Most desired Sci-Fi Invention

[Nate the Great]

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?

[Nate the Great]

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.

[Chancellor Valium]

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.

[mudshark]

... bug-free (or at least as bug-free as Trek gets )
And when was that (http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=87&pos=9), exactly?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

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.

[Nate the Great]

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.

[evay]

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.

There's supposed to be a shot of Kirk in "The Paradise Syndrome" shouting "I AM KIROK!" with a fly perched on his head, but I haven't actually seen it myself. Maybe that's what it was supposed to have been?

[ijdgaf]

Whoa, flies can perch?

[mudshark]

There's supposed to be a shot of Kirk in "The Paradise Syndrome" shouting "I AM KIROK!" with a fly perched on his head, but I haven't actually seen it myself. Maybe that's what it was supposed to have been?
Thought that was Belloq (http://www.indianajones.com/raiders/bts/news/f20040113/indexp2.html) in Raiders of the Lost Ark. ;)

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.

[Nate the Great]

Oh, you were tying into my joke, and I didn't get it. Um, okay...

ijdgaf: Whoa, flies can perch?

Suddenly I thought of a fly perched on a gargoyle in Gotham City wearing the cape and cowl: Batfly!

[Celeste]

I'd still want Holodecks over anything else. So the characters get minds of their own and revolt against you. That's what makes it all the more fun!

[e of pi]

I want a replicator. The field of model building as I know it would change forever. Also, we could complete the destruction of the US as an industrial powerhouse and kick the legs out from under China. Sounds like fun!

[Derek]

I want a replicator. The field of model building as I know it would change forever. Also, we could complete the destruction of the US as an industrial powerhouse and kick the legs out from under China. Sounds like fun!

Not to mention more mundane things you could do with a replicator like eliminate hunger, poverty, capitalism, copyright law, and the shortage of Wiis.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Not to mention more mundane things you could do with a replicator like eliminate hunger, poverty, capitalism, copyright law, and the shortage of Wiis.

Sure, nobody's got a job, but all their needs are met by the box on the wall.

One wonders how they make furniture from such a small box, though. Maybe they do it a piece at a time. Hah! ReplIkeator.

[mudshark]

Børk! Børk! Børk!

[Nate the Great]

Uh, I don't think it's that easy. Even replicators can't be a hundred percent effective, even if everything they create gets recycled, which it's not. You'll still need an external power source.

I'd never set foot in a Holodeck capable of malfunction. I'd seriously still wait a few years for everyone else to beta test the thing.

Haven't you ever heard of industrial replicators? They're big, but they quickly become less power efficient as the replicated mass increases. I assume this is because greater distances mean more work for the targeting scanners and related equipment.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Uh, I don't think it's that easy. Even replicators can't be a hundred percent effective, even if everything they create gets recycled, which it's not. You'll still need an external power source.

Yes, I know, and you need a house to put it in. Quit snarking my snark. :P

Seriously, though, every few episodes we discover something that can't be replicated because the plot needs it, but those types of things rarely come up in real life. Since it converts matter into energy, and then converts than energy back into matter according to a pattern, you can use any source of matter as a feedstock: garbage, lawn clippings, dirt, bodies...

It's an effective way of solving the waste problem, especially if you can convert, say, CFCs (made from light, common elements) into things like platinum and palladium (expensive, rare, heavy elements).

I'm science-geeking out again. Occupational hazard. I'm also carefully ignoring the many egregious ways it probably violates various fundamental laws of the universe.

[Nate the Great]

Snarking is a well-respected custom of fiving. I have a great theory about how all Trek tropes can be categorized as either personal snarks, equipment snarks, or plot snarks.

[e of pi]

An actual theory about Fivers? Sounds neat! I wouldn't mind hearing some more detail on this.

[Nate the Great]

Personal snarks: This encompasses all "cliches" and their associated "anti-cliches" that involve the characters themselves. Data's contractions (and people bringing them up), Janeway's coffee addiction, Chekov's accent, McCoy's Spock bashing, Kirk's pronounciation and skirt-chasing issues, etc. Hence a fivist can amplify and/or explain these traits for humorous effect.

For example, in my fivers I've turned Dax into a "slang-obsessed techno-freak," as I call her. That doesn't mean that I don't like Dax, 'cause I do, it's just that she presents the most easy conduit for jokes that involve slang and Treknology.

Along similar lines, I've pushed O'Brien's work overload (brought to my attention by Phil Farrand) into an out and out burden that the others deliberately put upon him. This also provides convenient opportunities for "easy" punchlines by having him win office pools on the station to give him time off, since as the "oldest" (I think Odo is technically older, but he's still relatively emotionally immature) crewmember he needs vacations and a full night's sleep more than the others, at least in my fivers. He'd also win these pools because after six years on the Enterprise and upteen years on other vessels during the Cardassian War, he's the one that's the most mature in many respects, both professionally and personally.

Equipment snarks: First off, as Derek says, the computer as a character is always funny. Along these lines, the transporter and the holodeck are rife with their own problems and provide ample fodder for jokes, especially in fivers. Similarly, I enjoy the sound effects joke first found in Bob and George, hence the use of Kablazmo and other such sounds. The Trek creators even provide for this kind of material, what with their inconsistent protrayal of the capabilities of the computers, shields, weapons, tricorders, etc.

Plot snarks: The fourth wall (or lack thereof) jokes. As much as we love Trek, there are ample examples of "idiot plots" and people forgetting the technology they have and what it can do. As Bashir says in one of my fivers: "Sounds rather convoluted-oh yeah, this is DS9. Never mind."

