She can pin up her hair with his visor (that’s my sister’s joke).
The technology of Star Trek is pretty much all bunk, not only in terms of being physically realizable but also in regard to internal consistency. Worse, they often ‘discover’ some new particle or physical principle or develop a new device to resolve a plot complication only to have totally forgotten about it by the next episode, or if they do bring it up it is some novel thing that no one ever bothered documenting or developing. This was not so noticeable in the original series because they really didn’t both trying to rationalize how anything worked and just focused on storytelling, but in The Next Generation onward there was an increasing reliance upon technobabble and miraculous technology to solve problems even though the in-show technology of matter transporters and replicators by themselves would resolve a large number of such plots and writers often had to rationalize why these couldn’t be used to produce whatever the crew needed.
I think this is a general problem with writing an open-ended far future science fiction universe; you have to allow for new technical innovations but they have to be limited to an extent that doesn’t eliminate the normal plots that you would use or make the lives of the characters totally unrelateable to the audience. If we were presenting a modern drama with current technology to a Roman or Medieval European audience, they would likely regard much of it as divine power, witchcraft, sorcery, and a bizarre obsession with exchanging small pieces of paper and/or rectangular squares of an artificial bone-like material while referring to “money” even though these things clearly have no intrinsic material or trade value. Similarly, a plausible view of a future society would likely be completely incomprehensible to us, and they wouldn’t walk around patting themselves on the back talking about how they are ‘beyond’ money and prejudice, especially when they very clearly aren’t.
Stranger
“When did he disappear?”
“About an hour ago.”
“Why didn’t you alert us?”
“I am not programmed to do that.”
See, this is the sort of example I was looking for. It never occurred to me, and yet it doesn’t make any sense now that it doesn’t. Data is supposed to be a computer that is unusually advanced even by Star Trek standards.
This isn’t really an answer to my OP. But that said, there’s a really obvious reason; it doesn’t contribute to the kinds of stories Star Trek tells. Inventing their own slang - like Battlestar Galactica’s “frack” - is just kind of distracting.
And it is worse than that, now that I think about it. They simply told the Holodeck to make an antagonist capable of challenging Data and the computer whips up a (seemingly) self-aware, completely humanlike Moriarty all on it’s own with no sign of going to any special effort doing so. And that personality (plus 1) can be run having awesome adventures in a box Picard stored under his bed or somewhere.
I don’t know about this one. The holodeck is run by the ship’s (big) computer whereas Data lugs around what controls him, although his inability to use contractions is kind of stupid given “hunt and replace” technology is part of contemporary word processing programs.
Due to a technobabble limitation in the subatomic structure, a positronic brain can handle contractions or First Law, not both. Take your pick.
Communicators cannot text, nor take photos.
Tricorders do not have built in Communicators.
No shit!
Typical landing party exchange.
“Lieutenant, what are you seeing?”
“Something…amazing!”
Aside from the fact video feed should be standard on all landing party/away team missions, you’re telling me a trained Starfleet officer can’t give a better description that that?
That’s right up there in stupidity with that cop show cliche of “I have a piece of evidence that will break this case WIDE OPEN. But I don’t want to talk about it on the phone!” Cue sudden death.
As for “should exist”, how about a portable computer device with a bit more memory than a 4 inch floppy disc?
“Here’s your homework assignment”. {Proceeds to pile 15 PADDs into the flustered ensign’s arms.)
Why can’t they all fit on one device? We have that NOW.
On Voyager, why did each individual crew member get their own pad to read their letters from home? Couldn’t they just have accessed them from the ship’s computer?
I had a thread on clothing a while back. Given the capabilities of the replicators (holodeck in particular), why do characters have cloth on their bodies? Remember the device they used to allow “Dr. Zimmerman” to leave the sickbay on Voyager? Everyone could have a small anklet that generates holographic attire to suit the crewmember’s needs at a given moment. The captain would never have to worry about getting his shirt off, and, while conversing with hostile aliens onscreen, he could suddenly be decked out like a visigoth. The device would also handle urine, so they could just relieve themselves whenever they felt like it. Probably even cope with sweat, so that no one would ever have to take a shower.
I’d like to know why is it the view screen on the bridge can get so bright that it can blind the crew members on the bridge?
That seems like a serious design flaw.
Circuit breakers would be nice. How many times does a warp injector need to overload and explode because the crew was unable to reconfigure the isolinear chips fast enough? Or because the EPS relay fused? Just seems like a serious oversight to leave out physical switches here and there.
That isn’t the biggest problem.
On naval ships which ply the seas, it makes sense to put the bridge relatively high on the ship, to increase the distance to the visual horizon.
On a starship it makes zero sense when you have a viewscreen (the camera(s) can be mounted anywhere), when a lucky hit on the bridge can take out the entire command staff in one shot. Put it deep in the center of the saucer section already.
Not to mention programming the computers requires hundreds of those little slabs of colored lucite, each the size to hold multiple terabytes at today’s densities.
OK this is not entirely related to the premise of the thread but is a peculiarity of Star Trek tech:
The artificial gravity has got to be the most reliable tech The Federation ever built. All the times star ships have been battered and destroyed --we never see the artificial gravity fail and the ship’s crew floating weightlessly in Zero gravity of outer space. The only time I can remember it happening was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and that was onboard a Klingon ship.
(Yes I know the real behind the scenes reason for this is the cost of depicting a Zero G environment on screen.)
Prison bars.
How many times have we seen a brig, or a holding cell, or whatever, that’s just a big room where one wall is a forcefield and nothing can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong?
Cameras on com badges have been mentioned.
Worf built a one-shot force field by using his com badge and a telegraph. Presumably they could put that utility into a com badge on purpose.
Drones should be microscopic at their tech level. It might not work against technologically equivalent foes (because of ECM) but imagine if they were at a more primitive planet with a swarm of microscopic drones at their disposal (for combat and recon).
Powered armor. Nightvision contacts. Mental computer interfaces. Transporter bombs / poison gas cannisters / remote sensors. Transporter ripcords that send out a beacon that the ship is scanning for to transport them up immediately (that’s from the Prime Directive RPG). Real-time AI observing every square inch of the ship for shenanigans. Flight belts. Emplacement forcefields.
As long as you ignore real-world physics, I suppose. (Things like light-collecting ability, energy storage, how to swim through the thick molasses we call air…)