19 posts • joined Monday 17th August 2009 18:02 GMT
@ Lee Dowling
"Film, or it didn't happen.
And high-quality, focused, blur-free, still film with proper focus on that amazing object that you couldn't believe was there. Because I fail to believe that if I was seeing a UFO or similar, I wouldn't zoom in and get as much detail from the damn thing as I can in order for ME to tell what it was myself."
I could not agree more! Considering the aleged frequency of these events across the world I'm astonished in this day and age with the proliferation of camera phones, video cameras, CCTV, DSLRs etc that not one person has manage a coherent, stable, clear, focused video.
Like Lee said, if it were me filming it I'd like to think i'd be able to get focused zoomed and wide angle shots, with something in for scale, time of day etc and if I were videoing it be able to give a verbal description of what I could see and what settings, zoom length etc I was using.
I want to believe I really do, but you've got to question why this hasn't been accomplished yet!
Pics/vids or STFU.
Looks like a tooth
Kinda looks like a tooth! I hope it's a tooth! That would be the most exciting discovery ever1
Consider if we had actual people on Mars this "is it isn't it?" issue with man made debris would have been resolved almost instantly.
Keep rolling curiosity. Hope you're still rolling when human feet finally touch down.
Hmmm - after rocket crane dropped, laser cannon equipped SUVs this seems a little pedestrian.
The next mission should surely be actual pedestrians - human feet on Mars!
If NASA doesn't do it I hope the Chinese do soon!
So, basically, on our nearest natural neighbour, once visited and long since deserted by man, we have several flags which, if they are still standing, have likely been bleached white to kingdom come by UV.
So one of the first thing any ET's will be a bunch of white flags, next to deserted equipment and territory, signalling our unconditional surrender!
I'm off back to my bunker now....
Ladies and gents of the jury, I present exhibit A) MF'ing HUGE SPIDER
I never want to go to Australia because of the above reason. Man is not number 1 on the food chain there!!
Some say his hair is so dark and lush because he washes it with dark matter, and that no-one has found the Higgs Boson because he keeps them all in a jar in a cupboard under his stairs, all I know is - he's called Professor Brian Cox!
Anyone else a little concerned that they only spotted this coming our way a few days ago? Probably a bit late to have a lobbed a nuke at it by then to alter its course/vapourise it. I don't think there's any other alternative feesible given it was so close to us when detected.
You don't have to think hard what would've happened if it was a little bigger and could've come down in a popluated area/city, Hollywood has done it for you!
Drilling permit?! What's that? Coming from someone who drills hundreds of holes a year, the only permit you need to drill is from the Coal Authority if you're drilling into coal measures.
Unless of coarse you're talking about regulator approval for abstracting/dumping heat into an aquifer and making sure it doesn't get over done in a local area....
we are moving!
But we are moving throught the universe. The cosmic background radiation is commonly used as a reference point which we are moving relative too.
I'm not an expert but.....
Assuming these singlets were produced, would the present day LHC not be required to be in the extact point in space that the future singlet generating LHC would be in, in order to detect them?
Since, the earth, solar sytem, galaxy etc are moving at a fair old lick across the universe (~1.3 million miles per hour ), would these singlets from the future not just appear somewhere in space in our time frame as the future LHC that generated them would be well away from where the present day LHC is to detect them?
Judging by the photograph there's no nose cone where parachutes would typically deploy.
Assuming this follows a ballastic profile and comes down nose first, is the poor petrified guinea pig going to spend half the flight effectively standing on his head before landing head first?
will try again then!
In that case then, i'll be booking another holiday to Iceland!! Faith restored somewhat.
I think the guide wanted us to feel like we'd got out moneys worth as she said it was quite a good display (it really wasn't). But it did leave me thinking that it was all a bit of a con!
Any good?! Not sure
Has anyone actually seen the Northern Lights? I'd like your opinion.
I have, in Iceland, earlier this year (before the unpronouncable erupted). They were frankly......rubbish (however, it was a full moon which may have swamped the lights a bit). It was a faint grey smudge to the naked eye. However, with a 30 second exposure on an expensive DSLR, the chap next to me got your typical postcard picture of a beautifull green shimmering cloud!
Now, every photo I've seen of the lights, if you look carefully, you can see over exposed street lights, house lights, lights on cars etc indicating a long exposure. The link given in the article shows some photos - with 30s exposures!
Could someone tell me, under the right conditions, are the northern lights/aurora really as spectacular to the naked eye as all the pciture postcards suggest? I feel somewhat conned to be honest!
ow my brain/eyes/wallet!
I got up close and personal with several 3D TVs at the recent Gadget Show Live. Yes, it's quite impressive. But most manufactures are going with the active shutter system. To me, I could just perceive the flicker of the glasses and after watching some demos (Sony was playing 3D videos via a PS3 btw, Wipeout and Motorstorm looked awesome!) after only a minute or so, my eyes/brain hurt!!
Not to mention so would your wallet. £100 for a paid of active shutter glasses!! So if you've a family of 4 and invite another couple over, that's £600 just in glasses. And how many pairs do you reckon you'll sit on/the dog will chew/drop in a pint glass over the year?!
LG were the only one with a passive (polarised) display. Much more eye friendly but only 720p (oh diddums, looked good enough to me and my eyesight is top notch).
Passive or not at all for me
check your sums!
Very quick maths check only accounting for ground distance covered around the equator, no stops, constant speed etc.
24,000m/44mph = 545.5 hours non-stop flying time
/24 = 22.7 days or just over three weeks.
So yes, it would be just less than a month if you include a few stops.
Image is NOT real
From common sense I can tell you the image isn't real and is entirely an artists impression. Shame the article fails to mention this!
If it were real, it would be headline news world over. The first direct image of a black hole! Eating a neighbouring star!!! Emitting jets!!!!! *explodes*
That far away?
"According to Milton, the method isn't applicable to visible light as it requires the use of unfeasibly small active emitters. Even if these could be built, it would only be possible to cloak very very small things.
"It is very difficult to build antennas the size of light waves," says the prof. "We're so far from cloaking real-sized objects to visible light that it's incredible.""
I think these people, need to speak to these people who've already built lasers the size of the wavelength of visible light!
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps