Terribly sorry to reply to my own post, but I located a Wikipedia article with useful information on this subject.
It would seem that in my previous post I was (at least partially) correct.
At 63,000 feet MSL, all the gases dissolved in your blood boils. You die in seconds if exposed to rapid decompression.
[Citation Needed]
I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying (too much) or start an argument, but I'd just like to see an original source for that. I've often heard that even in complete vacuum a healthy individual will maintain consciousness for 10 to 15 seconds and then have another couple minutes or so before they asphyxiate. But I don't have any completely reliable sources for that information either. Just wondering.
Also, it seems to me (though again I have no source for this) that your blood would in fact not boil as the pressure imposed on your blood vessels by the surrounding flesh would be more than adequate to keep anything more severe than a bad case of the bends from happening. Anyone know if this is correct?
For comparison, I offer the trailer for Star Trek: First Contact, which has lots of fight-the-Borg action, and only a brief appearance by Zefram Cochrane.
Not to mention tons of scenes that were re-used from Best of Both Worlds (parts 1 and 2) and Generations. There was even a brief appearance by Voyager (or some other Intrepid class starship which I don't believe was in the movie)!
I'm just a casual Trek fan, so I may be wrong about this, but I believe the original Enterprise NCC-1701 was the first Constitution class to be built. I'm almost positive the NCC-1701-D was the first Galaxy class too.
I don't know about Constitution class starships and which ship of those was first, but the NCC-1701-D was most definitely NOT the first Galaxy class ship. That was the USS Galaxy (NCC-70637). Just check Memory Alpha.
On that note, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed about the Enterprise's change in appearance in this film. I feel it should have been left looking largely the same as the pre-refit Enterprise in TOS (though I'm ok if they spruce things up a bit, however the nacelles look too big for the star drive section, the nacelle pylons are the wrong shape, and the deflector dish is all wrong).
There was only one prototype, and Kirk blew it up, along with the Shakespearean General Chang.
And it apparently only worked because it ran off of fossil fuels or something. How 20th century.
It didn't run off fossil fuels. The Enterprise was able to use its equipment for cataloging gaseous anomalies to lock onto the plasma exhaust from the impulse engines of the bird of prey (which do not use fossil fuels, but a fusion reaction).
Indeed, the Romulans also made significant advances in cloaking technology, even to the point of being able to raise their shields while cloaked AND eliminate tachyon radiation and residual antiprotons. Scimitar, anyone?
On that point, I wonder how much power a cloak of the type discussed in TFA would use.
Surely you mean WILL be born? Will have been born? Will have been going to be born?
I'm an agent of the Temporal Cold War and am therefore posting from the distant future, you insensitive clod! The 24th century is the past for me! What, you think/. isn't around in the 31st century?
Since Captain Picard is bald in the 23rd century it appears this idea went nowhere.
I'm sorry, but Captain Picard was born in 2305. That's the 24th century. Perhaps your typo was merely the result of brain overheating due to hair overgrowth. I suggest you shave your head.
Anyway, the up shot is that I would have thunk that a kid who can kick my butt at FPSs would have the ability to scan a "real life" scene and similarly be aware of all the action out there.
It may also not be so much an issue of situational awareness, but also the learning curve of a control method he's not as familiar with. If he was driving for the first time he probably wasn't use to using a wheel and foot pedals to control a vehicle. It's kind of like when learning a new game that uses a significantly different control scheme than what you're use to. You may miss some things that are happening onscreen because you're too busy figuring out how to lean and throw a grenade simultaneously.
Haha- I figured it was just a typo. But couldn't resist nitpicking. Anyway, I've always thought vacuum exposure sounds like a fun, erm, interesting way to die.
Implosion of his body? In a vacuum? Hmmmm... If anything it would explode. But that wouldn't happen either. There would probably just be unconsciousness, bloating, and boiling of some liquids in and on his body. He would then die if one of the other 344 astronauts didn't get him back into a pressurized area within 60 to 90 seconds.
But there would be no implosion. Now if it had been an undersea, um, "seawalk" there may be implosion.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
He exists! He sent me this email:
"Hello, my namme is Duke Nukem and I am wanting to send you a free copy of Duke Nukem Forever. Yes this game is real it is not a hoax. To do this, all I need is all your bank account informations and all your credit card informations. This is not a scam, I am not Nigerian or a diplomat intent on disrupting soap operas. I am really sending you game."
I'm so excited about this! I sent him my information immediately.
