Innovator
-
Posts
807 -
Joined
-
Want! Because I want a HUD for a lot of reasons.
-
For me its just BSG and Lost mostly (there was a lot of sci-fi shows on at the time). Also the new episodes of Torchwood (as I don't have Starz), but I'll get to them.
I've seen pretty much every episode of everything else (including Doctor Who from "An Unearthly Child" to the most recent, and every Star Trek episode of every series).
As for movies, there's probably a lot I haven't seen, though I do try to catch those I've missed when they pop up...to keep up my geek cred.
-
Quote:(sigh) Yeah.Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Except it's Disney so no naked princesses. -
Quote:I agree...GET OFF MY LAWN!Originally Posted by Sailboat
Kids today... *shakes head*
And Deja Thoris is the Princess of Mars in Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter series, which they're making into a movie. -
Quote:Talon's sword from Sword and the Sorcerer, and the Mind Sword from Hawk the Slayer are on my want list for my own personal Geek Collection.Originally Posted by Tenzhi
Was that the triple-bladed sword? I loved that one.
Also how can that list not have Sting (from The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings)? -
That said, Drizzt Do'Urden and his swords Twinkle and Icingdeath are probably Cosplay'ed more than any character on that list and the lists here.
As far as D&D Swords go, I am always greatful for the lessons taught by Harkon Lukas's bezerker sword taught me. Before that, I would try with all my resources to be free of cursed swords. After reading about Harkon Lucas, I wanted a cursed sword for my character as he showed just how useful they were. Sure a -1 Cursed sword has a -1 to hit and damage, but that drawback is easily mitigated, and it was still a magical sword which meant it could damage creatures that could be damaged only by magical weapons, plus it came right to your hand whenever you are attacked or attacking someone. How cool was that! -
Quote:Well there's this one:Originally Posted by Durakken
Reading is not geeky. Geeks do it, but that in itself is not geeky.
Also from what is said Stormbringer is a D&D thing so considering D&D sucks in my opinion why would i or anyone who doesn't care about D&D know about it...also when's the last time you've seen a cosplay of it ^.^
and this guy:
-
Quote:Big Guy isn't a robot either.Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Yeah and they shouldn't have put Daleks in there. Daleks aren't robots. They are mutants and the machine they pilot is their suit of powered armor.
-
Quote:Mark Steven Johnson isn't directing this. That's already a step up...hell, it's an escalator.Originally Posted by GreenFIame
Did not like the first Ghost Rider Movie, they fu@# up Black Heart and Mephisto on us already and if this is a continue of that then they going go down hill even more.
-
Quote:Same.Originally Posted by Ironik
That looks like a blast. The last image made me laugh out loud. And by the guys who made Crank and Crank 2? Sold.
I don't actually understand the fan love for Johnny Blaze. He never really had any personality to love in the comics. Most comics he's limited to a few panels or a page, and several Ghost Rider books he doesn't even show up at all. Anyone could have played him, so I never minded that Cage wanted to do it. -
Why did they let it go?
-
Quote:That's what they want you to think.Originally Posted by Redbone
By your logic the guy claiming that the UN is in league with aliens from Zeta Retucli and the Masons to create chemtrails to steralize reptelian aliens disguised as George W Bush so the Illuminati can take over Madison County to steal Clint Eastwoods brain for Obama to perform satanic rituals with is just as credible as Carl Sagan.
<..<
>..> -
New video of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman and she's wearing stilettos. I knew I was right about the stilettos, and that the wedge heel was only for the stuntwoman.
-
If they're to be knights. How about Hēi Bái Wú Cháng or Niú Tóu Mǎ Miàn?
-
Quote:Yeah, I remember that, but if I remember correctly the major part of the body of evidence he presented about that were that the people debunking the claims about it were frauds themselves.Originally Posted by Durakken
Now I remember where i've seen this guy before... all the UFOlogy "philidelphia experiment" nonsense...
Still saying lets wait and see as i haven't seen anyone out right say that what he is saying is not true and in fact thee are reports of people having seen his device in action... And i also know of similar research...
But at the same time I wouldn't be all that surprised to see this as one big sham, especially with connections to the UFOlogist nonsense... -
Quote:Yet a number of scientists speak at that forum.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
The Mars Society is not a scientific body, only a "space exploration advocacy" association. Presenting a "scientific" paper at this venue (presumably to distinguish it from the science fiction they also host) is nowhere near close to peer review. If that's the best he can do, then he's one step from a monologue about how those fools at the academy laughed at his ideas.
SuperScience is the name of the program he created to get kids interested in science. I don't believe you're ragging on that. That's pretty petty.Quote:Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
"SuperScience"? Seriously? Is this from the Venture Brothers?
