Time Travelers' Convention

usermilk writes "Some folks at MIT are holding a time-travelers' convention. The idea is to make it so famous and so widely-known that even thousands of years in the future, people will still know exactly when and where this time-traveler convention went down, and will all come travel to it at some point in their illustrious time-traveling careers. For those interested in attending, it's on May 7, 2005, 10:00pm EDT (08 May 2005 02:00:00 UTC) in the East Campus Courtyard at MIT. 42:21:36.025N, 71:05:16.332W (42.360007,-071.087870 in decimal degrees)."

Comments

Re:Ahh...

[woah]

John Titor.

...a fun read.

Re:zerg

[fprefect]

There are 2 things involved in 4-dimensional translocation:

-- Reaching the exact coordinates at the right instant, considering rotation and revolution of the planet, solar system, and galaxy.

-- Matching the velocity of that location (and timeframe) exactly.

It's not only useless to appear at the right instant in the right room if your body doesn't exactly match the inertial frame -- it would be fatal. Forgetting to account for just the earth's revolution around the sun would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec.

Asimov Worked That Out Before Niven Did

[kalamazoo904]

Read "The End of Eternity" by Asimov... he also alludes to the episode in other books.

Re: Freedom of speech is a good thing

[glwtta]

I'd rather hear both sides and be free to make my own choices and decisions. If the idea of free speech worries you, then you worry me.

This has nothing to do with free speech (or even Free Speech) whatsoever. Free speech guarantees your right to hold and voice an opinion, unmolested by the powers that be. This concept is often warped into the notion that it obviates the need to defend such an opinion, or that merely holding it requires others to recognize it as valid.

Nobody is even remotely pondering curtailing the "Titorites"' rights to self expression. What I have a problem with is that the editors of the particular article, in their treatment of the subject matter are giving far too much credence to this particular crackpot theory. They do this in the laudible pursuit of neutrality, but in this case that leads to a product that reflects negatively on the project as a whole.

Free speech does not mean the abandonment of objective reasoning. Neutral point of view does not mean that wikipedia editors should parrot everything they read on the internet.

Oh and thank you for providing a link to the article on free speech - how deliciously patronizing.