Definitions

Sorry, no definitions found.

Etymologies

Sorry, no etymologies found.

Examples

Sorry, no example sentences found.

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • Belated answer: yes. Sadly, though, /lists/star-trek-words isn't open, and the listmistress hasn't been on Wordie for months; however, there is a combined Star Trek and Star Wars list which is open.

    November 2, 2008

  • Do we have a Star Trek list somewhere?

    May 16, 2008

  • If you wanted to feed cats what they really craved, those cans would be filled with live mice and dead birds with those mysterious little entrails that are always left at your door already removed.

    Which, as far as I'm concerned, is far less disgusting than Tuscan dinners for cats.

    May 16, 2008

  • Not to revive this thread, but sionnach, wouldn't it just be better to butter both sides of a single piece of bread? Simpler, and saves on Fancy Feast Elegant Medleys White Meat Chicken Tuscany in a Savory Sauce with Long Grain Rice and Garden Greens*, too.

    * When did cats start eating better than I do?

    April 14, 2008

  • How did I miss this conversation until now? The only thing I can add is to point out that earth travel issues will become a thing of the past, once the fruits of feline butterology technology are available. To wit:

    When a cat is dropped, it ALWAYS lands on its feet; and when toast is dropped, it ALWAYS lands with the buttered side facing down. Therefore, strap buttered toast to the back of a cat. When dropped, the two will hover, spinning inches above the ground, probably in to eternity. A "buttered-cat array" could replace pneumatic tires on cars and trucks, and "giant buttered-cat arrays" could easily support a high-speed monorail linking New York with Chicago.

    Here at Fox Labs, white-coated scientists are working round the clock to bring the marvels of buttered-cat arrays to glorious fruition. We are confident that, once the vexatious problem of having the cats lick the butter off the toast is solved, enormous strides forward are imminent.

    two of our off-duty test cats

    March 10, 2008

  • Well, thanks for that, uselessness. You be my historical record for this page and all is even better. I did try and make it painfully obvious that I changed something. Couldn't you tell? ;-)

    October 31, 2007

  • Wow, man. Dork *out*.

    October 31, 2007

  • Hey, I feel just as bad for affirming your innaccuracy about Troi! But I'm not changing my comment. It's a matter of principle. Plus, I was quoting you verbatim and somebody's gotta preserve the historical record. ;-)

    October 31, 2007

  • None. But this one was bothering me almost as much as Deanna Troi's non-mindreadingness was bothering ST dorks. So now we all feel better. See? :-D

    *handing in old, battered ST fan club membership card from 1979*

    October 31, 2007

  • Hooray for historical revisionism! Now I wonder what other old comments you have changed, and didn't tell anyone about... ;-)

    October 31, 2007

  • Oh, for crying out loud. I corrected it. Everyone: Deanna Troi does not read minds!

    There. All better. No worries. :-)

    October 31, 2007

  • Glamorous thing. Definitely the glamorous thing...

    October 31, 2007

  • Thank you, seanahan, for mentioning Deanna's inability to read minds, which was irking me the whole way up this thread. :)

    On the other hand, it's that very inability which makes her less-than-perfectly useful. It goes like this:
    Romulan: We will not tolerate this insult!
    Deanna: I sense hostility.

    I still wanted to be her when I was little, though. I'm not sure if it was the exotic half-alien thing or the glamorous thing that hooked me.

    October 31, 2007

  • reesetee: only if he has a beard. I can't really stand his hairless-version chin.

    October 27, 2007

  • Nope. It was a reference to my very own brain. So no correction needed. Well, you know...not at this time, anyway.

    But that was a suprisingly similar range, wasn't it? Hmm. Maybe my brain is secretly more dorkish than me. That's scary.

    October 19, 2007

  • I'm going to assume that's a BTTF reference, reesetee, and no one's a bigger BTTF dork than me. Therefore, I must correct your years to 1955 and 2015. ;-)

    October 19, 2007

  • A time machine! Skipvia, I'm with you. That would be excellent--so long as we could get back "home" without a lot of trouble. (I hate when those things malfunction and you end up in 1956 or 2017.)

