Somethingawful agrees: The Empire could crush the Federation

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-01-14 05:22pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Well if you're familiar with the material, it's not gibberish as those things actually exist in the STU, however their existence hardly guarantees a win or an advantage.

Alright, let's put in this perspective. Engineers and scientist lingo is based upon reality...not the fanciful workings of one man's vision of a wagon trek through the stars.

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-01-14 05:59pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:Well if you're familiar with the material, it's not gibberish as those things actually exist in the STU, however their existence hardly guarantees a win or an advantage.
Alright, let's put in this perspective. Engineers and scientist lingo is based upon reality...not the fanciful workings of one man's vision of a wagon trek through the stars.

Also, engineering jargon is intended to communicate data and streamline communication. Speaking as a Comp Sci major, the term "scratch monkey" may be meaningless jargon to other people, but to computer geeks, it means a backup volume used in dangerous operations instead of more valuable data. This conveys the same information in fewer words, making for faster communication.

Star Trek drivel, on the other hand, is used to obfuscate the issue and complicate it, with the end result being victory by fiat. Admittedly, Trek jargon serves the same purposes as engineering jargon, but Trek jargon usually equates to "unquantifiable handwave" or "deus ex machina". This is the big reason I dislike Trek jargon; anybody else is free to disagree.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-01-14 07:38pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:Well if you're familiar with the material, it's not gibberish as those things actually exist in the STU, however their existence hardly guarantees a win or an advantage.
Alright, let's put in this perspective. Engineers and scientist lingo is based upon reality...not the fanciful workings of one man's vision of a wagon trek through the stars.

To add to this, Trekkie lingo is therefore not valid in a crossover debate, whereas engineering, scientific, and even mathematical jargon are well-defined in the real world, and hence in a crossover debate.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2007-01-15 06:28pm

Wait, so if a Trekkie says "The Enterprise would fire quantum torpedoes at (whatever)" then that is meaningless even though that is an observed capability of the Enterprise?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-15 06:30pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Wait, so if a Trekkie says "The Enterprise would fire quantum torpedoes at (whatever)" then that is meaningless even though that is an observed capability of the Enterprise?

Don't be dense. It means that you can't tell anything about the torpedo from the fact that it's called "quantum". It's a totally meaningless term, like the made-up or horribly abused bullshit used by advertising companies like "Mach 3 Shaver". You can't say "well this ship is more powerful because it has quantum torpedoes", any more than you can say "this shaver will work better because it's Mach 3".

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2007-01-15 06:34pm

Oh okay, you mean that people will say that quantum torpedoes are an advantage merely based on their name having "quantum" in it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-15 06:35pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Oh okay, you mean that people will say that quantum torpedoes are an advantage merely based on their name having "quantum" in it.

Which is exactly what they are saying when they brag that their ships have quantum torpedoes and SW ships don't. It means absolutely nothing; there is no real context of comparison.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2007-01-15 06:39pm

Yeah, I get it now. At first I thought for some reason that you were questioning the validity of "ST ships have quantum torpedoes" as a fact, rather than what they were attempting to imply with it.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-15 08:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:Wait, so if a Trekkie says "The Enterprise would fire quantum torpedoes at (whatever)" then that is meaningless even though that is an observed capability of the Enterprise?
Don't be dense. It means that you can't tell anything about the torpedo from the fact that it's called "quantum". It's a totally meaningless term, like the made-up or horribly abused bullshit used by advertising companies like "Mach 3 Shaver". You can't say "well this ship is more powerful because it has quantum torpedoes", any more than you can say "this shaver will work better because it's Mach 3".

So the new response to Trekkies is "either go get a job in marketing or stop being a damned commercial"