Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space

[pianopraze]

It was a joke…

but I will probably write a book about aliens being grown in big underwater UFOs. Play up all the current memes… maybe I’ll even break even…

[Encia22]

It was a joke…

but I will probably write a book about aliens being grown in big underwater UFOs. Play up all the current memes… maybe I’ll even break even…

I don't know if you ever read the 4chan anon whistleblower who claimed that there were aliens under the ocean and where ufos were manufactured...

I found a transcript of the thread... it was pretty wild. I think even The Why Files covered it, probably in-depth in their podcasts instead of the weekly YT show.

https://www.scribd.com/document/69100095...ed=English

[PhyloCFly]

I do not see how the topic addressed by this speaker can be approached with no consideration of politics when the author himself clearly states in one of his opening sentences.

Yet this American hope in the possibility of progress and the power of science and technology does not allow builders and innovators to retreat from politics. Indeed, quite the opposite, which is what brings me here today.

Indeed, throughout his lecture he decries the attempts of the last president as failures to achieve the same goals as he lays out in his talk, all of which point to embracing the current presidents leadership in the fields of science and technology.

What I read of the lecture literally reeked of propagandist blather about sciences that many of us here are already aware, aware enough that the truth of these emerging sciences make a better base for science fiction than reality.

Me,  I'm all in favor of how science has helped us. I wouldn't be alive today, several times in fact, were it not for sciences developed over that last thirty years. However, this high sounding speech sounds more like a glossy portfolio to sell the services of a start up business, loaded with connections to major universities, corporations and big investment companies than any real vision of our immediate future. And make no mistake, it's our immediate future that needs addressing and it seemed to me that the problems we face over the next few years were not addressed in favor of dreaming about the lofty hopes for a future we may never live to see.

[yuppa]

That brings to mind that the craft are seamless, so growing them in a vat would make sense.

What also peaks my imagination is that if their technology can interact with atoms on a superficial level (craft body) why not imagine it can also interact within atoms' so as to redirect atoms' elemental path or energy levels as well? Which may explain craft blinking in and out and inexplicable maneuvers and speed (?)

Well pilots IN the field also become "massless" and therefore Gravity/G force does not apply. They"blinking out" effect is just optical camoflage.

[pianopraze]

I don't know if you ever read the 4chan anon whistleblower who claimed that there were aliens under the ocean and where ufos were manufactured...

I found a transcript of the thread... it was pretty wild. I think even The Why Files covered it, probably in-depth in their podcasts instead of the weekly YT show.

https://www.scribd.com/document/69100095...ed=English

more background materially for my book.

[pianopraze]

I do not see how the topic addressed by this speaker can be approached with no consideration of politics when the author himself clearly states in one of his opening sentences.

Indeed, throughout his lecture he decries the attempts of the last president as failures to achieve the same goals as he lays out in his talk, all of which point to embracing the current presidents leadership in the fields of science and technology.

What I read of the lecture literally reeked of propagandist blather about sciences that many of us here are already aware, aware enough that the truth of these emerging sciences make a better base for science fiction than reality.

Me,  I'm all in favor of how science has helped us. I wouldn't be alive today, several times in fact, were it not for sciences developed over that last thirty years. However, this high sounding speech sounds more like a glossy portfolio to sell the services of a start up business, loaded with connections to major universities, corporations and big investment companies than any real vision of our immediate future. And make no mistake, it's our immediate future that needs addressing and it seemed to me that the problems we face over the next few years were not addressed in favor of dreaming about the lofty hopes for a future we may never live to see.

Feel free to make a thread on politics in the political forums.

i’m an equal opportunity hater, and stay out of the politics mostly. Politician, yep they all suck. Their mouth moving, yep they are lying. So there you go, please do make a thread on it in politics forums. People love arguing politics, just not me.

[PhyloCFly]

For me Piano, it's not about politics so much as it is seeking to find what is true, and what is true is that this lecturer clearly states that the issue upon which his lecture was based is directly related to political discussion. I do not want to talk politics here either so I won't but clearly the lecturer had a political stance to take in make serving as the basis of that particular lecture.
And that I find to be true.


Feel free to make a thread on politics in the political forums.

i’m an equal opportunity hater, and stay out of the politics mostly. Politician, yep they all suck. Their mouth moving, yep they are lying. So there you go, please do make a thread on it in politics forums. People love arguing politics, just not me.

[quintessentone]

Well pilots IN the field also become "massless" and therefore Gravity/G force does not apply. They"blinking out" effect is just optical camoflage.

My understanding is there is never 'nothing' so "massless" may be a misleading word. IMO

[UltraBudgie]

Is it really that simple since as you state, that being, that this platform owner has the rights to all of it? I highly doubt authors have any rights if that is the case.

no is more subtle than that. when you write a post, you are the author and own all the rights. you automatically have copyright, whether you add a little copyright-claim notice or not. so in theory, the website you post on would not be able to display your post to anyone other than you, because that would be creating a digital copy. so, look at t&c #15. it say you give up that exclusivity, and grant a right to the website to distribute, publish, archive, etc your post. that is necessary just to make the idea of a webforum work legally. but you are only giving up exclusivity, not any of your rights! you are granting a non-exclusive right, usually called syndication rights, for the website to publish your post online. but you can grant that to as many others as you want, because you retain the rights and ownership. you can post it anywhere else, make a book, etc. but you can't then order the website to take it down, because you've granted non-revocable non-exclusive rights for them to keep displaying threads with it as content. similarly, you can't snag other peoples posts and republish them yourself, without their explicit permission, because they're still the owners and retain rights.

this is made more complicated by the fact that, legally, "the t&c's say what the t&c's say". it would be a very bad idea for the admin here to try and clarify this issue like i have attempted to do, because then anything they say as clarification could be possibly put forth by some kind of sneaky lawyer as an additional legal statement, and if it wasn't phrased exactly right could be used as an attack weapon if someone got a bug up their bum about something and wanted to play lawfare games. so sadly the best thing is for a policy of remaining mute, which imho is okay since the t&c's are actually quite clear and reasonable. but not being staff here i have no such restrictions and can blather haha.

[quintessentone]

no is more subtle than that. when you write a post, you are the author and own all the rights. you automatically have copyright, whether you add a little copyright-claim notice or not. so in theory, the website you post on would not be able to display your post to anyone other than you, because that would be creating a digital copy. so, look at t&c #15. it say you give up that exclusivity, and grant a right to the website to distribute, publish, archive, etc your post. that is necessary just to make the idea of a webforum work legally. but you are only giving up exclusivity, not any of your rights! you are granting a non-exclusive right, usually called syndication rights, for the website to publish your post online. but you can grant that to as many others as you want, because you retain the rights and ownership. you can post it anywhere else, make a book, etc. but you can't then order the website to take it down, because you've granted non-revocable non-exclusive rights for them to keep displaying threads with it as content. similarly, you can't snag other peoples posts and republish them yourself, without their explicit permission, because they're still the owners and retain rights.

this is made more complicated by the fact that, legally, "the t&c's say what the t&c's say". it would be a very bad idea for the admin here to try and clarify this issue like i have attempted to do, because then anything they say as clarification could be possibly put forth by some kind of sneaky lawyer as an additional legal statement, and if it wasn't phrased exactly right could be used as an attack weapon if someone got a bug up their bum about something and wanted to play lawfare games. so sadly the best thing is for a policy of remaining mute, which imho is okay since the t&c's are actually quite clear and reasonable. but not being staff here i have no such restrictions and can blather haha.

Ha ha, that's funny but thanks for the explanation about exclusivity, that sort of stumped me.