    *adjusting left Spock ear*

    October 19, 2007

  • Oh my. I go away for a day (which was *painful*. gotta work sometime, though), and I come back to this. In my new mental image of all my favorite Wordies, you all wear fake spock ears while sitting at your computers. :-)

    These days I'm more of a BG man, myself. And I can't fracking wait for Razor.

    October 19, 2007

  • I'd like to see Gondwana at the precise moment the first crack appeared.

    October 19, 2007

  • You know, I'd give them all up for a decent time machine. I want to see some dinosaurs. And Gondwana. And I'd love to see Vermeer paint Girl With a Pearl Earring.

    Ooh--watch the Pyramids at Giza being built.

    October 19, 2007

  • Imagine the lineup that would form at the tube to Fiji.

    October 19, 2007

  • Don't forget, though, that there are cargo transporters, not suitable for organic matter, but presumably there's some advantage to using them--perhaps they use less energy, or transport further or in bulk, but... let's not forget those are available as well, and may well serve a more fruitful purpose today than a standard personnel transport. Think of the savings in gasoline alone, from not having all those eighteen-wheelers on the road, for example. The carbon dioxide savings, etc. would not be negligible.

    Secondly, if you just want to get from one side of the planet to the other, it would be more efficient to build a frictionless (or low-friction) subterranean gravity-operated tube. You'd accelerate until you reach the center of the planet, whereupon your speed would begin to decelerate (at the same rate) for the second half of your journey, until you finally arrive at the surface at a full stop.

    The coolest thing is it doesn't have to go directly through the center of earth. It works at an angle as well.

    So... I still think holodeck or replicator.

    October 19, 2007

  • To add to the transporters discussion, I never recall anyone teleporting around Earth, only back and forth from orbiting ships. Given shuttles with autopilots, traveling would be fast and stress free without resorting to transporters.

    October 19, 2007

  • This is unacceptable. Troi does not "read minds". She is only half Betazoid, and she is empathic, not telepathic.

    October 19, 2007

  • Okay, now you guys are just scaring me.

    October 19, 2007

  • There really isn't a problem with transporters. Safety mechanisms like the aforementioned pattern buffers and Heisenberg compensators have made the risk negligible. Beaming down to a planet surface is far safer than piloting a shuttlecraft down there, and has been for several hundred years (we're in the 24th century, right?).

    Occasionally you'll have some freak thing happen, like a duplicate you running around, or you turn into a ghost, or you discover that old crewmen have been hiding in suspended animation for years in the matter stream. Or any number of other weird anomalies. But for the most part, it's perfectly safe. The major limitations are the 40,000 km range, the fact that you can't transport through raised shields or during warp travel. Certain hacks have overcome some of those, but can't be relied upon in everyday use.

    October 19, 2007

  • Hey, Beverly Crusher is *awesome*. I totally think she'd be a better date than Deanna.

    U, why is pattern degradation not a problem? Isn't that the whole issue with transporters in the first place?

    October 19, 2007

  • Yeah...sometimes you just have to look on in awe.

    October 19, 2007

  • Wow. Just...wow.

    October 19, 2007

  • There are many reasons dorks watch Star Trek. But let's face it, if you tuned in for the babe factor there's probably not much hope left for you. ;-)

    October 19, 2007

  • OK. I suppose Beverly Crusher might be a better fantasy choice than Deanna Troi. I can't believe she and Picard never...you, know, in that episode where they were joined telepathically...and she was wearing that...Is it getting HOT in here?

    October 19, 2007

  • Pattern degradation isn't as bad as it sounds, usually. The recursive pattern buffers and Heisenberg compensators will keep you safe.

    October 19, 2007

  • Okay, I give up. This is not my field of dorkular expertise. Besides, no one's going to degrade my pattern, boyoboy.

    Chained_bear: Riker? Really? *raised eyebrow*

    October 19, 2007

  • Hmm, I'm not sure about pattern loss on a trip through a planet. You're probably right. But the transporter doesn't only work line-of-sight either. I assume there's a threshold of several meters of matter that you could beam through safely, more or less depending on what the material is. My guess is that if you wanted to transport from one point on the earth's surface to another, you'd only be able to go a little further than the horizon; eventually the planet's curvature becomes an issue.

