More Trektardism

[brianeyci]

Great. So I'll have to tutor my kids in calculus myself.

Better off anyway, especially if you can make it exciting. Most of Calculus that did exist in high school was drill. You do not get the intuitive understanding of limit, derivation of limit, or even multivariable or complex numbers at all.

In any case, it's rather irritating that people talk about "calcs" as if a scientific or engineering analysis is nothing more than math.

I have to say this is 100% true. I cannot do physics. There are the Kuronekos who can do physics and math, but they are few and far between. There are many, many math majors who cannot do science. The science majors who cannot do math though, and when I say do I mean do the math needed for their physics problems, are usually fakers.

One little known secret about physics math is the math needed always exceeds the math you're learning at the current level. Grade Ten physics requires Grade Eleven math, Grade Eleven physics requires Grade 12 math, and for proper Grade 12 Physics you need first semester university Calculus. I don't even want to think of the fucking math in second year college physics. First semester physics you need partial differential equations, something math majors don't take until second year.

Mechanical analysis is still king, not putting numbers into an equation.

[Dark Hellion]

I work everyday, and I can tell you it uses up a lot of energy. Usually I have to use some type of combustible liquid to get the energy back at the end of the day, but my systems are degraded by it.

I am sure these kids are the kind who are going to complain about 100 level physics when they get to college. 100 level physics is a fucking joke. Anyone with a bit of sense and the equation sheet should pass the tests cold, because the equations tell you everything. Its not like its fucking hard to find the acceleration if you have force and mass, but its too hard to fucking plug and chug for some people. But really, you can't expect good science from people who don't understand basic ideas like plug and chug, or if you are looking for energy, you want the answer to come out in joules.

[Aratech]

One more question: anyone got a clue where Muunalist is located? I'm trying to figure out its distance relative to Hypori.

Use this for reference

Muunilist is all the way up there in the part labeled "Empire", near the top right, near Bastion.

Hypori, while not on the map, at least I didnt see it, is said to be in the Arkanis Sector which also includes Tatooine and Geonosis, placing it nearly all the way at the bottom of the map.

Hope that helps.

Holy crap. I think we just found the highest recorded speed of hyper-space travel in the history of Star Wars. (For those of you familiar with Clone Wars, captain Fordo and his ARC troopers go from standing next to Obi-Wan on Muunalist, to standing next to Ki-Adi Mundi in a period of about six minutes (with the arrangement of events making it impossible for there to be scene shifts and the like))

*heads off to do some calcs*

[Ritterin Sophia]

Holy crap. I think we just found the highest recorded speed of hyper-space travel in the history of Star Wars. (For those of you familiar with Clone Wars, captain Fordo and his ARC troopers go from standing next to Obi-Wan on Muunalist, to standing next to Ki-Adi Mundi in a period of about six minutes (with the arrangement of events making it impossible for there to be scene shifts and the like))

*heads off to do some calcs*

That's right, the scene you're talking about has Obi-Wan listening to it, then it shifts to Ki-Adi right when he's cut off, IIRC. Then the duel with Grievous and then Fordo and crew shows up in the LAAT/i with the shark nose art.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's funny how star fleet denies being a military force. They have a military command structure (with a rigidly enforced hierarchy), military uniforms, and militarized vessels. Hell, even the so called science core have a uniform (a sort of gray jumpsuit with a silver bar across the chest).

IIRC, Gene Roddenberry actually wanted to forego rank insignia on the uniforms altogether initially, but realized that would be stretching things a bit too much.

I don't recall real world exploration and shipping vessels having weapons, except in times of war or in dangerous areas; even then, they had just light armament for basic defense and relied on fully armed naval escorts. Basically, you never arm a vessel unless you plan to use them, ether in battle or as a projection of force (i.e. gun boat diplomacy, patrol duty, or defensive escort).The only times armed vessels were used for exploration by nation states was when a navel vessel was tasked with a special exploratory mission

And conversely, military resources are applied to many functions other than making war -- disaster assistance, rescue operations, exploration, and R&D. All of which Starfleet does. As another example, I've seen several Trekkies making the argument that Starfleet is a non-military organization like the US Coast Guard, completely ignoring the fact that the USCG is considered part of the American military.

The primary difference seems to be that Starfleet doesn't do nearly as much specialization, though we have seen some dedicated science and hospital vessels. That difference isn't substantive IMO -- it just means they chose a more generalized approach. That may make sense in terms of dramatic license because it allows a wider variety of missions for our intrepid crew, but in RL it would be terribly inefficient.

The only thing non-military about starfleet seems to be their strategic and tactical (lack) of ability.

AFAICT, the sticking point in Trekkies' arguments that Starfleet was not a military was the assumption that if they were then all they would be used for is fighting and that they would default to forceful solutions to everything. IOW, they would have a "shoot-first, ask questions later" at best and at worst would be a conquering force. These are very simplistic assumptions and also one quite easily contradicted with RL evidence.

The varied roles that a military can serve were already noted above. It's also not hard to find military men who are thoughtful advocates of only using force at those times and levels at which it is absolutely necessary, in part because their knowledge and experience gives them an informed respect for the consequences of those actions.

So frankly, beating the "Starfleet is not a military drum" is pretty damn silly, but some Trekkies do it all the same.

And what do you know, in the vs thread on ST.com, some Trektard just made that very claim, so I decided to shove this right down his throat

[Joe Momma]

Re: Starfleet is not a military

And what do you know, in the vs thread on ST.com, some Trektard just made that very claim, so I decided to shove this right down his throat

What a clownshoe -- I didn't realize that marines and infantries were an "Americentric" concept.

I like his argument that Starfleet's mission is not "overly military," so they wouldn't have personnel specializing in combat. It's not like Starfleet vessels commonly encounter hostile forces, transport VIPs to dangerous areas, engage in warfare against aggressor forces, or anything else that might benefit from combat-trained troops over and above the ship's security officers. And since Starfleet's not "overly military," I guess having tactical operations officers as primary bridge crew and those soldiers we saw in "Nor the Battle to the Strong..." and "The Siege of AR-558" were just figments of the imagination.

And he's now backpedaling and arguing only that we will never see officers specifically called "marines," which was obviously not his point in the original "marines and infantries" comment. No, MACOs don't count at all...

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I had to respond with this:

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/image.asp?id=34

[brianeyci]

I've been thinking of the "challenge sfjedis to find someone with a degree in science who agrees with them" to debate Mike, and it would invariably happen like this. They would probably get a guy, who was a casual Star Trek fan who didn't look at the evidence closely enough, who thought Star Trek would have a chance. Then they would begin debating Mike but with false premises, like autoaim phasers and transporters. Because people who are casual fans, who don't look at the details enough, they may think that transporters are the ultimate weapons or that computerized targeting should never miss. If they were depicted that way, then Trek would truly win, but they are not. But then Mike would bring up evidence from shows, and contrary to what most people think he wouldn't immediately start flaming the guy because the guy wasn't really in tune with the board culture and not there for that.

Then Mike would present citations from the shows. The guy would take a closer look at his premises and assumptions, and check the sources and facts, and one by one the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and he would realize he was conned watching that shit, or shut off his brain watching it.

Then it would end one of two ways. With an amicable truce and concession like with Bernd that Wars would win, or scoffing at the non-academic tone of the debate and leaving. The latter is unlikely to happen because Mike only flames stupid people or when they say stupid things. The former would probably happen, with the guy reevaluating his friendship with the trektards and maybe severing ties with them, promising to himself never again to venture into the dank underbelly of the Internet.

What could probably ruin it would be me-tooers, if a guy signed up and twenty guys started their rolling eyes and flames instantly, getting in the way of Mike debating the guy. Or if twenty guys swamped the guy with replies. That is probably the biggest obstacle, and would probably require Mike debate the guy through e-mail or a special thread created so the me toos don't ruin it.