What's most dismaying is his habit of making presentations to high school students, an audience in no position to adequately assess his claims but one in need of regular instruction in scientific methodology and the detection of BS. -
Quote:How long does it take to get a patent anyway? All my copyrights took a year to get filed.Originally Posted by Quasadu
Thanks.
Unsurprisingly, that turns up no patent results either. -
Quote:Pheasant Ridge I 3:30 - 4:00 M. Barnes - Electromagnetic Field Propulsion.Originally Posted by Samothrake
If he did so, why is his lecture not listed on their convention schedule?
I highly doubt that anyone anywhere attended it.
Hmmm…a major failure in observation ability due to extreme enthusiasm for skeptism. This is a fascinating phenomenon. /Takes notes. -
Quote:Well apparently he gave a lecture about it at the Mars Conference. Did anyone here attend that?Originally Posted by starphoenix
Researching and inventing mean nothing unless it is published in a peer-reviewed publication or there is a working prototype.
Surfing the web about him, I find the style of self promotion this guy does and the weird proof collecting he put out about all his action is kind of a hoot!
If anything its been entertaining. -
Quote:I don't know, I've turned down lots of jobs myself. Hell, people don't believe me when I tell them about half the stuff I or my family has done, or when I tell them where I have worked or where I work now (doesn't make it not true). Did you know, my own bio used to appear quite a lot on the web, and that mentions of it used to beat Troy Hickman in a Google fight? Heheheh (though not anymore. You win Mr. Hickman...for now).Originally Posted by Alpha-One
By this point maybe you've noticed that most of us take his self-published biography with a rather large grain of salt. After all I could tell you that I was offered the position of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO but I turned it down. Does it mean it's true?
Seems to me there's a serious lack of critical thought mixed with a large dose of blind optimism here. Maybe go review the fundamentals of the scientific method instead of praying this techno-messiah has all the answers?
If you go by my statements, you would see I don't have blind faith in him. I'm just not ready to knock his claims without actually seeing his tests. Others say they have and they say he's legit...I'm in the I don't know but interested in what he's got circle. -
Quote:Wow...I'm not sure where you're getting all that from his statements.Originally Posted by Alpha-One
Illusions aren't created by science. They are EXPLAINED with science. There's quite the difference between using a parlour trick to demonstrate a possible form of invisibility and actually rendering an object invisible from any perspective.
Well according to his bio, he was offered a position as a weapons system evaluator for Armtech, but apparently he turned it down.Quote:Besides, if he truly had the knowledge to make something invisible, he'd be working for Skunk Works right now, not making youtube videos for school children.
-
Marshall Barnes is known for making complex sciences fun and easy to grasp by Ohio kids through the experiments and demonstrations he does for schools and fairs.
Personally, I'm a bit curious about his STDTS tech, and hoping to seeing footage from tests from it just so I can see what it is he's actually done. I'm sure the simple explanation will turn out to be an oh..duh moment, with a slight...well...I could see where he's going with that.
-
Quote:Isn't that what I just said?Originally Posted by Zombie Man
No, it doesn't. You're seeing images of the shaft that would ordinarily be visible because it is not behind to object refracted to be in front of the object. Nothing... *nothing* behind the object is visible.
It's an illusion created by science. Why do things have to be complex in order to be taken seriously?Quote:You know, stage magicians do stuff like this all the time and say "it's magic." Of course, you don't believe it's magic. You know there is sleight of hand or misdirection or mirrors or false walls.
Just because this charlatan/nut says "it's science", don't believe it without much better proof.
You're witnessing an illusion.
“There are children playing in the streets who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer -
Quote:Except the refraction of light from an object behind another so that it bends to cause the rear object's light to appear in front is exactly what he's demonstrating to a bunch of kids at an elementary school (who the video was made for). Of course the tip doesn't show as its light is bounced back by the object it is directly behind, but the rest of the shaft that's behind the object does.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
Umm... that's proof he's a charlatan.
The image we see of the pencil supposedly be made visible through the black cap is just the image of the pencil we can still see overlapping the black cap because of the refraction strata in the overlay. Slow the video down and notice that the image of the *tip* of the pencil disappears completely. All we're seeing is the bright yellow of the base of the pencil supposedly behind the cap.
If he put a marble behind the cap such that no other part of the marble extended past the cap, then there would be no image of the marble leaking through the cap.
He is either so batpancake insane that he doesn't know what he's talking about, or, he's relying on people he's demonstrating this stuff to be be so batpancake gullible or batpancake ignorant of basic science that they can't recognize he's talking gibberish.
You're taking this simple demonstration/experiment way out of proportion and context. Bending waves around an object is also the basis for the invisibility research by other scientists using metamaterials. -
Quote:Actually, he demonstrates how he pulled it off in this video.Originally Posted by Redbone
And here's an "interview " in which he claims to have made a wooden sailig shop invisable (and all he has to show for it is a photograph he's displaying as art): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x7Wf-_72zc