That just doesn't make sense!

Cookie_Monster

komodosp wrote: »

Data "can't" use contractions of words (e.g. can't instead of can not). This makes no sense at all. I mean he is capable of natural language, and capable of great learning of all sorts of concepts including humanoid peculiarities and personalities, he can rewrite his own code and even learn to be in a a relationship in one episode (to an extent).

maybe he thought it was something not worth changing? A mark of his creator etc?

Kirby

It was a quirk that was added so that the uninitiated viewer would know it was a "robot" and not another alien. He spoke in that formal and fractured way to be obvious to the viewer.

It made no logical sense for Data but lot's of stuff doesn't make sense. It just makes better TV.

It also worked out rather well in the end anyway when Lore showed up and impersonated Data because the viewer got the payoff of the crew figuring it out from his use of contractions.

Beefy78

komodosp wrote: »

Ahh with a but. In the episode, "Redemption", it seems that the Tasha Yar of "Yesterday's Enterprise" existed after all. (And now Guinan somehow knows all about it even though in YE, she only had a strange feeling)

So if the timeline in which the Enterprise C arrived in the present day does not exist, where did the blonde romulan's mother come from?

Indeed. It's a paradox but one which I suspect came about through the writers thinking it was a cool idea and an excuse to get Denise Crosby back for a few episodes rather than a statement of what they see to be the implications of time travel.

komodosp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

maybe he thought it was something not worth changing? A mark of his creator etc?

But throughout the whole series isn't he endeavouring to become "more human"? This would certainly help out in his Turing test...

Myrddin

The Data not using contractions thing was a deliberate programming quirk by Soong, because people were apparently a little weirded out by how close an approximation to humans that Lore was.

As to why he didn't fix it? Perhaps he wasn't made in such a way that it could be fixed, I dunno...

norrie rugger

EnterNow wrote: »

The Data not using contractions thing was a deliberate programming quirk by Soong, because people were apparently a little weirded out by how close an approximation to humans that Lore was.

As to why he didn't fix it? Perhaps he wasn't made in such a way that it could be fixed, I dunno...

It was always the skin tone that I could not understand. Why be pasty yellow/white with yellow eyes??

Kirby

So that the audience knowns he is a 'robot'.

The simplest explanation is nearly always the right one. Stop trying to assign deeper meaning to decisions based on what makes better TV. It doesn't make sense that he can't use contractions. It doesn't make sense for an android that advanced not to have human looking skin. It's for the audience. Any explanation within the show is just fan service.

norrie rugger

Kirby wrote: »

So that the audience knowns he is a 'robot'.

And it is lazy. The moment that they open up his head/body is enough to show that. The audience in Alien/BladeRunner did not need them to have weird skin, to know the android

Kirby

Wasn't that one of the central themes of Blade Runner though? Anybody could be a replicant....thats why they had to test people. Because they looked and acted like humans.

While I agree that it might be "lazy" to colour data, it's a necessity. If he looked and sounded more human (as an advanced android should have) new audience members tuning in for the first time, would not know. Sometimes, you have to play to the lowest common denominator for success. Like how Picard becomes an action hero in all of the TNG movies. He is very different to how he is in the show. Because thats what the movie going audience requires.

So while you can aim your show to be intelligent and high brow, you need the obvious character in the corner who states the obvious for the stupid viewer who can't follow the plot. Every show does it to some extent. In Game of thrones you have complex characters and political intrigue. You also have naked women in every episode. You cover your bases. Thats what they did with Data. "Oh look, he has weird skin. He's a robot!"

norrie rugger

InUniverse it still does not make sense (just like the thread title says)

Do what you need to do, to point something out (Data being an android or Geordi being visually aided with a visor) but don't expect some people to sit there and not question it.
Geordi was stated as one of the first people with the visor in place and it was still a young tech. Great and explained.
Data's inability to use contractions was explained through Lore being "too human" but Lore's (and Data's) colouring could have easilly been explained as a non colourable substance that allowed great tactile feedback or heat dissapation etc.
There was the android "mother" later that had perfect life signs and skin. You would think that Data, striving to be human, would have taken advantage of this knowledge?

al28283

Why wasn't Worf fired after so many security breachs??? Never understood that.

al28283

norrie rugger wrote: »

And it is lazy. The moment that they open up his head/body is enough to show that. The audience in Alien/BladeRunner did not need them to have weird skin, to know the android

Would have made those movies a bit redundant considering that not knowing they were robots was a huge deal in both movies. Certainy would have made Deckard's job a lot easier if the replicants all had green skin

Kirby

al28283 wrote: »

Why wasn't Worf fired after so many security breachs??? Never understood that.

