/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1962629
What episode is this?

Season 5 Episode 6: Timeless


Kim crashes the ship into a planet and sends a message back in time to prevent it.

Wait... other people... who liked Voyager?

...I have found a home!

>>1962646
My favorite might actually be the one where the backup copy of the doctor is stuck on a planet 700 years in the future, and has to deal with a society on the brink. It was good. Last season I think.

>>1962674
I watching the entire series right now.

I'm still in Season 5.

Personally, it's going by way too fast. I'm trying to savor every last moment of it.

I never want this to end.

I guess I'm kind of never wanting them to reach Earth, lol.

is this battle star voyager?
never watched any of the weird sci fi shows

this is /sci/ not /scifi/

GTFO fanboys

I'd take it as a kindness if you all turn your talk to somethin' more pleasant.

I used to watch this show all the time when I was younger. I'm gonna have watch it again now,

>>1962629
It's just unfortunate that Voyager has the worst Star Trek episode of all time - which is saying a lot considering Enterprise and it's time traveling alien space nazis.

>>1962692
>its
fixed

Voyager was underrated.I found it quite good. Yes it had crappy episodes but then so did all the series.

People harp on about TOS being awesome because it dealt with edgy themes but there's a reason for that: they couldn't afford flashy pots and special effects much so they went with great dialogue instead. Was still boring and lacked action though.

DS9 and Voyager top my list of favourite Star Trek series. And who didn't approve of Jeri Ryan in a tight silver catsuit? :3

>>1962692
So what is the worst epiosde then?

>>1962692
>It's just unfortunate that Voyager has the worst Star Trek episode of all time

Wat?

Can you please rephrase that?

Oh wait. Are you talking about the two episodes about the hunter species using the ships holodecks to recreate Nazi Germany time?

This might actually not make a lot of sense to you, but I grew up in Germany. And that episode was broadcasted there on RTL2.

The thing that Paramount did was make this show appealing to a world wide audience. And that episode had a huge profound impact on people in Germany in the 90s.

So yeah, shit might not make sense from some points of views. But going with the spirit of /sci/, you have to consider all points of view before making your opinion.

>>1962705
Why did Seven get to wear that suit anyway, when she had become a member of the crew?

Why wasn't she forced to wear that suit like everyone else?

>>1962710

I think that guy was talking about that episode that Paris go warp 10 and turned into some kind of space newt.

>>1962725
"Threshold"
And yes, universally accepted as the worst Star Trek episode of all time.

Also, the Hirogen episodes were usually good, including that 2 parter.

Come to think of it, my other favorite episode might be the extra dimensional holographic aliens one, with the Flash Gordon parody. That was hilarious.

>>1962725
I liked that episode. It was way out there.

But even though it was way out there, even though there's no proof that going faster than maximum warp could fuck up your cells to accelerate your growth and evolution, there's no proof saying otherwise either. So that episode was very entertaining. It's science fiction after all, with a scent of logic applied to make it realistic and believable.

Plus, Tom had a baby with the captain.

>>1962733
>entertaining
>science fiction
>scent of logic
No. Just no.

At least, let it be known you're very much in the minority on this one.

>>1962731
Seriously?

THAT was the worst episode?

Come on, faggots. Even though it seems VERY unlikely that this would happen, think about this.

Particles in your body being pulled at an infinite rate of force. That's GOT to do something to your molecular composition in some form.

inb4 shitstorm. I'm not trying to say the theory is right. It's just safe to say that the episode could have been made without having to worry about being scientifically accurate in that field (since there is no evidence or research in that field otherwise).

"The Thaw."

A terrific episode... Perfect scifi, if there is such a thing.

Yeah OP that is one of the best episodes.

>>1962671
Fuck yeah Voyager, if you don't like it you're a fag

>>1962710
I personally love that Nazi episode. Voyager is such fun times. But the guy was almost certainly talking about Threshold, which is awful, but still not as bad as quite a few episodes from early TNG.

ANYWAY VOYAGER MAKES ME A HAPPY GUY

captcha: hypocrites reverced

>>1962740
The science is laughable, as is your explanation.

That's not why it's the worst episode though. The entire plot, acting, and laughable science makes it the worst episode.

google backs me up a little bit, such as:
http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Star_Trek/

Hell, even the writers of the episode hated it. (See wiki for possible sources.)

Judging VOY by Threshold is like judging TNG by Justice or Captain's Holiday. Everyone's always saying how bad voyager is because of that one episode, but they expect you to ignore two whole seasons of TNG

>>1962751
The only part about that episode that seemed somewhat laughable was how Tom and the captain were some Cambrian era and then in the next scene the captain and Tom were back to their old self.

But hell, it was still buyable..

"Flashback" with George Takei...

That's a good one.

