>> ^PalmliX:

How do you know so much about the hazards of space exploration? I'm looking for an expert of sorts to consult for a short film about Voyager, drop me a line if your interested.


Mostly from reading "hard science" fiction. I kinda dislike the stuff that plays fast and lose with the various accepted physical laws. The cynical part of my brain is wondering if you're teasing, but I'll let the warm fuzzy part respectfully say I ain't anywhere near "expert".

I have to say, its the first scene with dr. jones that grabbed me, but the rest of the film premise seems entertaining too.

Obviously it would make more physics sense if the second earth were in some other orbit, but it really doesn't bear much scrutiny or thought unless its a hard science fiction movie - which this most obviously isn't. The aesthetic choice of having the second earth and second moon filling the sky immediately telegraphs the concept to an audience. I don't think they'd give that away for a moment!

I'm very curious, to say the least!

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
Thanks very much, very generous of you... and nice to see someone appreciating it, rather than ripping it apart like a few of the others have done
In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote

>> ^Sagemind:

Move on already..., My daughter just finished reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy now so I'm hoping to get her moving on to other stuff - Many never will read another book series ...


I agree that Hitchhikers should be considered a gateway book because reading it after reading some seriously good Science Fiction is disappointing...kinda like Snow Crash. Yeah I said it.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

This is so ridiculous I can't even really take the comparison seriously. Not discovering the Americas earlier in the history of Earth was mostly due to our own ignorance. We though the world was flat, and assumed nothing else existed. The vikings are alleged to have made it to the Americas much earlier than Columbus, even.
On the other hand, physics is holding us back in space. Sure, if we learn how to bend spacetime or use wormholes we may have a shot at getting off earth, but it's silly as hell to think it will actually happen within the next 1000 years or so. By that time, we'll probably all be extinct already.
Terra-forming is out of the question, it would be impossible in anything but science fiction, and the only reasonable planet we could even do it to is Mars, which we can hardly get a probe to that worked successfully. Will we make progress? Yeah, definitely. But to think we'll leave this planet is absurd. The only hope for humanity is progress in renewable energy, population control(limiting births, not promoting genocide)and learning to accept other people for their culture and religion. The faster we figure that out, the better off we'll be.
Also, that west wing clip was flat out dumb. Sending men to Mars would do nothing for us but inflate our Space-peen. There is literally nothing to gain from sending humans there rather than robots. It is riskier both cost and liability-wise. The only thing remotely useful would be setting up a base, which would require huge funds, and a ridiculous amount of new research. Plus, they really wouldn't be able to do much once it was set up. We already know the atmosphere, composition, and features of Mars. What would a man do?


First, the issue of whether or not the earth was flat was pretty much settled by Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE. Columbus had so much trouble drumming up funds precisely because anyone who knew anything about cartography (i.e., the Portugese) knew that he was either lying or suicidally deluded. We don't know why Columbus thought what he thought, and we probably never will. Perhaps he believed but could not prove that there HAD to be something between the Western coast of Ireland and the eastern coast of Japan. As for why no one else tried it, you're right. Others had. Don't forget that there is strong evidence of others visiting the Americas prior to the Vikings. Given how many Polynesians must have given their lives to map out the ocean currents that led to the fragments of rock jutting out of the ocean, it was apparently something intrinsic to the species, but no longer as strong a yearning.

And I never precluded the use of robots to get us where we're going, at least initially. I do think that there is tremendous hubris in the fields of science when it comes to what we know and what is left for us to discover. It does seem like there's a lot of space out there, and the distance which once seemed so insignificant to the early sci fi writers now seems insurmountable. I take Pascal's Wager (or at least the fallacious logic that drives it) and say that the actions we must take to get us out there would benefit the human race as a whole far more than it would hurt. To give up would be to surrender to a nihilism quite endemic in the species. Consider for a moment the construction of the cathedrals. Would such populist public work projects even be possible in this day and age? Would the average Joe be willing to start a project, knowing that he would not be able to live to see its completion? If we don't get off this rock, I blame that attitude far more than I blame the laws of physics.

To get back to the present topic, it's possible that the railgun technology being developed could serve as a kind of propulsion, but it seems as if they've worked out the mechanics of the propulsion, and only need to get the scale down pat. They know how to send something really fast, but they want to weaponize it, to better kill at a distance, an attitude that has never won us many friends. As a result, I'd pull money out of this program.

Finally, I cannot really respond to your dismissal of a manned trip to Mars, because it's clear that you don't see what I and so many others see. Maybe it's a simple matter of me being that Polynesian sitting on the shore of Rapa Nui, wondering what other islands were out there. You, on the other hand, would rather we invent some better way to catch fish, or to figure out what to tell people so they don't chop all the freaking trees down and doom us all to a nasty population crash. Your instinct and my instinct don't run contrary to each other, as long as I'm willing to plant a few trees on my way out to sea. What you learn and what you do help me to do what I want, and what I might learn would benefit you and what you do.

[redacted]

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Batman is probably my second favorite superhero, right after the Amazon princess. I don't compare superheroes with characters from other genres, like horror, science fiction, etc, because they're apples and oranges. He's not my second overall comic book character, but he's still high up. Do you read the new Batman & Robin, with Dick Grayson as the new Batman? I think it's pretty good.
And I read The Dark Knight Returns, and thought it blew. I can't stand Frank Miller, especially his Batman comics. Read this amusing critique of one of his Batman series. He deserves every bit of scorn heaped on him in that scathing review. >> ^Sarzy:
Batman is the greatest comic book character of all time. Of all time!
Yeah, that's right, I said it.



