And I'm not about to look any further into this on my own. But how realistic does the girl look in motion anyway? I saw a screenshot of the face build on another site. I would think in motion she'd still fall into uncanny valley territory. This story intrigues me more from the CGI angle than the Chris Hansen one.
It's pretty much impossible to do a space disaster film with anything close to modern technology. It basically boils down to "Everything works exactly as planned or you die." Yes, we have Apollo 13 but most disaster scenarios are going to be more like Challenger and Columbia.
Tyson is correct in every point he makes but he's missing the point. This was first and foremost a good, stunning movie. While I noted science quibbles in passing, it was hard to be preoccupied with them because I was fully engaged with the film. I do my worst nitpicking when I'm in hate with a film for wasting my damn time.
There's no sound in space. They stuck with that. I'm impressed so much by that one detail. What's more, read up on the notes the studio gave the director about things they wanted to see. They wanted flashbacks to Earth, they wanted Russians deliberately shooting missiles at the survivors and other silliness.
How would I rate the realism of this movie? It looks real-ish. Apollo 13 is hardcore real, only strained interpersonal dynamics were hammed up from what actually happened. But Gravity is a damned good film.
The only physics bit that bugged me was the tether scene. Spoilerish. Two astronauts tied together falling past a structure, once one of them grabs on and withstands the shock of the other astronaut snapping the tether taut, he should rebound back towards the secured astronaut, not dangle as if still being pulled by gravity. This would not be the case if, say, they were on a rotating structure or on a rocket making a significant burn but neither is the case.
For the short term high here to be worth your flesh rotting off? I can only imagine you start on the good stuff and descent to this, like an alkie starting on top shelf and descending to drinking aftershave.
It's pretty easy to laugh all the way to the bank when you're already there.
Piracy means never having to deal with this kind of BS. Hint to companies: don't make piracy easier/better than watching legally. We have choices we never had before.
Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.
Wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. This is akin to creationism, Reagan winning the Cold War, and global warming as liberal myth.
What I don't like about Elon Musk's companies, is when they have problems (like with Tesla), instead of fixing them, they go and attack the reporter. So that Forbes article was astroturf bombed, so much so, that the reported had to write a follow up piece.
And what is he supposed to do when a reporter lies and fabricates evidence? Was GM wrong to go after NBC for rigging truck fuel tanks to explode on Dateline?
Hell, I think Top Gear got off too light for faking Tesla test results.
I can appreciate a healthy skepticism. I can appreciate that someone might have a preference for something, say gas vs. electric. But if you are putting out a show that looks like a legitimate test, fake the results and then act like it doesn't matter because you're just entertainment, you're a fucking asshole and should be treated like one. It demonstrates a disgusting contempt for the truth.
Obligatory XKCD.... wait, no, Happiness and Cyanide.
Good question. The appeal of conspiracy theories is understandable, especially given that in this case it is eminently pragmatic and easy to describe. LIBOR fixing, anyone? Giant fucking conspiracy, and quite true.
Of course, the other side of it is that there's practical shortcomings that aren't mentioned by the conspiracy guys and the Big Idea isn't so much suppressed but fails for mundane reasons, not nefarious plotting.
So, which is it in this case? Anyone know?
This is ironic.
*makes a-ok sign, then glares* It stinks.
Assuming he reads Slashdot, I think you've already figured this out.
I'm intrigued as to why fratricide would be much of an issue - for most targets, if it has been hit by another nuke it doesn't really matter if another fails to go off.
It's not a problem with that target itself -- it's been pasted. But the fratricided warhead could have been used on another target. Every weapon expended on overkill is one that could have been used to adequately kill another target.
Stuart Slade posts have been floating around. They give a pretty comprehensive idea of the suck of nuclear war.
Also explains how there's overkill and there's overkill. ABM's reduced the UK's SLBM deterrent to one city, Moscow. This changes the common assumption of one warhead, one city, and an American boomer with 100-something MIRV'd warheads accounts for 100-something targets.