this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

Star Trek

10595 readers
116 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-07 LD 5x04 "A Farewell to Farms"
11-14 LD 5x05 "Starbase 80?!"
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angels"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's something that has bothered me since I realised

Or if they don't have onboard sensors designed to do that then why not do that

Because someone who is unconscious or unable to move isn't going to be able to call for help

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because unlike our world, the Star Trek world actually respects people's privacy. Ever noticed how people just vanish from the ship and the computer never alerts anyone until someone asks for their location? When Trek was written, the idea of constantly monitoring and reporting on individuals was abhorrent. It's disgusting how willingly people just accept that now.

That's pretty much exactly how it seems to me. I guess I understand how American fans who were born after 9/11 and Facebook might have a different perspective, because privacy means something different now--but it's cognitive empathy, which means I understand their feelings, not the sympathetic empathy of someone who shares it.

Ironically, I learned these cognitive empathy skills from Captain Picard, and still consider TNG possibly the best way to expose young people to the skill. :-)

[–] julianh@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

But like, they can still track you. And removing the badge that lets them track you is basically a crime. Also section 31 exists basically just to track and monitor people.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They can locate you. They don't actively monitor you. That's a big difference.

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago

I do have a gun aimed at your head, but I’m not gonna fire it

[–] inappropriatecontent@startrek.website 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Section 31 were created as the bad guys! Genocidal maniacs who Sisko and crew fought against every step of the way.

And I don't use the phrase "genocidal maniacs" lightly, but they were literally xenocidal and Sloane was, as a spy, less of an Ian Fleming James Bond type and more of a John le Carré type—an actual maniac in the piece of human wreckage who's been turned violent and crazy by the stress of war.

(I really wish his end had come at Sisko's hands, and involved contrasting Sisko's actions in Pale Moonlight with Sloan and 31's degeneration in to xenophobic crimes of extermination, and how both shared the same origin but ended up in very different places.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Be that as it may, he made some valid points talking to Bashir.

"The Federation needs men like you, Doctor. Men of conscience, men of principle, men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section Thirty one exists. Someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong. "

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nah. 'Oh you can be nice, but those people over there aren't nice, so we need to be even less nice to protect you!'

Race to the friggin bottom

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The most awesome thing about those episodes for me is that there's no clear answer. It's thought provoking and leaves you considering the perspectives of both men. I didn't say he was right, I said he made some good points. Star Trek of that era was generally idealistic and DS9 was the first foray into considering the harsh realities of idealistic perspectives in a universe that will violate any ideal against you to achieve advantage. What do you do? There's not really a clear answer IMO, it's a philosophical quandary.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

well, Sisko was pretty clear "We don't do that shit"

Which might sound hypocritical with some of the actions he took, but actions of an individual that would face consequences vs actions of an institution that are beyond oversight are very different beasts

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I completely agree. I think that's the closest they come to a conclusion on the matter. They recognized that sometimes they have to make choices they wouldn't otherwise make, or that they'd condemn under better circumstances, but they stand ready to face the consequences once the choice has been made. They generally make them out in the open, or reveal them after the need for secrecy ends.

[–] banghida@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)
[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

HIPAA

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Ty. Not American

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I think the canon reason given for this and other "why didn't the ship's computer just stop them?" situations that it's a privacy violation to just go around scanning people without their permission.

Although they do seem to do a lot of "scanning for life-signs" so who knows?

[–] superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Since when was there an expectation of privacy on a Starfleet ship?

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Starfleet is not the military as they are so often having to remind everyone

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

First thing I'd do when boarding a Federation ship is tell the computer it's authorized to keep an eye on my vitals.

[–] inappropriatecontent@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

scanning for life-signs

Yeah, and I've never figured out the security feature that makes scanning for life-signs more effective when you sign a little song to the computer. But sometimes I guess it's just more urgent to know, little life signs, where are you?

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

It's based on the same technology that makes you turn faster in Mario Kart if you tilt your head and turn the controller like a steering wheel.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

On the good side people could just be teleported into medbay if their metrics are out of bounds. Though probably teleporting a lot of people exercising or having sex. It would be a hilarious plot point

On the bad side, O'Brien could just teleport in a new copy of you from the pattern buffer of your last teleport when you die

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, he could teleport a copy of myself but I would still be dead then, my soul sipping tea with the interdimensional koala while watching my copy do all the stuff I no longer can.

That happens the first time you use a transporter. Those things kill you and print a copy elsewhere that thinks it's you

[–] exocrinous@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not how the pattern buffer works. It's extremely unstable. And patterns can neither be copied, nor scanned without destroying a person

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] exocrinous@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Scotty is a genius and he was doing something that had never been done before. Continuously transporting himself to preserve the buffer. Not the same as just keeping a pattern in storage.

Besides, patterns can't be duplicated by a computer. It's not like a CD you can copy and burn. It's more like a vinyl record governed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

He demonstrated it was possible, and once a military knows something is possible they will develop the capability to make it a strategic one.

We're talking about hypotheticals, in this scenario anyway.

[–] exocrinous@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, so the hypothetical is that the Enterprise is now equipped with 1000 transporters each cycling the pattern of one crew member... Except it still doesn't work anyway, because if the crew members are in transporter buffers they can't be out doing their jobs at the same time.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] exocrinous@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, so the Enterprise installs 1000 transporters, enough power systems to run them all continuously, goes to the Thomas Riker planet, waits for a freak weather storm, duplicates the entire crew, puts all the duplicates in transporters, holds them there as backups.... And then all of the transporter clones die as soon as there's a battle and an EPS relay blows.

That's not how the Federation does things. They're the good guys.

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Just because they aren't transporter purgatory bad, doesn't make them good.

The federation has unintentionally done and continues to do real irreversible harms. They also do good intentionally. There aren't a lot of examples of experiments being set up in a risk reducing way...

Apparently they didn't, the man canonical continues working after they rescue him

[–] venoft@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The computers in star trek have no real intelligence, everything needs user input. I mean, their weapons don't even auto aim.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Except for that time the enterprise became intelligent in emergence and birthed a new lifeform

And someone just needs to program that function in

Edit: to clarify I'm talking about programming a function in for medical emergency detection and not computer intelligence

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Rick Sanchez's garage could do that.