Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Sci-Fi Television Entertainment News

Huston Huddleston Wants You To Help Save the Star Trek TNG Set 131

Posted by timothy
from the ok-this-demands-a-video-visit dept.
New submitter ShadoCat points out this interesting project to restore the set of Star Trek: The Next Generation, writing: "This isn't the original set unfortunately (which was destroyed making the ST:Generations movie). This is one that Paramount created for display in 1991. Huston Huddleston saved the pieces of the set late 2011 when they were about to be trashed by Paramount. Huddleston and crew will be refitting the set with working displays and controls. They plan to host parties and educational events in the set which, apparently, is big enough to hold a large number of students. For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 24th century)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huston Huddleston Wants You To Help Save the Star Trek TNG Set

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21, 2012 @11:52AM (#41721973)

    I don't understand why Paramount do this from time to time, other than to make room for the new stuff. Why don't they just chuck everything in the holodeck?

    • by hawguy (1600213) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:49PM (#41722617)

      I don't understand why Paramount do this from time to time, other than to make room for the new stuff. Why don't they just chuck everything in the holodeck?

      Because the Holodeck isn't infinite in size - it's an ordinary room (you can see the actual size when people enter it before it's turned on). The unlimited size with the ability to walk endlessly in any direction is an illusion generated by force fields (i.e. virtual treadmills). If they kept throwing junked movie sets in there, it would eventually fill up just like any storage room.

      • Hah, I bet that the computer can transparently transport any inanimate stuff into Cargo Bay 3 and replace it with a holographic copy until time arises that someone needs to fetch it back.
        • by EdIII (1114411)

          Why go through all that extra energy to simulate a huge cargo bay when the real cargo bay has to be within transporter range anyways?

          That would not make sense on a ship, but on a planet it just might. Planets apparently have large scale transporter networks and relays. I would imagine you could have huge underground storage areas full of materials and items and use a holodeck as an interactive catalogue.

          Keep in mind though, there are some things that even transporters cannot handle.

      • by garyoa1 (2067072)

        On the other hand, if they were smart they would have created the whole set in the holodeck to begin with. Then they wouldn't have the problem of where to shove all this crap.

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          Actually, that would have made an awful lot of sense.. The bridge wouldn't be a physical room, with physical controls.. It could be a dynamically generated and regenerated as needed. It'd also do away with all those pesky sparks, explosions, and steam pipes bursting at inopportune moments. :)

          If it had been real life, I suspect something like that would have been done. Since it was fiction, concepts like that were overlooked. :)

          The same could be said about aw

      • by countach (534280)

        Exactly. The real solution is to destroy the set, and fire up the replicator when you want it back.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        Treadmills, virtual or otherwise, wouldn't work. You wouldn't feel the correct motion acting on your body and it would be obvious you were not moving as fast as you appeared to be. The force fields would have to act on every atom in your body and move them all in the opposite direction you were walking/driving, so that things like your inner-ear fluids moved precisely long with you.

        Presumably that is how the holodeck works, since it is capable of simulating low gravity and the like which would require affec

        • by hawguy (1600213)

          Treadmills, virtual or otherwise, wouldn't work. You wouldn't feel the correct motion acting on your body and it would be obvious you were not moving as fast as you appeared to be. The force fields would have to act on every atom in your body and move them all in the opposite direction you were walking/driving, so that things like your inner-ear fluids moved precisely long with you.

          Presumably that is how the holodeck works, since it is capable of simulating low gravity and the like which would require affecting every atom in the room simultaneously and equally.

          Why wouldn't they just use a 3D array of gravity emitters to simulate acceleration? They already have the ability to manipulate gravity (since they maintain 1G throughout the ship), so it seems like an easier way to simulate the world than to have 10^13 force fields acting on every cell in your body (or 10^27 forcefields acting on each atom)

    • (Morbo voice): holodecks do not work that way!

      (I would have put it in all caps but slashdot didn't let me).

    • by mrmeval (662166)

      Is there anything Paramountadog did NOT do to screw this series into the ground? Their utter contempt for the Star Trek franchise lead to their destroying it. The one recent gasp of a reboot has lead to nothing.

      • by anyGould (1295481)

        Well, to be fair it was destroyed during Generations (y'know, when they destroyed the ship). At the time they probably didn't expect to ever need it again.

        On that note, I do wonder what happened to the replica from the old Las Vegas exhibit - that's another option for a "purist" Trek bridge.

  • by Smallpond (221300) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @11:55AM (#41721993) Homepage Journal

    I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

      Uh, enemy weapons? Who the hell is hosting the parties you're attending? I'm guessing a descendant of Hatfield or McCoy.

      • by PNutts (199112)

        I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

        Uh, enemy weapons? Who the hell is hosting the parties you're attending? I'm guessing a descendant of Hatfield or McCoy.

        It isn't clear on whether Dr. McCoy has any descendents [wikipedia.org]. It depends on which series.

  • by Seeteufel (1736784)
    The greatest joke of the fundraiser video was the phrase "and soon even television". I can't stand the marketing gibberish. I don't think it is of any relevance to rebuilt a Star Trek bridge set. Paramount could do that. they have done it several times and they could do it again. I would prefer to build a real star ship as an educational facility [c-base.org], try out a new design.
    • Why limit it to an educational facility? These guys have a plan to make a functional spacecraft [buildtheenterprise.org] out of the basic design, with technology that's available today, albeit never used on this scale before. It's quite the interesting read, and I believe it's been mentioned on /. before.

    • by lessthan (977374)

      I agree with you. The ST:NG is filmed, the "ship" destroyed in-universe. What possible need would saving the set fill? I totally get if a collector wanted it or pieces of it, but then the collector should pay for it.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        It seems Star Trek seems to be suffering from the whole Jerk Jerk A, affect, the bullshit reboot of Star Trek. Most people just don't give a crap about it any more. Gees, the killed one Vulcan 'Spock' in "Wrath of Kahn" and people went nuts demanding that Spock be brought back. Jerk Jerk blew up the whole planet Vulcan and nobody cared, youch, regardless of the millions spent of B$ public relations and marketing, that spelt failure for the attempt.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    particularly her bra collection...

    • by caseih (160668)

      Seriously doubt there were any. Double-sided sticky tape seems to be a staple of Star Trek actress costumes going back to the original series.

  • The Science Fiction Museum in Seattle seemed a likely place for this to end up, but that, like most Paul Allen projects, went bust. It closed in 2011. There's no really good place to put this.

    • by drainbramage (588291) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:53PM (#41722303)

      This Science Fiction Museum in Seattle is still open: http://www.empsfm.org/at-the-museum/current-exhibits/icons-of-science-fiction.aspx# [empsfm.org]
      It is part of the EMP and tickets are $20 or less.
      Display pieces include items such as an Imperial Dalek from Doctor Who, the command chair from the classic television series Star Trek, and Neo’s coat from The Matrix Reloaded.
      If you know where the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle was, that you say went bust, this Science Fiction Museum in Seattle will be easy to find.

      • by Animats (122034)

        This Science Fiction Museum in Seattle is still open:

        It's just a temporary exhibit [flickr.com] (pictures) at what's really a rock music museum now. The permanent science fiction museum [wikipedia.org] closed in 2011.

        • by PTBarnum (233319)

          I think that the curators of the various SF exhibits would be very surprised to learn that the SF museum had closed. It has always shared space and staff with the music side of the museum, so the shift you are talking about is primarily a marketing change. Rather than continue to physically segregate the SF displays and music displays and charge separate admissions, they decided to combine them.

          I enjoyed the old permanent SF gallery, but it had not changed substantially in a decade. It was time to overhaul

      • by dlgeek (1065796)
        Sorry, but having seen the former permenant collection, I was incredibly disappointed at the temporary "Icons" exhibit. It's nowhere close to the original in scale or impact. It takes up only about a quarter of the space the other one did (when I was there, the part that used to have robots had a horror exhbit and they redid the wall so you can't even get to the part with the cool weapons and all the old pulp mags, let alone where the death star used to be). It's also way less dense, and has almost none of
    • by Nyder (754090)

      I live in Seattle and this is the first i heard of the SF museum, no wonder it went bust.

  • TNG set destroyed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by religious freak (1005821) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:36PM (#41722193)
    I guess the original TNG set was *intentionally* destroyed by Paramount in the making of Generations? I actually didn't know that. Here's a little paragraph explaining. If anyone has a bit more info, let me know.

    http://movies.trekcore.com/generations/behindthescenes.html [trekcore.com] (see "Brent Spiner also comments on filming the saucer crash scene:" section)

    I'm actually surprised a set would be usable as a destroyed starship set. You'd think the cheap, fake plastic parts would be obvious on screen?
  • They seem to have their work cut out for them. Looking at the gallery it really just looks like a bunch of junk in someone's garage. But I guess if you put everything in back in the right place and give it a nice coat...

  • by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:21PM (#41722453)

    Huddleston and crew will be refitting the set with working displays and controls.

    Working controls? If the helm and weapons controls actually function as intended I'll buy the whole set!

