I would never ask "Is there a greater meaning to our existence", because the answer might be "No."

I might ask - "How can i achieve cold fusion?" or "How can i travel faster than the speed of light?" or "What is the catch-all works-for-all cure for true depression?"

Other ones like "How can i harness the energy from lightning?", "What does extra terrestrial life look like?", "Is there anything like us in the universe and do they have the same insecurities and fears as us?", "In full, what is the grand unification theory?", "Light behaves like a wave and a particle, what IS it?" (which is kinda what the kid said, amazing).

But if there's no answer, i'd hope to get a retry. But the cold fusion one would be one of the most tempting. Faster than light travel is probably the one i'd want to know the most, but without effectively limitless free energy the world will never reach the stage of harmony that we'd need to travel faster than light, get off our knees and really begin to walk as a species.

I really appreciated this speech. The twenty minutes flew by. She makes many good points and did a great job explaining "terrestrial skinning". The conclusion however emotionally powerful is somewhat ironic. That in order to do anything about the momentum of big industry is to shove yourself against it and get run over. If direct action organizations like Earth First! amassed a huge amount of people to go up to Canada and try to shut down that monster oil machine the American military would be there in a split second, not to mention all of the legal trouble you'd have to deal with, hell they might even send you to Guantanamo Bay.

The only change I see is in mass consciousness and that is not going to happen anytime soon; someone should really spike a corporate meeting with acid. So, until then the elite might as well keep looking for their next Earth because they have no plan of slowing down the destruction of this one. There is nothing you can do unless you're the next genius engineer but just wait for the Sun to implode and get a couple hits of something to experience what nature wants us to truly be.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Maybe you saw Contact when you were 14, but there's nothing juvenile about the movie. It's full of big ideas and based on Sagan's best arguments for the existence of extra-terrestrial life. It's Science Fiction at it's best - inspiring, though-provoking, and able to move people to do more real science.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

@dag I haven't seen Knowing(Nic Cage? srsly?) or Moon, but I'll agree wholeheartedly about Dark City. Contact was cool if you're 14, but to each his own.
I'd also add:
The Thirteenth Floor
Gattaca
They both ask questions about our reality/values and reflect on them in some interesting ways.
As for this movie? Looks like your average popcorn flick hero movie that Hollywood's been trying to cash in on since Superman 2.
Also, if you liked Contact, you might enjoy Stargate

Speilberg directed the film. It was his baby. He was only uncredited because of contractual limitations. From the Wikipedia entry...

A clause in his contract with Universal Studios prevented Spielberg from directing any other film while preparing E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Time and Newsweek tagged the summer of 1982 "The Spielberg Summer" because E.T. and Poltergeist were released a week apart in June. As such a marketable name, some began to question Spielberg's role during production. Suggestions that Spielberg had greater directorial influence than the credits suggest were aided by comments made by the writer/producer:

"Tobe isn't... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute. Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.
It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system it has to be the primary case consideration and not added on as a periphery.
Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plain, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

>> ^EMPIRE:
Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.


Yeah, was thinking about that too. I think you'd need to anchor the majority of the chutes to where the wings connect with the fuselage. Thats where the weight of the aircraft is carried in flight, and I guess thats the best place to balance the weight between front and back. You'd then need sort of guide shoots at the tail and nose to correct its pitch. Even then, if you lose a wing like this plane did, and your not going in nose first then I think the next problem is rolling...

basically, rocket boosters aren'y too concerned about which way they fall, as long as its slowly.

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute (also note that empty rocket boosters are much lighter than full rocket boosters). Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.

It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system has to be the primary methodology and not added on as a periphery.

Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plane, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

I would wager even if such a system could be made to work, cases that it could be made for would be less than 1% of crashes that occur. Getting smashes by weather, misdirected my flight control or TCAS or some other human error, or the dozens of other common flight disasters would be helped little by a functional parachute system.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

Thy connection with the universe, all beings, all matter, all non-matter is a fact. Everything is part of one thing-The whole-As all addicted to science should become more fully aware of as the next 20-50 years begin to re-write the history of a symbol-addicted world of infants. GOD, as most twits still fumble about with the concept, is a symbol for this mystery that only now, quantum physics is beginning to unravel. Two things to log into the data base forfuture reference are
A. The technology to construct much of what we have not seen as civilians (the applications being highly classified), is a mixed bag that may or may not be of our own design.
B. The dark aspects of our government would like nothing more than for people to be as predictableas insects,and pooh-pooh the facts before them, as bullshit.

According to some on the inside (and like enoch says correctly,many many people from the intelligence community, high ranking military officials,civilians employed with security clearances in the N2K/above top realm, and others of note and with a background that can't be denied), the sightings many have seen have been terrestrial applications whose technology came from off-planet.

We have free-energy, it has been witheld from humanity. Period. The political and corporate structure of the prison the pouppeteers have create3d for humanity is apalling. Sickens me to the core that still, with the data available to so many, that so-called and self-labled, intelligent people continue to play the game created by a pathetic,dying few. The pardigm is in retrograde and the next will scare the shit outof those sop ill-prepared to face the truth. Weaklings,mental, spiritual,self deluded weaklings.