    Of course, that's assuming you're using the wireless protocol they install on starships. That's pretty impractical on land. I expect you could send the signal through the internet on earth, and get just about anywhere there's web access.

    October 19, 2007

  • p.s. "Dating Deanna Troi would be a field trip to hell"?? I think just *watching* Deanna Troi is kind of hellish.

    October 19, 2007

  • There is an absolutely hilarious Weird Al video here on YouTube--a parody of a rap song called "Ridin' Dirty"--about the whitest, nerdiest dork in existence. There are at least four references in the video to Star Trek. So I guess it's easy to see why this discussion has ended up on "dork out."

    Hey--do you think chained_bear was trying to smoke us out? She has apparently succeeded.

    October 19, 2007

  • For me, it's
    holodeck
    replicator
    transporter
    warp drive

    In that order. Oh, and Riker. Wait... maybe
    Riker
    holodeck
    replicator...

    No, no...
    holodeck (and/or Riker)
    replicator...

    October 19, 2007

  • Lots of conversations on Wordie are irrelevant to the word on which they reside, but not this one.

    I'd have the transporter. The circumference of the earth is 40,008 to 40,075 kilometers, so a range of 40,000 kilometers could take me anywhere in the world with a short 8 - 75km walk added on. I'm assuming the "pattern will degrade" if I try to go through the earth.

    October 19, 2007

  • Right on about the transporter, U. I want to go to other galaxies, not just down to a planet surface that it took me 40 years to get to.

    I prefer to think of Deanna as...complex..

    October 18, 2007

  • You can't transport things long-range because the pattern will degrade. Transporters have a maximum range of 40,000 km, which is nothing in the hugeness of space.

    Dating Deanna Troi would be a field trip to hell. Besides the mind-reading, her emotional sensitivity makes her a regular drama queen. And then there's her mother. I don't envy Riker.

    October 18, 2007

  • But here's what I never quite got--why bother with warp drive if you have the transporter? Is it so you can take along your bedroom and your library and whatnot when you travel? But if you can just transport yourself back and forth, why take all that stuff with you?

    And on and on....

    Skipvia, don't forget that despite what I said previously on this thread, Deanna Troi DOES NOT read minds. Important to note. :-P

    October 18, 2007

  • OK, then. It would be warp drive. I want to travel in space and actually get somewhere.

    And I promise not to go into that nebula.

    October 18, 2007

  • No, it would be a food replicator. That's the one I think has the most immediate and pressing application to daily life. (E.g. wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to cook anymore?! OR eat out?!) Or maybe the transporter--particularly for people who travel for a living.

    On the other hand, I didn't say that you couldn't wish for more wishes, so if you could hack a food replicator to replicate another complex engineered mechanism, why... more power to you.

    October 18, 2007

  • Also--could one of those choices be Deanna Troi? That might change my answer.

    October 18, 2007

  • I'd take the holodeck, which can at least make all the other things appear real. I mean heck, it fooled Professor Moriarty.

    October 18, 2007

  • Could I use the replicator to replicate a holodeck, a transporter, and a warp drive engine?

    October 18, 2007

  • Well, here's a question then. If you could choose one of the following Star Trek technological tools to be generally available today, which would you choose?

    Warp drive
    Holodeck
    Transporter
    Replicator

    (I hope I listed those correctly. I'm really a ST wimp.)

    October 18, 2007

  • Count me in, but on other dorkish subjects. :-) I'm a former ST fan but haven't kept up.

    October 18, 2007

  • seanahan: yes, and yes doubly so. I am just as guilty, and suspect all the regulars on this site are too. ;-)

    October 18, 2007

  • I did just leave a comment on ferengi. Also, I was complaining today at lunch that Data made a terrible move against Riker at a poker game from a game theoretic standpoint.

    October 18, 2007

  • Go for it! Bring it!

    October 18, 2007

  • Is this when I relate random things to ST:TNG episodes?

    October 18, 2007

  • Thanks, uselessness.

    October 18, 2007