For once, it looks to be at least within the realm of possible science (i.e. real science-fiction as the term implies, not the usual hollywood acid trip scripts).
Oh, and none of the "I got bitten by a mutant spider/got exposed to gamma ray/etc" crap that is usually associated with american super-heroes. I saw the movie yesterday (hooray for prerelease showings). Quite honestly, if you're looking for something "within the realm of possible science," you're probably going to be disappointed.
The suit, and the movie, defy both physics and common sense in a number of ways. A few of the more egregious violations: 1) The suit's power supply. It's basically magic. They give a halfhearted explanation for it, but even they don't seem to be very enthusiastic. 2) The suit apparently uses a thrust-exhaust system to fly...without any fuel source. 3) He gets knocked around, crash-lands at high speed, etc., and then gets up and walks away. Even assuming the suit itself is indestructible, basic inertia means that Stark himself would be splattered around the inside of the suit.
That said, if you want scientific realism, you shouldn't be watching superhero movies. It's a reasonably entertaining spectacle, and I accept the above are pretty much necessary if you're going to make a superhero movie. TFA doesn't really claim the entire movie is realistic, but rather makes a few good points about some of the more plausible tech featured, such as AI, helper robots, UI choices for design and targeting, etc. But overall, just because the superhero-magic is based in fake "science" doesn't mean that it's more realistic--even theoretically--than developing superpowers from getting bitten by a mutant spider.
Re:Oh Darl, when will you ever learn?
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't understand why they paraphrased McBride's comments? Why give a full quote of the question and then joke about the answer?
(I'm not the author of the review, but I was at the talk)
His answer to that particular answer was quite evasive and not particularly memorable--something along the lines of "We support the rights of authors to distribute their works, for free if they so choose." He did not at all address how this squares with the statement he made in December that the GPL is unconstitutional, which is, of course, what the student actually asked.
Re:What kind of students were they?
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Law or CS students? Either way, he should've been laughed off stage.
Speaking as one of the students there, I'd say there was a good mix of both. I went with a group of friends from MIT, all of whom were CS or related fields. We sat in front of two former-techie-turned-BU-law students and a non-student geek. However, not surprisingly, there were a significant number of Harvard law students there as well.
As for being laughed off the stage, I don't think anyone in the audience really bought SCO's claims. The audience was realistically fairly polite, but unsympathetic--no one was outright laughing at him, but no one agreed with him either.
As for the presentation itself, at its core, Darl seemed to say a few reasonable things--they claim ownership of a certain body of IP and that IBM distributed that IP illegally. Both of those claims are under contention, but he stated that that's for the courts to decide. This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable--I may not agree that SCO has a case, but they obviously think they do, and the courts are the proper forum to determine this.
If it were just the contract dispute, I don't think there would be this violent reaction against SCO. It's all the FUD that comes with it--from "The GPL is unconstitutional" to "Linux gives computing infrastructure to terrorists, cyber- and otherwise"--that is causing the problem. We told Darl as much after the talk (no matter what you think of the man, it was cool to have the opportunity to talk with him face-to-face), and he seemed somewhat receptive to the fact that we're not all IP-hating copyright-hating hippies, we just don't like the FUD. Frankly, I don't think anything will come of that--it's too late to retract the many things that have been said, and PR will probably keep him on the same path--but there was a glimmer of hope, at least.
This isn't the first time by any means--the Rijndael algorithm was developed by cryptographers in Belgium, and it was chosen by the NIST over US-developed cryptosystems to be the new Advanced Encryption Standard (AES, to replace the aging DES).
From their Q&A:
14. Is NIST concerned that the algorithm is of foreign origin?
No. The complete algorithm specification and design rationale have been available for review by NIST, NSA, and the general public for more than two years. From the beginning of the AES development effort, NIST has indicated that the involvement of the international crypto community has been necessary for the development of a high-quality standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and none of the "I got bitten by a mutant spider/got exposed to gamma ray/etc" crap that is usually associated with american super-heroes. I saw the movie yesterday (hooray for prerelease showings). Quite honestly, if you're looking for something "within the realm of possible science," you're probably going to be disappointed.
The suit, and the movie, defy both physics and common sense in a number of ways. A few of the more egregious violations:
1) The suit's power supply. It's basically magic. They give a halfhearted explanation for it, but even they don't seem to be very enthusiastic.
2) The suit apparently uses a thrust-exhaust system to fly...without any fuel source.
3) He gets knocked around, crash-lands at high speed, etc., and then gets up and walks away. Even assuming the suit itself is indestructible, basic inertia means that Stark himself would be splattered around the inside of the suit.
That said, if you want scientific realism, you shouldn't be watching superhero movies. It's a reasonably entertaining spectacle, and I accept the above are pretty much necessary if you're going to make a superhero movie. TFA doesn't really claim the entire movie is realistic, but rather makes a few good points about some of the more plausible tech featured, such as AI, helper robots, UI choices for design and targeting, etc. But overall, just because the superhero-magic is based in fake "science" doesn't mean that it's more realistic--even theoretically--than developing superpowers from getting bitten by a mutant spider.
His answer to that particular answer was quite evasive and not particularly memorable--something along the lines of "We support the rights of authors to distribute their works, for free if they so choose." He did not at all address how this squares with the statement he made in December that the GPL is unconstitutional, which is, of course, what the student actually asked.
As for being laughed off the stage, I don't think anyone in the audience really bought SCO's claims. The audience was realistically fairly polite, but unsympathetic--no one was outright laughing at him, but no one agreed with him either.
As for the presentation itself, at its core, Darl seemed to say a few reasonable things--they claim ownership of a certain body of IP and that IBM distributed that IP illegally. Both of those claims are under contention, but he stated that that's for the courts to decide. This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable--I may not agree that SCO has a case, but they obviously think they do, and the courts are the proper forum to determine this.
If it were just the contract dispute, I don't think there would be this violent reaction against SCO. It's all the FUD that comes with it--from "The GPL is unconstitutional" to "Linux gives computing infrastructure to terrorists, cyber- and otherwise"--that is causing the problem. We told Darl as much after the talk (no matter what you think of the man, it was cool to have the opportunity to talk with him face-to-face), and he seemed somewhat receptive to the fact that we're not all IP-hating copyright-hating hippies, we just don't like the FUD. Frankly, I don't think anything will come of that--it's too late to retract the many things that have been said, and PR will probably keep him on the same path--but there was a glimmer of hope, at least.
From their Q&A: