*wings
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Clarke)

It looks like an O'Neill colony (or A.C.Clarke's Rama), but on Erik Wernquist's web page, it says this is a large asteroid hollowed out (7 km internal diameter) and spun up to provide artificial gravity. It would need to be a strong asteroid to hold together - but that would also make it hard to hollow out. Interesting concept. Who knows what wonders may be possible in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder

http://www.erikwernquist.com/wanderers/gallery_terrarium.html

I love mind-stretching stuff, but the purpose is a little confusing in this. The science in visiting a comet and discovering sand dunes is damned great. (reference: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/10/scientists-discover-that-comet-stinks-and-has-dunes-just-like-earth ) But this little film buries that in the equivalent of master/apprentice wizardry and magic.

Yeah, yeah, effects were superb, and per Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and the story was meant to be noble. Got that.

But this still put me off a touch because it muddied the waters. Cool science is cool without CGI, and this went a bit too far down that lane.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stanley kubric, 2001, space odyssey, trailer, recut, 2014' to 'stanley kubric, 2001, space odyssey, trailer, recut, 2014, arthur c clarke' - edited by brycewi19

@AeroMechanical, actually I'm with you. I seriously doubt the Foundation stories would work on film or even in a long form mini series.

The problem with a lot of sci-fi literature is that it doesn't conform to the standard 3 act movie structure. There's often an ambiguous ending which doesn't neatly resolve (like real life!). Asimov, Clarke, Banks, Reynolds, Morgan (to name a few of my favourites) fit this pattern.

There are two things happening, IMO:
1. The journey really is more important than the destination. It's about the story, not the outcome.
2. In some cases, story above character (Asimov and Clarke in particular). The idea is more important than the puny humans caught up in it.

Both of these are hard for studio execs (and to be fair, mainstream audiences) to grasp.

Well, sure, he doesn't have a ton of range, but he's a movie star. He doesn't need to have range, nor do we particularly require it of him. Pretty much every movie star in the history of cinema plays some variation on themselves in every role -- people like George Clooney, Will Smith, or Tom Cruise (or going further back, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, or John Wayne) rarely mix it up too much, because they are movie stars and their established persona is part of what makes them so bankable. That doesn't make them bad actors, it just makes them a specific type of actor.

I never had a problem with the killing of Zod. I never got those who complained how this movie killed Zod and praised the original '78 movie for the same reason he points out here, the he kills Zod in the '78 film and it is just laughed off while here he shows real remorse. My biggest pet peeve of the movie is that people complaining about him killing Zod... Never got why that upset people.

I did and still do have issue with the wholesale destruction of Metropolis in the fight, but can accept the premise of the video. But it should have been demonstrated more effectively in the film. Clark/Superman should have tried to lead the fight away from the city, then we see Zod ignore him and return to the destruction of humanity, forcing the fight to continue in the city. That simple little scene would have pulled it together and made it obvious that Zod wouldn't allow the fight to happen anywhere else but the city.

All the other issues he mentions and explained I thought were obvious and didn't need an explanation.

Thanks Very much so

p.s. http://videosift.com/video/Clark-Little-on-Staring-Down-Shorebreak-for-The-Perfect-Shot

You're missing the forest for your own trees concerning these government agencies and how they are used by special interests, people-Lands declared federally-owned then 'managed' in this country have been historically for public use. According to the Sierra Club: "Public lands are used in the production of oil, gas, coal, hardrock minerals, timber, and livestock in addition to being used for roads, power and gas lines, and communication facilities just to mention a few. Likewise, the Public lands are an environmental treasure house for recreation and wildlife and scenic wonder from desert to seacoast, mountain top to prairie, grassland to forest -- a shared heritage for now and the future."

Most generational ranchers don't fuck-up the land, they don't abuse it , it's their goddamn livelihood. They know it's vibe way better than the feds and their little friends....

Bundy was paying to, and had a preexisting deal with Clark County and his damn family had been cattlemen on these lands for a few generations, living in harmony with the goddamn turtles, and not trashing the place like newtbox (god you think you know what the fuckit is you know nothing about except what the TV tells you) here and others use in defense of the encroaching and over-reaching bureaucracy whose ONLY goal is to save their own interests in the rights of this land for their nefarious personal good-ol' boy club purposes.

Urbanization and ominous government with peeps with votes never getting involved in righteous decisions during the process of being ASS-RAPED from behind tomes legislation with special interest laws piggy-backed within legislation has ALWAYS been the method of politicians, licking the asses of the money-men.

If people would get an ACTUAL clue abut how the government works to benefit these cunts, they'd start to sound like people who did their homework instead of self-righteous cunts trying to sound smart.

I am happy to accommodate the cries of 'ignorance' and 'fail', heard all this shit before, so go fuck yourselves unless you have anything else to spew but scripted 'what you think you know' horse-shit. I understand that certain types of dum-basses are quite satisfied with themselves to talk a lot and say nothing but whats fed them.

The United States government fucked the Native Americans, now they're fucvkng cowboys and ranchers......No digression with land and money drunk robber-barons, especially when they have dutiful putties to interpret history to suit their delusions.

Wanna fix the situation America? Stop eating their meat. Try turtle soup, the shits awesome.

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

To put Edward Snowden and CHELSEA Manning on the same list as Ted Nugent, Ted Cruz, Jesse Ventura, Ayn Rand, Ron and Rand Paul, Alex Jones, and Wesley Clark is the biggest fucking joke I can imagine.

Those two are to be respected for their service to the American People and the Constitution. Those morons on that list don't belong in the same universe as Edward and Chelsea.

Downvoted before I even watched it because of your retarded list.

I've heard Cenk tell that story on the show before, back when Wes Clark Jr. was a regular.

I don't think Clarke meant to imply you can turn a fantasy story into a sci-fi one by adding the word "space" to everything.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Wings, skillful' to 'Oregon, helicopter, chrismas trees, Noble Mountain Christmas Tree Farm, Dan Clark' - edited by eric3579

At the end, the eagle seems a little disappointed, heh. In this case, with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rock."