Subject: REC.ARTS.STARTREK.TECH FAQ: Holodeck and Computers
From: [email-masked] (Joshua Sean Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.tech

Holodeck and Computers FAQ
                                       
   Last modified: Friday, 25 April 2003 02:03 AM -0700
   Maintained by: Joshua Bell, [email-masked]
   Archive site (WWW): http://www.calormen.net/Star_Trek/FAQs/
   FTP site (text versions): ftp://ftp.cc.umanitoba.ca/startrek/minifaqs/
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Copyright (c) 1994-2003, Joshua Bell. Not in the public domain.
   Permission to distribute this document, unedited and including this
   copyright notice is granted, provided no fees are charged for access
   beyond charges for downloading or connection time from a commercial
   information service. Publication of this document in a magazine or
   journal (in any media format) must be approved by the author.
   
   Star Trek (R), Star Trek: The Next Generation (R), Star Trek: Deep Space
   Nine (R) and Star Trek: Voyager (R) are trademarks of Paramount Pictures
   registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Contents:

    1. How real is real? - Mechanics of the Holodeck
    2. Where does it all end? - The Holodeck and troublemakers
    3. What if...? - Limitations and possibilities of the Holodeck
    4. Holodoc - Voyager's Holodeck technology
    5. Will it run Windows? - The Enterprise computers
    6. Credits
    7. References
     _________________________________________________________________
   
1. How real is real?

   "How does it work?"
   
   A Holodeck can create simulations in the following ways:
     * The walls can generate holographic images which appear to extend
       for an unlimited distance. For example, the walls in "Encounter at
       Farpoint" and "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG].
     * Holograms can be projected into space. For example, a when Picard
       went horseback riding ("Pen Pals" [TNG]), most of the trees were
       probably intangible projections since he wasn't going to run into
       them.
     * Holograms can be augmented with force beams to simulate solid,
       tangible objects. An example would be the book Picard threw in
       "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG].
     * Holograms and force beams can be augmented with replicator
       technology to provide actual substance. Food on the holodeck would
       be of this nature, despite what Paris said in "The Cloud" [VOY]
       (he was probably joking) or eating it would be very unpleasant.
       Most inanimate objects which are likely to be eaten or have
       properties difficult to simulate (e.g. water) would be simulated
       in this way.
     * An animate object is comprised of a partially stable form of
       matter created by the Holodeck replicators for use in the Holodeck
       only. This material is stable only within a Holodeck or holosuite,
       and degrades into energy if removed. (Encyclopedia).
       This is matter held in place by force beams operating at a
       molecular level, as opposed to actually replicating the object
       down to the molecular bonds. (Speculation based on the description
       in "Phage" [VOY] of how the "HoloDoc" works.) Without the force
       beams, the object disintegrates. Examples would be the gangsters
       in "The Big Goodbye" [TNG], Picard's horse in "Pen Pals" [TNG], or
       Minuet in "11001001" [TNG].
       
   Note that the wall/hologram/force beam simulations are easy for the
   holodeck to carry out, and that the hologram/force beam/replicator
   simulations were possible during "Encounter at Farpoint" (when Wesley
   got soaked).
   
   It is possible, however, that the Holodeck-matter simulations, were
   not possible before the upgrades made by the Bynars in "11001001"
   [TNG]. This would explain Riker's surprise at the realism of the
   Minuet simulation.
   
   Also, if an object's status changes the simulation type will change
   seamlessly as well. For example, someone sees a distant tree (walls),
   approaches it (hologram), leans on it (force beams), breaks off a
   branch (Holodeck-matter), then picks and eats an apple (replicated).
   
   ....
   
   "What about eating on the Holodeck? Does Troi do it to keep thin with
   all that chocolate she eats?"
   
   Any food consumed on the Holodeck would be replicated. If it were any
   of the other types of simulation, it would dissociate or evaporate
   when you left the holodeck, which doesn't sound at all pleasant.
   
   ....
   
   "What is this 'meat puppet' description I've heard used?"
   
   A 'meat puppet' is a old term resurrected to describe a replicated
   humanoid form created on the Holodeck, and dragged around by force
   beams. If the force beams failed, you'd be left with a limp, lifeless
   body.
   