I actually haven't stepped foot in a comic shop in well over a year. Mostly because I'm absurdly broke at the moment, though I am starting to feel the itch to start picking up at least a few comics again.

I completely agree about the Dark Knight Returns, which I found to be kind of shockingly bad, given how revered it is by pretty much everyone. I did really like Batman: Year One, though.

Batman is probably my second favorite superhero, right after the Amazon princess. I don't compare superheroes with characters from other genres, like horror, science fiction, etc, because they're apples and oranges. He's not my second overall comic book character, but he's still high up. Do you read the new Batman & Robin, with Dick Grayson as the new Batman? I think it's pretty good.

And I read The Dark Knight Returns, and thought it blew. I can't stand Frank Miller, especially his Batman comics. Read this amusing critique of one of his Batman series. He deserves every bit of scorn heaped on him in that scathing review. >> ^Sarzy:

Batman is the greatest comic book character of all time. Of all time!
Yeah, that's right, I said it.

"Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting. Exploring the consequences of such innovations is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".
Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities. It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

*quality

Dance fans.... I direct your attention to this amazing bit of work. Science fiction fans? See human anti-gravity moves.

>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/budzos" title="member since October 30th, 2006" class="profilelink">budzos Why do you say that? Is it not amazing to have a self contained machine being able to listen to, understand, and correctly answer natural language questions better than humans?
Is it not difficult to see that this is a pretty amazing step along the way to creating machines that can converse with us with spoken word like robots in Science Fiction Films?
How is that not exciting?


I agree with the sentiment of the answer! AI has been my sci-fi hope for as long as I can remember. Probably why I thought "The moon is the harsh mistress" is the best book ever. When I was back in college, one of the papers I wrote was on the current state of AI, and the likelihood of the AI we see in TV and movies coming to fruition. It is amazing, and frustratingly slow field of discovery. It has taken 30 years just to begin to start to code machines to interpret language. In pursuit of this, we have come to a better understanding of how complex human speech is, and how powerful the brain is in understanding this very complex arena.

With that said, Watson doesn't "understand" or answer questions better than humans. There are many clips of the respondents just failing to beat Watson to the buzzer, most likely possessing the correct answer. Watson is the same level of impressive as the normal champs, but with mechanical reflexes. Give the humans robotic arms, and I am sure it would be a level playing field. Or, give Watson the questions one word like the humans have to do. He gets his input all in one text file and starts parsing for information before the humans have had the entirety of the question read to them (though, Watson's speed might be as such that this is trivial).

Also, as of yet, computers don't have "understanding". They can answer questions in a way that seems to make them intelligible, but they don't understand. Understanding comes from consciousness. It is still only understands the wold in terms of syntax. It is able to apply this language of syntax to properly answer trivia, but has no understanding of what the question even means. It doesn't have any experiences which are necessary for understanding. It is like if you train a parrot to respond with the correct answers to trivia questions, it doesn't actually know what it is saying.

Watson is the better parts of a parrot, and a repository of human facts. Philosophically, I am convinced that true "AI" is impossible...but I hope I am wrong! None the less, this is still super exciting, and unprecedented...how can you compare it to Sanjaya!

@budzos Why do you say that? Is it not amazing to have a self contained machine being able to listen to, understand, and correctly answer natural language questions better than humans?

Is it not difficult to see that this is a pretty amazing step along the way to creating machines that can converse with us with spoken word like robots in Science Fiction Films?

How is that not exciting?

Star Wars isn't really science fiction. It's more of a Space Fantasy, or Space Opera. There has to be actual science in a work of fiction and the science needs to have an impact on the story in some way for it to be science fiction. But seeing as everyone thinks of star wars as scifi I guess it's an okay channel for it to be in. >> ^kasinator:

scifi

A few years back I saw a very interesting documentary on all the questions surrounded the landing. It made me cautious enough to question the validity of the facts we have. I've learned not to trust in belief based on something I've been told or what's in a book. That's why I don't believe in religion. One thing I do believe in, it's man's ability to lie.

Research on the internet reveals solid, sound proof of the landings while it also offers some very interesting questions such as theVan Allen Radiation Belt.

What I end up with is one big science-fiction story that I hope is true but have no way of actually proving for myself..

Two random picked sites on either side of the debate.:
• Facts and Info about the Fake Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theory
• The 15 Essential Moon landing facts


>> ^spoco2:


Really? Good arguments from the side that say it was a hoax?
Show me ANY GOOD arguments and I'll respect your stance, but there are NONE. NONE. Every one of their inane arguments is utter rubbish and easily, simply, painfully debunkable.

3:45 to 4:05 reminds me of Buckyballs (or Zen Magnets)

Boing Boing says:
Behold, a trailer for எந்திரன் (Enthiran aka The Robot), a blockbuster Tamil science fiction film released in October

(response to blanco) I'm not trying to editorialize. His link to politics was tenuous and confused. He wasn't coherent in the way that Joe Stack or Tim McVeigh were, which leads me to believe this wasn't calculated to have some kind of meaningful effect on the world. I can't imagine this person could even function in society or keep a job, unless he is just really really really bad at expressing himself in print.

Although he used some of the terminology of the right, he didn't seem to have a firm grasp of these politics. If you look at his favorite books, they come from vastly different parts of the ideological spectrum - Hitler, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Plato and Orwell. Left right and libertarian extremism are all represented here along with dystopic science fiction fearful of that kind of extremism. If he weren't so clearly insane, I'd think this were some kind of dark trolling.