Category: hypothetical

Categories
hypothetical

Which is Better: Flight or Invisibility

A couple of months ago, This American Life aired an episode of their show called superpowers. The part of the episode that stuck with me the most was John Hodgman’s discussion of which superpower is better: flight or invisibility?

When the time is right, (and it’s almost never easy to tell), I’ve taken to asking groups of my friends which they would choose: the ability to fly — Superman style — or the power to turn oneself completely invisible at will. Which choice would you make?

As per Mr. Hodgman’s clarifications, the ability to fly wouldn’t mean you weren’t any stronger than you are now nor would you have faster reflexes or a special resistance to the cold. The maximum flying speed would be 1000mph but you’d still need to stay within the atmosphere if you wanted to breath.

Invisibility came with it’s own set of caveats. One would vanish with his clothes but any non-clothing items would remain visible. (I think it’s safe to assume items in your pockets would disappear too, but I don’t think he specified). It would last as long as you wanted and could be turned on and off just by thinking about it.

I’ve found the varied responses to this question very interesting. The number of people that choose invisibility surprises me. To me, the huge list of things that could be done as someone that could fly would far outweigh the chance to sneak into a few restricted places or the ‘thrill’ of shoplifting thousands of dollars worth of clothing before you got bored with the idea. Sure you might be able to hunt down Bin Laden, but you’d still have to actually go to the Middle East and start looking. Are you really going turn yourself into “Dog” the Bounty hunter? Perhaps you are. Still it seems like a choice for invisibility says, “I’m the type of person that wants to get away with doing something illegal.”

On the other hand, choosing the gift of flight says, “I want go places and I want to do it in style!”

If I could fly, this is what I’d do: I’d officially be done with the ridiculous 40 below zero weather that we put up with in Southern Alberta every winter. That doesn’t mean I would leave Canada for good — after all, I do love it here — however, it wouldn’t take me long to discover that rather than waiting for the next chinook, the two hour jump to southern California is totally worth it.

I would certainly make “flight” a part of my living and at the same time I’d travel the world in a way few have ever even considered. With the power of flight, I’d be a hero everywhere I went and as far as fame and fortune go, I have to admit, I would eat it up.

I suppose the possibility of unlimited free travel by plane would be there for those that choose invisibility but you’d still have to find a place to sit on any fully booked flights.

So, in answer to the question which is better: it’s flight all the way.

Categories
hypothetical

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Conspiracy Theories

I just finished watching the conspiracy theorist documentary, “Zeitgeist”.

Much like the show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? by Fox Television, Zeitgeist makes you feel like the lines between truth and fiction are not so black and white, and even though many of the claims made are far-fetched, or even beyond belief, it still makes for compelling viewing.

From the zeitgeistmovie.com site:

Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac [sic] expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used/referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.

Now, it’s important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up “Horus” or “The Federal Reserve” on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications and further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.

That being said, it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

From the origins of Christianity to the US government’s involvement in the September 11th attacks to the Rothchild’s attempt to take over the world, this documentary spans most of the conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard about. It even has a take on JFK’s assassination. Surprisingly enough, the moon landing as a hoax didn’t make the final cut.


[Zeitgeist – YouTube]

Categories
Disney hypothetical

Disney to Build Third Park in Anaheim?

Disneyland Train Station

Rumours abound that Disney is buying up property to build another theme park next to Disneyland. It seems more likely the company just wants to build more hotels, but if they did build another park… I would love it!

The [Disney] company has slowly but steadily amassed 460 acres in Anaheim, including a prime chunk of strawberry fields down Harbor Boulevard from Disneyland that is the designated site of a third park.

And someone is approaching the field’s neighboring landowners, trying to buy up land. Corona del Mar resident Benjamin Kraut, 81, said Disney offered to buy his 5 acres several years ago. Then, six months ago, a suitor Kraut declined to name offered him $14.5 million for the land where he co-owns a 90-unit apartment complex. He said it is not for sale.

Disney hasn’t unveiled plans for the Disney Resort—those typically come amid fanfare and orchestration&8212;but top executives have hinted at expanding existing markets and increasing its time-share offerings.

It’s fun to think about a new Disney theme park, but it’s safe to say that even if considerations for a new park are being thrown around, it will still be a good 25 years before anything comes to fruition. Disney’s California Adventure still needs more E-ticket attractions for one thing, and certainly in Disneyland itself they’ve got plenty of room to redevelop some of the less popular and less operational rides. (For example the revamping of the old Submarine Voyage into a Finding Nemo attraction.)

Categories
hypothetical technology

How Hydrogen Can Save America

I found this link to Wired Magazine about the pros and cons of moving to a hydrogen energy based society. I’ll summarize for those not wanting to read the article. The author believes that in order for hydrogen to be a viable solution the government has five major obstacles to deal with simultaneously:

  1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem.
  2. Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles.
  3. Convert the nation’s fuelling infrastructure to hydrogen.
  4. Ramp up hydrogen production.
  5. Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen Engines have been around for a while. Their biggest problem is carrying enough hydrogen for 400 miles of driving — the range consumers generally expect. What is the answer to problem number one? $15 Billion in government investing. (I’m not sure how he comes up with this figure).

Mass production of fuel-celled vehicles is the next problem. Again money is the solution. The author feels that the Bush administration should allocate $10 billion in incentive to automakers. Why $10 billion? Well it is a nice round number.

Converting the nation’s fueling infrastructure to hydrogen is another big problem with the same “easy” answer. Throw more money at it. The White House should ask for $5 billion to help gas stations convert to hydrogen stations, and the administration should also set aside $10 billion for interest free loans to oil companies in order to help them make the transition to producing mass amounts of hydrogen.

The next step is to ramp up the hydrogen production by looking at new sources of the element. Nuclear power has made huge leaps in efficiency and environmental friendliness. Using this as a source of electricity and then using the process of hydrolysis to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The last obstacle that needs to be addressed is just a simple matter of advertising their objective to the nation. If the people support it right away, then it will make the transition faster and actually save money in the long run. $25 billion in tax rebates for those using the new technology, and another $1 billion for advertisements. As the author notes, $1 billion is what Nike spends on advertising in a year.

Ok, now for my personal take on the story. The author feels that with massive amounts of spending that a fuel-celled economy is possible within ten years. I think that would be great, if that were actually the case, but it seems to me that it most likely will not happen. I guess a good analogy is the US switching to the metric system. If they had done it when they had the chance, they might have pulled it off, but now they’ve waited too long and every day it just gets harder and harder to switch. A country like China that has an enormous population but not a lot of gasoline based infrastructure (relative to its population) is in a much better position to implement the new technology. If the US doesn’t act, they may end up behind in technology to China — so maybe if they felt the pressure of losing the “hydrogen race” ten years would be possible.