|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Most-wanted Tech | |||
Warp dive/hyperdrive/jump gates/whatever 
|
   
|
2 | 20.00% |
Tricorders (whir whir whir  )
|
  
|
1 | 10.00% |
| Hyposprays (the real kind, not those tanks and hoses) |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| PADDs (we know they can do more than Palmpilots) |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Transporters (one that works) |
  
|
2 | 20.00% |
| Replicators (tea, Earl Grey, hot) |
  
|
4 | 40.00% |
| Commbadges (chirping optional) |
|
0 | 0% |
| Lightsabres (I see your Swartz is as big as mine) |
|
0 | 0% |
| Phasers (so we can blink them to death) |
|
1 | 10.00% |
| Cybernetic eyes (VISORs can look tacky) |
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
12-02-2006, 10:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Most desired Sci-Fi Invention
Okay, we've all watched upteen science fiction universes. They all have their own set of devices, technologies, medicines, etc. that don't exist in the world today. That's why it's called sci-fi.
So this poll and discussion is for these devices. If you could have one of them in a cost-effective, nonpolluting, bug-free (or at least as bug-free as Trek gets ) way, which one?
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further. 
|
|
#2
12-02-2006, 11:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh, and before you ask, holodecks aren't on the list because they're just dangerous, and even if they did work, everyone would be like Scott Adams and just lock themselves in and not come out until they died of exhaustion.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further.
|
|
#3
12-02-2006, 06:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK - these are all Star Trek inventions...this wasn't the thread I was sold.
Anyway, the device I most want from sci-fi is a TARDIS. Duh.
__________________
O to be wafted away From this black aceldama of sorrow; Where the dust of an earthy today Is the earth of a dusty tomorrow!
|
|
#4
12-02-2006, 07:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Methinks Ted Sturgeon was too kind. 'Yes, but I think some people should be offended.' -- John Cleese (on whether he thought some might be offended by Monty Python)
|
|
#5
12-02-2006, 07:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Speaking as a chemist, I have to go with a tricorder. Those little gizmos can tell you everything about anything in a matter of seconds. The entire field of analytical chemistry can be made obsolete overnight by one handheld device, and thousands of labtechs will be put out of work.
The most time-consuming part of research after multi-hour reactions is figuring out what exactly is in the goo you made. This often involves very complicated, very expensive instrumentation. Being able to wave a tricorder over the flask and know the concentration of everything in it is a huge time-saver, plus I imagine it would be able to image my nanoparticles in situ, so I wouldn't have to haul them halfway across the city and wash all the protecting ligands off in order to be able to look at them with the electron microscope. Next up: purification techniques. What I wouldn't give for transporter chromatography: dematerialise a sample, and then rematerialise it with all the various compounds in different beakers.
__________________
The first run through of any experimental procedure is to identify any potential errors by making them.
|
|
#6
12-02-2006, 08:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Uh, was that photo link supposed to be relevant? It's just Kirk looking skyward, most likely in the middle of one of his philosophical rants.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further.
|
|
#7
12-02-2006, 09:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Any truth is better than indefinite doubt. — Sherlock Holmes "The Adventure of the Yellow Face," Arthur Conan Doyle
|
|
#9
12-03-2006, 12:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Actually, no -- the photo was a joke, sorta -- it came from 'Wink of an Eye'. Kirk is seen on the planet Scalos, waving away what he thinks are insects.
__________________
Methinks Ted Sturgeon was too kind. 'Yes, but I think some people should be offended.' -- John Cleese (on whether he thought some might be offended by Monty Python)
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