   (This dates back to before we'd ever heard of Holodeck-matter.
   Creative, weren't we?)
   
   ....
   
   "So can you take things off of the Holodeck?"
   
   Yes. Any object replicated on the Holodeck may leave. Unfortunately,
   it is sometimes hard to tell what is replicated, and what is not.
   Snow, such as the snowball thrown by Wesley in "The Naked Now" is
   easily replicated, and dampness is hard to simulate. The book thrown
   by Picard in "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG] would be easily simulated by
   force beams and thus was not replicated.
   
   The paper in "Elementary, Dear Data" [TNG] was likely simulated until
   the computer realized that it was going to be carried off the
   Holodeck, at which point it would have been seamlessly replaced with a
   replicated copy.
   
   ....
   
   "Didn't Picard lie to Moriarty (in "Elementary, Dear Data" [TNG])?"
   
   According to various reliable sources, that was Gene Roddenberry's
   intention. If the paper could have left, Moriarty should have been
   able to, goes the logic. Fortunately, this scene was cut, and as
   always, canon is what we see on the screen, big or small. This means
   the whole argument against replicating people holds - that the
   computer cannot store that much information.
   
   ....
   
   "What about beaming things off the Holodeck (ala "Ship In A Bottle"
   [TNG])?"
   
   This has never been tried, as explained in the episode, which is why
   the computer was unable to simulate the results. Replicated objects
   should be able to be transported out of the Holodeck, but anything
   relying on the force beams would instantly collapse.
   
   As for uncoupling the Heisenberg Compensators - that would give a
   random quantum state to each particle in the transported object. It
   would be akin to a molecular-resolution transport - probably deadly
   for any living being.
   
   ....
   
   "Now wait a second. How come something simple like the chair in "Ship
   In A Bottle" [TNG] wasn't replicated?"
   
   They were testing beaming something composed of the 5th type of
   simulation; an object made of Holodeck matter, just like Moriarty and
   the Countess. Obviously a purely replicated chair wouldn't do for this
   experiment, so Geordi probably tweaked the chair to be the right kind
   of simulation to use for the test.
   
   ....
   
   "What's this about 'HoloSex'?"
   
   If current trends are a pattern for the future to follow, then Virtual
   Reality Sex will be alive and well long into the 24th century. Quark's
   bar on DS9 has personal holosuites on the second floor. Various
   stimulating programs are available.
   
   In "The Perfect Mate" [TNG], Riker manages to croak out something
   about "I'll be in Holodeck 4..." after an encounter with the
   metamorph. No proof that he did anything, true. Minuet (in "11001001"
   [TNG]) was "As real as you need me to be." Uh-huh. Geordi doesn't seem
   to have much luck off the 'deck, it seems, nor does Reginald Barclay.
   
   Zek in "The Nagus" [DS9] certainly enjoys those holosuites!
   
   Draw what conclusions you will.
   
   ....
   
   "What if you urinate/defecate/excrete whatever on the Holodeck?"
   
   One would hope the Holodeck is smart enough to clean up after you. It
   probably gets transmuted into some form the bulk matter stores can
   use, and saved for later use by replicators or the Holodeck again. The
   ultimate in recycling.
   
   And, er, if another real person in the Holodeck is the... recipient of
   your, er, donation? The Holodeck doesn't interfere, and we have that
   little charmer, Alexander, to prove it. (Thanks to Benjamin Chee for
   pointing this one out.)
   
   ....
   
   "Can you get hurt on the Holodeck?"
   
   Yes. Even when it isn't malfunctioning, the simulation can't protect
   you from your own stupidity. Broken ribs and arms from cliff diving
   and other sports practiced on the Holodeck are often seen treated in
   Sick Bay.
   
   ....
   
   "But the replicators can't even make unhealthy food!"
   
   Replicators can (within limits of technology and energy) produce
   anything for which they have a pattern. Certain objects may need
   security clearance. But you can have the replicator make a glass of
   water, and use the glass as a weapon - it may be smart, but it's not
   foolproof.
   
   ....
   
   "What happened to the "arch" they used in the first season?"
   
