Lightsaber or Site-to-site transporter?

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-13 02:52pm

It's a very simple question really. I've taken one thing that is exclusive to each universe, and asked which you'd prefer.

Specs:

Lightsaber: never needs to be recharged, can cut through all known materials on present day Earth, and can do basically anything a lightsaber can standardly do.

Site-to-site transporter: Power capacity is such that it can carry two people on two trips (or one person on four trips, etc) before needing recharging. It comes with a power adapter so that you can plug it in, and it doesn't cost $1,000 to recharge or anything like that. It basically costs the same to recharge as a cell phone.

These devices may be used to research other technologies.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-08-13 02:56pm

Lightsaber. Huge numbers of industrial and service applications possible (for example, how much do you think electricians would like a drill bit that could bore through three-four 2x4 studs in an instant?). Add to that I have some slight discomfort with the idea of my constitutent atoms being disingerated and reassembled....

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 03:01pm

Lightsabre, because I frankly prefer not being killed every time I'm transported.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 03:04pm

Lightsabre... the ultimate personal defence, I mean, how many people would even think about trying to mug/attack/generally harm you when you're carrying a Lightsabre.

Of course, the industrial uses are quite good as well.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-13 03:29pm

Dakarne wrote:Lightsabre... the ultimate personal defence, I mean, how many people would even think about trying to mug/attack/generally harm you when you're carrying a Lightsabre.

Lot, in such a situation it not really much more useful than a knife. If they have a gun to your head or a knife to your back it really dose not matter that you can cut them in half.

Any way I choice the transporter, imagine the cargo transporting possibilities. And if I could keep it secret I could obtain a monopoly.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 03:32pm

Lot, in such a situation it not really much more useful than a knife. If they have a gun to your head or a knife to your back it really dose not matter that you can cut them in half.

Good point... I'd still go for the Lightsabre though, it can really scare some people shitless

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2005-08-13 03:40pm

Dakarne wrote:
Lot, in such a situation it not really much more useful than a knife. If they have a gun to your head or a knife to your back it really dose not matter that you can cut them in half.
Good point... I'd still go for the Lightsabre though, it can really scare some people shitless

and deatomizing somebody won't?

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2005-08-13 03:42pm

If it's specifically for my personal use and it only takes as much energy as a cellphone, I'll take the transporter. Even if it does kill you and what essentially walks out is an identical copy of the you that existed at the point of transport, then as long as it's the only version of me, as far as I'm concerned, it is me. No more air travel costs, work travel costs, parking costs or related costs. Who needs to be worried about being mugged when you can simply beam yourself home at the end of a night out on the piss?

The only concern in my book would be that if it breaks, then it's a bit more fatal than a car accident, oh and I suppose I'd have to be sure not to over use it so much that I totally miss out on the scenery.

Still, for occassional use to go on holiday and handily avoid air travel fees, it's spot on.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 03:45pm

El Moose Monstero wrote:Even if it does kill you and what essentially walks out is an identical copy of the you that existed at the point of transport, then as long as it's the only version of me, as far as I'm concerned, it is me.

Um, except that if it kills you the first time you use it, then your copy certainly isn't you. You're still dead.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 03:45pm

and deatomizing somebody won't?

It probably just tingles for a Second...

Though I have to admit, the prospect of beaming someone into pieces sounds intriguing.

You know, just hit a switch and that person's arm disintegrates...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-08-13 03:58pm

So a weapon that will not replace a gun.....or something that'll replace nearly all my transportation needs.

Real hard.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2005-08-13 04:06pm

If the transporter kills you, then rebuilds & revives you out of your original material, what distinguishes the "you" at the origin from the "you" at the destination?

How would it be any different from killing you & throwing your body into a cryotube at point A, shipping you to point B, thawing your body & reviving you at that point?

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-08-13 04:08pm

Matt Huang wrote:If the transporter kills you, then rebuilds & revives you out of your original material, what distinguishes the "you" at the origin from the "you" at the destination?

How would it be any different from killing you & throwing your body into a cryotube at point A, shipping you to point B, thawing your body & reviving you at that point?

I was told at school that ever atom in you body changed about ever 5 years don’t know if it is true though.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2005-08-13 04:22pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
El Moose Monstero wrote:Even if it does kill you and what essentially walks out is an identical copy of the you that existed at the point of transport, then as long as it's the only version of me, as far as I'm concerned, it is me.
Um, except that if it kills you the first time you use it, then your copy certainly isn't you. You're still dead.

