?). But replicators can make larger scale items, such as (for example) a tent or a shed. It's still better than anything SW can do in this area; they still cook dead animals and drink blue milk.

> <.I wouldn't get on a transporter unless my life depended on it,>
>

Well, this is personal bias now, and not anything factual. Transporters have been shown to work a vast majority of the time on Trek (there have been maybe ten accidents shown in a combined thirty years or so of Trek TV, if you count every season of every show). That's probably .00000001 per cent or less. You may not like transporters, but that doesn't mean a) they are unreliable (because they are extremely reliable) and b) they simply are higher tech than a shuttle. We can take a shuttle from a space station to a planet *now*. It isn't done often, but man has already achieved that. Transporters are higher tech,period.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[Deathstalker]

Stupid Quotes! If a mod could fix at their convience the Deathstalker would be eteranally grateful

[Batman]

If you limit invisibilty to c-speed sensors (as you did by bringing up light), yes it does.

I'm curious. Why are you arguing the Trektard position? "Nyah, nyah, we have FTL!"

Because YOU argue the light bouncing off the ship is relevant. Which it isn't.

Our mystery contestant has claimed that FTL combat would leave an ISD's crew clueless as to where the attacks are coming from, and incapable of response.

Which you confirmed as you claim that the light boucing off the Fed FTL ships would give them away which is physically impossible.

By those lights, all warp-speed combat in the Trek universe MUST be executed at maximum speeds, because you wouldn't want an opponent to gain an edge by going one warp factor faster than you, right?

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

Are you proposing that a vehicle moving faster than light cannot be seen because light itself can never actually catch up with it?

Not before they arrive at the observers location, no.

Regardless, it'd really be amusing to see a starship travelling at warp speeds attempt a tight circle around an ISD.

Entirely possible, as Warp factors below 1 are canon. What that would avail the Trek ship is everyone's guess, of course.
*SNIPPY*
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

Irrelevant. If I'm blanketing the area, even if you're travelling at FTL speeds, if you're IN the area, you risk getting hit.

A risk of one in number of the hydrogen atoms in the universe squared is NOT a risk. The area you need to blanket and the time you have to do it in means while this MAY work once, it would be a fluke of universe-shattering proportions.

You're hit once. You immediately initiate continous, suppressing fire against the probable attack vector used by your enemy.

That one hit is NEVER EVER going to happen in the first place. The Imperials ability to make consecutive hits is completely up for grabs as they IMN have NEVER engaged FTL targets.

Of course it can. The propability of it being, however, is infinitesimally low.

If turbolasers fired single beams, you might have a point. However, turbolaser fire consists of pulsed fire, and even travelling at FTL, you're going to be hard-pressed to dodge continuous fire.

When the area your in is ls across? Oh please.
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

TNG is non-canon, and there ARE canon examples of Warp combat. Against other Warp targets with relative velocities being seriously STL

Why is something Okuda wrote non-canon? Are you confusing the TNG Technical Manual with the TOS Technical Manual, or even Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?

Because the ONLY canon were ST is concerned is what's seen on screen, and possibly a pair of VOY novels Nothing else.

What is the basis for this claim?

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Thank you for providing NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.

Those are terawatt or thereabouts (or at least used to be).

Never have been, IIRC. Additionally, the specs for the Enterprise-D give the phasers a maximum of fifteen minutes combat effectiveness at full power.

What specs, what has it to do with Fed phaser firepower, and check the main site.

Are you telling me the main site (startrek.com) contradicts the specifications in TNG Technical Manual, which was derived from the Writers' Guide for the show?

Neither startrek.com nor the TM has any canonicity whatsoever.
The main site in this context, btw, is www.stardestroyer.net

[Nick Lancaster]

Untrue. Well, the first part you're right on, of course, the replicators work
on deuterium slush (should we maybe be having this discussion off list?). But replicators can make larger scale items, such as (for example) a tent or a shed. It's still better than anything SW can do in this area; they still cook dead animals and drink blue milk.

And the matter for the larger scale items comes from ...? That's right, the same slush deuterium. Why would you be able to make shelters out of nothing, but not foodstuffs? Why would you carry slush deuterium at all if you can make items out of nothing?

And ST is still eating dead animals (or raw, if you're Klingon, RAR!) and drinking prune juice. How does this equate to technological superiority again? Eating? How primitive!