   Its intended use was as a way to program the Holodeck and access the
   ship's computer, as well as a virtual reality "safeword". In later
   episodes, they just used the "exit" and programmed the computer by
   voice. It is still around, recently seen in "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG].
   The arch was how Moriarty first learned that he was a simulation, and
   gained control of the ship in "Elementary, Dear Data" [TNG], and it
   was seen in Star Trek: Generations as well.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
2. Where does it all end?

   "How do they manage to keep walking for hours and hours?"
   
   The Holodeck has a force field treadmill. If its occupants get too
   close to the walls, they are shifted away. Since the Holodeck can
   modify its gravity in 3 dimensions, the occupants won't notice any
   inertial change. The novel "Reunion" [TNG] (while non-canon) goes into
   details about this.
   
   ....
   
   "But what about the walls seen in "Encounter at Farpoint" [TNG] and
   "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG], demonstrated by Data?"
   
   In "Encounter at Farpoint" [TNG], Data threw a Holodeck-generated rock
   at the wall. There are a few possibilities. Either the computer
   realized the intent of the demonstration, and didn't replace the rock
   with an image on the Holodeck wall; or the "simple pattern" of that
   simulation didn't allow for treadmill-scrolling; or the Holodeck
   computer wasn't quite powerful enough, pre-Bynar intervention.
   
   In "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG], Data throws his own communicator at the
   wall. The Holodeck must have safeguards not to summarily destroy
   things it didn't create, so it didn't do anything to affect the
   communicator.
   
   ....
   
   "What happens if two real people enter a Holodeck and start running
   away from each other?"
   
   The simplest answer is that the Holodeck "compartmentalizes", in
   effect becoming a separate Holodeck for each person within it. In
   reality, the two people would probably be only a few meters apart, but
   would be separated by a Holodeck-projected "wall". If they turned to
   look at each other, they would see an image of the other projected on
   that wall.
   
   Benjamin Chee points out that Star Trek: Generations strongly supports
   this notion; whilst on the simulation of the seagoing Enterprise,
   Picard calls for the Holodeck arch and it appears on the ship's deck.
   But earlier, Worf and Crusher were sent overboard, below the level of
   the ship's deck and therefore below the floor of the Holodeck, unless
   the holodeck does compartmentalize to some degree.
   
   ....
   
   "What if they take a real rock in with them, walk away from each other
   (past the physical limits of the Holodeck) and then toss the rock back
   and forth?"
   
   This one is too easy. The holodeck could treat the rock in just the
   same way as it would treat a person. When it leaves the hand of the
   thrower, the Holodeck "wraps" it in its own miniature simulation, and
   hides it from the two people, who (in their own mini-Holodeck) see
   only an image of the rock. The rock is then moved (with force beams)
   from the thrower to the catcher, given the appropriate kinetic energy
   along the way. From the rock's point of view nothing out of the
   ordinary happens.
   
   ....
   
   "So what if two people take a long rope, and start walking away from
   each other?"
   
   The answer in this instance could be that the Holodeck hides part of
   the rope, and projects an image of a tightening rope along with force
   beam-generated tension.
   
   In general, though, the answer to these "boggle the Holodeck"
   questions is that no, it's not perfect. You will encounter limitations
   to the technology, and gaps in the 'reality' will become apparent.
   However, you really do have to be looking for problems to find them,
   such as the left-right reversal in "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG]. (Benjamin
   Chee)
     _________________________________________________________________
   
3. What if...?

   "Can you go swimming on the Holodeck?"
   
   Yes. Cliff diving has been mentioned as a recreation sport aboard the
   Holodeck (in "Conundrum" [TNG]), as has kayaking ("Transfigurations"
   [TNG]). Worf and Beverly also take a dip in Star Trek: Generations.
   
   "So does it replicate all of that water?"
   
   Probably not. What would likely happen is that a "personal space" of
   water would be replicated around the person, and the rest of the water
   in the pool, river, etc, would be a visual and auditory simulation.
   There is no canon evidence one way or the other, however, although in
   "Encounter at Farpoint" [TNG], there was enough real water present to
   soak Wesley.
   
   "So what if someone is scuba diving, and the Holodeck door opens?"
   
   Very likely, the force beams would give the sensation of a water
   surface over the doorway. Depending on the simulation, it might be
   possible for someone to wander onto a Holodeck, in normal duty
   uniform, and walk around someone who is swimming several meters below
   the "surface" of the pool. Only the swimmer would feel the sensation
   of water around them. Again, no canonical evidence either way.
   
   ....
   
   "How about a Holodeck within the Holodeck?"
   
   This is done in "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG]. They end up with a Holodeck
   (in which Picard was in control, and sent Moriarty away) inside a
   Holodeck (the real one, in which Moriarty took control) by the end of
   the episode. Is there a limit? Probably. No evidence for what that
   limit might be.
   
   ....
   
   "Can you get the Holodeck to simulate someone?"
   
   Yes. Although done numerous times, including "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG]
   and "A Matter of Perspective" [TNG], and "The Siege" [DS9]; "Hollow
   Pursuits" [TNG] is the prime example of this, and brings up the
   question...
   
   "Is it ethical to simulate someone without their permission?"
   
   Systems of ethics are by no means universal across cultural lines. Nor
   can we extend our 20th century foibles to the 24th century, where such
   things may be common place. In every instance, however, people thusly
   simulated have reacted negatively when they find out - for example,
   Troi, Riker, and Picard in "Hollow Pursuits" [TNG] and Dr. Leah Brahms
   in "Booby Trap" [TNG] and "Galaxy's Child" [TNG].
   
   "So does the computer stop these simulations?"
   
   Nope. Moriarty was able to do it in "Ship In A Bottle" [TNG], without
   any special permissions. It is amusing, however, to watch the episode
   again, and see how the simulated characters appear slightly stiff.
   
   ....
   
   "Could you simulate the Enterprise bridge from the Holodeck, and use
   it to take over?"
   
   The simulation would not be a problem - the Enterprise computer has
   extensive files of all Federation starship layouts, as shown in
   "Relics" [TNG].
   
   In three episodes, the Enterprise has been controlled from the
   Holodeck - by Barclay in "The Nth Degree" [TNG], with a neural
   interface; in "Elementary, Dear Data" [TNG], where Moriarty somehow
   cracked the security codes via the Holodeck Arch; and in "Ship In A
   Bottle" [TNG], where Picard inadvertently gave Moriarty the security
   codes.
   
   ....
   
   "Why not just have single-person Holodecks? For interaction, the
   computer could just link them all together!"
   
   According to the TNG Tech Manual, there are four primary Holodecks and
   a number of personal ones. They could indeed be linked, but part of
   the fun of a Holodeck is the interaction with other people, knowing
   that they are real.
   
   These do exist on Deep Space 9 in Quark's Bar, and are called
   holosuites. Some are quite small ("A Man Alone" [DS9]), others large
   enough for a number of people ("Blood Oath" [DS9]).
   
   ....
   
   "Why do people get dressed up before going to the Holodeck? Can't it
   provide the period costumes?"
   
   Yes. In First Contact Picard has clothing simulations created for
   himself and Lilly. But for the most part, the crew probably wants to
   get "into character" before entering the simulation.
   
   ....
   
   "How do you fit two entire baseball teams (real people, not
   holographic extras) into one of Quark's Holosuites?" "Take Me Out To
   The Holosuite" [DS9]
   
   We do know that Quark's holosuites come in various sizes. If you're
   talking about at least 18 people, each would require almost 4 square
   meters of area, or 72 square meters - and that's conservative. Imagine
   they all start walking out the door in single file - the computer has
   to shuffle each player's compartment around so that they end up by the
   door in the order they decide to leave! (In the episode, we never see
   a mass entrance or exodus, so it's possible that the holosuite does
   have some limitations). That's about a 9 meter by 9 meter space - a
   full sized holodeck by any account. But then again, there's no
   evidence that Quark doesn't have something of that size tucked in the
   back - for use only by clients with sufficient Latinum, of course.
   