Future generations will look back on the 20th-21st century with anger nad joy. The fact that most of the people on tis site have their heads so firmly planted in their asses regrding the true nature of the world around them is testimony to such a future sentiment and to our current dilemma-

I suggest you catch up with the world around you,and get your heads out of the televison,and out of the box-Here's a good start

>> ^Wingoguy:

I've read most animals can naturally swim. The ones that need to be taught are ones which have their noses below the water, like a human, chimp, or gorilla.
From wiki: Even though primarily terrestrial tetrapods have lost many of their adaptations to swimming, the ability to swim has been preserved or re-developed in many of them. it may never have been completely lost.
>> ^Frynge:
huh, yeah. I had no idea they had any clue as to how to swim. cute little guys.



thanks for more info for me to throw around. wahaha... I love learning little things like this. sometimes I regret being more focused on being an engineer.

I've read most animals can naturally swim. The ones that need to be taught are ones which have their noses below the water, like a human, chimp, or gorilla.

From wiki: Even though primarily terrestrial tetrapods have lost many of their adaptations to swimming, the ability to swim has been preserved or re-developed in many of them. it may never have been completely lost.

>> ^Frynge:

huh, yeah. I had no idea they had any clue as to how to swim. cute little guys.

I remember a few years ago, when Howard Stern was on terrestrial radio, he interviewed a female psychologist who had written a recent book on women and sex. Now, anyone who has listened to Howard for half a minute knows he always states he has a micropenis. So he asked her the question, "Is it true that women prefer larger penis?" And she stated that through her interviews and questionnaires, etc, that they do prefer larger penis, but it was girth, and not length, that was the defining factor. That made me happy, as I'm of average length, but I can split some wood, baby....


One other funny anecdote that ties into this. Again, years ago when I was a teenager, my mom used to subscribe to R.N. magazine (as she was one before she retired). I would thumb through it on occasion when I was bored, and they had a feature called Sex Q&A. In one issue, they had an article about how penis size increased proportionally from flaccid to erect in average to small men, as opposed to "larger" men. In other words, if you had a small or average penis when soft, you had a bigger erection proportionally when hard, as opposed to men who were big when soft as opposed to hard. I told my friends this and showed them the article, and it was the first time I've ever been around a group of guys who were trying to outdo each other on how small their dicks actually were, as opposed to boasting about how large. "Yeah, I'm only like 2 inches..." "Yeah, I'm like 1 1/2..."

I still laugh when I think about it.

OMG, what a pack of lies.

That would be decreasing terrestrial biomass Psychologic. (2004 figures though)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle


That diagram also shows the deception behind their misleading low percentage for human contribution to atmospheric CO2.

5.5 from fossil fuels vs 60 from forests, 60 from soils, 92 from the oceans.

Looks tiny if you pretend the 121.3 back into forests and soils and the 92 back into the ocean doesn't count.

The 1.3 difference for terrestrial forests and soils covers the CO2 fertilisation effect.

>> ^radx:
If this is too long for you to watch, do yourself a favor and at least jump straight to 1:14:00 and watch the end. His closing points are ... marvelous. As for the 1% issue: I hadn't thought about that, at all. Doesn't happen often.
promote


It's sad that such a great educator doesn't understand basic genetics. That 1% is totally misleading because only 76% of the human DNA could be aligned with ape DNA for a comparison. It is out of that 76% that was comparable that there was a 1% difference. The actual difference between us is enormous, and is way too complicated to quantify at our current level of understanding of genomics and proteomics.

Also, I don't see why he would be worried about the possibility of extra terrestrial life being orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Humanity has just begun to unlock the secrets of our genes, and with the advance of computers and technology, it's easy to imagine that the humans of the 22nd century will be vastly superior to us. Of course, hopefully we won't destroy ourselves along the way, ruin our planet, or have our progress hindered by religious nutbags.

Hmmm, quite a knowledgeable lot here. One thing that makes me want to dole out helmets is total disregard of a core scientific principal. Is the statement/observation true? Have you in fact been able to reproduce it for yourself? What happened to K.I.S.S?

In law, the judges go to great lengths to state; [don't tell me what he/she told you or what you think they knew. It's hearsay!]

In science, you first have to reproduce the phenomena, accounting for assumptions and all sorts of other things before suggesting a governing dynamic. Incidentally, this is what the whole Myth busters premise is. They reproduce then they explain!

..apples and oranges, powers of observation, listening skills, brain teaser, certainly NOT scientific, an experiment, observation or {i got a giggle with this one; something mythbusters 'debunked'. Yeah right}

The respondent was 'having his chain yanked'. He responded with the anticipated reply 'bollocks' (NOT bullocks but bollocks! on television! You see, it isn't word you want to use in polite company let alone be renown for bandying it about. Still dodgey to use this kind of language on terrestrial telly. [x-rated but you can google what it means across the pond].

Fry's reaction, 'i knew it' was in reference to the fact that it was the kind of response the gentleman would give.

The concepts around here have gotten rather... terrestrial.

>> ^schmawy:
Oh man I'm going to have so much fun on the Sift when (okay, if) we make contact. I'll never tire of saying "I told you so". I swear, I'm going to be totally annoying about it.


I've been saying for years that I'm waiting for the day when the ships land, and they aliens come out to harvest the crop they seeded the planet with thousands of years ago.