Well, this is personal bias now, and not anything factual. Transporters have been shown to work a vast majority of the time on Trek (there have been maybe ten accidents shown in a combined thirty years or so of Trek TV, if you count every season of every show). That's probably .00000001 per cent or less. You may not like transporters, but that doesn't mean a) they are unreliable (because they are extremely reliable) and b) they simply are higher tech than a shuttle. We can take a shuttle from a space station to a planet *now*. It isn't done often, but man has already achieved that. Transporters are higher tech, period.

Hey, we've got the technology to go to the moon, but somehow, we don't have flying cars. (Anyone remember the Avery Brooks commercial for IBM where he bemoans this?)

The Space Shuttle is higher tech than a 747, but it doesn't mean it's suitable for a trip from SF to LA.

A tractor beam or anti-grav unit is higher tech, but we still see crewmembers lifting things with their hands.

Additionally, in the novelization for ST3, it is indicated that the average citizen does not use the transporter on a regular basis. They *gasp* take shuttles!

And what's this "WE" stuff? The only people riding shuttles from orbit to planetfall are NASA or civilian scientists and trained pilots.

Which is why I used semi-reliable. It has been shown to be possible but difficult to do. The UFP Prime Directive prohibits such tinkering. Star Wars has no time travel, reliable or un. And if the Empire ever got their hands on it, look out. So Trek is not only technologically superior, they're probably also morally superior to (to the point of near-smugness sometimes, esp. the Vulcans, but that's another story).

It's also a strawman in the extreme. The Empire doesn't have time travel and if they did, look out ... implying that the Empire would abuse this somehow, therefore they're morally inferior, and this proves my first point?

'Semi-reliable' != 'Technologically superior'

If you think about it, a Quaker probably thinks of him or herself as morally superior, but their homes aren't wired to the teeth with all the latest conveniences, either.

'Morally superior' !:: 'Technologically superior'

So far we're mostly dealing with your prejudices against Trek tech, which is a) hardly a valid argument, and b) not really addressing the issue.

So far, you haven't proven anything, either.

Not much larger than a car. Both are probably smaller than your average Ford 150 (which is a BIG truck) and fit within my definition.

[/quote]

Deft arguments? Like the ones you haven't offered or supported?

Oh, it's pointless, and it's all for fun, now, eh? Concession accepted, Trek Boy. You were refuted on multiple points, you have misrepresented basic elements of Trek technology such as replication/transportation, offered brilliant gems of logic like 'semi-reliable' = 'high tech', and can't even concede a point (Mon Cal starships) without bitching about the Ewoks.

[Darth Servo]

The Deathstalker is big enough to ask for help from SD.net

The SD.net databaseis your best friend.

Untrue. Well, the first part you're right on, of course, the replicators work
on deuterium slush (should we maybe be having this discussion off list?). But replicators can make larger scale items, such as (for example) a tent or a shed.

And yet the can NOT replicate ribosomes, latinum or even some unusual rain water (TNG's The Enemy, nearly any DS9 episode and TNG's The Schizoid Man respectively).

And I hate to break it to your trekkie friend but a shed is not a starship. When did this happen anyway?

It's still better than anything SW can do in this area; they still cook dead animals and drink blue milk.

I just love the way Trektards assume a backwater shithole like Tatooine must be repersentative of technology in SW.

Well, this is personal bias now, and not anything factual.

Actually its based on real ETHICAL issues involving the transporter, not the least of which is your body is being disintegrated, a state that in any other circumstance would be considered death.

Transporters have been shown to work a vast majority of the time on Trek (there have been maybe ten accidents shown in a combined thirty years or so of Trek TV, if you count every season of every show). That's probably .00000001 per cent or less.

How much does anyone want to bet that he didn't even go through the episodes and count but rather pulled that number out of his ass?

I can think of Kirk being split in two, Riker being duplicated, Nelix and Tuvok merging, the Vulcan in TMP getting killed just off the top of my head. And that isn't counting all the times transporters were completely jammed by natural substances/radiation-of-the-week, etc.

You may not like transporters, but that doesn't mean a) they are unreliable (because they are extremely reliable) and b) they simply are higher tech than a shuttle.

He doesn't even TRY to address the sheer number of things that screw transporters up. Just re-states his opinion as fact without acknowledging the problems with it. Check the database here at SD.net for plenty of ammunition.