[Gatac]

I have to go with replicators, too. Post-scarcity economy for the win!

Gatac

[Nate the Great]

Uh, and where are you going to get the energy to run all of those replicators? I suppose simple antimatter technology should've been on the list.

[MaverickZer0]

I am highly disappointed in all this, as I'd much prefer a Stargate. Yes, with all the inherent risks and technological foibles and...

Screw it. I want Atlantis. It's basically a big piece of technology (with other bits in it). And the ATA gene if I don't have it.

[Nate the Great]

Um, I don't think the city itself counts. If you wanted transporter "elevator" booths, that'd be fine. ZPM, Puddle Jumpers (wonder if McKay's still stewing that Gateship was shot down), Life Signs Detectors (why can't they just use the word tricorder?), yadda yadda are all okay wishes.

Then again, (SPOILER ALERT!) the entire city is an intergalactal starship, so maybe it does count. Nah, still wouldn't count.

Time for a little grumble. "Ancient" was okay in the first season, but that Asgard guy should've used the word Alteran in "The Fifth Race" and be done with it. Seriously, these guys aren't gone, they aren't purely mythical, they exist today and some of them are still actively meddling in mortal affairs. If I was an Alteran, I'd be insulted that people who knew my race name and knew that my race still lived were still using the word Ancient.

Oh, and where are the Furlings, and are they furry? And what's with the ninth chevron? After ten years, we want answers!

[MaverickZer0]

Atlantis is a city-ship. Originally it was connected to the Antartic outpost. It counts. (And if not, I just want a Puddle Jumper. Those things are awesome.)

Actually, their race name is NOT Alteran. Alteran is Latin for 'the others', or close to it, which they use to distinguish themselves from the Ori. Nor is it 'Lantian', which is merely 'resident of Atlantis'. The true race name of the Ancients/Ori is still unknown. Hence calling them Ancients in the first place.

/Stargate geek mode

[Nate the Great]

Okay, Mr. Smartie-Pants, YOU explain why they never identified themselves. If you're going to be persnickety, then their name really IS Ancient, like that Asgard guy said. In that case Othar wouldn't have said "I am what you would call an Ancient," she'd have said "I am an Ancient." Explain that, too.

[Derek]

Uh, and where are you going to get the energy to run all of those replicators? I suppose simple antimatter technology should've been on the list.

Since when did we have to worry about power? You said, and I quote,

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?

The cost-effective part implies that power consumption will not be unreasonable.

[Gatac]

Besides, M/AM power isn't even on the list...

Gatac

[MaverickZer0]

Okay, Mr. Smartie-Pants, YOU explain why they never identified themselves. If you're going to be persnickety, then their name really IS Ancient, like that Asgard guy said. In that case Othar wouldn't have said "I am what you would call an Ancient," she'd have said "I am an Ancient." Explain that, too.

Simple. They don't want humans to know too much about them. If they had the name of their race, they could find out more, and the Ancients want them to find their own path to Ascension. That they've learned this much at all is a mistake, but they are still extremely tight-fisted with information. It's very possible also that they never properly identified themselves to the other three races, as they were already so far in advance they felt the same applied.
Personally, I believe the Ancients called themselves humans. That's why the Milky Way humans are second-generation, and they make seperate distinctions (Kelownans, Tauri, etc.) among them. It's not so much a stretch.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Uh, and where are you going to get the energy to run all of those replicators?

Power stations in close orbit around the sun, which will convert the huge flux of energy coming off it into microwaves and then beam it to Earth (as described by Asimov in "Reason"). It'll be collected by receivers at the tops of the space elevators and fed into the electrical grid from there.

[Burt]

If you can have Atlantis, then why not the Enterprise - E. Then you get everything. Warp, tricoders, comm badges, phasers, transporters....
I think that is the reason why you can't pick whole ships.
To be honest, if I could take one thing from ST...anything...it would be the advanced nature of the people, the humans. I know there are still some gits, but most, as troi said, are united. Just think what we have done in the last hundred years as a race. Split the atom. Taken to the sky. Taken to space. Look at our technolgy. Ok it isn't quite Trek level, but we do have some amazing things (The internet!) But that was while we've been doing all this fighting and crap. It makes you wonder, if we could pour all our energy into 'improving ourselves', without the in-fighting part, just think just what we could do. Not having to spend all our money on defence budgets. Or worrying about north korea making bombs. I'm certain if things were pushed and the world was more united we could have a real chance at doing amazing things.
It just makes me think.

[Nate the Great]

That'd be your first wish, then.

Oh, and how would ignorance of their true name stop Daniel? He knows what makes Ancient look different than Latin, right? He can take a look at the writing and say "that's Ancient!" :)

Uh, even Daniel, given a full set of Ascention 101 books, couldn't do it on his own, and we're led to believe that if DANIEL can't do it, no one can. He needed Oma Desala's meddling, BOTH times. And she's a little tied up at the moment, so she ain't gonna be helping anyone else.

Uh, even if they called themselves "humans," they wouldn't. They'd use the word for "human" in Latin or whatever. That would give them an identity all their own, right?

[MaverickZer0]

If he's the only one who can translate the language, what's to stop the memory block Oma put on him to keep blocking key details? Like their name, which would be why he doesn't know it.

They barely knew what Ascension was before that point. If he had a guide, which he hasn't, then he could probably do it.

