I love NdGT, but he's making a lot of assumptions here.

First he's comparing two fictional spacecraft, while knowing next to nothing about the relative strengths and weaknesses of their weapons systems, materials or engines.

It could be that phasers are to the Millennium Falcon what muskets are to a tank or vice versa.

Even then, Falcon v Enterprise isn't really an even match up. Maybe Falcon v runabout or Enterprise v Star Destroyer?

As for BB-8, how does he know that it's a smooth surface?

Finally, aliens might find kissing weird, or they might not. It's not even unique to one species on this planet, and it's almost certainly an evolved behavior. If aliens evolved on a similar planet, there's a chance they might evolve similar traits. Unlikely, but not impossible.

There was a lot of posturing from Star Wars fans (from stardestroyer.net, I think) for a long time, with exaggerations about the power of imperial starships. However, some fans have done an extensive (and pretty ridiculous) amount of work to make a lengthy comparison, that, while only as accurate as can be interpreted from the provided material, does come out in strong favor towards Star Trek technology:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/
So yes, NdGT is correct, and really, you don't need to do the extensive research the fans did to confirm that. Logistics in a post-scarcity civilization alone gives a significant advantage.
But this is to be expected. When you have a TV show as focused on science and technology as Star Trek, it will certainly excel.
Meanwhile, Star Wars isn't supposed to be about high end technology. For them the technology is only there to highlight the story. The charm of the Millenium Falcon is not that it's a god-like ship that can mop the floor with everyone else, but that it's some guy's souped up junker that's full of surprises. The Death Star isn't the ultimate weapon, but a weapon of fear. (A weapon that destroys excessive amounts of available resources is impractical for anything else, and that especially includes Starkiller Base.)
And if there really needs to be some sort of sci-fi-peen competition, you can go the complete nonsense route with Doctor Who, where one Dalek could probably conquer both the Trek and Wars universes with minimal effort.
Or the overkill route with the Culture, where wiping the rest out would be an idle task, pursued for entertainment.
Star Wars fans just need to chill and embrace their universe of junkers and quaint technology. Star Trek fans have already embraced the fact that their universe isn't about action and explosions. (No, we don't include the Abramsverse.)

*geek *talks *scifi *cinema

Adding video to channels (Cinema, Geek, Scifi, Talks) - requested by ant.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 5:51pm PST - promote requested by Zawash.

@Sylvester_Ink, in the Trek universe, they've had space faring technology for a few centuries at most. In Star Wars, it's millennia. Who's more likely to have the advanced technology?

The crappiest, cheapest computer you can buy today would still smoke the best machines from the last century.

It's still a pointless comparison though.

And yeah, an ROU annihilates all of them

The Falcon is 35m long, and is a light freighter.
The Enterprise is several hundred meters long, and is a battleship.

No contest. The Falcon would have as much chance against the Enterprise as it would against a Star Destroyer (or Nebulon-B frigate, or..).

I really need to read more of the Culture series... I don't even recall the one I read very well... I just recall being a fan of the overall idea.

And yeah, comparing the Enterprise (especially D or newer) to the Falcon is a bit crazy.

Eh. I'd still favour a small modern torpedo boat against a 16th century man-of-war. I mean, this was the ship that destroyed a space station the size of a moon.

Enterprise vs Sajuuk. Falcon vs Normandy. Gogo, war of the fandoms.

Star Wars and Star Trek geeks easily scare, but they'll soon be back, and in greater numbers.

You really do. Iain M. Banks was an amazing writer.

Excession is probably my favourite, along with Look To Windward and Use Of Weapons.

His non-sci-fi work is fantastic too, especially The Crow Road (any book that opens with the sentence "It was the day my grandmother exploded" is instantly brilliant IMO).

He was also a wonderful speaker. Listen to this (skip to 29:32 if you haven't read Use Of Weapons, it spoils the whole plot) http://www.theguardian.com/books/audio/2012/oct/12/iain-banks-book-club-podcast?fb_ref=Default. I love his analogy of writing fiction is like playing a piano and writing SF is like a massive pipe organ.

Gonna have to disagree here. Not that you are incorrect, but the assumptions might be incorrect. First, technological advances occur rapidly when one is found and they tend to ripple in every advancement. Consider that human "advancement" is really just centuries old. Second, and I am not entirely sure of the Star Wars universe on this matter, but Star Trek technology has the ability to warp time and time travel. This means in theory that if their universe saw people doing this over and over, the technology could have spread and spread in the same eons. In essence, the technology of their pantheon could be trillions of years old (Ie., Scotty gives shield upgrades to save whales, shields have now been upgraded to Scotty's timeline even further than before. But Scotty has to go back in time for some other event, gives newest shield information which increases his own time's shield power further, cycle continues indefinitely when Scotty is killed by a younger version of himself...)

nerds!

"Science" is the replacement religion practiced primarily by those who have never employed the Scientific Method and love sci-fi pop culture. They take his word as that of a lord, thus are conflicted when he speaks out against his own church as they perceive it.

He's fucking with their beliefs so they freak out.

BACK TO MY BEAKERS!