>>1962629
Year of Hell parts 1 & 2 were pretty good.

This really belongs on /tv/ though, OP.

>>1962754
I'm the guy who brought it up. I said "unfortunately". I meant to say that "It's fucking awesome, except for /that/ episode."

>>1962751
The only part about that episode that seemed somewhat laughable was how Tom and the captain were some Cambrian era beings and then in the next scene the captain and Tom were back to their old selves.

But hell, it was still buyable.


>>1962754
I remember watching TNG a lot when I was little. But It seemed like a sit-com compared to Voyager. Like all they did was talk on the ship in TNG and rarely visit planets or tempt science or display a need to defy laws of nature compared to Voyager.

>>1962767
Wait, you mean I'm not the only trekkie who loathes TNG? Excellent.

Holy shit, I'm watching "Nothing Human" right now.

They used the Cardasian program to save Bullana's life even though the research was derived from the Cardasian testing on other humanoids and Bullana refused. Then they decided to delete the Cardasian AFTER they used him to save Bullana's life, just because his research methods were unsound.

That's so hypocritical, wtf.

>>1962754
I don't remember ignoring any series in TNG. Sure it had shitty episodes, every show has, but there were only a few of them.
The only bad thing about early TNG were the goddamn uniforms. They looked like pajamas and Picard looked like a pedo in it.

But to the topic: the Borg episodes were the best imo. Especially the when the Borg got their collective asses kicked by species 8472.

But somehow I still consider the best episode of all star trek to be "The Offspring"

And to everyone who's lazy to download, here's a little gift
http://www.watchtrek.com/

>>1962792
That's so fucked up.

If I was on Voyager, I would protest and explain that if the program was deleted, all their deaths would have been in vain.

I would say something like, "If someone was raped, and they then had a child. Would you kill the child just because that child is a product of an unwanted sexual encounter? Of course you wouldn't! Keep the data we have derived out of his research, but do not allow him to continue any more research or get any kind of recognition."

>>1962766
Ah carry on my good man

>>1962820
Although, nevermind.

That program is probably part of Star Fleet master data base. And Voyager only has a copy of it. So it's really pretty stupid to delete that program. It's basically like burning a copy of a book you hate when the original is still somewhere being printed.

>>1962820
not deleting him would mean justifying the procedures he used and saying that in some cases they are acceptable
also you would set a precedence for future

>>1962829
That whole reasoning is wrong to begin with.

If we were to go by what you're saying, medical science wouldn't be allowed to exist, because we could never learn from those who are sick.

Even IF knowledge was aquired from doctors who tortured their patients to death. Wouldn't it be like spitting on the dead people's graves by deleting the data that was retrieved? Because, now have you not only made that person's death in vain (even if they wanted to be used for research or not) you've also caused there to be a reason for another doctor to discover the same research the same way by maybe torturing ANOTHER victim to attain the SAME data that YOU were too stubborn to assimilate.

>>1962844
TL;DR: Never delete knowledge, no matter where it came from, unless you want history to repeat itself.

>>1962844
The reasoning is simple, when phrased properly. Let's ignore all that moral indignation for the moment.

Let's imagine a society where it's allowed to reap the benefits of torture, but have torture illegal. Let's then compare this to the society where both are illegal. In the first, there will be a black market if you will, or at least a stronger incentive, to do torture. Thus, we pay a penalty by not using the benefits of torture to help ensure that the incentive to torture is not present.

This is the same argument why child porn is illegal btw. Possessing child porn in and of itself does not damage, but allowing it to be legal creates an incentive to harm children.

PS: Obviously this reasoning has to be balanced vs competing concerns.

>>1962686
Eh? Many scientists are science fans.

>>1962844
>If we were to go by what you're saying, medical science wouldn't be allowed to exist, because we could never learn from those who are sick.

Goddammit. We DO what I said and we still learn from sick but we ask them (or their representative if they are, say, unconscious) if it's OK.

>Wouldn't it be like spitting on the dead people's graves...
No it would not.
>even if they wanted to be used for research or not
That's exactly the point. If patient agree, it's ok.
>another doctor to discover the same research ...
Having this policy in place is a signal to all doctors that their research will be accepted only under certain conditions, like not torturing the goddamn patient. Disobeying these laws means that their work is meaningless. If we would start
granting exceptions to this, the whole system would fall apart and the "easy way" of acquiring the data would be accepted as if it was nothing wrong.

>>1962857
It doesn't work that way.

Knowledge about a particular thing is not the equivalent to dealing illegal thins like drugs or child pornography.

Imagine all the need or urge in pedos for child pornography could be cured with one CP picture.

If the picture was already out there and there was no need to create another one, why the fuck would you delete it, if the first one ALREADY CURED all of humanity from the need for more CP. By deleting that one pic, you'd be creating need for it again and putting another child in danger.

That's the kind of hypothetical logic you're using.

>>1962857
It doesn't work that way.

Knowledge about a particular thing is not the equivalent to dealing illegal things like drugs or child pornography.

Imagine all the need or urge in pedos for child pornography could be cured with one CP picture.

If the picture was already out there and there was no need to create another one, why the fuck would you delete it, if the first one ALREADY CURED all of humanity from the need for more CP? By deleting that one pic, you'd be creating need for it again and putting another child in danger.

That's the kind of hypothetical logic you're using.

>>1962888
Indeed.

However, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. You seem to utterly discount one side, and I disagree with that blanket assessment. I think that taking into account economic incentives (or other kinds of incentives) when crafting laws is a reasonable thing to do. I think that making possession of child porn illegal is a reasonable thing to do. I also think that letting it be legal is also reasonable - it depends on the evidence of natural facts (e.g. efficacy) and on value judgments (e.g. not science).

>>1962892
>>1962889
You both have good arguments, just goes to show how difficult a problem it is. Though I am leaning towards anon.

>>1962906
(Also, there are multiple anons discussing this point, myself and at least one other.)

>>1962897
Also, in that hypothetical 24th century, there IS no money. And there is no NEED or INCENTIVE for this to happen again. It was mentioned that this was a situation of war, where he did not have standard instruments.

AND THIS WAS HIS HOLOGRAM WITH THOSE MEMORIES DELETED (AND THE MEDICALLY AQUIRED KNOWLEDGE LEFT IN TACT), FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

So you're basically dealing with an exceptional situation where one individual was fucked up. But that's no reason to delete the medical data that was aquired by it, because there is no reason to believe his hologram would do it again, when he's not even viewed as a real person anymore.

By this logic, they would have to kill all Seven of Nine because the Borg aquired all their knowledge dishonestly by assimilating innocent species.

>>1962919
There are other kinds of incentives besides money. There might be incentive by a well intentioned doctor to torture a few to save many. By preemptively disallowing the research, we save those few from torture.

>>1962919
7 didn't do it willingly, the cardassian did. That's a hell lot a difference

>>1962919
>By this logic, they would have to kill all Seven of Nine because the Borg aquired all their knowledge dishonestly by assimilating innocent species.

You seemed to have failed logic class. The arguments in this thread have been that we should outlaw using knowledge, information, etc., obtained through illegal or immoral acts to help curtail the incentive to do those illegal or immoral acts. I fail to see the immoral act which 7 did which is open to this kind of incentive.

What the fuck did you do /sci/?

I go away for a bit and this fagnet board attracts the unneccessary and unwanted input of dennis jensen? for fuck's sake /sci/, this is a new low.

>>1962923
I'm not talking about the person.

They were dealing with a hologram of him with all memories of the torturing purged (which leads me to believe Star Fleet had a say in this before the integrated his data into Voyager's database, so it wasn't really all that justified by the doctor to delete it "for the good of mankind").

If you beat the shit out of your brother with a blutooth controller and GPS locator and EXTRAORDINARILY find a cure for all forms of cancer, would you delete the data you found just because the ways you found them were cruel?

NO NO NO NO NO.

>>1962923
I'm not talking about the person.

They were dealing with a hologram of him with all memories of the torturing purged (which leads me to believe Star Fleet had a say in this before they integrated his data into Voyager's database, so it wasn't really all that justified by the doctor to delete it "for the good of mankind").

If you beat the shit out of your brother with a blutooth controller and GPS locator and EXTRAORDINARILY find a cure for all forms of cancer, would you delete the data you found just because the ways you found them were cruel?

NO NO NO NO NO.

>>1962933
And then someone came along after the fact and saw that before we used the research from beating up some poor hapless child, so he makes a calculated decision that if he beats up a child again for science, then the work will be useful, so he does it for the betterment of mankind.

However, if you originally burned the notes from the first beating, the second beating probably will not take place.

>>1962937
Also, is just me, or is he changing his post numbers by like posting multiples and deleting one?

Voyager is a steaming pile of donkey doo doo. It represents everything that is wrong with later era Star Trek as well as poorly done Space Opera in general. It is filled with unlikable characters, inconsistent writing and characterizations, frequently brain-dead scripts that contradict prior cannon or make no sense at all, and technobabble, oh god the technobabble.

If you want to see space opera done right, go watch Babylon 5, or, to a lesser extent, seasons 2-7 of Stargate SG-1 and Seasons 1-2 of Andromeda.

TOS and parts of TNG were good. DS9 was better than voyager despite running concurrently. Enterprise is as shit as voyager, but got better at the end of its run just prior to cancellation.

Picture is good SciFi.

>>1962941
We can fucking discipline him to not beat others up again.

You do not throw away 1 million dollars you found just because you were walking off path compared to the rest of the class on a field trip.

>>1962944
I can agree that 1/4 of the episodes of voyager I can barely stand because of the technobabble. However, I liked that it actually had conflict and plot as opposed to a larger portion of the mind numbing TNG episodes.

Yes TOS is great. Yes DS9 is great. Oh god Enterprise is shit.

>>1962947
So, here's a fun question. In the US we have this thing called the exclusionary rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
Following your absolutism reasoning, you must really think that the exclusionary rule is stupid, correct? You don't see any sort of potential problem of abuse of police powers if we allow the evidence from illegal searches and seizes?

Again, I'm not trying to say it's the only possible answer. I'm just noting that sometimes it's a very effective answer, situation depending.

Nearly all the technological advancements of the 20th century, we have derived because of WWI and WWII, ESPECIALLY WWII.


By your logic, we should abandon all knowledge we acquired from those time periods and go back to living in close to medieval times, just because the technology we have was derived from war and could cause incentive to have ANOTHER war, just to make us advance more.

>>1962948
DS9 great ? Maybe the last two seasons but it's filled witch christfaggotry and bullshit as hell. DS9 was much worse than VOY

>>1962954
That post proves you are 12 or goddamn retarded. Saging this shit.

>>1962954
No. It's not. You're really not grasping this are you. With the war, the advances were not made as a conscious decision to forgo morality and the law in order to reap some benefit. This stands in stark contrast where a doctor consciously makes a decision to forgo morality and the rule of law to do evil acts to grant a benefit to others.

It's all about incentives. That's why your comparison to 7 was shit, and that's why your WW1 and WW2 examples are shit.

>>1962956
DS9 is great*

* Where we ignore most of the first 2-3 seasons of DS9.

>>1962954
>>1962952
>>1962947
>>1962941
>mfw two people consistently ignore each others analogies and bring in new ones instead

>>1962960
The doctor is not even the issue anymore.

He wasn't on the ship, it was his hologram with those torture memories purged.

We can USE his knowledge to prevent future diseases from happening. YES, what he did was wrong, and NO, we do not want him to do it again. However, throwing his data out is pure ignorance. Just purge all sources and ways for this to happen again, but do not throw out the data.

It's like not wanting to eat an apple because the molecules inside the apple could have been dinosaur poop at one time (very very very far fetched and almost not relatable, but I'm trying to demonstrate what kind of logic you're using and how stupid you're being).

The stupidity here amazes me.

>>1962960
Medical research performed by Nazi scientists and the Japanese Unit 731 were not burned, they were captured and used. Although the origin of the information was horrific and involved many deaths, the information itself was not intrinsically evil and contributed to our medical knowledge.

Nazi scientists were head hunted by Russian and American talent scouts after the war, vying to lay their hands on as many as they could before their opponents did. The last published paper from a Nazi scientist was in 1991.

>>1962973
This motherfucker finally got it.

My work here is done.

Good bye.

>>1962964
No. If you've been reading, I've been showing his analogies lack merit, and I've been making constant references to the reasoning about incentive, unlike the tripfag which is constantly resorting to analogy and "that is retarded!".

>>1962977
Still waiting. Do you think that the exclusionary rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
is a good idea or a bad idea?

>mfw this thread has been started 3 times

>>1962629
http://boards.420chan.org/1701/res/9734.php
>>>/tv/12745455

>>1962981

The exclusion rule is in place to protect from rights violations in court cases by making evidence inadmissible if somebody's rights were violated to get it. Inadmissible in court. This is a preventative measure to protect from rogue cops who break the rules to try and close a case.

In court, somebody who has evidence obtained in an illegal fashion used against them is in danger of being unjustly accused of a crime by this suspect evidence. ... but science isn't court, and scientific information isn't invalid or suspect just because it was obtained unethically. There is nobody left to protect, because the damage has already been done. Should the information be used, then people benefit from it, but if it's not, then the people suffered in vain.

Your argument is invalid.

>>1963025
>Your argument is invalid.

I'm sorry that you read into an argument where there was none. It was an attempt at persuasion to the tripfag. My line of reasoning was lost upon him, and I thought that if I showed him this incarnation of that reasoning, the exclusionary rule, he might see that there is some merit in my reasoning.

I have absolutely no arguments about how illegally obtaining evidence somehow invalidates it scientifically. You just invented that yourself.

>>1963025
To follow up, the exclusionary rule, child porn is illegal, and the destruction of medical information on Voyager, all conform to the same reasoning: that by not using information obtained by immoral methods now or by making using that information illegal, we remove incentives to commit those crimes, thus probably preventing future crime.

Obviously it needs to be weighed against the harm of less freedom now, less benefit now, etc.