I think you're forgetting what language a lot of our words come from. But who said anything about Latin? And why would they use that and not the translation? Besides, it's the same thing anyway. No matter whether I say 'fire', 'pyro', 'incendie', or 'kaji', it all means the same thing, that stuff that burns you when you touch it, right? So even though they use another language, it means the same thing. Languages = semantics.

Why can't we pick ships? A ship is a technology, technically. Go ahead and pick the Enterprise.

Again, if I can't have Atlantis, I'll take the Atlantis Stargate.

[MaverickZer0]

If he's the only one who can translate the language, what's to stop the memory block Oma put on him to keep blocking key details? Like their name, which would be why he doesn't know it.

They barely knew what Ascension was before that point. If he had a guide, which he hasn't, then he could probably do it.

I think you're forgetting what language a lot of our words come from. But who said anything about Latin? And why would they use that and not the translation? Besides, it's the same thing anyway. No matter whether I say 'fire', 'pyro', 'incendie', or 'kaji', it all means the same thing, that stuff that burns you when you touch it, right? So even though they use another language, it means the same thing. Languages = semantics.

Why can't we pick ships? A ship is a technology, technically. Go ahead and pick the Enterprise. With replicators you could build them anyway...except that you're forgetting, it needs a database to work from.

Again, if I can't have Atlantis, I'll take the Atlantis Stargate.

[Nate the Great]

Hey, we use the foreign equivalents of words every single day. Ciao, hola, hombre, dinero, yada yada. If a word like "grumtie" means "human" in Ancient, we can say that they're Grumties. It's that simple.

Uh, whoever said that we're advanced? As a whole, I mean. There are some ubersmart and uberinnovative people out there, granted, but the average joes and other induhviduals among us outnumber the geniuses.

Oh, and choosing ships, I think, violates the spirit of the question. It actually borders on greedy, if you ask me.

[MaverickZer0]

Yes, but you're missing the point. In modern vernacular, it means the same thing. The word itself is irrelevant if you have the meaning, and the meaning is that since humans are the second evolution of the Ancients, since they are their descendants, they're a less-evolved version of the same race. Similar meaning, who gives a flip about the name?

I didn't say everyone could. I said Daniel could. Big difference.

Then I call the Atlantis Stargate, eight crystals and all. Whoever gets the single working ZPM (that's <i>Zed</i>PM, in case you were confused about the pronunciation) left in existence, ring me up and we'll do some galaxy-hopping. Obtaining new technologies and heading to Atlantis to pick stuff up. Through the Stargate, which is practically a cheat in itself.

[Nate the Great]

I give a "flip" about the name. "Human" does not equal "Ancient." Ancient > human. They can do stuff we can't. They know stuff that we don't. Their entire culture is completely different from ours.

ZedPM is the Canadian pronounciation. It is no more or less proper than ZeePM.

[MaverickZer0]

If the name the Ancients use for themselves turns out to mean human, or to be translated as such, or even to be that word specifically, go on and refer to them as the Ancients. It might even be more accurate now than any name they would've had for themselves. Fact is humans are descended from them, and while they don't have those powers yet it is accepted they will eventually develop them.

Zed is the proper, British pronunciation of the letter. Y'know, the people who invented the language? ;p

[Gatac]

*snaps photos of thread participants, files them under "cantankerous"*

You're all ignoring the most important Stargate question: why does Teal'c have those freakishly large lips?

Gatac

[Mr. Richardson]

Frick the stargate. You can only go where they lead you.

Give me warp-ludicrous anyday. (And that means I get the whole warp bundle, too.... he-he! Warp core, the intertial dampeners, etc, etc...*)

[mudshark]

Y'know, the people who invented the language? ;p
Oh, the Angles, then? :)

[Nate the Great]

Uh, I do believe that the millions of people who speak other dialects would argue with any definition of which is the correct way to speak English. The only place I ever say zed and not zee is when telling what sector Earth is in. Zed Zed Nine Plural Zed Alpha.

Maybe some Jaffa have big lips as a result of the genetic modifications that were done on them to turn them into Goa'uld kangaroos. :)

Oh, and even if you could get the entire warp propulsion system, how would you house it? It'd just be sitting in your garage (okay, a warehouse :)) until NASA catches up and builds a ship for it.

[MaverickZer0]

Of course. But my policy is that the people who made the language are the ones who know how to speak it. The rest of us, even Canadians, are just immigrants with funny accents. And in case you can't tell, I've been being sarcastic since about my second post here. Prob'ly the first, too.

Goa'uld rules state that Jaffa of Teal'c's rank MUST have collagen injections. It supposedly makes them more imposing. Or something.

[Nate the Great]

Um, even if that theory was accurate, I don't recall anyone alive that invented the English language, nor any book titled "How to speak English, by the Guy Who Invented It."

It's always time for sarcasm, as the running gag in my fivers states. However, whenever I use sarcasm, it's clearly sarcasm, at least to discerning ears. At least, I hope I have discerning ears...

[MaverickZer0]

I meant the country it originated in. You know. England. Where the English are from.

What do you think the ';p's were for, decoration?

[mudshark]

And in case you can't tell, I've been being sarcastic since about my second post here. Prob'ly the first, too.
Is that even allowed here?






http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g223/mudshark58/smilies/whistle-1.gif

[Nate the Great]

The more obscure emoticons sometimes elude me.

[Burt]

Am I bovvered? yeah, but, no, but.....

Yes, we started the English language, and by God, we'll finish it off too.

Book, man.

[Nate the Great]

At least promise that you'll do it mercifully. :)

[Chancellor Valium]

Um, even if that theory was accurate, I don't recall anyone alive that invented the English language, nor any book titled "How to speak English, by the Guy Who Invented It."


Fowler would seem to be a case in point.

[Nate the Great]

Whoever Fowler is.

[Chancellor Valium]

Henry Watson Fowler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Watson_Fowler), author of Fowler's Modern English Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_Modern_English_Usage).

[Nate the Great]

Uh, yeah. Maybe we should move away from what's the "correct" way to speak English. At least for me, there are really three categories of English speakers (native English speakers, I guess I should clarify):

"Correct" speakers=those people who not only never use slang, they never even use contractions unless it's absolutely necessary. Oh, and when they say Kleenix, you know they mean KLEENIX, and not any old generic knockoff. :)
"Normal" speakers=the majority of people who use the language. Kleenix means any facial tissue. Contractions are a must, but you'll still find 95% of the words they say in the dictionary. Also "talk right" is just as valid as "speak correctly."
"Casual" speakers=the ones who can say "dude" with a zillion different connotations to indicate a zillion different meanings. Duuuuuuddddeee, DUDE, deude, ad nauseum. They can also insert words like "um," or "like" next to any imaginary comma in their speech, or every four words, whichever comes first. :)

To save you guys the effort; these are humorous categories. If they don't evoke a laugh, then I must go off and live in a state of utter disgrace: New Jersey. (Bonus points for identifiers of the inventor of this joke)

[e of pi]

Dave Barry, referencing Ex-Prez Nixon.

[Nate the Great]

Bonus points for you. Dave Barry will always be one of those people who have a quote for any situation. That's a rare accomplishment. The only other sources I can think of at the moment are Shakespeare, Friends, and the Bible. There's a trifecta, huh? :)

[Chancellor Valium]

Why should we move away from using the language correctly? It means that you can read what is written with greater clarity, hear what is said with less confusion, and it generally makes for an easier time of things, whereas ifutlklkthszomfgitsoooooodifftorednundrstndinnitbr uv?!!?, 0|2 |!|<3 th15, a5 \/\/3||, l0lz0r!!!111!!!oneone!!1!

Also, contractions are fine. Contracting words that shouldn't be contracted isn't.

[Nate the Great]

Never said that contractions weren't fine, just that some people are anal about never using them. I'm not. I even use ain't and tisn't.

Contracting words that shouldn't. Like 'sup and tisnt, I suppose.

I suppose we can return to The Dave and Willy the Hat Shakespeare for more examples:

Hamlet: O did'st thine vesper'd dreams 'ere burnt the day?
Nor can'st thou findest not plums in frinklewhey?
Gertrude: What?

[mudshark]

Why should we move away from using the language correctly?
I don't think it's correct language use, or anything else in particular. Nate just seems to like moving away from things, in general; it's sort of a recurring theme.

... ifutlklkthszomfgitsoooooodifftorednundrstndinnitbr uv?!!?, 0|2 |!|<3 th15, a5 \/\/3||, l0lz0r!!!111!!!oneone!!1!
Is it bad that I was able to work out what you said there with very little effort? I wonder... :(

[Nate the Great]

Oh, you wound me. Nothing hurts as much as the truth, does it?

At least give me credit for (usually) having a leadin for my segues. They aren't (usually) totally random. I prefer to think of it as volleying the topic in a new direction, but there are anchor points.

So what does that load of gibberish mean? If it's leet, I must've left my leet/english dictionary in my other set of online skates. :)

[Chancellor Valium]

Is 'ain't' a contraction or a corruption, though?

And that gibberish, spelt out says 'if you talk like this zomfg [random z, O My Flowering Geraniums] it is soooooo difficult toread and understand, innit bruv [isn't it, brother]?!!?, or like this as well, lolzor [Laugh out Loud, Zebra on the Roof].'

[mudshark]

Is 'ain't' a contraction or a corruption, though?
It's a contraction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ain't).

[Sa'ar Chasm]

It means that you can read what is written with greater clarity, hear what is said with less confusion, and it generally makes for an easier time of things,

People wonder why I'm obsessed with proper spelling and punctuation. That reason is why. Less-literate online friends of mine maintain that "you can still understand what I'm trying to say," but sometimes I can't. It's just too incoherent.

Grammar, on the other hand, is hit-or-miss.

[Nate the Great]

Zebra on the roof?

It's interesting how obsessed I get about "may" and "can" sometimes. Not so much for grammatical reasons, but just using the definitions. "Can I have a bowl of ice cream?" Well, of course you CAN. You know where the bowls, spoons, and ice cream are. You aren't wearing manacles, and there isn't a padlock on the refrigerator. "May I have a bowl of ice cream?" Do you have permission? Is it okay to have some ice cream? Is the ice cream earmarked for another purpose? And so on.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I'm like that with clear and colourless, but that's an occupational hazard.

Ditto spectrums and spectra (one's right, the other isn't).

[Nate the Great]

Of course clear and colorless aren't the same. Clear means you can see stuff on the other side. Colorless means that it's colored white. Sort of akin to white=red+green+blue for light and white=no pigment for paint.

[mudshark]

Clear means you can see stuff on the other side. Colorless means that it's colored white.
No, that's not it.

Clear = transparent, which is more or less what you said. For a chemist (what Sa'ar is, in case you missed it), it would mean "without observable flocculents, filaments, sediment or other particles," -- as pure water would be, for example.

Colorless = without color. Not blue, not green, not yellow or pink. Not white, either. Without coloring of any kind -- again, as pure water would be, but in a different way than "clear" describes.

[Chancellor Valium]

@mudshark: b-whu? It's the same length!

@II: I have no idea what the 'z0r' is for, but it seems to be randomly added to words in 1337...

[mudshark]

@mudshark: b-whu? It's the same length!
It is? No, no, no -- "contraction" is one letter longer than "corruption", heh heh heh. http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g223/mudshark58/smilies/bgbiggrin.gif

(Actually, I see what you mean... I think.

"Ain't" is a contraction, but it's also an altered form of more than one earlier contraction (some of which are longer and some of which aren't, and most of which were even more awkward to begin with than "ain't" is) which, depending upon who's doing the defining, may also make it a corruption -- it's hard to tell, sometimes. The English language was a lot more fluid around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries than it is now, and I think that, more than anything else, when the lists of What Would Be Standard English and What Wouldn't were being drawn up by the people who do that sort of thing, "ain't" was simply standing in the wrong queue, and it has never managed to recover from the gaffe. The Usage Notes in two entries on the page to which I linked above go into more detail on this, if you're interested, but, in my opinion, far more time has been spent in human history arguing about the validity (or lack, thereof) of the word "ain't" and how to correctly classify it than the subject is properly worth.

(Oh, and aren't parentheses fun? :D ))

@II: I have no idea what the 'z0r' is for, but it seems to be randomly added to words in 1337...
That's about it, really -- noise. h4XX0r, r0xx0rz, 5uXX0rz, LOLz0rz: it's all a hangover from the time when preadolescents used to send each other messages on their telephone pagers, and thought it was pretty clever to bamboozle their parents and teachers with odd spellings and character substitutions. It's funny and not a little pathetic when you see a forty-something, otherwise "respectable" citizen using words like "pr0n" without thinking, but there you go...

[Nate the Great]

You guys are just confusing me now. Anything that's not out and out transparent/clear/whatever has SOME color.

You still haven't defined clear vs colorless adequately. What's needed is an example of a clear object that has color, or a colorless object that's not clear.

Oh, and although people might be led to believe that II would be the proper acronym for me, I really do prefer NTG for such purposes. Just a preference.

[Gatac]

You guys are just confusing me now.

Now you know my pain.

Gatac

[Sa'ar Chasm]

You guys are just confusing me now. Anything that's not out and out transparent/clear/whatever has SOME color.

You still haven't defined clear vs colorless adequately. What's needed is an example of a clear object that has color, or a colorless object that's not clear.

*cracks knuckles*
All right, hold on to your hats, and please keep your hand inside the car until it has come to a complete stop.

A glass of water is clear and colourless. Clear means that it's not opaque: you can see right through it. Colourless means that it has no colour - that is, it doesn't absorb any visible wavelength, so it's not green or yellow or magenta or whatever.

A glass of Kool-Aid is clear, assuming you've mixed it all completely and don't have chunks of undissolved sugar swirling in it. You can see right through it and it isn't opaque. It is, however, coloured, depending on what flavour it is.

A block of ice is colourless, but you can get ice that isn't clear, depending on how it froze. If the ice cube is full of bubbles, you can't see through it.

A glass of milk is not clear, it's opaque. It's also coloured - white, in this case. Yes, white is a colour.

Clear? (Or colourless?)

[mudshark]

You guys are just confusing me now.
We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is, therefore, your own problem. Please relax. You will be sent for soon.

[Chancellor Valium]

It is? No, no, no -- "contraction" is one letter longer than "corruption", heh heh heh. http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g223/mudshark58/smilies/bgbiggrin.gif
*shakes fist in ineffective annoyance*

(Actually, I see what you mean... I think.

How can you *see* a meaning?

..."An eye for an eye" :p

"Ain't" is a contraction, but it's also an altered form of more than one earlier contraction (some of which are longer and some of which aren't, and most of which were even more awkward to begin with than "ain't" is) which, depending upon who's doing the defining, may also make it a corruption -- it's hard to tell, sometimes. The English language was a lot more fluid around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries than it is now, and I think that, more than anything else, when the lists of What Would Be Standard English and What Wouldn't were being drawn up by the people who do that sort of thing, "ain't" was simply standing in the wrong queue, and it has never managed to recover from the gaffe. The Usage Notes in two entries on the page to which I linked above go into more detail on this, if you're interested, but, in my opinion, far more time has been spent in human history arguing about the validity (or lack, thereof) of the word "ain't" and how to correctly classify it than the subject is properly worth.
Much like the split infinitive - the third way to lose friends forever in three minutes...

(Oh, and aren't parentheses fun? :D ))

Possibly (But then (you see (I think) ) you could (possibly (just about (perhaps) ) ) get away with using commas (don't you think? (I'm not sure (you see) ) )
:p

That's about it, really -- noise. h4XX0r, r0xx0rz, 5uXX0rz, LOLz0rz: it's all a hangover from the time when preadolescents used to send each other messages on their telephone pagers, and thought it was pretty clever to bamboozle their parents and teachers with odd spellings and character substitutions. It's funny and not a little pathetic when you see a forty-something, otherwise "respectable" citizen using words like "pr0n" without thinking, but there you go...
!nd33d...

[mudshark]

Much like the split infinitive - the third way to lose friends forever in three minutes...
I do believe I've been zinged. http://www.terranbbs.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/blushing.gif

[Nate the Great]

Bubbly ice cubes are colored white.

