Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Cold Station 12 (episode)

Back to page

Revision as of 14:07, November 5, 2010 by SulfBot (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
38,692pages on
this wiki
Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.



Removed nitEdit

The following has been charged with nit-pickery and personal opinion and has thus been removed from the article. Re-inclusion of said information should be discussed herein before said re-inclusion can take place. --From Andoria with Love 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Enterprise's sensors are able to tell genetically-engineered humans from regular humans, as Tucker is able to report the Denobulan shuttle has Augments and one human. However, the 100 years more advanced USS Enterprise in "Space Seed" is unable to do so. It seems unlikely that any ship's sensors (even as far as the 24th century) would be able to tell the difference, as the Augments were also humans and the only way to tell would be a comprehensive scan of their DNA.
The "However," makes me want to poke someone in the eyeball. Other than that, it is a good point, I think that if you removed everything after "It seems," it would be a notable fact worthy of inclusion. --Bp 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nitpickery?? I've seen several instances of continuity errors mentioned from articles. The NX-01 could tell which lifesigns on a shuttle were regular human and augments, while a ship 100 years more advanced had an augment SITTING IN THEIR OWN SICKBAY and had no clue. That's hardly saying "T'Pol gave a neck pinch in the left shoulder in one shot and the right shoulder in the next." 24 century ship sensors have been able to tell only race, gender, approximate age (TNG: "Bloodlines") and and general health (ie- weak life signs). But a ship 200 years inferior can tell manipulations to specific sequences in a human's genetic code and that's somehow personal opinion?? How about:

  • "The Enterprise's sensors are apparently able to tell genetically-engineered humans from regular humans, as Tucker reports the Denobulan shuttle has nine Augments and one human. However, the 100 years more advanced USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) in "Space Seed" was unable to tell there were augments aboard the SS Botany Bay."
It is still a nitpick. Why do you see them in other articles? Because the decision to remove them was only made last summer, so there are 3 or more some odd years of nitpicks people have added. When we notice them, we remove them. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is ok: "The Enterprise's sensors are able to tell genetically-engineered humans from regular humans, as Tucker is able to report the Denobulan shuttle has nine augments and one human. In "Space Seed", 100 years later, the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was unable to detect the augments aboard the SS Botany Bay."
Maybe it would be better on some sensor page, or the page on augemnts. I say keep it somewhere, sans "However". --Bp 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the word "however" kill your parents or something? It wouldn't really make sense on the augment page, and while it wouldn't be that unreasonable to put it on the sensor entry it seems most appropriate here. Of course there's no reason it can't be in both. BTW, where is this "no nitpicking" rule? I didn't see it in the FAQs, Policies and guidelines, ie- anywhere rules should be. --Species 8675309 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting noteEdit

It is interesting to see that the picture with the children listening to Arik Soong has plants growing outside, yet in the episode Cold Station 12 (11 years later) the crew of the Enterprise land on Trialas IV and find it void of all green plant life. It is mentioned that they had to survive, yet the food replicators are also mentioned; this parallels the movie The Wrath of Khan as the Augments also had to survive after their lush planet became a barren wasteland. --203.211.74.138 10:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Encryption algorithm/laws of math Edit

I'm not the original contributor, but I reverted a revert. Before this escalates, let me explain: The "hexadecimal password", at 16 digits, would have 18.4 quintillion possibilities. Somebody noted that if the Augments knew something about the encryption algorithm, they could have narrowed it down to the "few hundred thousand" possibilities stated in dialog. While it's true that nobody can change the laws of math, knowledge of the algorithm can indeed narrow down the possibilities. A real-life example: If I know the encrypted version of your password, and I know that the "encryption" algorithm is ROT-13, then no matter how many characters long your password is, I've narrowed down the decryption possibilities to exactly ONE. No changing of laws of math required. Another real-life example: If I know that your system requires your password to be 5 decimal digits, and the system encrypts this into a hash of 16 hexadecimal digits, there are exactly 100,000 possibilities, even though that hash might appear more complex. See? Knowing something about the algorithm can yield great decryption power. You don't even have to be an Augment. Now: I leave open the question of whether this entire background item is anything but a nitpick. SwishyGarak 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You may know the algorithm but that doesn't change the # of possibilities. You say my password may have been encrypted with ROT-13, yet depending on the length of my password there are still 26^n possibilities for my password. No amount of knowledge would change that unless you knew what keys I press when I type my password. In the end I say it's a nitpick. The writers just screwed up. Simple as that. --Morder 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I said, "If I know the encrypted version of your password", didn't I? Even without that, OK, well, you know what, YES indeed, knowing the algorithm DOES astronomically narrow the possibilities. If don't know the password BUT I know that the system encrypts it with ROT-13, then I know that there are ONLY 26^n possibilities, even if I don't know the length n, so, I start with n=1 and proceed. But a cipher with mixed cases where numbers and symbols are permitted goes more toward 80^n, which is enourmously larger no matter what the length n is. A completely different scheme, like a true encryption instead of a cipher, yields a number of possibilities going toward (one example) publickeybitlength^privatekeybitlength^messagelength, but in real life many such algorithms have been shown to have weaknesses that reduce the possibilities by astronomical amounts. Or, how about my second example above, in which I show that out of an apparent 14.8x10^18 possibilities, knowledge of the system and algorithm narrowed the possible inputs to 10^5. So if you think that an attacker's knowing something about the system or the algorithm does not help, you're just not informed. I don't know if a "mistake" was made or what, but, there's nothing inconceivable about what was portrayed. Does that background note belong? You decide. SwishyGarak 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...ok...taking this a bit overboard. My point was that simply they didn't state that they knew what it was and thus limited the # of possibilities. You did limit it with stated knowledge (rot-13 example and hash example) so you were able to limit the combinations. I said it's a nitpick. Nothing more. Morder 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know what this topic is about, it's about this edit which got reverted with the comment "augments can't change the laws of math". I spoke up here in order to explain why I restored it: that wasn't a good reason to revert the contribution. A good reason may exist, but that isn't it. If anybody thinks there's a nitpick present in the article, one should be free to do something about it. If one thinks the original contribution is a nitpick, it would be pretty hard to argue that the bullet which it got added to is not one. SwishyGarak 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the whole statement to be a nitpick. Including the recent addition. But I would rather wait for a consensus before I remove items. Mr. Cobra removed it and not the previous statement as the statement has been there for a while and thus was probably not considered a nitpick. --Morder 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Abortion Edit