Yes, I take your point, but at the same time, if the version that comes out is absolutely identical to you, then what does it matter? If every neuron, every piece of information you knew and every atom of your being is put back together in the exact place it should be and in perfect harmony with the rest of the body, then all that's really happened as far as I can see is that you've been taken apart and put back together again. If there are other things floating around in you that shouldn't be there, then it's questionable.

Maybe I'm talking crap, but is it much different from having a heart transplant? Although you may be maintained by the machinery, you're still technically dead at one point in the operation (I assume), and the you that comes out of the operation is different from when you went in (someone elses heart in you for a start). Does that mean you don't have the operation because you won't be you? Or is that a bad example?

I suppose this little query comes down to philosophy, if you think that there's more to being you than the sum of your parts, then you wouldn't want to step onto the pad. If you're happy that all your bits and pieces are what make you up and as long as they're back in the right order, then you're still you, then beam on off to Hawaii and don't look back.

Obviously don't read 'you' here as specifically targetted at Spanky, just generally for the purposes of the discussion

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 05:18pm

No, it's along the same lines as say a xerox or cloning machine that say, incinerates the original.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 05:22pm

Boony edit: I don't think it's a matter of philosophy. I don't believe in any sort of thing like a soul or a lifeforce or anything special beyond the motal coil, and yet I would never, ever in a thousand years, set a foot inside a transporter, simply because of the fact that it kills you and generates a perfect copy. To me the creation of a perfect copy still means that you're fucking dead. The only way I could see your consciousness being carried over to the copy is if there WAS such a thing as a soul and the machine transfered that over, too.

But since there isn't, I see the ST transporter as being nothing but a killing machine.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 05:22pm

No, it's along the same lines as say a xerox or cloning machine that say, incinerates the original.

Very useful as a Weapon then, just stop whoever you're moving from materializing correctly...

I wonder... given a technobabble trick which happens to work. Would beaming Saddam Hussein into space/disintegrating him where he stands be opposed to?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 05:24pm

Dakarne wrote:
No, it's along the same lines as say a xerox or cloning machine that say, incinerates the original.
Very useful as a Weapon then, just stop whoever you're moving from materializing correctly...

I wonder... given a technobabble trick which happens to work. Would beaming Saddam Hussein into space/disintegrating him where he stands be opposed to?

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2005-08-13 05:26pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Boony edit: I don't think it's a matter of philosophy. I don't believe in any sort of thing like a soul or a lifeforce or anything special beyond the motal coil, and yet I would never, ever in a thousand years, set a foot inside a transporter, simply because of the fact that it kills you and generates a perfect copy. To me the creation of a perfect copy still means that you're fucking dead. The only way I could see your consciousness being carried over to the copy is if there WAS such a thing as a soul and the machine transfered that over, too.

But since there isn't, I see the ST transporter as being nothing but a killing machine.

Ah yes, I think the point of what you were saying has finally clicked in, it took a while to get my head around it. Wow. It's a rather creepy idea now that part of it is cleared up.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 05:26pm

Do you'd commit suicide if I killed Saddam Hussein?

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 05:27pm

Very Quick Edit:

So, instead of Do...

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-13 05:27pm

God damn it, shut the hell up, Dakarne.

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-13 05:38pm

Remember, relevant tech can be researched from the devices:

Both would come with great advances in power conservation tech, no doubt.

Pro Lightsaber that I can think of: Much greater power conservation, as it never needs to be recharged, it obviously has very long power life. The ability to cut anything easily could also be used very well in industry. Lasers would probably come down in price as we discovered how to make them more powerful and cheaper, and even contain the beam.

Pro Site-to-Site: Some power conservation. Much greater scanning technology would likely be discovered. Replicators also seem like a likely outgrowth.

I'm sure there's other things I haven't thought of.

Dakarne · Post by **Dakarne** » 2005-08-13 05:41pm

I'm sure there's other things I haven't thought of.

Like the fact that a Lightsabre is more like a Blaster than a Laser.

And the fact is that the Site-to-Site Transporter would make (when fully reverse engineered) an actual Superweapon.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2005-08-13 05:45pm

Dakarne wrote:
I'm sure there's other things I haven't thought of.
Like the fact that a Lightsabre is more like a Blaster than a Laser.

power systems capable of operating at high temperatures while still remaining efficient will still bring down the prices of lasers (and other power-intensive techs).

And the fact is that the Site-to-Site Transporter would make (when fully reverse engineered) an actual Superweapon.

why do you need to fully-reverse engineer it? Just beam a 80-kg nuclear warhead with a ten second timer and voila, instant superweapon.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lightsaber or Site-to-site transporter?

Which would you take?

Lightsaber or Site-to-site transporter?