[quoteWe can take a shuttle from a space station to a planet *now*. [/quote]Not repeatedly on a single tank of fuel like SW X-wings demonstrated in TESB.

It isn't done often, but man has already achieved that. Transporters are higher tech,period.

Higher tech does NOT necessarily mean better. See the technology myth page for more information and examples.

Which is why I used semi-reliable. It has been shown to be possible but difficult to do. The UFP Prime Directive prohibits such tinkering. Star Wars has no time travel, reliable or un. And if the Empire ever got their hands on it, look out.

If the UFP won't use it, its really a non-factor then, isn't it?

And I highly recommend reading the SD.net time travel theory.

So Trek is not only technologically superior,

A statement he makes by comparing the best of Trek to the worst of SW. Yeah, thats a reliable and fair method.

they're probably also morally superior to (to the point of near-smugness sometimes, esp. the Vulcans, but that's another story).

And a totally irrelevant one except for perhaps that the Fed's attempts to negotiate will certainly allow the Empire the first shot.

So far we're mostly dealing with your prejudices against Trek tech, which is
a) hardly a valid argument, and b) not really addressing the issue.

I just LOVE the way he steers the discussion away from your points against Treknology to your predjudices against it. Classic ad-hominem attack.

I was not specific enough, my apologies. I did not mean to include outer space vehicles. Technically these do not "hover", they have VTOL, not quite the same thing (although they use repulsorlift technology).

Repulsor lifts are what makes the other vehicles hover. Its the same tech on a larger scale. The guy is splitting hairs.

You have me there. Except Trek did it first, with Stratos, about fifteen
years before Lucas did. In that regard they have a similar tech level in that both can achieve floating cities.

Is this guy predictable or what? Did we not say he would pull this out? You already have our response: its not UFT tech.

Aside from WEG, the large majority of the EU is crap.

We could say the same thing about Voyager. But do you see us trying to get that excluded?

Some of it is fun, but none of it is really considered canonical (certainly not by Lucas --Journeyman Master Jereel, anyone?).

Demand he back this up, inspite of all the quotations that clearly say the EU DOES count.

It's a tad unfair to restrict it to "what's been on the screen" because SW has ten hours and Trek something like 40 billion, but
if we start opening it up to RPGs, novels, comics, etc., there is such a
preponderance of data we could be here forever. And the further from the screen you get, the less coherent some things are (Boba Fett was Dengar's best man at his wedding? What the hell???)

Its only the unscientific morons who think less evidence is better. It appeals to thier simplistic minds.

Yes, and a group of insectoids who couldn't even master the universal translator -- or clothes -- designed the Death Star.

And Klingons who haven't even developed SILVERWARE yet have warp drive are any better?

The universal translator isn't all its cracked up to be. See the database.

People in SW don't need a UT. Most of them are multilingual and have protocal droids that know far more languages than the UT does.

We SAW that the geonosians had a great droid factory running. Why does he discount their engineering abilities just because they don't have every thing HE things they should have? They were clearly QUITE well versed on the technology they wanted.

Yeah, having Lucas on your side in this isn't always a big help.

Useless personal attack on the creator. I could go blue in the face listing off the stupid ideas seen in Trek, both from Roddenberry and the current administration.

The Ewok battle is the single dumbest combat committed to film ever. Small muscularly underdeveloped beings using stone age technology could not even realistically hurt troopers in armored suits. A few guys would be injured with the stray arrow, fine; but attempting to take the land battle of Endor seriously is impossible. The Empire would have trounced the teddies (though the rebels are sneaky enough to still have gotten to the generator). I'm sorry, but slings, rocks, and a couple of logs would never defeat a bunch of highly trained troops with energy weapons and protective body armor.

I do so love the way he ignores the point about the Stormtroopers WINNING until Chewie hajacked the AT-ST, thus evening out the technology gap a bit. We also saw Ewoks wiht captured imperial blasters late in the battle.

And where does he get the idea that Ewoks were "muscularly underdeveloped" when we SAW them chucking 30 pound rocks around like they were made out of styrofoam. Something no regular human could do.

And your energy weapons won't help you at all when one of those little fuzzballs jumps on your back and grabs you around the neck.

I'll bend and say the Mon Cal can design decent starships (which is wholly ridiculous for such an aquatic race),

They were DESCENDED from aquatic races by they clearly breath normal AIR in the films.

but come on, you have to admit the Ewok victory is nothing short of ridiculous.

