Treknology

[Koliedrus]

Fiction that has merit enthralls me.

Whenever I read a plausible, fictional account of the future, I can't help but wonder with overwhelming intensity. It seems like others who grew up contemplating ray-guns (Stun <-----> Kill) have taken the predictions quite seriously.

In one of the Star Trek movies, Scotty trades the formula for Transparent Aluminum in excange for some plexiglass. After some jovial interractions concerning "primative" equipment, the response was something like this:

"It would take years to analyze the dynamics of this matrix!"

Years after that movie was made:

Researchers at the Fraunhofen Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Sintered Materials IKTS in Dresden, Germany, led by Dr. Andreas Krell, announced the creation of aluminum oxide (alumina). A ceramic composite that combines the pressure-resistant strength of aluminum with the transparency of glass.

Hmmmm.

Some links to read:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012131
http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/article_457_INSIDE%20THE%20ARM1.doc
http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_050713_phasers.html
http://www.xtremeads.com/stunstrike.htm


My question is this:



What do YOU consider to be acceptable use of technology as it pertains to violent confrontations?

Please include rape and crowd control in your thoughts before you respond.

Thank you for your indulgence and Welcome To The Future.

[Asmodeus]

Nuke'em till they glow then shoot'em in the dark?

Seems to me to be the wrong question there Kol.

[Escape Artist]

Technology as it applies to violent confrontations is in itself kinda absurd, IMO. Can use bricks to deal with violence, if need be.

In any case, I think this question has already been answered by people like Massad Ayoob, with respect to guns:

Enough force to negate the attack.

I pose this question: why haven't technological advances created the utopian society one would cavalierly assume must eventually exist?