    • by Megahard (1053072) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:58PM (#41722685)
      True story, my sister, who is much more a trekkie than me, took her little girl to a convention. The little one got all excited on seeing a phaser on display, then was greatly disappointed after picking it up and discovering that it was not operational.
      • I imagine her mom was quite relieved, though.

      • True story, my sister, who is much more a trekkie than me, took her little girl to a convention. The little one got all excited on seeing a phaser on display, then was greatly disappointed after picking it up and discovering that it was not operational.

        Well obviously it would have to be a non-functioning phaser. In the State of California it is illegal to put dangerous weapons in places where children can reach them.

  • Ya, you got some fans who can't get out of the past, need to relieve their younger years in old TV sets.

    Star Trek TNG is meh. At best. I liked the show back when, I like Star Trek, and I tried to watch TNG again recently, and it sucks. The acting is shitty, the sets look crappy, and the stories are stupid. Reminds me of Blake's 7. I loved the show back in the 80's, but once i saw it again, i saw how bad the acting was in it, and it was bad, and it ruined the show for me.

    It's not even the original

    • by Grishnakh (216268) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @03:21PM (#41723177)

      TNG was a great show. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't hyper-gritty and dark like everything these days seems to try to be, and it sure as hell wasn't realistic in its depiction of humans (somehow in the 24th century, humans are all extremely competent and not very prone to Jerry Springer-esque drama and idiocy), but it was great fun to watch, and the acting was good for an 80s TV show, though admittedly the first season was a little rough with some of the actors. The stories were excellent for the most part, with a few exceptions as you'd expect on a show that ran for 7 seasons. I just went back and rewatched much of the series over the last few months and enjoyed it thoroughly. I do have to admit though that I tended to avoid episodes which were 1) in the first season, 2) included Wesley as a major character (again, mostly season 1), 3) involved Lwaxana Troi, or 4) involved Q. This isn't to say all these episodes were bad though; the S1 episode "Conspiracy" for instance was one of the best episodes in the whole series.

      I do have to admit, however, that probably my favorite thing about TNG is its depiction of humans. It's completely unrealistic, because it shows humans as we (or at least some of us) wish they were: competent, intelligent, considerate, thoughtful, just, and not corrupt. It shows a society I wish I could live in, but which doesn't exist, and probably never will due to human nature. But that makes it good escapist entertainment. Many times, I don't really want to watch a show/movie that shows humans as they really are. If I wanted to do that, I could watch Jerry Springer or Maury Povitch; you can see stupid humans in their full glory there. I see enough of that crap in real life; why would I want to watch more of it on TV?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The reason you didn't see "humans" like that is because the "aliens" were our stand-ins. They were everything we weren't (as far as bad side).

      • by humanrev (2606607)

        You avoided episodes with Q? Those were often the best ones!

        • by Grishnakh (216268)

          They were kind of annoying. I mean really; a race of beings who are really gods (they're omnipotent and claim to be omniscient, that fits the definition), but they're not really omniscient since they can be out-argued by a human? The whole thing just didn't make much sense.

          • by humanrev (2606607)

            You're assuming of course that the Q aren't just letting the puny humans think they're out-smarting them. Perhaps Q is more interested in how the humans solve problems and deal with situations and prefer to appear on the back foot sometimes, even though they know they could easily counter whatever's thrown at them.

            Either that or it's a plot hole. But hey, John de Lancie's fun to watch. :)

            • by Grishnakh (216268)

              No, I don't buy it; the Q are exactly what they appear to be. You can tell this because of the episode where Q (the John de Lancie one, since they all stupidly have the same name) loses his powers, and at the end of the episode steals the shuttlecraft to get the angry cloud creature away from the Enterprise so they can fix the killer-asteroid problem, and another Q shows up and they have a conversation about Q making a selfless sacrifice. That scene showed the two Qs interacting without any humans (except

    • by Y-Crate (540566)

      I like Star Trek, and I tried to watch TNG again recently, and it sucks. The acting is shitty, the sets look crappy, and the stories are stupid.

      Try DS9. MUCH better sets, better lighting, better stories and better ac... just watch it.

  • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:35PM (#41722537) Homepage Journal

    For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

    TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

    Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.

    • by pangu (322010)

      For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

      TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

      Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.

      I wore Orion on my belt, which will be the style at the time.

      • by gmhowell (26755)

        I wore Orion on my belt, which will be the style at the time.

        That makes you a cat and means we should ignore you just on general principles.

        • I wore Orion on my belt, which will be the style at the time.

          That makes you a cat and means we should ignore you just on general principles.

          ...but on the Internet, no one knows you're a cat...right? Right?!? MEOW!

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          That makes you a cat and means we should ignore you just on general principles.