"They all dared to brave unknown perils, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before. And thus was the Empire forged."

Are you guys proposing that clear=any portion of a beam of light that hits one side can be seen on the other?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Bubbly ice cubes are colored white.

No they're not, and neither are polar bears.

Are you guys proposing that clear=any portion of a beam of light that hits one side can be seen on the other?

We're not proposing anything. We're stating accepted scientific definitions. Clear and colourless describe different properties. Colour is colour, but clear refers to turbidity (more specifically, the absence thereof).

[Nate the Great]

Try again, without defining anything as itself. X=X isn't very illuminating.

[Chancellor Valium]

'Anything that happens, happens'.

Written by an atheist looking for rational explanations to the universe.

Consider in terms of rationality.

[Nate the Great]

"No matter where you go, there you are."

Written for Buckaroo Bonzai, looking for a phrase that the builders of the Excelsior can rip off. :)

Consider in terms of blatant cliche emulation.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

All right...this is much easier with props.

Consider a glass of water. Nothing in it, no ice cubes or rye or sand or anything. It has no hue. It's colourless. You can see right through it - everything on the otherside of the glass is visible, albeit distorted. It's clear.

Now consider a glass of chocolate milk. It's got a colour: brown. You can't see what's behind the glass. It's not clear, it's opaque.

There'll be a quiz on this later. Just be glad we no longer use the term "water-white".

[Gatac]

Your explanation is clear, but lacks local color.

Gatac

[Nate the Great]

If you can add sand to drinking water, then I'm not going to the right parties. :)

I think we've got the "seethroughability" range pinned down to transparent and opaque, but I'm not sure that transparent=clear.

What color is "water-white" supposed to be? I've seen "clear" water, white cloudy water, red water, and so on.

As long as we're off-topic, how many people prefer a certain amount of "hardness" in their drinking water? I was raised in a house that used well water. We needed a water softener for the washing machine and so on, but the stuff coming out of the taps was all natural. The Mississippi River was literally across the street. I was raised on "rust water" and like it, within reason. To this day I find that nothing can quench my thirst like ice-cold, rock-hard water.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I think we've got the "seethroughability" range pinned down to transparent and opaque, but I'm not sure that transparent=clear.

I've got an M.Sc. in Chemistry that says it does. Plain water is clear and colourless. Kool-Aid is clear and coloured.

What color is "water-white" supposed to be?

Colourless. There's a reason it's not used anymore.

[Nate the Great]

I think we're getting to the point where the "most desired scifi invention" is a universal translator/dictionary/Encyclopedia Galactica/etc. that contains a unified set of terms.

You say "Master's of Science" as M.Sc.? Never saw that one before. Around here, it's either M.S. for master of science or M.(abbreviation of the major)
When I finally go back to grad school, I'll be going for M.C.E.

[Nate the Great]

I think we're getting to the point where the "most desired scifi invention" is a universal translator/dictionary/Encyclopedia Galactica/etc. that contains a unified set of terms.

You say "Master's of Science" as M.Sc.? Never saw that one before. Around here, it's either M.S. for master of science or M.(abbreviation of the major)

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I think we're getting to the point where the "most desired scifi invention" is a universal translator/dictionary/Encyclopedia Galactica/etc. that contains a unified set of terms.


We already have that. It's called IUPAC (the Internation Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).

You say "Master's of Science" as M.Sc.? Never saw that one before. Around here, it's either M.S. for master of science or M.(abbreviation of the major)


Actually, the front page of my thesis said "Master of Science". I had to check it against somebody else's thesis to make sure.

[Nate the Great]

Uh, that's not universal yet, or else we'd have km/hr on our speed limit signs. Plus I hear the Alpha Centurians are miffed at our presumption. ;)

[Chancellor Valium]

We use the same abbreviations for science degrees over here.

Oh, and as I understand it, metric is used universally by scientists.

[Starpaul20]

I would love a Transporter, but I'll be happy with a laser. ;)

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Uh, that's not universal yet, or else we'd have km/hr on our speed limit signs.

We do. It's not my fault you live in an abberrant region.

Scientists have put a lot of effort into standard, universal definitions of things, so that everyone knows what everyone else is talking about when someone uses a term. It's also not my fault you haven't read them.

[Nate the Great]

I suppose you'd want the sharks to attach them to, as well. Oh, and I thought we already had lasers, just not Captain Proton-worthy ones.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist! :) And as we all know, engineers always break the rules.

As I understand it, Americans are proud of being abberant, and also proud of continually trying to rewrite the world so that we'd no longer be abberant. Just look at the proliferation of our money, language, culture, yada yada.

[MaverickZer0]

Metric is metric and sense. Water should freeze at zero, units should be in tens and hundreds. Water freezing at 32 or whatever doesn't make much sense. Then 0 is way below the freezing point and there's no point of having a zero if it's not doing anything special.

Don't get me wrong, I use imperial for height and stuff though I know I shouldn't. But metric makes more sense, and damn you Americans for shoving otherwise on us. You and your...coffee.

[Nate the Great]

If you can believe Isaac Asimov's scientific essays (and I do), this is an abbreviated, as-factual-as-I-can-recall story of the zero point on the Farenheit scale:

One day a scientist made a new kind of thermometer. Whether he invented the modern mercury thermometer or not is beside the point. To create gradations he decided to set zero as the coldest temperature that he could create in a lab. This turned out to be a slush of salt and snow. He plunked in his termometer and marked off zero. As for thirty-two and two-twelve, he decided to show off by separating the range between ice freezing and boiling into a hundred and eighty degrees. This is because the predominating scale at the time had only eighteen "degrees" in it because of the crudeness of previous thermometers. He wanted to show off and say that his thermometer was ten times as accurate. Using this range of numbers and the current zero, we get thirty-two and two-twelve.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

That's a nice story, but his methods were unscientific. Nobody else can replicate or calibrate a similar thermometer, which makes it useless as a scientific instrument.

