In this case, they invited the comparisons themselves by so directly basing large parts of the show on the earlier BBC docudrama miniseries. With lots of parts made worse, without any justification, in the process of mostly carrying them over (nvm horrible acting; and c limit to communication could be a great plot mechanism, adding nice suspense, etc,; it certainly was succesfully approached that way in the Voyage to the Planets, so I don't really buy "it can't be done on TV" - that was scriptwriters being lazy)
Also...don't forget about the ratio of ten women to each man. Which would, regrettably, necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
That was the point; it didn't make us superior, it made us what we are. Among it - mostly incapable of directed actions of such kind / such scale. That I can see some (only some, don't kid yourself) utility in trying soon to have a backup outside of Earth, most people...well, just look how NASA is funded in comparison to the "defense."
(though you paint results of evolutionary process a bit harschly - it's all about survival after all; as with extinction events; "design" of honeybess doesn't suck for example, it causes more harm to the attacker)
Please, don't go on some sort of moral high horse (I'm also sympathetic towards sustainability, etc.). One could easily argue that the real underlying cause of our major problems is forgetting how humans really are, ignoring that how we like to see ourselves doesn't need to have much to do with reality (say - look how similar, also in what is bad in us, and what is good in us, we are to the hominds most closely related to our species; but no, people are so hang up on the tribal "we're special" that they blow up even such minor things as ethnicities way out of proportion - there's a high chance you live in a place where oonly small part of ancestry can make one "black" for some reason; nvm that by such criteria we are all "black" 100%). "Burrying our heads in the sand" is, for better or worse, not only almost certainly succesfull approach in whatever catastrophe we might face, but also the only thing we could realistically accomplish. And for millions.
Actually, depending on how the structures of the base will be set up (for a long time probably just modules placed in a cave) - you will have to deal primarily with overheating / getting rid of waste heat. That's not so easy with surrounding (mostly) vacuum, convection doesn't work.
I watched all dg eps. I gave it a fair chance. It is still a monumental POS. You'd do yourself a favor watching Voyage to the Planets, to have the perspective of seeing how hugely dg frakked the concept.
There's tons more of (realistic!) emotion and interpersonal relationship "even" in BBC docudrama. Science liberties of such kind are much less excusable for a show which presents itself as being quite well-grounded in almost our times / our technology (nvm that I didn't mention the treatment of c). BBC has insanely better production quality, also CGI (that's telling, for something shot half a decade earlier). "The half-mile long ship itself" was one of direct ripoffs from the BBC decudrama (not really with an input from NASA, but from ESA), only modified to make it worse.
I'm sorry about your loss; however - being sensitive to such coincidence is not a good measure of show's quality.
The point is exactly that whatever humanity does, it won't be due to avoiding very rare variants of extinction events (except crash-projects of course, but we're not talking about those). So beside the point in arguing for action, really. BTW, ignoring such wide-encompassing worries probably was a beneficial trait, helping survival; still might be. In the face of other life, other groups of people. Let's assume there was some group foreseeing some distant inescapable disaster - well, they would be just subdued by groups focusing on "now and here" (or, "this season"). Ultimatelly the latter would carry on, even if with heavy losses (people are quick to breed when conditions are decent anyway); leaving still distant past to their deities and improvising when shit hits the fan.
That's how we still are.
Spreading throughout the system won't help much against RKVs, too.
Don't mention that POS thing masquarading as a scifi TV series, not without warning unsuspecting people.
Also, it would be a good idea to mention "BBC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets" (avoid the castrated US version), which is monumentally better (why, why do I even compare them?) and of which "defying gravity" is a direct rip-off, just made extremelly poorly.
it would be resilient to all possible extinction events below a level affecting more than one planet of the solar system
And that's a very narrow strip of scenarios (again, we're talking about foreseeable future; in a long time we might be "post-human" for all we know). Most impact events / flares / etc. are more efficient to prevent or...survive in the lithosphere of this planet. In between there's the level of orbits-disturbing or big-fraking-solar-flare-causing visitor from outside the system, which is very rare judging by the number of old multiple star systems (direct planetary impact is orders of magnitude less likely than that), though it might affect two different planets in a different way (orbit, not flare). And beyond - things from gamma ray bursts to false vacuum collapse, where another planet doesn't matter.
Yes, it might be worthwile; very, very rarely. So that won't be the reason to colonise, ever. Taking into account such threats is way beyond the scope of humanity; look how we do know... It'll just be the old "the biggest threat to life is another life."
Thing is, for "some" (assuming random, among many scenarios possible) extinction event, it's still most likely much more efficient to live underground, on Earth; saving orders of magnitude more people in the process, on comparable resources. At least when talking about foreseeable future (talking beyond that is a bit pointless anyway)
So, did somebody already estimate how many will be "lost" because we didn't have a second lock on the position of many of those discovered bodies? (which is required after all to have a decent idea of their orbits; and preferably few more)
There's really no "hitching a ride" possible - to hitch without destroying (impacting) the spacecraft, both it and the asteroid need to travel at almost the same orbit already.
Furthermore, Ceres is not an asteroid...
Generally, don't go too overboard with SciFi fun; "impact absorption" won't really work at typical approach velocities between different orbits; that (and large scale mining too, perhaps) would probably just give a "Solar Kessler Syndrome" in the long run. There's lots and lots of energy, at big densities, needed to haul massive amounts of stuff in timescales acceptable to typical human - problem is, if you have easy access to such sources of energy, you can have pretty much everything you need locally, in any place (the bigger the better, easier to have other branches of mature industrial base nearby) And actually, the Sun is "warming up" over time; anyway, species like us certainly wouldn't appear in such environment.
if... the predator is sufficiently large and unable to reach into the hole
Unless you can close the entry to the hole! As a matter of fact, since a hole is just a space enclosed by sufficiently strong barrier, we could just build over-surface holes!
I was thinking especially about that one NY skyscraper; sitting on columns which are not in its corners, but between them. This one could get quite messy fairly quickly, if not for debugging; far more than leaking roof. And it really seems to be, hm, an outright error in the compiler;p
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, they invited the comparisons themselves by so directly basing large parts of the show on the earlier BBC docudrama miniseries. With lots of parts made worse, without any justification, in the process of mostly carrying them over (nvm horrible acting; and c limit to communication could be a great plot mechanism, adding nice suspense, etc,; it certainly was succesfully approached that way in the Voyage to the Planets, so I don't really buy "it can't be done on TV" - that was scriptwriters being lazy)
The issue here is that we do commit changes to the Production Planet constantly.
Also...don't forget about the ratio of ten women to each man. Which would, regrettably, necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
That was the point; it didn't make us superior, it made us what we are. Among it - mostly incapable of directed actions of such kind / such scale. That I can see some (only some, don't kid yourself) utility in trying soon to have a backup outside of Earth, most people...well, just look how NASA is funded in comparison to the "defense."
(though you paint results of evolutionary process a bit harschly - it's all about survival after all; as with extinction events; "design" of honeybess doesn't suck for example, it causes more harm to the attacker)
Please, don't go on some sort of moral high horse (I'm also sympathetic towards sustainability, etc.). One could easily argue that the real underlying cause of our major problems is forgetting how humans really are, ignoring that how we like to see ourselves doesn't need to have much to do with reality (say - look how similar, also in what is bad in us, and what is good in us, we are to the hominds most closely related to our species; but no, people are so hang up on the tribal "we're special" that they blow up even such minor things as ethnicities way out of proportion - there's a high chance you live in a place where oonly small part of ancestry can make one "black" for some reason; nvm that by such criteria we are all "black" 100%). "Burrying our heads in the sand" is, for better or worse, not only almost certainly succesfull approach in whatever catastrophe we might face, but also the only thing we could realistically accomplish. And for millions.
Actually, depending on how the structures of the base will be set up (for a long time probably just modules placed in a cave) - you will have to deal primarily with overheating / getting rid of waste heat. That's not so easy with surrounding (mostly) vacuum, convection doesn't work.
I watched all dg eps. I gave it a fair chance. It is still a monumental POS. You'd do yourself a favor watching Voyage to the Planets, to have the perspective of seeing how hugely dg frakked the concept.
There's tons more of (realistic!) emotion and interpersonal relationship "even" in BBC docudrama. Science liberties of such kind are much less excusable for a show which presents itself as being quite well-grounded in almost our times / our technology (nvm that I didn't mention the treatment of c). BBC has insanely better production quality, also CGI (that's telling, for something shot half a decade earlier). "The half-mile long ship itself" was one of direct ripoffs from the BBC decudrama (not really with an input from NASA, but from ESA), only modified to make it worse.
I'm sorry about your loss; however - being sensitive to such coincidence is not a good measure of show's quality.
The point is exactly that whatever humanity does, it won't be due to avoiding very rare variants of extinction events (except crash-projects of course, but we're not talking about those). So beside the point in arguing for action, really.
BTW, ignoring such wide-encompassing worries probably was a beneficial trait, helping survival; still might be. In the face of other life, other groups of people. Let's assume there was some group foreseeing some distant inescapable disaster - well, they would be just subdued by groups focusing on "now and here" (or, "this season"). Ultimatelly the latter would carry on, even if with heavy losses (people are quick to breed when conditions are decent anyway); leaving still distant past to their deities and improvising when shit hits the fan.
That's how we still are.
Spreading throughout the system won't help much against RKVs, too.
Sorry, I meant compound (far from native EN speaker, many terms aren't immediately intuitive)
Triple point of water is exclusive to where humans live?...
Don't mention that POS thing masquarading as a scifi TV series, not without warning unsuspecting people.
Also, it would be a good idea to mention "BBC Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets" (avoid the castrated US version), which is monumentally better (why, why do I even compare them?) and of which "defying gravity" is a direct rip-off, just made extremelly poorly.
it would be resilient to all possible extinction events below a level affecting more than one planet of the solar system
And that's a very narrow strip of scenarios (again, we're talking about foreseeable future; in a long time we might be "post-human" for all we know). Most impact events / flares / etc. are more efficient to prevent or...survive in the lithosphere of this planet. In between there's the level of orbits-disturbing or big-fraking-solar-flare-causing visitor from outside the system, which is very rare judging by the number of old multiple star systems (direct planetary impact is orders of magnitude less likely than that), though it might affect two different planets in a different way (orbit, not flare). And beyond - things from gamma ray bursts to false vacuum collapse, where another planet doesn't matter.
Yes, it might be worthwile; very, very rarely. So that won't be the reason to colonise, ever. Taking into account such threats is way beyond the scope of humanity; look how we do know... It'll just be the old "the biggest threat to life is another life."
It all boils down to a system of tubes?
Current version is from 2005.
Celsius is just another arbitrary method ... real men use Kelvin
Which doesn't stop the range of one unit in both scales to be equivalent...
Anyway, arbitrarity of the "important property of the most common molecule in the universe" kind isn't so bad.
I don't know; buildings do resemble, in a way, essentially an artificial cave.
Thing is, for "some" (assuming random, among many scenarios possible) extinction event, it's still most likely much more efficient to live underground, on Earth; saving orders of magnitude more people in the process, on comparable resources. At least when talking about foreseeable future (talking beyond that is a bit pointless anyway)
Real bottom line, no airline since the beginning of aviation proved capable of remaining solvent long-term, whatever the pricing scheme at the time.
And that's with massive subsidies for manufacturing, airport, etc. infrastructure.
Bobby Kotick himself.
Hey, his quote in TFS doesn't appear to say that all pillars must be games.
Thank all the deities there are few space agencies with largely independent capabilities.
It might be actually a great PR, one that will be somewhat remembered for a long time - a new space race, of sorts.
So, did somebody already estimate how many will be "lost" because we didn't have a second lock on the position of many of those discovered bodies? (which is required after all to have a decent idea of their orbits; and preferably few more)
There's really no "hitching a ride" possible - to hitch without destroying (impacting) the spacecraft, both it and the asteroid need to travel at almost the same orbit already.
Furthermore, Ceres is not an asteroid...
Generally, don't go too overboard with SciFi fun; "impact absorption" won't really work at typical approach velocities between different orbits; that (and large scale mining too, perhaps) would probably just give a "Solar Kessler Syndrome" in the long run. There's lots and lots of energy, at big densities, needed to haul massive amounts of stuff in timescales acceptable to typical human - problem is, if you have easy access to such sources of energy, you can have pretty much everything you need locally, in any place (the bigger the better, easier to have other branches of mature industrial base nearby)
And actually, the Sun is "warming up" over time; anyway, species like us certainly wouldn't appear in such environment.
Hush, they're just 6k years old.
if ... the predator is sufficiently large and unable to reach into the hole
Unless you can close the entry to the hole! As a matter of fact, since a hole is just a space enclosed by sufficiently strong barrier, we could just build over-surface holes!
I was thinking especially about that one NY skyscraper; sitting on columns which are not in its corners, but between them. This one could get quite messy fairly quickly, if not for debugging; far more than leaking roof. And it really seems to be, hm, an outright error in the compiler ;p
...when the device allows it easily simply by holding it in one of the most straightforward ways.
BTW, even some very prominent architectural structures happen to undergo debugging, sometimes / compilation is not quite final.