What is Digg?36 Comments
- maeon3, on 07/24/2008, -1/+25What about Food replicators? Artificial gravity? Deflector shielding? Matter antimatter engines? Holo-decks? Sentient Androids?
There is a lot of work yet to be done. - MacParrot, on 07/25/2008, -1/+16There can be no doubt that Roddenberry was a prolific and revolutionary writer with the vision to create something that has lasted long after his death. Shatner however is an under appreciated actor who has not only managed to find significant roles (not great, just significant) despite being typecast. His work in Boston Legal is brilliant in that he's basically playing an over-the-top William Shatner playing a lawyer!
Denny Craaaane FTW! - mmijatov, on 07/25/2008, -1/+14Lay off Shatner, I think he genuinely transcended his role on Star Trek, come on remember how funny he was on 3rd Rock?
- jquipp, on 07/24/2008, -5/+15Gene Roddenberry was a genius!!! William Shatner should still be taking acting lessons.
- enderwiggin13, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8I don't think the submitter knows how to use AKA...Star Trek is "also known as" Gene Roddenberry?
- RetiredMidn, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Oh, *****. I'm as big a Star Trek fan as anybody (and old enough to have watched the original series first-run episodes), but most of the ideas from Star Trek were done earlier (and better) by various science fiction writers like Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov, to name a few. It was a lot more visionary to envision moon landings in the 40's and 50's than FTL travel in the 60's.
Roddenberry and company deserve a huge amount of credit for weaving these ideas into compelling (for their time) sets and story lines, but they had a lot of material to work with already. - daRoach, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7INCOMING MESSAGE FROM THE BIG GIANT HEAD!
- JRPereira, on 07/25/2008, -1/+6Isn't that the point of it all? Star Trek got a lot of peoples' attention?
- RocquesDiggs, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6William is still looking for deals on hotels and airline travels. Nice article. Thanks for sharing.
- Culyt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Could see a lot of that by 2050
Actually they have some force field shield designs now, they are looking at using them to reflect the solar radiation on the future Mars missions (Not that I really believe that will happen when they say, the moon would be a ). There not really deflector shield but there still cool (they look better than the ones on TNG anyway).
There are some anti-gravity solutions that would work if we got working superconductors (they work in liquid nitrogen currently, but the ground does need to have stuff on it afaik). Although thats different to artificial gravity that just need you to spin the ship in reality, there is no real need for it, you don't have to design spaceships layered like buildings, a 2001 space oddesy approach would be better (and cooler).
Holo-decks will probably never happen, but there will be realistic VR which would be a better solution for most things anyway (Like not trying to take over the ship or needing saftey protocols that seem to stop working when weird spatial anomalies occur, like someone sneezing loudly). No need for massive amounts of power of a dedicated room.
Computers will roughly be about the same speed as the human brain by 2025 from memory, so I would think a supercomputer of that time would be able to make an AI even if you just used very basic evolutionary programming. The humanoid android part would be a kinda stupid use for such a system in reality.
☢ - MacEnvy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4*phase
- CrushThemTorg, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3My favorite was Gene Roddenberry: The Next Generation.
- Sartori, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5Perhaps the author is unaware that there was actually science fiction before Star Trek?
- mstrebe, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2It's totally true. Listening to old 50's era radio shows will show that the plot of just about every Star Trek episode was rehashed from existing sources. What Roddenberry showed was the consistent "normal" use of high technology as if it were a part of everyday life, unlike the common-at-the-time melodrama of pointing out every amazing feature of every gadget as if people in the future wouldn't already know about it. It was the writing that was exceptional for the time, not the fiction.
- Nintendesert, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2It's all about the holodecks. I have to admit, I would have had a Jadzia Dax hologram going in the holodeck 24/7 and just banged her till my dick broke off.
- Asianwaste, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4I thought Boston Legal sucked but I thought Shatner was entertaining to watch on that show.
- kd1s, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2What? No mention of the MRI machine? The inventors of the device were in fact influenced by Star Trek, I recall reading a piece where they credited the show with giving them the idea of a scanner that was non-invasive and very accurate.
- myshl0ng, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3Beam me up, Scotty
- halfdirt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2How far do the dots go?
- conspirateur79, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2SO MANY DAMN LISTS... driving me crazy
- ReptilynSamurai, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1How can you blame something on him that was made after he was dead?
- MacEnvy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1The credit is for popularizing the concepts in common society. Seems pretty important to me.
- MacEnvy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Don't forget Ezri.
- zadadka, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2...and don't forget TJ Hooker....
- monoa, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Roddenberry had it worked out in many way:
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - halfdirt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1One of the things on this list has been actually invented - flip top wireless communicators.
The rest have not. It was a fairly pointless list of things we (a) may see soon like more advanced medical imaging, or (b) will probably never see, like faster than light travel. - drgruney, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Officer, TJ Hooker.
Also yes.. Shatner is an under-appreciated actor.I'm going to thank the crappy directing of TOS for the Shat we all know and love. I imagine the director didn't really know how to deal with a stage actor. - 1ibeckett, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1http://www.startrek.ibeckett.com
simple place to go for watching star trek xD - lorindriel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0I prefer the digg article title to the one Discovery Channel selected.
- Risti, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1As much as I love Star Trek, regarding Roddenberry's greatness I have just one word for you "Andromeda".
- mvtech1, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Buried. That list has been done to death and its obvious that the Author hasn't watched the show.
- citydragon, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Dugg for Shatner
- funklor, on 07/25/2008, -4/+3Like no one would have thought of these things if it wasn't for him, or Star Trek. Most are simply the next logical step in our development. In fact, they admit as much in regards to cellphones, so why is this blowhard taking credit?
- coadyj, on 07/25/2008, -2/+0rebuttal to list
2. yeah, because you often here spoke saying, yes captain, ill Google that now.
3. Were better then that as out global communicator do so much more
5. Yes, doctors often refer to star trek for extreme medical procedures
6 & 7 How could something that doesn’t exit change the world.
as a trekie reading article was a waist of time - Rudegar, on 07/25/2008, -4/+1don't fase me bro
- hauntedchippy, on 07/25/2008, -7/+2Come on Shatner snap out of it! You played a marvelous role but that was 40 years ago, time to move on. Get a job or something
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is