I don't know if the writers realized what they were saying but during this episode this conversation takes place:

Archer, "It's the embryos from the eugenics war that Soong's after"
Trip, "I thought Soong stole the embryos"
Archer, "He took 19, but there are over eighteen hundred more..."
Trip, "That's why he took the incubators with him..."
T'Pol, "Why weren't these embryos destroyed after the war?"
Archer, "At the time it was controversial, Earth's governments couldn't decide how to handle the issue so they decided to put them in cold storage"

It's not too far an assumption or being picky to assume that by him saying "At the time it was controversial" means that right now it isn't controversial to destroy an embryo. Today it's very controversial, and the fact that an early embryo (because I'm being safe and assuming the embryo is in its very early stages) is still considered ok to be destroyed in the future means something. So this could mean an abortion of an embryo wouldn't be considered an issue in that century. But so we don't assume at all, we could add something to the effect that in the 2100's destroying an embryo is not considered a controversial matter, or is not an issue.

I've seen many notes like this added to pages where someone says something, like when Data says Ireland is unified partly by terrorism, it is then added to the episodes page and Ireland's page, and so on. But I wanted to discuss this with everyone before adding it to see what people think.

I think it's a huge issue when an episode even implies that destroying an embryo is not a tough choice or controversial and I'm surprised no one picked up on it. That's a big statement. It would mean a lot. Do they allow embryotic research then? Stem cell? If destroying an embryo isn't a big controversy it opens up a whole new window in the Trek world. What qualifies as life for them? This is the first time that I can remember that Star Trek makes a comment, however subtle, on the future opinion of embryos.

Of course this doesn't mean it's the enlightened view on things. They do still eat meat, whereas at Picard's time all meat is replicated and eating meat from real animals is considered unenlightened and barbaric. This is pre-prime directive but still for even the Vulcans believing destroying embryos can ever be the logical course is something noteable in my book. – Saphsaph 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be more concise. What precisely are you suggesting we add? I can't tell, you are running on so many issues, from abortion, to stem cell research, to vegetarianism. What do you want? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I know I have a.d.d. but am I really that all over the place? Basically by saying that destroying embryos was controversial in the past, Archer is saying it isn't controversial during his time. So I think adding a line saying that the destruction of an embryo in the 22nd century isn't considered controversial would be adequate. I just went on to ramble on how this is a big finding. It would suggest that Earth in the future doesn't find embryotic research, stem-cell research and perhaps abortion unethical. – Saphsaph 06:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What would help would be for you to show us the note you want to write. This conversational style of asking isn't too precise for anyone to say whether your idea is a good one or not. I will make this recommendation, though: When you write the note, don't equate embryo-killing with abortion. It's not the same thing, medically or procedurally speaking, though I recognize it is the same thing morally. A pregnancy is aborted, an ex-vivo embryo is destroyed. --TribbleFurSuit 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