   The poster who asked this question on the newsgroup (Marco Antonio
   Checa Funcke) after seeing the preview for the episode proposed that
   perhaps the docked Vulcan starship's holodeck was used. Michael Welch
   answers that they definitely did not use the Vulcan ship because at
   the beginning of the episode, the Vulcan captain tells Sisko he needs
   to schedule holosuite use and Sisko refers him to Quark. The Vulcan
   captain at that point tells Sisko that it's a baseball program he's
   developed.
   
   ....
   
   "Wasn't there a Holodeck on the original Enterprise? I'm sure I
   remember...."
   
   Not in TOS. However, in "The Practical Joker" [TAS] the recreation
   deck had an environment simulator that used holograms and "stock"
   effects to produce an effect similar to the Holodeck, but not as
   realistic or convincing. The in that episode the computer
   malfunctions, trapping Uhura, Sulu and McCoy in a series of hostile
   environments.
   
   This is probably what most people remember, and also the inspiration
   for the Holodeck itself on TNG.
   
   Sources like "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" mention similar
   things, including rooms with hologram projectors for the walls alone,
   but no canonical evidence exits.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
4. Holodoc - Voyager's Holodeck technology

   "Phage" [VOY] describes Voyager's medical holographic technology in
   explicit detail. Unfortunately, I missed the episode. I'm indebted to
   Allen G. Newman who wrote most of the following as an article in
   rec.arts.startrek.tech:
   
     Voyager's explanation is actually the best yet; it works the best
     for explaining all the old questions about holo-matter from TNG.
     Apparently, matter on the Holodeck has the potential to be as
     detailed as real matter down to the level of molecular resolution.
     Instead of being composed of molecules, full-resolution
     holo-objects are composed of molecule-sized magnetic bubbles which
     can be individually manipulated through three dimensions by the
     computer.
     
     The fact that the movement of individual holo-molecules can be
     controlled is of vital importance to the holo-lung being able to
     work. Replicators cannot create living matter because it is beyond
     the ability of the computer to "jump-start" all the necessary
     electron shell activity and atomic motions that determine
     biochemical activity (movement and transformation of molecules
     through the system). This limitation is irrelevant to the
     simulation of a lifeform on the Holodeck, though; since the
     Holodeck can move, reshape, create and destroy the magnetic-bubble
     molecules at will, there is no need to worry about the subatomic
     physics that make biochemistry happen on its own in real
     life-forms.
     
     Even so, simulating even relatively simple lifeforms (such as
     humanoid lungs) stretches the capabilities of the system to the
     limit. Neelix had to be held motionless because it was beyond the
     ability of the computer to dynamically reorient such a complex,
     high-resolution construct. This same limitation makes it currently
     impossible to do something as incredible as having the Holodeck
     reanimate the complete transporter pattern of a person who had
     died, which could theoretically allow a person a kind of
     immortality within a Holodeck's simulated confines. (An afterlife
     in which a person could forever live in whatever environment the
     person chose, while still interacting with real people and objects
     visiting the Holodeck may become possible with exponential advances
     in computer processing.)
     
     Note that holo-matter only has the potential to be detailed down to
     the molecular level. In most cases, the computer would have an
     easier time by using much larger magnetic bubbles that merely
     simulated surfaces and textures that can be seen and felt by people
     in everyday interactions. The image of the holo-doctor is almost
     certainly just an empty shell because there's no reason to waste
     computer power simulating the workings of internal organs.
     
   Allen makes the assumption that Voyager's sick-bay holographic system
   works the same way as the main Holodeck on board Voyager, and that
   this is the same again as the Enterprise's Holodecks. On the other
   hand, I think the system has just evolved over time, and that
   Voyager's sick bay is using the latest and greatest technology.
   
   ....
   
   "Why are they being so liberal with the Holodeck on Voyager? Aren't
   they short on energy?"
   
   In "Parallax" [VOY] it is mentioned that the crew tried to hook the
   Holodeck power systems to the main power systems of Voyager and blew
   out a conduit due to incompatibilities. The Holodeck having its own
   power source may not make much sense, but at least the production crew
   justified the crew's use of it.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
5. Will it run Windows?

   "So tell me about the computers."
   