The story I heard in one of my chem classes was that 0 was "an average winter's day in Vienna", Fahrenheit being Austrian, and 100 was his body temperature (he must have been running a fever that day, given that healathy human body temperature is 98.6 F). Given the fact that he's been dead for a century and a half and global warming has ensured that winter in Vienna now is not the same as winter in Vienna in the mid nineteenth century, we still can't replicate either of these reference points.

[Derek]

Water should freeze at zero,
Using that logic, all liquids should freeze at zero.

units should be in tens and hundreds.
Which is true of all base-10 measuring systems. And even taking you at your meaning, Fahrenheit isn't exactly like distances which have inches, feet, yards, and miles, with non-base-10 conversions between them. There's only one unit.

Water freezing at 32 or whatever doesn't make much sense.
Why is water special? Why does it make sense that ethanol freezes at -114.3 °C instead of -173.74 °F?

Then 0 is way below the freezing point and there's no point of having a zero if it's not doing anything special.
It's still arbitrary. There's no scientific reason why water should be chosen as the fluid. Why not hydrogen? Or nitrogen? Or mercury? Or gold? Those are elements, not compounds, so you think they might be given priority. Scientifically, it makes sense that absolute zero would be zero.

(Apparently I'm in an argumentative mood today. Ignore me.)

[Nate the Great]

As a Minnesotan I'm a little disquieted that anyone would think that "average winter days" exist, at least in anything approaching a measurable sense. Maybe if you're just talking about raw temperatures.

Water is the base unit because it's the building block of the universe. The number of lifeforms that don't depend on water as a critial element of life is either zero or so close to zero that you might as well round down. Plus it's abundant and we can measure it's properties in repeatable experiments easily.

I'd look up the appropriate Asimov essay and quote passages, but the book's in my attic at the moment. A shame, really.

[Nate the Great]

As a Minnesotan I'm a little disquieted that anyone would think that "average winter days" exist, at least in anything approaching a measurable sense. Maybe if you're just talking about raw temperatures.

Water is the base unit because it's the building block of the universe. The number of lifeforms that don't depend on water as a critial element of life is either zero or so close to zero that you might as well round down. Plus it's abundant and we can measure it's properties in repeatable experiments easily.

I'd look up the appropriate Asimov essay and quote passages, but the book's in my attic at the moment. A shame, really. Looking back at my previous story, I can already tell that there are holes in it.

[Derek]

Water is the base unit because it's the building block of the universe.
No, it isn't. It's a building block of Life, but not the Universe, and not everything.

Plus it's abundant and we can measure it's properties in repeatable experiments easily.
Many elements and compounds are abundant, and all are repeatable. Why water?

[Nate the Great]

Okay, but as it is Life that's calibrating the thermometers. I don't really see The Universe or Everything doing that stuff, do you?

I just noticed that the thread has a five-star rating. Even if that's the result of only one review, I appreciate the sentiment.

Not all experiments dealing with liquids and phase changes are equally easy to repeat. For example, for compounds with longer melting and boiling ranges, where do you cut off melting and boiling temperatures? The midpoint, the solid end of the scale, what? Early scientists had to deal with these questions.

Oh, and water is easy to get, easy to purify, easy to recover from a gaseous state, and so on. Think about it. Gold is more abundant than certain other metals (as I recall), it's just that a lot of it is locked up in low concentrations in water and other sources that require so much energy to extract that at this time it's de facto useless and out of reach.

[Gatac]

While I agree that there's countless vagaries in the Celsius scale (re: boiling point - what about the salt content of your water?), it is easier to reconstruct as it only requires a fairly common substance (water) going through two aggregate changes. If you want a scientifically solid scale, try Kelvin, which is fixed through absolute zero and the triple point of water.

To me, it's not a valid defense of Fahrenheit to say "Celsius is also whack!". Yes, it is, but Fahrenheit is the worse offender, and we should pick the lesser evil instead of wallowing in our temperature scale misery and sticking with what we have because it's all hopeless anyway, which is the vibe I'm getting here...

Gatac

[Nate the Great]

I don't see anyone defending Farenheit. I think that normal day-to-day temperatures are better represented in it, but that's another discussion.

After putting a little thought into it, I think the perfect temperature scale would be one that set zero at absolute zero, and had degree sizes such that the following temperatures were all nice round numbers:

1. Water freezes.
2. "Room Temperature." That's a discussion for another day, but there's lots of slosh allowed on this one.
3. Normal human body temperature.
4. Water boils.

It should be possible.

[Chancellor Valium]

Using that logic, all liquids should freeze at zero.


Which is true of all base-10 measuring systems. And even taking you at your meaning, Fahrenheit isn't exactly like distances which have inches, feet, yards, and miles, with non-base-10 conversions between them. There's only one unit.


Why is water special? Why does it make sense that ethanol freezes at -114.3 °C instead of -173.74 °F?


It's still arbitrary. There's no scientific reason why water should be chosen as the fluid. Why not hydrogen? Or nitrogen? Or mercury? Or gold? Those are elements, not compounds, so you think they might be given priority. Scientifically, it makes sense that absolute zero would be zero.