As is Klingons who drop their energy weapons in favor of a knife and charge the enemy.

But they are all, to a one, less advanced than Data, who has skin, albeit not
completely human appearing,

Its not real skin. Its some sort of synthetic material that just looks like skin. And now would be a good time to mention human replica droids.

and can fly a starship with his brain.

Wrong. He has to push the buttons just like every one else. And R2 and 3PO flew the Falcon in Shadows of the Empire. R2 piloted the escape pod in ANH. R2 is more than capable of piloting Luke's X-wing as heard in TESB when Luke told R2 that he's like to keep it on manual for a while.

I thinkIG-88 did that, in one of the novels, but most droids in the SW films, Artoo excepted, are kind of tards (battle droids, etc.). And Grievous is a cyborg, so he doesn't count.

Droids that bead jedi are tards? lol

will finish tomorrow.

[Slartibartfast]

We still eat dead animals now. I suppose that makes us no better than cavemen!

[Stark]

He said 'the vast majority of EU except WEG is crap'. He's a raving loon: he needs help. Urgently, before he hurts himself.

[Utsanomiko]

No, the fact we and SW use relatively conventional simple cooking appliances maens we're better than wasteful fucktards that use a fusion-powered matter assembler just to get a fucking cup of bland coffee.

This kid's whole argument is dependant on flash and gimmicks being considered representative of a higher technological level. Probably would be more impressed by a 1920's Rube Goldberg device involving clocks, kittens, and candles than a sound-activated electric light switch.

Actually I'm not even sure if he even knows what Deathstalker is talking about when he says 'technology', since all his examples are ass-retarded appeals to overly-complex applications rather than sheer capacity. Either an anti-intellectual twit or really isn't on the same page (which probably means he's simply got an unscientific mindset, but can get a clue if you can just get his head to turn to the point).

[Slartibartfast]

I agree, the way that guy thinks "better tech" works goes something like this.

Normal Person: the people in Star Wars can build better, bigger, faster and more powerful ships!
Technowanker: Oh yeah? But can they build them using a matter regurgitation field, by swapping all the mesons with tachyons, folding space with a nano solar-conversion energy unit fed with the core of a neutron star?
Normal Person: er, no, they just grab the parts and then build it...

[Nick Lancaster]

I'm curious. Why are you arguing the Trektard position? "Nyah, nyah, we have FTL!"

Because YOU argue the light bouncing off the ship is relevant. Which it isn't.

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

FTL simply does not render you invisible, unless you agree that moving at FTL means light cannot touch you, because you're too fast. Consider the light emitted by a star; can you draw a line at some point and say, the light is not here, or the light stops here? Of course not.

Therefore, even if you are moving FTL, you are passing through light, in the same manner that, if you were phased, you would still be passing through matter.

Our mystery contestant has claimed that FTL combat would leave an ISD's crew clueless as to where the attacks are coming from, and incapable of response.

Which you confirmed as you claim that the light boucing off the Fed FTL ships would give them away which is physically impossible.

I'm still puzzled. So you're saying the Trek bozo is right?

The moment you fire, you are emitting a non-FTL energy beam. Since it is likely you're not snuggled up alongside the ISD, you're spotted. As it would be highly ineffective to blip about and fire from totally random positions 'because you can't see us, nyah, nyah', you would be firing from positions that can be predicted.

Simple logic. If the target is moving faster than you can possibly react, you lead it and fire where it's going to be.

By those lights, all warp-speed combat in the Trek universe MUST be executed at maximum speeds, because you wouldn't want an opponent to gain an edge by going one warp factor faster than you, right?

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

You established that superiority is derived from warp speed. Therefore, if you and your opponent are capable of Warp Six, entering a fight at Warp Four cedes an advantage.

Are you proposing that a vehicle moving faster than light cannot be seen because light itself can never actually catch up with it?

Not before they arrive at the observers location, no.

Thank you for the clarification.

In other words, if an object is at rest, moves at FTL, and resumes an at-rest position, an observer will, in fact, SEE the object when it is at rest, but not necessarily while it is in transit.

The model that the Trek person proposed is non-stop FTL maneuvering, which is ridiculous for a combat model. It'd be like an SR-71 trying to conduct a dogfight with an F-18/A, or worse, a Cessna.

SPEED != MANEUVERABILITY.