   According to the TNG TM, the Enterprise has three main computers. Two
   reside in the Primary Hull (the saucer); they are vertical cylinders,
   about 8 decks high, and located on opposite sides of the saucer,
   flanking the bridge. The third computer is located in the Secondary
   Hull (engineering), and is smaller than the other two cores; it
   controls the Stardrive section when the ship separates.
   
   We've seen the computer cores a number of times. In "Evolution" [TNG]
   the nanites were attacked in the computer cores. The set is probably
   meant to be just one deck of the multi-deck computer core, with the
   room seen the hollow central portion.
   
   The computers are networked with each other, and with the rest of the
   ship via the ODN - the Optical Data Network. The ODN has enough
   processing power on its own to take over limited control of the ship
   in case of a complete computer failure.
   
   ....
   
   "Why do the displays and touch pads work when the computers are down?"
   
   The displays use "nanoprocessors" - cell sized mechanical computers -
   to display information. The display itself contains data polled from
   the ODN, and based on user selections, displays whatever is
   appropriate. So even if the computers go down, whatever information is
   (1) already on the ODN (or ODN backups) or (2) in the display itself
   can be selected and displayed.
   
   ....
   
   "Why aren't the computers distributed?"
   
   The three main computer cores are equipped with low level subspace
   field generators. This allows signal propagation within the cores at
   Faster-Than-Light (FTL) speeds, allowing the computers to perform much
   faster than anything constructable given 20th century technology, even
   theoretically. This cannot be applied (by 24th century technology) to
   smaller computers.
   
   Once again, the ODN has enough distributed computational power on its
   own to run the ship, if all the cores are rendered inoperable. So the
   redundancy is there; look at how often on the show the computers are
   inaccessible, yet the ship can still be controlled. Also, all of the
   consoles are also operating independently. They have nanoprocessors
   and are always receiving a flood of data from the network, and
   interpreting and displaying it as the user wants it. So the
   computation as we think of it is distributed. Think of it as using a
   workstation farm for interfaces and data visualization, while running
   big jobs on a few networked Crays.
   
   ....
   
   "Why the redundancy in the primary hull? Shouldn't the cores be in the
   secondary hull?"
   
   We're not sure. The TNG Blueprints have the secondary hull computer
   core to one side of the ship centerline, and an equal-sized ballast
   space on the other. Galaxy-class ships do appear to be designed by
   committee, so maybe it was just cost.
   
   ....
   
   "How big is a kiloquad?"
   
   This hasn't been answered, and in the Encyclopedia, it says:
   
     No, we don't know how many bytes are in a kiloquad. We don't even
     want to know. The reason the term was invented was specifically to
     avoid describing the data capacity of Star Trek's computers in
     20th-century terms. It was feared ... that any such attempt would
     look foolish in just a few years, given the current rate of
     progress in that field.
     
   However, many r.a.st.tech contributors have converged on kiloquad to
   mean 1000 (kilo) * 1 quadrillion bytes (or bits, but we'll stick with
   bytes for the explanation), the premise being that the phrase "quad"
   came into use instead of "pet" for Petabyte, since that sounds dumb.
   Then the kilo-, Mega- and Giga- prefixes were recycled.
   
   Depending on where you live, a quadrillion is either 10^15 (American
   definition) or 10^24 (European definition). If Americans came up with
   this definition, that makes a kiloquad 10^18 bytes, which is around
   2^60 bytes, which is about a billion gigabytes. If a European came up
   with this definition, we're talking about 2^90 bytes, which is a
   trillion gigabytes. Either way, we're talking a lot of bits.
   
   Is this technologically feasible, given that an isolinear chip, quoted
   at 2.15 kiloquad in the TNG TM is about the size of a microscope
   slide?
   
   From H. Peter Anvin:
   
     ...The 2.15 kqd isolinear chips [would have] a bit density of
     2.94e+15 bits/mm^3 (I have assumed the dimensions to be 90x30x2.5
     mm, this is probably on the high side if you exclude the part where
     you handle the chip); that means each bit could form a cube 7.0 nm
     (70 [angstrom]) to the side. The chips are optical, which I assume
     means they are read and written with electromagnetic radiation that
     behaves somewhat approximately like light. 7 nm is in the far
     ultraviolet region-near X-ray region (visible light ends at about
     200 nm) which is really pushing the limit. Assuming some form of
     multi-state encoding that may exist may push this down to near UV
     which would then be a bit more practical to deal with, and more
     "optical", but that is irrelevant.
     