It is unlikely that they would find "somebody who agrees with them" more than sucker someone in who was just a friend with a science degree and had no idea about the length and age of the debate.

[Darth Wong]

Even a guy who has only passing familiarity with Star Wars vs Star Trek would find it pretty hard to get past a planet-destroying battlestation without being highly skeptical of Trek fans' claims of Star Wars' military, industrial, and technological inferiority.

The fact is that Bernd debated me a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure he was just starting his education at the time. By the time he reached fourth year, I seriously doubt he would have ever said anything as monumentally stupid as downplaying the importance of being able to engineer and build something like the Death Star.

[Zablorg]

So if America or something built a space station the size of a fucking moon this guy wouldn't be impressed?

Although wouldn't a large number of engineering difficulties that come with building something so large and keeping it stable be negated somewhat by it being build in a vacuum?[/i]

[Darth Wong]

Although wouldn't a large number of engineering difficulties that come with building something so large and keeping it stable be negated somewhat by it being build in a vacuum?

No. Zero-G would make it easier to assemble in some ways, but the fact is that it doesn't stay at zero-G forever. Once it starts moving, you have to deal with accelerations far greater than 1G, given its past performance.

[Darth Lucifer]

So if America or something built a space station the size of a fucking moon this guy wouldn't be impressed?

The typical Trektard reply, which was given in the thread somewhere, was something along the lines of "Well, the Borg have like a bazillion-jillion-squigglyillion-fashillion cubes and combined they'd be bigger than the Death Star!!1oneshift!!1eleven!1onewun11!!"

[Terralthra]

Not to mention the signicant energy cost of moving every worker, piece of construction equipment, and all the material used to actually build the thing out of a gravity well to begin with.

[Joe Momma]

I had to respond with this:

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/image.asp?id=34

Shuttle deserves nothing better if he's going to whine about being criticized and about the other side claiming they're better in the context of a fucking debate. Lord knows, there's nothing more inappropriate than being called on making a stupid, easily-contradicted-by-evidence statement in the midst of an argument, especially when said statement was itself made in a snide manner. But, alas, poor Shuttle is now overcome with the vapors at our loutish behavior...

[Zablorg]

Not to mention the signicant energy cost of moving every worker, piece of construction equipment, and all the material used to actually build the thing out of a gravity well to begin with.

That would be fucking frustrating.

"Hey Mac! I need a screwdriver!"

"Sure thing, Bob!"

...

"Well Bob, the darndest thing happened, I tried to grab the screwdriver but I just knocked it away. See? It's... there. See it?"

"Yeah... One of us should probably swim after it..."

"Fuck you man, I'm not going out there!"

[Ryan Thunder]

But Mr. Wong, they haven't had those advanced classes, like basic calc based physics, so how can they be expected to figure out that comparing a MJ kinetic impactor with a thermal weapon isn't valid. I mean, its not like common sense tells you that burning yourself and cutting yourself do different kinds of damage to your body. They both hurt!

What's worse is the commonplace stupid assumptions, like people who think that a device which does almost no work must consume huge amounts of energy if it does anything that we can't do today. A classic example is shielding or artificial gravity or integrity fields; why do people assume that it is so energy-intensive, when it does no work most of the time? Do they even know what "work" means in physics?

Most people wouldn't. For some of us, however, its one of those brain bugs that you just accept until you actually think about it for a few seconds. At that point we just facepalm and move on.

Actually Mike, nobody in Ontario teaches Calculus anymore. Or they're not supposed to.

Why?

Politics. A conservative called Mike Harris came in mid 90's and put in a new policy of failing more students and taking away Grade 13. The transition was rough, and tons of teacher's strikes. The new liberal government came in and promised peace. The price of peace was smaller class sizes, and more importantly less failing students. This of course, means no Calculus, or less Calculus.

You know it is politics when the failure rate goes dramatically down double digits over just a couple years. Changes in education happen in small increments, and if it happens by a lot like it did here you know it's watered down.

They removed Grade 13 when I was in Grade 9, which was 4 years ago. Oddly enough, that puts the action right smack in the midst of the Liberal government's time, which, incidentally, stretches all the way back some ten years prior to that as well.

And unless I'm mistaken, the Liberal government had a majority at that point, as well.

Also, there's an "Introduction to Calculus" course that's required for some university programs, even though they just go over the whole thing in first year Calc, anyways.

[Darth Wong]

tjhairball's big education bluff split to here. I'd hate for something this good to be buried somewhere in a 50 page thread.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The comedy continues, the Shuttle dude keeps posting his BS, and says to me:

No worse than someone who is only interested in his own opinion

Pot, kettle, black, anyone?

[Darth Servo]

The comedy continues, the Shuttle dude keeps posting his BS, and says to me:

No worse than someone who is only interested in his own opinion

Pot, kettle, black, anyone?

Both Shuttle and SteveG are trolls. Ignore them.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The comedy continues, the Shuttle dude keeps posting his BS, and says to me:

No worse than someone who is only interested in his own opinion

Pot, kettle, black, anyone?

Both Shuttle and SteveG are trolls. Ignore them.

Indeed, if it was on any other board, I would, but it's easier said than done when they hang out in Ten-Forward, as I do

[Joe Momma]

The comedy continues, the Shuttle dude keeps posting his BS, and says to me:

No worse than someone who is only interested in his own opinion

Pot, kettle, black, anyone?

If you want to continue smacking him down, it's pretty easy to do so. Shuttle's original premise was that Starfleet would not have "marines or infantries" because it was not an "overly military" organization. His evidence for Starfleet not being overly/primarily military was that its primary purpose was exploration, not blowing things up. Feel free to point out that these are two factual errors.

First, as noted in one of my earlier posts in this thread, Starfleet does have personnel who specialize in combat operations, including tactical operations officers (who are considered primary bridge staff) and soldiers as seen in the episodes noted.

Second, being a military does not necessarily mean anything more than being an nation's armed forces. This does not preclude having primary activities other than conducting warfare, at least in peacetime. Starfleet is clearly the UFP's armed forces, and numerous examples were given in the initial response of activities carried out by historical and modern militaries that mirror the same activities common to Starfleet. It's not too difficult to provide plenty of additional historical and current examples. A great deal of historical naval exploration was conducted by military vessels, for example, and modern militaries are still heavily involved in exploration efforts in space, the deep ocean, and the arctic poles.

So feel free to challenge him on both assertions -- Can he show that Starfleet does not have infantry as he originally suggested, or that Starfleet being a military is inconsistent with its primary peacetime activity being exploration when numerous real life militaries have also emphasized such activities during peacetime?

(As a tangential note, I think part of the problem is that those arguing that Starfleet is not a military are conflating being a military organization with having a specific ideology of militarism. These are two separate things, and some of the most outspoken critics of militarism have also been devoted soldiers who were not opposed to the concept of having a military in general -- Smedley Butler's a classic example of that.)

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind if he continues to whine

[Joe Momma]

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind if he continues to whine

And if you do, it would also be interesting to see if you can get an answer to why he thinks having "marines and infantries" is A) an "Americentric" concept and B) said officers would have "no place" on vessels that routinely encounter hostile forces and also serve as the primary defensive organization for the UFP when aggressors attack. Both of these were part of his original assertion as well, though this goes less to his erroneous facts than to the illogical justification for them.

[Batman]

Oh c'mon, everybody knows the US of A invented the concept of marines and infantry and every other country that has them copied the idea off the US. It's totally not like ancient Egypt had foot soldiers or Sailing Age navies had marines. Its totally americentric, definitely.

[Peptuck]

I find it fascinating that people even think that "Starfleet is not a military outfit" is even a viable argument in a vs. debate. Aside from its obvious factual inacurracy, what good does it actually do in the debate? Are they actually admitting that the Federation has no military force? If so, it further confirms blatant Fed incompetence.