switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Thu Oct 13 2011 13:16:31 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Doesn't Seem Like Such An Entirely Good Idea To Me

[#] Thu Oct 13 2011 14:55:20 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

whats the bad idea about scanning DNA from bones?

I Guess its a very alonestanding chance to track a bacteria across centuries...

[#] Sat Oct 15 2011 23:09:37 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, it's been intriguing.

If the pop-science reporting is to be believed, all plagues we endure today are derived from the black plague DNA. It has varied quite a bit since then, but it's still pretty deadly. I think they're trying to figure out what makes it so deadly, ostensibly to find a way to cure it.

[#] Sun Oct 16 2011 08:56:23 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It's basically a pure exercise in historical epidemiology. We can cure it now via antibiotics (but you still really want to avoid it in the first place.)

Plague is still endemic in woodland critters in areas of the Sierra Nevada. Friends have posted photo recently of the warning signs.

[#] Sun Oct 16 2011 12:07:06 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

so ... learn more about teh black plague and they learn some fundamentals of epidemiology that can be applied elsewhere? Or am I parsing this wrong?

(or alternatively ... cue all of the conspiracy theories about combining black plague with modern buggies to create bio-weapons)

[#] Sun Oct 16 2011 12:17:35 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I phrased that badly. Yeah, I guess the point is to tease apart whether the plague was so deadly because the bacteria was different, or because of environmental factors. Along the way you learn some useful or useless things about molecular biology and, potentially, destroy the world with an inadvertant lab outbreak ;)

[#] Sun Oct 16 2011 21:22:16 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Cue the monkey named Caeser.

[#] Sun Oct 16 2011 22:27:17 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Or Project X.  On the other hand, they could use it to control Jurassic Park....

[#] Fri Oct 21 2011 09:32:13 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Speed of FTL neutrinos is all relative.

[#] Fri Oct 21 2011 11:55:24 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It seems simple, once you look at it.

[#] Mon Oct 31 2011 17:25:49 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ok, so the neutrinos were not actually traveling faster than light because their measurements were not accurate.

So why don't they just use the same equipment in the same locations to measure the traveling time of *light* as a reference? It seems that this would have been the very first thing to do -- calibrate the equipment and "tare" it to C.

[#] Mon Oct 31 2011 17:51:31 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Their measurements were accurate but they forgot to take into account the effects of special relativity when deriving the actual distance traveled. If they had measured the speed of light (via measurements of a radio wave from lab A to lab B, say), using the same clock as a reference (the same GPS satellite they used), and make the same calculation error, they would have seen that light was travelling faster than light, which would have clued them into their mistake much sooner.

[#] Wed Nov 02 2011 05:26:56 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, at first their message read, help, we're searching for the error but don't find it. if, we've found something to travel faster than light...

[#] Tue Nov 22 2011 22:28:53 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So it's "this is faster than light ... for moderately low values of c"

[#] Wed Nov 23 2011 15:40:40 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Through a mountain or any other relatively opaque object, the value is c is definitely lower. :P

[#] Tue Jun 11 2013 01:08:04 EDT from Brian Fahrlander @ Uncensored

Subject: Overlooked Sci-Fi Series

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

For many years I used to grab ONE episode of Andromeda, kinda the way I'd see one Herculese or Xena episode. I never really go the chance to ENJOY IT as a whole piece. I was missing something special.

Andromeda was from the same guy as Star Trek, but was put into production around the time of his death. Majel, the famous voice of every Star Trek computer and his wife, produced the show.

What makes it different? Lotsa things.

- "Real Sci-Fi". Arguable. There are things like space elevators, tesseract teleporting, and despite being a non-silent universe, they do a good job of keeping the science accurate. Even bring up the equations a couple of times.

- "Non-episodic". It's the story of a guy stuck on the edge of a black hole for 300 years, trying to re-install his much-loved "Commonwealth" of planets, but they FAIL SEVERAL TIMES. One time they all nearly die, but they're saved at the last moment and thrown into a "pocket universe". They have to start over.

- Real aliens. Not just other humans, in hats.

- Lexa Doig. So much better than Spock, anywhere. Better than Data. Sexier then any of them, yet SO VERY CLASSY in how she'd go about the business of being a far-future interface to the starship. Great job, Lexa!

- They try actually DIFFERENT things. Like five different aliens who are dots-of-light that weave a star-chart among themselves. Like a race of men built on the sadly ineffective Nietzscheans. What would a race of humans be like, if YOU made them?

I've been lucky enough to download the whole series. I sleep to it, at night. Through XBMC it allows me to watch them in rotation, so I'm never both asleep AND bored. :>

If you overlooked this, actual sci-fi, maybe you should join a torrent and start enjoying with me!

[#] Wed Jun 19 2013 10:41:44 EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Like a lot of Majel Barret productions, Andromeda was a bit inconsistent, and tried to reinvent it self a couple times. It was better more times than it was not; and ultimately ended not because it was canceled or unpopular (or not popular enough to be syndicated), but because the studio was going out of business.

I would have rather seen a second season Total Recall 2070, myself.

[#] Wed Jun 19 2013 15:19:31 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Perhaps the major cinematic/sci-fi disappointment of my adult life has been that no studio, no screen writer, has seen fit to rise to the challenge of putting on the screen one of the finest novels of its type ever written:

Walter Miller, Jr. 1960

[#] Wed Jul 10 2013 20:15:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sorry, they only do "franchises" now.

[#] Fri Jul 12 2013 15:56:45 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

OMG. I just found out about "Sharknado" today, and it was already played last night.

When is it going to be on again?