     Hence, what we "know" about ST computer technology seems to
     correlate pretty well to the definition 1 quad = 1 quadrillion
     [American] bytes. It may be bits or bytes (it is only a factor of
     8, obviously... it changes 7 nm to 14 nm if it is bits not bytes),
     but it seems to fit pretty well.
     
   ....
   
   "But a quad is a unit of energy!"
   
   Words can have more than one meaning.
   
   ....
   
   "In "The Nth Degree" [TNG] when Barclay was taking over the core, why
   not just disconnect that core and use one of the other two?"
   
   I can't remember the details, but presumably he took over the entire
   ODN as well. He'd have to in order to run the ship through the
   Holodeck (which have, BTW, their own almost-distinct computers (c.f.
   "Emergence" [TNG])).
     _________________________________________________________________
   
6. Credits:

     * Michael M. Welch, [email-masked]
     * John F. Meyer Jr., [email-masked]
     * H. Peter Anvin, [email-masked]
     * Benjamin Chee, [email-masked]
     * Charles Anthe, [email-masked]
     * Allen G. Newman, [email-masked]
     _________________________________________________________________
   
7. References:

   See the Reading List FAQ for more details on the reference volumes
   mentioned above and below.
   
   The question of "what is canon" has been argued for years in the Star
   Trek newsgroup hierarchy. In the realm of technical discussions, this
   can be refined to the question of "what evidence is factual, and what
   is apocryphal". These FAQs follow the currently dominant notion that
   "canon" is aired live-action material and nothing more, with the
   caveat that materials produced off-camera by the production crew are
   often (but not always) reliable predictors of the direction future
   canonical material will follow, and are therefore granted a special
   "quasi-canonical" status. Any other material falls into the realm of
   speculation - it may be perfectly well grounded speculation useful for
   building up technical arguments, or wild flights of fancy that have no
   rational basis.
   
   In addition, more recently presented information is considered to
   supercede old information, unless the weight of the evidence supports
   the original data. While this may seem highly biased and may be eyed
   with some skepticism as a form of Orwellian "newthink", it is a more
   useful predictor of what those directly responsible for the creation
   of the series are likely to include as canonical material in the
   future.
   
   For example, the excellent and groundbreaking Star Fleet Technical
   Manual, by Franz Joseph created in the 1970's was a very well thought
   out look at the technical world of Starfleet just slightly beyond what
   was seen in the original series. Unfortunately, and perhaps for purely
   arbitrary reasons, the future development of "canon" Star Trek
   diverged from this speculation. This in no way implies that there was
   anything wrong with that volume or any others, merely that due to
   later "evidence", it can no longer be regarded as an authoritative
   overview of Trek technology. On the other hand, the author performed a
   lot of research to create it, and therefore its speculation should not
   be dismissed out of hand.
   
   That said, we are dealing with a universe in the process of being
   created by scores of (usually) non-technical people, aiming to provide
   weekly entertainment for a mass audience. There are many
   inconsistencies even amid the canonical material, and often times the
   wildest speculation on the newsgroup makes more sense than what we see
   in the episodes.
   
   Canonical material:
     * Star Trek: Voyager [VOY]
     * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine [DS9]
     * Star Trek: The Next Generation [TNG]
     * Star Trek feature films
     * Classic Star Trek [TOS]
       
   Quasi-canonical material:
     * The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future
     * Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future
     * Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual
     * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual
     * The Making of Star Trek
     * Other "behind the scenes" information from the production crew,
       including:
          + Newsgroup postings
          + Convention presentations
          + Interviews
          + Email conversations
       
   Highly regarded, but non-canonical material:
     * Star Trek: The Animated Series [TAS]
     * Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise
     * Star Fleet Technical Manual
     * Starlog's Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Journal
     * Other "reference" guides
     * Novels, incl. novelizations of films and episodes
     * Blueprints, drawings, photographs, models, etc.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Joshua Bell, [email-masked]