          Ignore pussy? Dude, most of us aren't gay.

          • by gmhowell (26755)

            That makes you a cat and means we should ignore you just on general principles.

            Ignore pussy? Dude, most of us aren't gay.

            Not that kind of cat. More like this one [justsaypictures.com].

    • It would seem to be both, actually, since the time period that Star Trek Online takes place in is still regarded at TNG era, and that starts in 2409. Nerds these days, indeed. :arches eyebrow:

    • by Anonymous Coward

      > TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

      About 2360, IIRC... so that would be the "24th-and-a-half century." :)

    • by neoshroom (324937)

      For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

      Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.

      • by sarysa (1089739)

        For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

        Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.

        Which are kind of ridiculous (and a bit of a hinderance) seeing how most starships have a quasi-military role. Actual military rarely uses seat belts (unless mobility is already heavily restricted, i.e. fighter pilot) because they need to be able to jump into action and the seat belt is a liability. (and I don't know about you, but every vehicle I've had, the seat belt would lock at annoying random times)

        • Which are kind of ridiculous (and a bit of a hinderance) seeing how most starships have a quasi-military role.

          Really? They sure carry a lot of non-combatants.

          they need to be able to jump into action and the seat belt is a liability.

          Yeah, it's much easier to repel boarders when you're unconscious from being slammed into a panel.

          I don't know about you, but every vehicle I've had, the seat belt would lock at annoying random times

          Nope.

          • by sarysa (1089739)

            Which are kind of ridiculous (and a bit of a hinderance) seeing how most starships have a quasi-military role.

            Really? They sure carry a lot of non-combatants.

            Yes, considering all the scuffles they had with Romulans, Cardassians, the Borg. Not to mention the Navy-like ranking system. But yes, there were kids/families as well. Like I said, quasi-military. TNG was set in a relatively peaceful era, so they probably just suspended many cultural norms of military.

            they need to be able to jump into action and the seat belt is a liability.

            Yeah, it's much easier to repel boarders when you're unconscious from being slammed into a panel.

            Nah, starships had their own form of airbags. The panels always had small explosions, which countered the officer's momentum.

            I don't know about you, but every vehicle I've had, the seat belt would lock at annoying random times

            Nope.

            Well, I only have a sample of three vehicles by three different (Japanese) manufact

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

        Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.

        Not to mention the whole walled garden thing that even the captain doesn't have root access to the computer. After all, how often do the holodecks fail? And when they do, it appears you can't shut them down.

        Or they get locked out of environmental/navigation/warp/transp

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @02:30PM (#41722851)

    Although I'm a Star Trek fan, I wouldn't feel a compelling interest in saving even the original set - but a replica built for display? Really, what's the point in that?

    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      I don't know how economically viable the idea is, but it's a good idea because it'd be a fun thing to visit. I went to the "Star Trek: The Experience" (or whatever it was called) exhibit at Hilton in Las Vegas before they closed that up, and it was a pretty amazing experience. One part that really stood out to me was when we were taken through a door onto the Enterprise-D bridge. It's a pretty amazing experience to actually stand on the bridge (even if it's in the back with all the other dumb tourists),

      • by brunes69 (86786)

        If you RTFA, you would see that this is the exact set this guy is trying to save.. it's the one from Vegas. When they shut the ride down in 2010, they threw it all out, and this guy saved it.

        • It's Kramer and the Merv Griffin Show set all over again!

        • by Guspaz (556486)

          The problem is that this set is a rather poor reproduction of the original set. Much of that is intentional, as they built the thing for a different purpose than filming a TV series. Heck, even the doors aren't the right shape...

          It makes me wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to just rebuild the thing from scratch.

    • The "replica set" that Paramount created for the Las Vegas show was an exact 1:1 duplicate of the original, even down to the too-small-for-the-camera inside jokes printed on the LCARS screens. I was on this set about 1 year before it was taken down (got my picture taken in the captain's chair!) It was quite large and you could walk around the whole thing, and everything was very accurate from what I could tell.

      • by Xtifr (1323)

        Then let's get photographic evidence and blueprints and stuff so that new accurate recreations can be made. I'm not seeing anything particularly interesting about this recreation except in how it serves to document these details. Which can be recorded independently of the fake set.

      • by Guspaz (556486)

        The replica set was very far from an exact 1:1 duplicate. Just comparing pictures of it to the episodes themselves should illustrate that it's an approximation at best. Things are different colours, different shapes, in different places... The chairs stand out as particularly rough approximations, for example.

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          The replica set was very far from an exact 1:1 duplicate. Just comparing pictures of it to the episodes themselves should illustrate that it's an approximation at best. Things are different colours, different shapes, in different places... The chairs stand out as particularly rough approximations, for example.

