Shame, conceptually great and I wanted to like it, but the execution just didn't click for me.

The show started very well but felt like it went nowhere from about a third of the way through. Certainly a lot better than most new shows nowadays but that isn't saying much. Kinda glad it's getting a second season, not sure if I'll watch it.

Thought Psycho Pass (also from last year) was much stronger show and generally more interesting from a conceptual point of view. Really enjoying new Mushishi at the moment.

The video doesn't play or it doesn't work conceptually? Assuming the former, it does for me, obviously, but youtube's player keeps getting more and more disastrously terrible; there seems to be like a 50/50 chance of any given embed loading.

(some spoilers here, although not really anything that wasn't in the video)
I thought it was quite good. Not great, but quite good.

That being said, the one thing that I was sure that an "honest trailers" spoof/take on it would include was left out: I lost count of how many times the last propulsive jet before they ran out of thrust in whatever system/mechanism they were using was just enough to get them into "precarious grab, slip and bump off into another precarious grab".

Gorgeous George jets around as carefree as can be -- fetching bolts, unhitched and drifting Sandra ... even the corpse of "man down in the first 5 minutes". He or others talk about how he is going for the record longest spacewalk many times. But then, when they really need it, "oh, sorry, I've just got enough juice left for one more burn".

Same thing repeats for the Soyuz, the Wall-E extinguisher, and conceptually in many other instances.

That is the aspect of the flick that stood out the most for me as begging for a good send-up.

Horrifying. One of the weakest A-list Marvel characters ever conceptualized, even though he was one of Stan-The-Man's favorites....upvote for Johansson and Jackson, the only draw to get the 30-60 crowds asses in seats besides a van-load of snot-nosed brats.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

All I could think while watching was -- you'd need a hazmat suit to clean that mess up.

Well, that and how interesting visually and conceptually.

I believe the important point is there's no reason to choose just one measurements scale. We are all perfectly capable of conceptualizing more than one system of measure and choosing the one that's most appropriate.

If I choose to use the fahrenheit temperature scale when setting a comfortable room temperature, it's not going to mess up my celsius engineering calculations at work.

I can bake a cake using cups and tablespoons and easily switch to milliliters and grams while performing chemistry experiments.

If someone is evangelizing the adoption of a single measurement scale, I have to assume that person is either; so dense they are unable to retain the information for more than one system...or that person is being unnecessarily close minded and contentious.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

When I imagine the conceptual aspect of religious experience it comes forth from the brain as something, anything, along these lines. When you want your brother/sister/mama/papa, intent thought your abstract feeling; unknowing and knowing and now you know. You're there with your brother and we're all from the same mother; zygotes to human hive, tricked into individualism maya don't lie.

That was the great thing about the punk movement... no actual aptitude with instruments or vocals were required. I would lump these guys firmly in the category of punk, or punk rock, or post punk rock.

On the other hand I find it difficult to compare any musicians to Yoko Ono, since she always comes across more as a conceptual artist. Even "Walking on Thin Ice" is more reminiscent of spoken word pieces than anything else:

I know that those virtual keyboards are conceptually possible, but I didn't think they were really practical/feasible

yes i'm not saying the roads are consistent, only more consistent than the shoulders.
Roads are generally no less than the width of 2 cars. Some consistency cuts manufacturing costs which will eventually be a factor in EOREI (energy returned on energy invested). Can it work....uhhh dunno. Many roads are created sectionally as it is. which is good. but yeah i have to worry about chains, rocks, studded tires....
Legally you wouldn't have any "takings" issues.

But IMHO, most technical solutions are further away than the more immediate solution - education, family planning, and worldwide contraception programs. the real problem is that there are too many people on the planet. We are consuming more of the ecosystem than we replenish. we need to USE less, but that necessarily means less people...which = more resources available per person, and less emissions.
Meanwhile keep working on the tech side to create efficiency.
Conceptually however, it is interesting to look at roads in energetic terms. They do produce all sorts of heat (and friction) and kinetic energy.

New quoting is awesome; conceptually, presentationally and technically.

(but I still think the quoted comment should get the sarc class when applicable)

I respectfully disagree. It is somewhere near the line, but in my opinion it has enough artistic merit to be safe... now there have been other vids posted recently that were the wrong side of the line, but they didn't get an upvote from me .

Now who was it who said that if it's out of focus it's art and if it's in sharp focus it's porn?

This vid would need less than 2 mins cut to be very clearly and unambigously an arty conceptual performance with an electronica backing track... as is it's a bit in (or near) the grey area.