I would further surmise that Warp Speed is intended as a straight-line vector, rather than zipping around like a snub-nose fighter. If you can go FTL, why take the scenic route?

Regardless, it'd really be amusing to see a starship travelling at warp speeds attempt a tight circle around an ISD.

Entirely possible, as Warp factors below 1 are canon. What that would avail the Trek ship is everyone's guess, of course.
*SNIPPY*
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

With a speed of Warp 4 (in the example provided by our Trek expert),
you would travel 400,000 km in 0.01 seconds. Precision maneuvering around a 1.7 km Star Destroyer is impossible.

At Warp 1, it takes 1.34 seconds to traverse those same 400,000 km. Warp 1 is defined as the speed of light, therefore 'warp speeds below Warp 1' are sublight speeds. You can't have it both ways.

It seems you're the one who hasn't got a clue about scale, unless you're establishing effective phaser ranges at multiples of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

A risk of one in number of the hydrogen atoms in the universe squared is NOT a risk. The area you need to blanket and the time you have to do it in means while this MAY work once, it would be a fluke of universe-shattering proportions.

You're hit once. You immediately initiate continous, suppressing fire against the probable attack vector used by your enemy.

That one hit is NEVER EVER going to happen in the first place. The Imperials ability to make consecutive hits is completely up for grabs as they IMN have NEVER engaged FTL targets.

Please show me your calculations that show the odds are as you state, or even reasonably close to your example. Number of hydrogen atoms in the universe squared, my ass.

IMN? In My Nerdiness?

How did you go from one hit to consecutive hits? And if we're going off that we have never seen event x, therefore it is impossible, I guess it's impossible for anyone to take a shit in Star Trek, 'cause we ain't seen that, either.

Of course it can. The propability of it being, however, is infinitesimally low.

Then don't make absurd blanket claims.

If turbolasers fired single beams, you might have a point. However, turbolaser fire consists of pulsed fire, and even travelling at FTL, you're going to be hard-pressed to dodge continuous fire.

When the area your in is ls across? Oh please.
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

God damn, it'd be easier to understand you if you could type.

Is that, '... when the area you are in is (light years) across'? L's? Leagues? Lizard-tails?

Are you now postulating that a Federation starship can attack from light years away? What are you smoking?

You seem to think that there is a significantly large number of effective attack vectors for the starship to fire from, when this is simply not true. The effectiveness of any given attack not only depends on the starship's orientation, but on the intended target. Or are you really going to hopscotch about and hope you hit something important?

TNG is non-canon, and there ARE canon examples of Warp combat. Against other Warp targets with relative velocities being seriously STL

Wait. "TNG" is non-canon? The whole fucking series?

Or are you saying the 'TNG Technical Manual' is non-canon?

Thus, you've just proven my point about maneuverability. Two ships, traveling at warp, would maneuver the same, and combat is possible. A starship, moving at warp, attempting repeated attacks on an ISD, moving at sub-light speeds, is ridiculous.

What was that you were saying about scale?

Why is something Okuda wrote non-canon? Are you confusing the TNG Technical Manual with the TOS Technical Manual, or even Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?

Because the ONLY canon were ST is concerned is what's seen on screen, and possibly a pair of VOY novels Nothing else.

Where did you get this Trektard claim from?

As Sternbach & Okuda state in their introduction, "It's closely based on source material we've developed in conjunction with writers and producers in our role as technical consultants in the series." (Though, in all fairness, they do indicate it is not to be taken as a straitjacket.)

Still, if the TNG Tech Manual is non-canon, then the Enterprise really runs off of peanut butter and anti-peanut butter, because Okuda is talking out of his ass. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is non-canon, because it reiterates material developed for the Tech Manual, therefore, dilithium crystals are really Folger's Crystals, and nobody noticed the switch.

What is the basis for this claim?

vs. Starfleet's phasers.

Thank you for providing NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.

You claimed Star Trek phasers were in the terawatt range. I disputed that based on the TNG Technical Manual, and asked where you got your information, and you seem to think I'm obligated to give you proof for YOUR claim?

Neither startrek.com nor the TM has any canonicity whatsoever.
The main site in this context, btw, is www.stardestroyer.net

Still wondering where you're pulling this claim out of. You're now saying that Paramount's own site is non-canon? (Note that Mike has cited the TNG:TM and the ST Encyclopedia in his Technology comparison, therefore, if it's not canon, it's a surprise to more than me.)