A small point: In TOS at least twice we see Kirk win a game of 3D chess followed by Spock proclaiming that Kirk’s play was “illogical.”
from “Charlie X”:
Spock: Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired.
Spock: As you wish.
Even with the vastly increased possibilities of 3D as compared to regular chess, it is still a closed system; thus, by definition, any winning move is logical.
The writer’s definition of “Logical” was, in all too many cases, illogical. It just fed my Spock Hatred.
The biggest Spock thing I hated, other than him being a dick to lower ranks, was how he’d draw out some exact time estimate in as slow a voice as he could muster.
“Precisely…eight…point…three…seconds…sir”
FROM WHEN??? It took you that fucking long to say it!
If it makes you feel any better, you’re far from alone there. If I recall correctly, at least one Trek novel suggested that the term “logic” was a fundamental mischaracterization of the Vulcan rationalist philosophy, due to a flaw in the earliest Universal Translator matrix.
Now that I think about it, I’m not sure whether that really was in a novel, or was just something I made up myself.
“Precisely one point nine nine nine nine…”
“Two, Spock! Gawdamit, the answer is two!”
IIRC in Spocks World there’s a flashback to Amanda meeting Sarek for the first time. She is working on a Vulcan/ English dictionary. He objects to a certain term being translated as “lack of emotion” He explains that Vulcan training allows them to master emotions, not eliminate them.
Its a Starship, not a Home Depot! 
And you can’t pile up EVIL bricks!
You forgot to say, “Dammit, Jim!”
It was Diane Duane’s SPOCK’S WORLD, in which she alleged that the Vulcan word cthia had been mistranslated as “logic” or “suppression of emotion,” when a better translation would have been “passion’s mastery.”
Well, now that I think on it, the word mistranslated “logic” wasn’t “cthia.” But I’m not about to go look it up.
Then an evil little pig would build the house.
DS9 had a nifty rifle for assassins to use. It could look through walls (ok, not that great in the 23rd century) but better yet it could beam its projectiles from the end of the barrel to right in front of its target.
Come to think of it, it’s still pretty rubbish, but it was new at least, I’ll give them that.
Hmm! Well “cthia” certainly appears to cover the territory according to this site, and it seems that the term was indeed from Spock’s World by Diane Duane.
“Meditate on this talisman, young Spock. Tend it well, and learn the lesson it teaches: as lush grass appears on its surface, so too may the fruit of reason grow from the barren soil of the undisciplined mind. It is called the Cthia Pet.”
There are internal sensors i.e. cameras. Watch more TNG and you will see examples of them being used, mainly by Warf…
Programs are much easier to create and manipulate than hardware. S/W is only limited by user creation and storage. The “positronic brain” you are referring to is hardware. The problem was they are trying to run Windows Vista on a x486. 
They were not in a common-type of instance (As if they ever are). Caught in a temporal loop in a certain section of space. Once left, they could not piggy back and do things over at will.
Too bad you didnt watch more. One of the better trek series…
Agreed. Now read post 460.
If only they could use their energy/matter/transport devices to, say, beam a chunk out of someone’s head.
You know, skip the bullet-in-the-middle so to speak?
-Joe
Dunno if someone already addressed this, but it seemed ST, especially in mid-space conflicts, frequently spoke as if they were moving in two dimensions.
Even at sea, saying something like “He’s turning away!” is only marginally effective because there are a couple of different directions the opposing ship could be going… hence the hard to starboard and such… airplanes had to add a 3rd dimension… and yet it seems in the Federation they use very specific terms to measure time and date and areas of space… but when it comes to their position relative to other ships, I never heard anything that sounded like a realistic use of points of reference?
I think part of the problem was they didn’t know whether to use metric or standard…“he’s about 85 miles in front of us and 40 miles above us” just sounds weird in ‘the future’, while “he’s approximately 130 kilometers due up” would risk losing the audience?
I believe they would give distance in kilometers at least in TNG, and indicate direction with a compass bearing, adding “Mark X”, X being degrees elevation in relation to the ship.
A notable exception being the final battle in Trek 2, where experience counted for more than pure intelligence, something completely forgotten by the time Wesley came on the scene.
But that battle (as shown on film) made no sense - one of the first shots has Reliant well above Enterprise already - and if you cant tell where the other ship is, dropping down then popping back up is not likely to put you direcly behind and inline to fire torpedos. (no target locking either).
I also would love to know where the 'missed" torpedo shots end up - imagine being on that planet…