Yeah, I'm the same way with ice cream trucks. They come down my drive playing irritating, repetitive kiddie music. I just walk out to the truck, buy some ice cream, and while they're filling my order I secretly slap a sticky bomb on the side of the truck with a one minute fuse. That way it doesn't explode until it's down the road a ways and my redneck neighbor gets blamed for it instead of me. An added bonus is that the irritating kids next door to me are usually out by the truck when it goes off. Kills two birds with one stone (or rather, two nuisances with one sticky bomb).
Actually, AC made a very good point. I don't see why he was modded down for his statement, other than for being anonymous and cowardly in posting it. Wapiti's comment was tad bit obnoxious, though informative nonetheless. I'll just come right out and say it: I didn't know what the box was for either, and I'm glad I know now. There are probably many other people here who didn't know either, but who aren't going to come out and say it.
Now watch as I get modded down for talking sense.
I saw a Star Trek interview a few years back that was talking about how whenever the writers would encounter a situation in the plot that they couldn't find a way out of, they would send the script in to some "engineers" (not sure how qualified they really were as real engineers) and just ask them to "tech the tech" in the difficult area. Problem solved!
But Star Trek was always originally about the human element, and some of the later series had a nasty habit of using technology to fix stuff instead of people(I'm not dissing Trek by the way [I am a hardcore Trekkie], just stating a minor annoyance). If you compare problem solving in TOS with Voyager it's all quite a bit different. In TOS they would try and bluff/strategize their way out of a situation, where as in Voyager and some of the other later series they would just invent/acquire new technology to solve all their problems.
Some examples, just because I can:
In Wrath of Khan when the Enterprise was almost beaten by the augment-controlled USS Reliant, instead of coming up with some crazy tech to solve their problem they considered the situation and used the Reliant's prefix codes to lower their shields. Brilliant!
In Voyager, instead of thinking their way out, they just used future tech. Boring and not as cool. Though it made the space battles cooler...
In The Corbomite Maneuver (TOS) they bluffed themselves out of a tight spot rather than just conjuring some unheard of solution involving weird technology. Well, it did kind of involve weird technology (the corbomite device), but at least it wasn't claimed that it was real.
According to TFA:
"Apparently, there was an incident where "the gun started moving when it was not intended to move," meaning it totally pointed somewhere it wasn't supposed toâ"like at friendlies, which resulted in recall from the field and might've set the program back 10-20 years, according to the Army's Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, Kevin Fahey."
10 to 20 years? By that time the robots will be more advanced and we may be unable to stop the uprising! We're all doomed...
Yeah, it was a bit like banging my head on a wall, but you didn't frustrate me any. I would imagine it's been the same for you, having to debate with someone who insists on believing in something he can't prove.
But I understand your insistence on proof. I have a tendency to want proof of things as well, but I've had to realize that there's more to the universe than just that which is observable. To think that we as humans should not believe in things we can't prove seems silly to me since we are inherently limited beings with only finite and imperfect methods of observing and testing the universe around us, making the study of the supernatural beyond our intellectual grasp. Yet what if we have another part of our being (a soul, if you will) that can sense the supernatural, that is aware of God's presence, can feel his touch and hear his voice? People all throughout human history have claimed such awareness. I'm not trying to force you to believe in God or anything, but I am saying that lack of scientific proof doesn't put His existence out of the question. Far from it, in fact. The ancients may have been wrong about a lot, but billions of people from throughout history and even up to the present aren't likely to be wrong about what they've experienced. Something to think about the next time you're driving past a church wondering what it is that draws people to this Jesus character.
Hey, that last line was mean! I bet Santa brings you coal for that one...;-)
Anyway, the issue of proof is right where we disagree. You think proof is needed for existence and not for non-existence. I don't think proof is needed either way, since I don't think it can be proven by any theoretical or experimental method known to man. For me it's an issue of faith. If that causes me to look foolish in the eyes of the world, so be it.
It only reflects confidence and correctness if the omnipotent, omnipresent, conscious deity is proved a myth. You still haven't done that.
You also have to remember that any large group has the ability to exploit people, not just religious groups. And many non-religious groups take advantage of that.
You seem like an intelligent person yourself, but remember that your utter closed-mindedness about this issue seems just as ridiculous to me as my faith seems to you. From my point of view, there's enough stupidity in the world without smart people being closed-minded and passing things off as myth just because they can't be observed. So you've got to take both sides of the argument into account.
And as far as religious exploitation goes, that's a problem with PEOPLE and their personal issues, not a problem with the existence of God.
Slashdot Mirror
Terribly sorry to reply to my own post, but I located a Wikipedia article with useful information on this subject.
It would seem that in my previous post I was (at least partially) correct.
At 63,000 feet MSL, all the gases dissolved in your blood boils. You die in seconds if exposed to rapid decompression.