English isn't my first language, so I am wary of adding things in case I'm not being clear. The note would be something sort of like: According to Archer, destroying an embryo in the 22nd century isn't considered controversial or a difficult decision. Sourcing the conversation to show that. I wouldn't add long or big quotes, it needs to be short, unbiased, and to the point. I just don't have the writing skills to accomplish that. I also find that adding things, pretty much all things around here, ends up either being removed, or moved here for discussion often enough that talking about it first ends up being more effective in the long run. – Saphsaph 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, destroying an embryo in this manner isn't controversial today either. Any couple that has ever had IVF has destroyed many embryos in the process. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't controversial then embryonic steam cell research wouldn't be either... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy "The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo." – Saphsaph 03:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That is controversial because it involves creating an embryo with the direct and sole purpose of destroying it. That is not the case in IVF (where, as I said, embryos are discarded all the time), that is not the case in this episode either. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy#Viewpoints. The controversy is not creating to destroy. There's a whole part of it on the people who argue that IVF also destroys and the many people who don't thing it matters. (excerpt: "some medical researchers in the field argue ... that excess embryos created for in vitro fertilisation could be donated with consent and used for the research. This in turn, conflicts with opponents in the pro-life movement, who advocate for the protection of human embryos.") The article says that it is controversial because to create a stem cell requires the destruction of an embryo (As seen by the first sentence on the viewpoint section). Nowhere in the article does it say the controversy is due to having to create the embryo just to destroy it. Which is why there's still fighting going on to use cells from IVF. – Saphsaph 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the controversy is still over stem cell, not IVF. There is next to no controversy over IVF in the United States, or most of the countries using it. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... exactly... I don't understand why you brought it up anyway. In the end, destroying an embryo is considered controversial today. Here: "have generated controversy – the former due to the ethical and religious belief that it is wrong to destroy a human embryo" [1], "The controversy comes from the fact that scientists have to destroy an embryo to get its stem cells. To people who view the 8-cell embryo as a life, this is not acceptable." [2], " Bush opposes the research because it requires destroying an embryo"[3]. "The need to destroy embryos to obtain stem cells has aroused powerful opposition to federal funding of such work" (From an academic article Manier, J. (2005, October 18). Retrieved November 8, 2008). "Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos" (source: Time; 5/31/2004, Vol. 163 Issue 22, p88-88, 1p, 1 color).

Please remember that controversy doesn't mean one side is right. It means that it's a highly debated, often divided topic. Why people don't apply the same ethics to IVF is a whole other issue, the hypocrisy isn't at issue here. But we're discussing something with no connection to the article..

In the end my words, or these article's words aren't even needed as we're talking about Star Trek's world, not ours.

Archer said: "At the time it was controversial..."

So whether it really is or it isn't in our world is irrelevant. In Star Trek's timeline, it was controversial. He said it himself. Saying "At the time it was controversial" means that at Archer's current time it is not. It's simple English. If I say, "100 years ago people thought the world was flat" It means today people do not think the world is flat. So I don't see the problem with adding that during the time the events of this episode took place, destroying an embryo was not considered controversial. How that applies to each individual's idea and beliefs about life is up to them. – Saphsaph 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, IVF is indeed controversial for this very reason. Nobody's lobbying hard to treat the embryos "right", but it's most certainly true that anyone who opposes embryo destruction today wants every embryo produced by a fertility clinic to be given the chance to be born. These embryos aren't any different from stemcell research embryos, which, by the way, come from... wait for it... fertility clinics.
Besides that, which is completely irrelevant so I'm sorry: anyway, Saph, you started this by talking about what the writers intended. We can't draw conclusions about that, and we can't synthesize thematic interpretations either. --TribbleFurSuit 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. To me it is obvious. But I know you aren't random new people and are reasonable. We can't win them all! Maybe someday someone will read this and the group of people will decide differently (hopefully then with more proof), but until then I'll accept it and move on. I'll just add it to memorable quotes and let people draw their own conclusions – Saphsaph 05:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I interpreted the reason it isn't controversial in 2154 could easily be because of the "current" situation - that they're all trying to be raised by a criminal and a violent group of augments. If that situation hadn't come about (such as, several episodes previous), simply killing the embryos probably would still have been controversial, even in 2154. Izkata 22:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Removed from back Edit

  • The murder of the Deputy Director is reminiscent of Spock's death at the end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: a victim is separated from others via protective glass and slumps against the glass as he dies.
Well, yes, but pointing out all these similarities seems a bit excessive to me...

Not sure on many of the other points, too. Jackoverfull 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Other references Edit

The end of the episode is right out of the Anderomeda Strain, the novel and movie (I think Michael Crichton in the 60s or 70s) that caused NASA a lot of money in isolation procedures. The bio-weapon, the shaft, the deadlines, etc. Close copy. (And of course the women's clothes are from L'il Abner, but never mind that.) Oh, and the responce "my mother was a chemist" seems to evoke the episode of TOS where Kirk had to get Spock engraged "my mother was a teacher". This isn't my forte, but if someone wants to put it in...84.229.59.214 00:04, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

There would need to be a citation from a production source, such as a statement from the writers, that such a similarity was deliberate in order for it to be included in the article.--31dot 00:05, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Cold_Station_12_(episode)?oldid=1203768
en.memory-alpha.wikia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-32
103021
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:TTGWS3AQ6PBQWVSLD7JPY3G3AANT6GHD
<urn:uuid:4df0e904-6cda-422c-aeda-4f2974ab8516>
2015-08-03T21:29:12Z
23.235.46.194
sha1:XIOUCPV2QOCGGFF3WPFFDRROJ3PVLLUR
<urn:uuid:f4bc442c-0f34-4595-bc9f-93524944a015>
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Cold_Station_12_(episode)?oldid=1203768
response
<urn:uuid:dd91d6d3-44d8-4780-aec6-08ea76c9c30d>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-191-2.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-32
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf