there's a thingy sticking out of the center of the sculpture which extends upwards out of the picture frame
@Vozpit: your online avatar of choice is also the glowing red eye of a science-fictional artificial intelligence. You have to admit you probably had a leg up compared to these people: interest.
Incidentally, by 1994 I had just learned how to walk on two legs.
Incidentally, by 1994 I had just learned how to walk on two legs.
@EllipticSmile: and 94% of all human beings that have lived on the Earth are now dead.
stuff dies, entropy increases, it still sucks...
stuff dies, entropy increases, it still sucks...
@Obi-Haiv: The discovery of "new" species by human beings does not guarantee the natural inception of said species. If you find a penny on the ground, you don't assume that it was minted the moment you picked it up.
There was a classic buildup of suspense in every scene, but, excepting the ending (which was a botched, gratuitous mess) it always seemed to end with a lesson in parenthood. I thought that was pretty funny.
@Feyhra: Yeah, you are not going to enjoy the ending. You might, however, enjoy Dren.
Definitely the best episode of Chuck to date.
@SkonOfVulcan: You should play NetHack
This is silly. A plan like this could never become more than a publicity stunt. How would sending inefficient and awkward bipedal robots to the moon solve the problems currently riddling the aerospace industry (why not send some light, versatile rovers with all sorts of science equipment on them instead)? This might not be unrealistic, but it certainly seems a little whimsical.
@CSX321: And of course, we all know that "What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience."
This film rendered me emotional.
@frankystainz: The trailers and featureless were endlessly disappointing compared to the movie itself. In the previews, the characters seemed stunted and the dialogue was disappointing. It's much easier to immerse yourself in the movie. And anyway, we ARE talking about 2 hours and 40 minutes of cinema here.
@Roklimber: Of course, if a sufficiently massive star were composed of Thaums, you'd get FIVE exciting new flavours in your quark-star ('up', 'down', 'sideways', 'sex appeal' and 'peppermint')
@braak: After watching the first featurette, I'm hoping Flux is a name for an area on the planet, and not a semantically functional part of the phrase "flux vortex".
So they were referring to a vortex (of wind/fog/whatever) that happens to be in a place called "The Flux" (perhaps because the mountains are constantly flowing through the area).
If this is not the case, then those two words alone are severely denting my expectations for this movie.
@CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard): This is actually a picture of Whiteknighttwo + Spaceshiptwo. Spaceshiptwo is the craft in the middle, which detaches and launches away from its mothership at about 15km altitude, then zooms up to 100km with its own engines.
@twophrasebark: I remember reading somewhere that communication with the Mars rovers is limited to two contacts a day, or some similar figure. The two Martian rovers have auto-navigation systems that use stereo imaging and other tools to move about on their own. (Towards a destination specified by ground controllers, of course.)
The distance is not a problem compared to some of the other technical difficulties here: you'd have to dig down 10-30km just to get to the ocean in the first place!
@Dash_Stryker: Thirded! #timburton
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Haha, exactly my thoughts.
Imagine how disappointed they will be, considering their last few decades of UFO pop-culture, replete with references to "large beige/brown men" and speculation about strange "chemical rockets" that use a highly theoretical concept called "combustion". #saturn
@FrankN.Stein: Yes, but:
"[Chandrayaan-1] was equipped with NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, designed specifically to search for water by picking up the electromagnetic radiation emitted by minerals."
Yeah, not sure how you would go about moving the black hole... The only way you can go about moving that thing is gravitationally. This means that, since you also need to feed it more mass to stop it evaporating too quickly, you would have to tow a VERY large quantity of matter around with you, which defeats most of the calculations that the authors made concerning the size/weight/carrying capacity of this theoretical spaceship.
Simply harnessing the Hawking radiation as a source of energy (and then potentially using that energy to power spaceships) is a more interesting concept.
Although it requires a large input of energy, creating a black hole will basically give us the perfect way to convert mass to energy, as far as I can tell. #blackholes
I feel that when I eventually watch this movie, if I do find that the plot is cliched or uninteresting, the sheer worldbuilding involved will largely make up for it. #gallery
