Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
It's been a long time since I last saw Future's End so I could be very wrong, but it seems to me that the note at the end of the article should be removed. While it's true that in reality there is no such thing as an isograted circuit, I doubt that by the end of Future's End part II that isograted circuits existed in Star Trek's 20th century either. See, the only reason they existed there to begin with is because the time ship crashed on Earth, but because Voyager stopped the destruction of the solar system in 1996 there would never have been any reason for the time ship to attack Voyager in the 24th century. Because of this, the time ship would never have crashed on Earth and humans wouldn't have gotten isograted circuit technology so soon. This is further backed up by the fact that, in Part II, Captain Braxton tells the Voyager crew that he has no memory of the timeline in which Aeon crashes on Earth.
So due to an alternate timeline within Star Trek (a timeline that was ultimately destroyed), humans in Star Trek do not posses isograted circuits in the 20th century. Therefore, there is no conflict in this regard between real world history and Star Trek history (though it would be handy to explain away sleeper ships and genetic engineering). I recommend the italicized comment be removed. Any thoughts? Da Cheez 21:56, 06 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as an "isograted circuit" in real life; the episode thus suggests that the Chronowerx microprocessor revolution is more advanced than the microprocessor revolution of the real world. This may be part of the reason why the technology of the Star Trek universe's 20th century is more advanced than our own, with sophisticated genetic engineering and deep space sleeper ships technologically viable as early as 1996.
Agreed. And half of it is speculation. Removed this note. — Morder 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The dialogue seems to make it clear that the timeship's landing in 1969 and Chronowerx's computer development remain as part of the "prime" timeline, even after the end of Future's End. The final Braxton may have no memory of going back in time and being trapped in the 20th century, but some Braxton did, and did bring about the computer revolution. (There's no conflict about the Braxton at the end of Future's End not remembering being trapped in the 20th century; different Braxtons can have different memories, and they had not yet been reintegrated; see Relativity.)
The exact dialogue from Future's End (emphasis added):
- Janeway: He introduced the very first isograted circuit in 1969, two years after Braxton's ship crash-landed.
- Chakotay: And every few years, there's been an equally revolutionary advance in computers, all from Chronowerx industries, all based on Starling's crude understanding of 29th century technology.
- Janeway: Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Chakotay?
- Chakotay: I wish I weren't.
- Janeway: The computer age of the late 20th century...
- Chakotay: ... shouldn't have happened.
- Janeway: But it did, and it's part of our history, all because of that timeship.
I would vote for reincluding the italicized text. It is speculative, but that's what italics boxes (set apart from the main body of the articles) are for.
Puritan 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I find this all silly. I don't know why the dialogue says isograted circuit, I can only think it was a mistake by the writers or by Kate Mulgrew. But for this article to exist is silly because there are so many other technologies currently in use that are referred to by their correct name in other episodes, why make a change like this? -- Suso 02:29, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Because you aren't the judge of what can and can't be included? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:32, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Why such a term was used is irrelevant. It was, and as such we have an article on it.--31dot 08:08, September 7, 2009 (UTC)