[Citation Needed]
I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying (too much) or start an argument, but I'd just like to see an original source for that. I've often heard that even in complete vacuum a healthy individual will maintain consciousness for 10 to 15 seconds and then have another couple minutes or so before they asphyxiate. But I don't have any completely reliable sources for that information either. Just wondering.
Also, it seems to me (though again I have no source for this) that your blood would in fact not boil as the pressure imposed on your blood vessels by the surrounding flesh would be more than adequate to keep anything more severe than a bad case of the bends from happening. Anyone know if this is correct?
You serious? Dude, that 2023 World Series Game 7 was an instant classic!
Too bad it all had to wind down by 2042...
I tried to suspend my inner critic, but that writing style is unreadable. I didn't even get halfway through.
Just make sure to revive your inner critic afterward. On the other hand, if you don't, it will never die...
Agreed.
For comparison, I offer the trailer for Star Trek: First Contact, which has lots of fight-the-Borg action, and only a brief appearance by Zefram Cochrane.
Not to mention tons of scenes that were re-used from Best of Both Worlds (parts 1 and 2) and Generations. There was even a brief appearance by Voyager (or some other Intrepid class starship which I don't believe was in the movie)!
I'm just a casual Trek fan, so I may be wrong about this, but I believe the original Enterprise NCC-1701 was the first Constitution class to be built. I'm almost positive the NCC-1701-D was the first Galaxy class too.
I don't know about Constitution class starships and which ship of those was first, but the NCC-1701-D was most definitely NOT the first Galaxy class ship. That was the USS Galaxy (NCC-70637). Just check Memory Alpha.
On that note, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed about the Enterprise's change in appearance in this film. I feel it should have been left looking largely the same as the pre-refit Enterprise in TOS (though I'm ok if they spruce things up a bit, however the nacelles look too big for the star drive section, the nacelle pylons are the wrong shape, and the deflector dish is all wrong).
There was only one prototype, and Kirk blew it up, along with the Shakespearean General Chang.
And it apparently only worked because it ran off of fossil fuels or something. How 20th century.
It didn't run off fossil fuels. The Enterprise was able to use its equipment for cataloging gaseous anomalies to lock onto the plasma exhaust from the impulse engines of the bird of prey (which do not use fossil fuels, but a fusion reaction).
Indeed, the Romulans also made significant advances in cloaking technology, even to the point of being able to raise their shields while cloaked AND eliminate tachyon radiation and residual antiprotons. Scimitar, anyone?
On that point, I wonder how much power a cloak of the type discussed in TFA would use.
*was* born?
Surely you mean WILL be born? Will have been born? Will have been going to be born?
I'm an agent of the Temporal Cold War and am therefore posting from the distant future, you insensitive clod! The 24th century is the past for me! What, you think /. isn't around in the 31st century?
Since Captain Picard is bald in the 23rd century it appears this idea went nowhere.
I'm sorry, but Captain Picard was born in 2305. That's the 24th century. Perhaps your typo was merely the result of brain overheating due to hair overgrowth. I suggest you shave your head.
Anyway, the up shot is that I would have thunk that a kid who can kick my butt at FPSs would have the ability to scan a "real life" scene and similarly be aware of all the action out there.
It may also not be so much an issue of situational awareness, but also the learning curve of a control method he's not as familiar with. If he was driving for the first time he probably wasn't use to using a wheel and foot pedals to control a vehicle. It's kind of like when learning a new game that uses a significantly different control scheme than what you're use to. You may miss some things that are happening onscreen because you're too busy figuring out how to lean and throw a grenade simultaneously.
Haha- I figured it was just a typo. But couldn't resist nitpicking. Anyway, I've always thought vacuum exposure sounds like a fun, erm, interesting way to die.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/27/chinas-first-spacewalk-a-success-video/ (After the implosion of his body, another astronaut from the 344 person manned spacecraft was sent to replace him.)
Implosion of his body? In a vacuum? Hmmmm... If anything it would explode. But that wouldn't happen either. There would probably just be unconsciousness, bloating, and boiling of some liquids in and on his body. He would then die if one of the other 344 astronauts didn't get him back into a pressurized area within 60 to 90 seconds.
But there would be no implosion. Now if it had been an undersea, um, "seawalk" there may be implosion.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
He exists! He sent me this email:
"Hello, my namme is Duke Nukem and I am wanting to send you a free copy of Duke Nukem Forever. Yes this game is real it is not a hoax. To do this, all I need is all your bank account informations and all your credit card informations. This is not a scam, I am not Nigerian or a diplomat intent on disrupting soap operas. I am really sending you game."
I'm so excited about this! I sent him my information immediately.
Yeah, I'm the same way with ice cream trucks. They come down my drive playing irritating, repetitive kiddie music. I just walk out to the truck, buy some ice cream, and while they're filling my order I secretly slap a sticky bomb on the side of the truck with a one minute fuse. That way it doesn't explode until it's down the road a ways and my redneck neighbor gets blamed for it instead of me. An added bonus is that the irritating kids next door to me are usually out by the truck when it goes off. Kills two birds with one stone (or rather, two nuisances with one sticky bomb).
I find your lack of original comments disturbing, Commander.
Actually, AC made a very good point. I don't see why he was modded down for his statement, other than for being anonymous and cowardly in posting it. Wapiti's comment was tad bit obnoxious, though informative nonetheless. I'll just come right out and say it: I didn't know what the box was for either, and I'm glad I know now. There are probably many other people here who didn't know either, but who aren't going to come out and say it.
Now watch as I get modded down for talking sense.
One of my old English teachers used to call that a "Comma-kazi."
That's true, the Photonic Canon was a pretty good bluff. I'm not saying Voyager didn't have its share of bluffy goodness, it just wasn't as prevalent.
I saw a Star Trek interview a few years back that was talking about how whenever the writers would encounter a situation in the plot that they couldn't find a way out of, they would send the script in to some "engineers" (not sure how qualified they really were as real engineers) and just ask them to "tech the tech" in the difficult area. Problem solved!
But Star Trek was always originally about the human element, and some of the later series had a nasty habit of using technology to fix stuff instead of people(I'm not dissing Trek by the way [I am a hardcore Trekkie], just stating a minor annoyance). If you compare problem solving in TOS with Voyager it's all quite a bit different. In TOS they would try and bluff/strategize their way out of a situation, where as in Voyager and some of the other later series they would just invent/acquire new technology to solve all their problems.
Some examples, just because I can: In Wrath of Khan when the Enterprise was almost beaten by the augment-controlled USS Reliant, instead of coming up with some crazy tech to solve their problem they considered the situation and used the Reliant's prefix codes to lower their shields. Brilliant! In Voyager, instead of thinking their way out, they just used future tech. Boring and not as cool. Though it made the space battles cooler... In The Corbomite Maneuver (TOS) they bluffed themselves out of a tight spot rather than just conjuring some unheard of solution involving weird technology. Well, it did kind of involve weird technology (the corbomite device), but at least it wasn't claimed that it was real.
According to TFA:
"Apparently, there was an incident where "the gun started moving when it was not intended to move," meaning it totally pointed somewhere it wasn't supposed toâ"like at friendlies, which resulted in recall from the field and might've set the program back 10-20 years, according to the Army's Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, Kevin Fahey."
10 to 20 years? By that time the robots will be more advanced and we may be unable to stop the uprising! We're all doomed...
Yeah, it was a bit like banging my head on a wall, but you didn't frustrate me any. I would imagine it's been the same for you, having to debate with someone who insists on believing in something he can't prove.
But I understand your insistence on proof. I have a tendency to want proof of things as well, but I've had to realize that there's more to the universe than just that which is observable. To think that we as humans should not believe in things we can't prove seems silly to me since we are inherently limited beings with only finite and imperfect methods of observing and testing the universe around us, making the study of the supernatural beyond our intellectual grasp. Yet what if we have another part of our being (a soul, if you will) that can sense the supernatural, that is aware of God's presence, can feel his touch and hear his voice? People all throughout human history have claimed such awareness. I'm not trying to force you to believe in God or anything, but I am saying that lack of scientific proof doesn't put His existence out of the question. Far from it, in fact. The ancients may have been wrong about a lot, but billions of people from throughout history and even up to the present aren't likely to be wrong about what they've experienced. Something to think about the next time you're driving past a church wondering what it is that draws people to this Jesus character.
Hey, that last line was mean! I bet Santa brings you coal for that one... ;-)
Anyway, the issue of proof is right where we disagree. You think proof is needed for existence and not for non-existence. I don't think proof is needed either way, since I don't think it can be proven by any theoretical or experimental method known to man. For me it's an issue of faith. If that causes me to look foolish in the eyes of the world, so be it.
It only reflects confidence and correctness if the omnipotent, omnipresent, conscious deity is proved a myth. You still haven't done that. You also have to remember that any large group has the ability to exploit people, not just religious groups. And many non-religious groups take advantage of that.
You seem like an intelligent person yourself, but remember that your utter closed-mindedness about this issue seems just as ridiculous to me as my faith seems to you. From my point of view, there's enough stupidity in the world without smart people being closed-minded and passing things off as myth just because they can't be observed. So you've got to take both sides of the argument into account. And as far as religious exploitation goes, that's a problem with PEOPLE and their personal issues, not a problem with the existence of God.