Movies to Watch 11-2014 to 11-2020

NUMBER 13 - official trailer - YouTube

One of the unsung gems on San Diego Comic Con 2013 is the following announcement!

Published on Jul 18, 2013

Based on the DARK HORSE comic. NUMBER 13, a young cybernetic amnesiac, wanders a postapocalyptic wasteland searching for a father he can't remember. He possesses powers coveted by irrational, feuding factions of the future, and he quickly becomes entangled in their deadly struggle for world dominance!
****
Independent artists are taking the industry back! Artist Robert Love and writer David Walker who created the popular comic series NUMBER 13 (published through DARK HORSE) have teamed up with commercial director Steve Petersen to create the OFFICIAL TRAILER for their new project.
****
www.number13.info

NUMBER 13 - official trailer - YouTube


I was not able to attend the convention but I heard about this from watching the following panel

Navigraphic Shows Us How Close We Are To Technology From Star Trek

Here is an interactive website exploring how close we are to the technology imagined on Star Trek.
Here is the experience

Star Trek Science Fiction & Science Fact Navigraphic by musicMagpie

http://www.musicmagpie.co.uk/blog/startrek-navigraphic.html

Here is a video


Navigraphic Shows Us How Close We Are To Technology From Star Trek

The Origin and Science Behind the Hadouken [Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

The Origin and Science Behind the Hadouken [Video] | Geeks are Sexy Technology News

What if Superman Punched You? - YouTube

What if Superman Punched You? - YouTube

“Seed” the TV series | True Freethinker

I love science fiction and Mariano has pointed out  a new series that will be coming out soon. It looks right up my alley.

..SEED is a brand new science fiction series unlike anything you have ever seen before. It has the mystery and intrigue of Lost combined with the political commentary and sci-fi appeal of shows like Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, mixed with the paranormal/alien themes explored in The X-Files....

“Seed” the TV series | True Freethinker

Isaac Asimov and the Three Laws of Robotics

Vintage Video of Isaac Asimov explaining his proposed three laws that should be programmed into every robot.

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

At least they beat Robocop's prime directives.


Isaac Asimov and the Three Laws of Robotics

Need Some Good Sci-Fi Storytelling?

Today, If you have a good idea and some talent you can make some top notch, high quality. Here are a couple of really good examples. You have to see these







Must Watch Sci-Fi Short: Plurality [Video]



Featured Sci-Fi Short: Tears of Steel [Video]

Image of the Day: Bradbury's predictions vs. real-world equivalents | Blastr

Image of the Day: Bradbury's predictions vs. real-world equivalents | Blastr

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

Featured Sci-Fi Short Film: Chameleon [Video]

This is really good

A hostile race of aliens has invaded Earth and the government fears that the aliens are modifying their DNA to pose as humans. When a military officer abducted months ago mysteriously reappears, his wife is called in to ask him questions only she would know to find out who or what he really is. Starring James C. Burns (Call of Duty: Black Ops). Based on a story by science fiction author Colin Harvey.

Featured Sci-Fi Short Film: Chameleon [Video]

Sandpeople In The Bible - G4tv.com

Remember that famous footsteps in the sand picture? Here is a Star Wars bent. No surprise now that Jedi is a recognized religion now! See here. Science Fiction gone awry? Yup! There is only one God and God is not an impersonal force.

Sandpeople In The Bible - G4tv.com

Maximum PC | Future Interfaces: 15 Peripherals Straight Out of Science Fiction

This is a great article. 15 of the newest technologies that may replace the computer keyboards and mouse. Look at the whole article. Here is my favorite one:

SixthSense - MIT Media Lab

Pranav Mistry may have one of the coolest names around, but he's also a total genius. Mistry, a PhD candidate at the MIT Media Lab, spurs the invention of way cool PC-killing stuff. His most acclaimed innovation to date? "Sixth Sense," a "wearable gestural interface that augments the physical world around us with digital information and lets us use natural hand gestures to interact with that information."

Maximum PC | Future Interfaces: 15 Peripherals Straight Out of Science Fiction

Superhero Psychology - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Here is a video of real psychologists discussing whether or not characters like Batman are insane. They also discuss supervillians. Looking at such questions are real interesting and help in understanding psychology in such "case studies".



Crazy Sexy Geeks: Superhero Psychology Part 1 - Batman from Alan Kistler on Vimeo.

Link Ink: Chris Evans as Steve Rogers, 'Pushing Daisies' as a Comic, and Superhero Psychology - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

The Hollywood Science of 'Iron Man 2' is Here Today...Kind of - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I've blogged about real-life applications of technology seen in science fiction like Iron Man. I like this. I've been following developments of such suits in Japan and in America ever since I was an undergraduate. I really would like to get into this tech. Today Comics Alliance posted a great article on the HAL suit developed in Japan. Looks like the Japanese are really close to the ideal. Much farther than I though.

The Hollywood Science of 'Iron Man 2' is Here Today...Kind of - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Google Engineers Argue Over Superpowers - ComicsAlliance.com

The Comics Alliance blog has posted an article about engineers at Google seriously discussing which Superpower is the best:

1. Invisibility
2. Flight
3. Teleportation

Apparently, this is something that the Google engineers have been trying to hash out amongst themselves, and like any good nerds, they have taken a silly, theoretical question and analyzed it in quantifiable, serious, empirical ways.
A traditionally short conversation ("Would you rather have the power of invisibility or the power of flight?") rapidly spins off new and philosophical threads enumerating hidden caveats and analyzing cost-benefit scenarios. Under the black-markered "The power to move you," someone uses a blue marker to replace "you" with "anyone." "What do you mean by move?" asks a red marker. "You made this no fun anymore," complains a blue marker, underscoring that point with a frowning face.

Does this surprise me? No, when I was doing engineering at Berkeley I found myself drawn into such conversations. I mean a lot of my peers in Engineering loved science fiction, horror, and comics as much I do. I found that it was the inspiration for getting into science/engineering. One friend told me, "I want to build 'Robocop'!" I wholeheartedly concur - now and then. It doesn't surprise me that Google would have engineers friendly discussing such things. I often still wish I was still in an environment like that sometimes (No, I don't want to go back to University).



Google Engineers Argue Over Superpowers

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resources about the Twilight Saga

Chad has posted some great resources on his blog about what Christians should view about the Twilight cultural phenomenon. I personally really like science fiction, horror, and fantasy genres. I think that what makes these genres so interesting is how we can explore philosophy, religion, and think about what it really means to be human and worldview. Some people tend to write off the genres and noit really think about what they are really saying. We need to think about who and what we are and what does society says versus what God says in the Bible.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resources about the Twilight Saga

Comicbook World #33

I found this post on another blog I like to read. He makes some funny jokes, but seriously the technology being discussed is in the pipeline. I think it false into the "Should we do this?" category not "Can we do this" because we most certainly can. Once you read the post you'll see why I think of Skynet from the Terminator franchise combining with the Matrix when I read this post.

Comicbook World #33

Posted using ShareThis

Take Red Pill, Naon Tiotami, Not the Blue Pill

This is a post answering Naon Tiotami:
Just so you know, Jack’s comments are blue, mine, Marcus, previous comments are red. My current ones are in Black! This thread's original comments can be found at this link

The reason why we don’t have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.

I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.

That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.
Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.

It’s weird that my arguments are ridiculed and maligned. Yet you say “Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.” Think about that for a minute. It’s not scientifically verifiable that living fish and amphibians have a common ancestor because none has been found. Just possble fossils that suggest that we may one day find them. So why not reject it. Besides some thing are true because they are true whether of not they are scientifically verifiable. For example if a child’s mother dies when the child is to young to remember her, can the child scientifically verify that his/her mother loved them? No. But we would still tell that child that the mother they have never seen loves them.

I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.

Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.

I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.

This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.

Why abandon this point? I was taken out of context. Bottom line. And the only way to prove evolution is to produce an unbroken sequence. Evolutionist pretend that they have that but they don't

“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1"

Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.

The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.

So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.

Not everything God does changes the laws of nature. He often works inside those laws.. You’re immediately going into the nature of “miracles” and I wasn’t going there. For example the Bible tells us when the first rainbow appeared. Now we can explain how rainbows are formed. There are a lot of other examples. I’m planning to do a blog series soon presenting what I have been studying concerning this.

Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.

You seem more well-versed in biology than physics. Therefore, I’d direct you to any Physics journal in print today. Ask yourself: What was there before the big bang? Right, nothing. Just like the Bible says. How can something come out of nothing. Scientifically if you take sub-atomic particles accelerate them to close to the speed of light, then collide them together you can get other particles springing out of nothing…for may be a pico second. You get particles with its corresponding anti-particle and they cancel themselves out anililating each other; mustn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics right? Yes, Virginia, there is such thing as anti-matter.

Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?

My short answer is that abiogenesis is an “understandably, incomplete hypothesis” as to why I dismiss it. Why would you accept it other than the fact that it eases your conscious in rejecting your creator?

Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?

The Bible, like a lot of literature is not meant to be taken literally because it uses hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory to make points. In context and a good study of history and culture set in the time it was written it becomes easy to tell what to take literally and what not to take literally. And yes, sometimes the Bible itself says when it’s being poetic or literal!

Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)

The Bible says it was 6 days. I don’t know why he chose to do it that way. The Hebrew at that point is not even clear on how long a day was. The word translated “day” literally means a period of time. He could have done it in zero seconds, 6 seconds, or 6 billion years. The Bible does not say. God can do anything He wants.

First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.

“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.

See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)

You are making my point: you have to define terms. I do not know how the Discovery Institute defines creationism. So talking about them is pointless. I know how I define it. I see no reason to try to defend them. I pointed them out as only a source to show that not everyone agrees that this particular fossil is a good evidence for macro evolution! That is what you need to be answering to not whether or not they Believe God created the universe to some degree or another. Either Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or it isn’t. Prove it is. Or else admit that you do so by faith.

I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?

I’m making the point that I realize that you do not believe that evolution is a radom process with things happening all on their own but that evolution is driven by many factors including environment, food sources, and too many factors to keep in mind, let alone predict how they affect one another. To me this show that there must be a God. How else can you explain how all the factors lined up to bring about life in all its myraid forms as we see today?

Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).

I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.

In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.

Bring it!

Real "Iron Man" Armor

Often science fiction becomes science fact. I love the idea of "Iron Man" - a suit that protects wearer and turns one man into an army. True to the tradition of Marvel Comics, its not just about the technology or "super powers", its the character of the man wearing the armor from which the drama and stories flow. Amazingly, there are real companies in the United States and Japan that are developing real technology depicted in Iron Man. Unfortunately, neither exoskeletonal suit allows the user to fly or seemingly have built-in weapons. But what they do offer to their wearers is amplified strength, endurance, and protection. Here is a run-down on some of the devices.

Japan's HAL Armor.
"HAL" stands for "Hybrid Assistive Limb" robot suit. Here is some information I found on the Internet.

The fifteen kilogram battery-powered suit detects muscle movements through electrical signal flows on the skin surface. These currents are picked up by the sensors and sent to the computer, which translates the nerve signals into signals of its own for controlling electric motors at the hips and knees of the exoskeleton, effectively amplifying muscle strength. HAL stands for "hybrid assistive limb"; HAL-5 is the latest version of the suit.

I found out that the suit is near to go into production for sale! They want to make 500 available to sale. It is designed to be used in hospitals for moving patients. The trippy part is that the name of division of Daiwa House that will develop the suits called "Cyberdyne". Reminds me of the name of the computer that nearly exterminates humanity in the Terminator series. Creepy, but the suit looks good. Here is a video.



Sarcos XOS Exoskeleton
I found the following about the Sarcos exoskeleton on the Internet

The Sarcos XOS exoskeleton is an impressive device. The suit allows the user to endlessly pull weight; two hundred-pound pulldowns are easy. The user of the suit feels only about ten of those two hundred pounds. Picking up and moving 70 pound cannisters is just as easy. How does it work? The machine follows the movements of the user, sampling the user’s behavior thousands of times per second. A built-in computer performs the monitoring, and amplifies the user’s strength with the robotic exoskeleton

Here is a video of the Sarcos XOS Exoskeleton. And here is a great article on the Sarcos.



Out of the two..I think the Sarcos looks the best and most likely to have military and policing application.