(Apparently I'm in an argumentative mood today. Ignore me.)

Isn't the Kelvin scale a bit...big though, for everyday use?

[Nate the Great]

I've been working on a "Grant Scale." For those who read the fine print on my fivers, Grant is my "stage last name." Operating with the following goals in mind:

1. Zero Grant=Absolute Zero.
2. The freezing and boiling points of water should represent reasonable numbers divisible by ten (with a little slush allowed, after all the temperature of water alters these properties and scientists would have to look up these things on a temp/pressure chart anyway)

I've come up with the following properties in mind. It's really picking coordinates off of a y=1.366x chart where x is the melting temp and y is the boiling temp. 1.366 is the ratio of water boiling to freezing on the Kelvin scale. I'm rounding off the boiling point, as I imagine that pressure and other factors allow for a little more variability in that temp than freezing.

Kelvin: (273.15, 373.15)
Farenheit: (32, 212)
Grant 1: (140, 190)
Grant 2: (160, 220)
Grant 3: (300, 410)
Grant 4: (600, 820)

I think that Grant 1 is really nice. The normal human body temperature is about 159, or even 160 if you're generous. Room temperature (60 Farenheit) is about 148, sloshable to 150.

[Nate the Great]

Oh, just wanted to clarify that (begin deep radio commercial fine print voice) the Grant scale is total fanon, not serious at all, invented to solve a "problem," I don't take it too seriously, you shouldn't either, yada yada.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

I don't see anyone defending Farenheit. I think that normal day-to-day temperatures are better represented in it, but that's another discussion.

Says you. I can't make head or tail of your crazy Foreignheat numbers. Is 59 hot, cold or lukewarm?

[Nate the Great]

Foreignheat. You kill me. My coroner will be sending you his bill.

[JVTruman]

Says you. I can't make head or tail of your crazy Foreignheat numbers. Is 59 hot, cold or lukewarm?

It's somewhat cold; at least I think so. I take issue with the '60 Fahrenheit as room temperature' figure above, but I'm a native of Phoenix, Arizona, so that's probably why.

[mudshark]

For scientific purposes, "room temperature" is generally considered to be 25 C (or 77° F) if I remember rightly.

[Nate the Great]

Yikes. I guess I'm just a cold-blooded Minnesotan. 77 F is a nice summer day, but I wouldn't want to spend all of my time in it, I don't care what the humidity is.

[Chancellor Valium]

Foreignheat. You kill me. My coroner will be sending you his bill.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

[Nate the Great]

Um, okay?............

[MaverickZer0]

I prefer to set it at around 20 C (Is that like 70 F?), low humidity, but then, I'm a crazy Winnipegger anyway. And I'm fairly partial to chill.

Foreignheat...*bookmarks word* Perfect.

[Nate the Great]

Okay, I guess it's time for the old ubiquitous temp coversion formula. Can't call myself an engineer or a college graduate if I can't rattle it off of my head:

5(F-32)=9C

Yeah, I know that's not the usual format, but I prefer everything on one line if possible. 20 C is 68 F, or 150 G, in case you were wondering.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Yeah, I know that's not the usual format, but I prefer everything on one line if possible. 20 C is 68 F, or 150 G, in case you were wondering.

You measure temperature in Gauss now?

[Nate the Great]

No, I measure temperature in degrees Grant. You weren't wondering, but

G=(C+273.15)/1.951

[Chancellor Valium]

Foreignheat.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
;)

[Nate the Great]

To guide this conversation back towards the thread topic, which do you think we're more likely to get first?

1. A true handheld hypospray.
2. An energy beam that can stun.
3. A handheld scanner that can detect heartbeats and body temperature from (let's say) five feet away.

All of these things should be less than two hundred years away, in theory, so which do you think we'll get first? Not at the size that Star Trek has it, but at a size that can be carried around without too much trouble and run on fuel cells.

[Gatac]

200? Try 20. We're almost there on all three. That said, I think the scanner will be first.

Gatac

[Nate the Great]

I don't know about that, so I'll play along. However, I think that a major obstacle we still have to face about handheld devices is battery power. How do we keep batteries small while maintaining large power outputs for large periods of time, all with minimal recharging times?

[Chancellor Valium]

Of the three, the energy beam. A deadly version, of course.

@II: We don't. Microscopic fusion reactors, I say. Or somesuch.

[MaverickZer0]

They practically have the hyposprays already; they're already working on them last I heard. I'll go with that.

Although I wanna have a stun gun.

[Nate the Great]

True handheld hyposprays? Um, no. Try lugging around what's essentially a fire extinguisher tank on your bank and do triage. Yeah, right.

Microscopic fusion reactors? And what's going to build them? REALLY tiny tweezers?

I'm gonna repeat this as many times as necessary. II to me is not an acronym for Infinite Improbability, it's a Roman number two. I'd rather have "Nate" or "NTG."

Yikes. Deadly energy beams. Can you imagine the mess that'd make? Could you really create a "frequency fingerprint" for each gun, so you could identify the murder weapon? And don't go saying that only the military would have them, we all know that the black market can get any weapon.

[Chancellor Valium]

Yes, but with an "@" in front, don't you think it's a little more obvious?

I don't know how we'll build micro-fusion reactors. If I knew that, I'd be rich...

Energy fingerprints? Nah. My point is, humanity tends to seek new ways to hurt one another before useful stuff that helps them...

[Nate the Great]

"Obvious" does not equal "preferable" or "desirable."