Because the crew hated Worf and revelled in his failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edflm7Hh3hs

This actually starts out as hilarious but after a few minutes, it just becomes uncomfortable. Did none of the writers ever notice how much they dumped on him?

Beefy78

Did I dream it or was there not an explanation for Data looking so un-human-like? Something like that Dr Soong made him that way because people found being around most realistic-looking robots to be unnerving.

Personally I think he'd seen what had happened with Ash in Alien.

norrie rugger

al28283 wrote: »

Why wasn't Worf fired after so many security breachs??? Never understood that.

In fairness, many of the breaches were because they kept ignoring his advice

IvySlayer

How come anything that happened to the Enterprise-D could potentially overload the warp core and cause a breach?

komodosp

Because all control panels are filled with dynamite

Myrddin

IvySlayer wrote: »

How come anything that happened to the Enterprise-D could potentially overload the warp core and cause a breach?

I'd image lugging around a large amount of anti-matter isn't the safest thing to do. Losing power to magnetic containment will cause a core breach, & lots of things can cause power losses really.

komodosp wrote: »

Because all control panels are filled with dynamite

All terminals have to be in some way connected to the systems they operate, so power surges & shorts caused by damage can/would affect the controlling terminals.

cyrusdvirus

IvySlayer wrote: »

How come anything that happened to the Enterprise-D could potentially overload the warp core and cause a breach?

Ask Capt. Donald Varley.... can't find the clip but he reckoned the Galaxy class ships could have been run over a few more drawing boards!!

Cookie_Monster

EnterNow wrote: »

All terminals have to be in some way connected to the systems they operate, so power surges & shorts caused by damage can/would affect the controlling terminals.

surge protectors, fuses or tripswitches don't exist anymore in the future...

norrie rugger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surge protectors, fuses or tripswitches don't exist anymore in the future...

My keyboard is connected to my PC but I don't expect it to blow up in my face, if the PC goes batshít.

Myrddin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surge protectors, fuses or tripswitches don't exist anymore in the future...

Of course they do...but the energy levels we're talking about are huge. Fusion power for impulse & ship power, anit-matter reaction for warp drive. If either of those systems surge, there's only so much protection you could offer.

norrie rugger wrote: »

My keyboard is connected to my PC but I don't expect it to blow up in my face, if the PC goes batshít.

I'd imagine the power levels we're talking about are slightly different

I'm only offering an explanation I think slightly fits in, the real explanation & one we all know...is that it simply looks good for tv.

al28283

norrie rugger wrote: »

My keyboard is connected to my PC but I don't expect it to blow up in my face, if the PC goes batshít.

You're just lucky there's no plasma conduits running behind your keyboard

norrie rugger

EnterNow wrote: »

Of course they do...but the energy levels we're talking about are huge. Fusion power for impulse & ship power, anit-matter reaction for warp drive. If either of those systems surge, there's only so much protection you could offer.



I'd imagine the power levels we're talking about are slightly different

I'm only offering an explanation I think slightly fits in, the real explanation & one we all know...is that it simply looks good for tv.

Of course it is for TV :-D
But in terms of interface it makes no sense. People working in nuclear power stations use consoles and computers that are well removed from the massive power of the reactor. A trip switch would do the trick tbh.
Again it really does boil down to "splosions look gud"

Myrddin

norrie rugger wrote: »

Of course it is for TV :-D
But in terms of interface it makes no sense. People working in nuclear power stations use consoles and computers that are well removed from the massive power of the reactor. A trip switch would do the trick tbh.
Again it really does boil down to "splosions look gud"

How do you know those computer terminals don't spark & fitz during a meltdown?

If you add a trip switch onto the tactical station on the bridge, the minute the shield generator surges then the whole bridge station turns off? That's fukc all use really isn't it, considering the same station is required for weapons, communications & many other functions.

Things get a lot more complicated when you start adding in secondary & redundant systems. You can't trip switch the tactical station because you need that station operational to reroute power, & direct the secondary shield generators because the first one just exploded.