          The Enterprise-D set was destroyed during filming of Star Trek Generations. A new Enterprise-E set was created for subsequent movies and that set was moved to the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas. The

          • by Guspaz (556486)

            I'm confused, the D and E bridges were completely different in appearance, I don't know why you're bringing that in. The Vegas recreation bridge and the TV filming bridge are rather different. The doors on the Vegas bridge are much wider (for practical reasons), but many other shapes of things are off (curves are wrong, lengths are wrong). For one example, the seats on the filming set had a wide gap down the middle a few inches wide, while on the Vegas chairs (which are a rather different shape) there isn't

  • ... so it's really just an abandoned amusement park ride. Recycle it as scrap.
  • I never really liked the TNG set that much, on an esthetic level. Of all of the sets I think that the Star Trek V-VI, and Excelsior class bridge in Vi and Generations were the best. I did not like the biege-orange color scheme on TNG. I also think the backlit user interfaces on V-VI also looked cooler, with the microgamma font etc. I also tend to prefer the Star Trek II-VI uniform types rather than the spandex / pajamas of TNG.

    TNG was the best as far as story lines go however, its classic star trek.

    • by Grishnakh (216268) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @03:27PM (#41723215)

      Star Trek V? There was no Star Trek V movie. They inexplicably went straight from IV (the whales movie) to VI (the one where they make peace with the Klingons).

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Eravnrekaree (467752)

        They say that post traumatic stress disorder can cause blocking of painful memories. It is easier to forget a truamatic experience rather than have to replay the trauma again and again.

        It's too bad that they have not made any more star trek movies since 1996 or so, when the last star trek movie was made. Since then, absolutely nothing. Really someone needs to revive the franchise, a reincarnation of Roddenberry.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Grishnakh (216268)

          Agreed. It's also too bad they never made any sequels to The Matrix, or any more Alien movies after Cameron's "Aliens" in 1986, or any prequels to "Star Wars" explaining the whole Clone Wars thing.

        • by Guspaz (556486)

          Wait, didn't they make that one Next Generation movie, the one with the borg, before deciding to never make any movies ever again?

  • They just choose not to use them. In an emergency, being thrown across the bridge is much safer than being strapped to one of those consoles.
    • by 0123456 (636235)

      True. If you're bring thrown around the bridge, the consoles are probably already exploding and sending showers of sparks right where you were just sitting.

      • Yes, unfortunately "the fuse" to prevent consoles blowing up would not be invented for another 900 years.

  • This just goes to show how wasteful Hollywood is, and how they have no foresight. If they would just save the expensive sets they build, particularly for very popular franchises like Star Trek, and not want to dismantle/destroy everything after the shooting wraps, they could actually make more money off of it by selling tickets for tours, etc. Hollywood's inefficiency and wastefulness is well documented in Robert Rodriguez's book Rebel Without A Crew. Good book to check out.
    • by 0123456 (636235)

      This just goes to show how wasteful Hollywood is, and how they have no foresight.

      Having gone dumpster-diving at the end of major movie shoots I'm always amused when I see some Hollywood actor telling us how we must recycle and conserve stuff. On the plus side, I don't think the indie movies I worked on ever had to pay for a light gel because we collected so many perfectly good ones that had been thrown away just because the movie wrapped.

      I remember Roger Corman saying that one reason he could make movies so cheaply in the 60s and 70s was because he kept sets and reused them, rather than

  • From TFA:

    It is our Prime Directive to completely restore the STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION D Bridge Set to make it a Fully Interactive, Simulator available for Display, Parties, Movie Showings, Fundraising, Charities, Fan Films, as well as newly created interactive Education Missions, so entire classrooms of students can steer the Enterprise to other planets, galaxies and more!

    Poor choice of words. I know the marketing speak is meant to energize the fans with catch phrases, but if they actually thought about it the Prime Directive [wikipedia.org] is an unchanging axiom:

    As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

    In other words, "don't provide advanced technology to civilizations that don't have it yet." Contaminating an old bridge set (that was built before the technology to give it real, functional touch screens) by outfitting it with modern, working touch screens would seem to be a violation of the Prime Directive... even if it

    • by countach (534280)

      Yes but 21st century man is the recipient of this old retrofitted bridge set, so there is no violation.

  • Just noticed the LCARS marking on their website and it occurred to me that the LCARS interface, designed back in the late '80s to look futuristic, is starting to look pretty dated now.

    Only when you look at the dates that you realize that the series is 25 years old now. I feel old :P

    N.
  • That would be an AWESOME place to play Artemis [eochu.com].

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...