You ALSO then have multiple bridge stations which are connected to the same systems, the OPS bridge terminal can perform many functions, raising shields, communications, science functions. So if the shield generator surges for example, to reroute power to the secondary systems, you still need access to the power in the first place, if its isolated, you can't reroute.

You ALSO ALSO have some systems that are piped through other systems to increase efficiency. I don't understand how people think simply putting a fuse on bridge terminals is a workable solution, if the reality were true, it's far more complex.

norrie rugger

EnterNow wrote: »

How do you know those computer terminals don't spark & fitz during a meltdown?

If you add a trip switch onto the tactical station on the bridge, the minute the shield generator surges then the whole bridge station turns off? That's fukc all use really isn't it, considering the same station is required for weapons, communications & many other functions.

Things get a lot more complicated when you start adding in secondary & redundant systems. You can't trip switch the tactical station because you need that station operational to reroute power, & direct the secondary shield generators because the first one just exploded.

You ALSO then have multiple bridge stations which are connected to the same systems, the OPS bridge terminal can perform many functions, raising shields, communications, science functions. So if the shield generator surges for example, to reroute power to the secondary systems, you still need access to the power in the first place, if its isolated, you can't reroute.

You ALSO ALSO have some systems that are piped through other systems to increase efficiency. I don't understand how people think simply putting a fuse on bridge terminals is a workable solution, if the reality were true, it's far more complex.

But it is an User Interface terminal, it does NOT need high power access. All if it doing is running information. If the console blows it is out of operation anyway, so may as well blow an easily (auotmatically) replaced component like a fuse?
Or at least have the explosion pathway facing away from the operator!!

Myrddin

norrie rugger wrote: »

But it is an User Interface terminal, it does NOT need high power access.

Terminals work the way relays work, they're not directly connected to the main circuit but they are connected indirectly in order to affect current flow. Just because they're fancy touch controls doesn't mean they're completely isolated from the systems & subsystems they control.

In electronics, nothing that manipulates power can ever be truly disconnected with what it controls. Yes there are safe guards in place, & thats all well & good for hair dryers & pc's.

But on a the bridge of a warship, where terminals control many systems & are all interlinked...it's not beyond reason that a power surge in one system causes a problem on the terminal end.

All if it doing is running information.

Its not though. They may be touch controls, but though relays, links, & other items, they have to be connected to whatever they control. Power surges can travel a long way.

If the console blows it is out of operation anyway, so may as well blow an easily (auotmatically) replaced component like a fuse?
Or at least have the explosion pathway facing away from the operator!!

So Worfs bridge terminal fuse blows, & every other terminal that has tactical access fuse blows too because they're all linked. How is primary power to be rerouted to the secondary shield generators with no terminal access?

norrie rugger

EnterNow wrote: »

So Worfs bridge terminal fuse blows, & every other terminal that has tactical access fuse blows too because they're all linked. How is primary power to be rerouted to the secondary shield generators with no terminal access?

Why would the entire panel blow out if one fuse goes? If the fuse for the lights, in my car blows, it does not make me lose ABS.

Also if the fuse goes and there is an automatic replication and replace, for the fuse, it is better than the console exploding and the operator being infured/killed. Meaning that the console is completely out of action as is the operator. If looks good on TV but there would have to be safeguards put in place, in a real situation.

Myrddin

norrie rugger wrote: »

Why would the entire panel blow out if one fuse goes? If the fuse for the lights, in my car blows, it does not make me lose ABS.

No, but there's no terminal in that case it's not the same situation. I'll ask again, if Worfs bridge terminal fuse blows because of a power surge, how is he meant to reroute power to the secondary shield generator with a terminal thats inactive? Think about it for a minute, he's going to somehow need to maintain control over it to reroute it.

Also if the fuse goes and there is an automatic replication and replace, for the fuse, it is better than the console exploding and the operator being infured/killed.

That makes no electrical sense at all, if a fuse blows its because there's a short or problem in the circuit. Blindly replacing the fuse will only cause it to blow out again immediately.

If looks good on TV but there would have to be safeguards put in place, in a real situation.

I'm sure the starfleet tech manual describes several safeguards that are in place for terminals. But when you've systems that are interlinked, interconnected, controlled from various locations, subsystems, auxilliary systems, backup systems that all need to be operated & interfaced with...a fuse isn't going to cut it.

Kirby

A wizard did it...................:p