MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
Yeah, Green was a little slow. But Blue gets better. Do keep at it, I promise it's worth it.
Humor Random Comments Thread
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
Yeah, Green was a little slow. But Blue gets better. Do keep at it, I promise it's worth it.
Izack
Non sequitur
I am, it's just somewhere in the long queue of books to read.Yeah, Green was a little slow. But Blue gets better. Do keep at it, I promise it's worth it.
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
The only time i had a tv fail on me is when a lightning struck the antenna, back in the country house.
It was an semi-modern CRT, and got fixed pretty quickly.
Never seen a flatscreen TV failing, however by the time they became affordable i wasn't watching tv for more than an hour a month.
A flatscreen monitor, however, fail twice.
First time it was a second generation (first generation that didn't cost multiple kilodollars) one, and it failed with occasional white screen on turn-on.
Other time it was a surplus store register monitor - a tiny thing i bought on a flea market for various debugging - which supposedly spend a decade doing nothing in some warehouse. It also failed by gradually refusing to turn on, with white screen.
Not to mention two times laptop screens failed.
One time on nanonote thing, where it started loosing clocks:
That got fixed when i dropped the thing onto a hard floor.
Other time on a Sony Vaio pocket "laptop", which had some sort of prototype AMOLED display - this one would suddenly start showing garbage. Got fixed by placing a piece of rubber on the back of the connector.
...So, yeah.
Flat screens do in fact fail every now and then.
But they can also work well - the first flatscreen monitor i had, of the first generation (the one that did cost multiple kilodollars per 17" screen), is still working after 15 years or so of service in several places.
It was an semi-modern CRT, and got fixed pretty quickly.
Never seen a flatscreen TV failing, however by the time they became affordable i wasn't watching tv for more than an hour a month.
A flatscreen monitor, however, fail twice.
First time it was a second generation (first generation that didn't cost multiple kilodollars) one, and it failed with occasional white screen on turn-on.
Other time it was a surplus store register monitor - a tiny thing i bought on a flea market for various debugging - which supposedly spend a decade doing nothing in some warehouse. It also failed by gradually refusing to turn on, with white screen.
Not to mention two times laptop screens failed.
One time on nanonote thing, where it started loosing clocks:
That got fixed when i dropped the thing onto a hard floor.
Other time on a Sony Vaio pocket "laptop", which had some sort of prototype AMOLED display - this one would suddenly start showing garbage. Got fixed by placing a piece of rubber on the back of the connector.
...So, yeah.
Flat screens do in fact fail every now and then.
But they can also work well - the first flatscreen monitor i had, of the first generation (the one that did cost multiple kilodollars per 17" screen), is still working after 15 years or so of service in several places.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
My 7 years old 17" TFT is also still operating without any missing pixels. But my old Windows Mobile Smartphone has one missing pixel... and many other missing things after dropping from my pocket one time too much.
BruceJohnJennerLawso
Dread Lord of the Idiots
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
:lol: Thats nothing
Stepped on it one morning right after getting out of bed. Its not too bad to use though, and Ill never be accused of stealing it from a store.
==Multiverse Rambling==
If time travel were possible, and you go back in time to change something (convince someone to make an opposite decision, for example), would you really change that event in the current universe timeline, or would you simply cause that person (and yourself) to instantaneously step from this universe into the universe where the opposite decision was already made, and thus cause the version of each of you from that universe to come to the original version of this one, where their "opposite decision" had already been made?
If time travel were possible, and you go back in time to change something (convince someone to make an opposite decision, for example), would you really change that event in the current universe timeline, or would you simply cause that person (and yourself) to instantaneously step from this universe into the universe where the opposite decision was already made, and thus cause the version of each of you from that universe to come to the original version of this one, where their "opposite decision" had already been made?
Izack
Non sequitur
I'll withold my answer to that until it's been proven explicitly possible to do such a thing. 
Izack
Non sequitur
"Meanwhile, in a parallel universe where it is possible to travel to parallel universes..."
Implication implies implication. We must go deeper.
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
Personally? I feel that the "fork in the road" option occurs. I would hate to think of going back and triggering a grandfather paradox... The "fork" concept gives me some hope for sleeping at night! :lol:
Another question: Did Adam and Eve have navels? (Thanks to Bloom County for this conundrum...)
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
What would it even _mean_ to travel in time?
The whole idea is just meaningless in any popular sense.
To travel through time boils down to matter/information getting to the present from the future.
Ergo, there should be causal relations going from the future to the past, as well as from the past to the future.
This gives us a causal closure of a completely deterministic universe, in which the very idea of changing the past (or changing anything at all) is meaningless.
The whole idea is just meaningless in any popular sense.
To travel through time boils down to matter/information getting to the present from the future.
Ergo, there should be causal relations going from the future to the past, as well as from the past to the future.
This gives us a causal closure of a completely deterministic universe, in which the very idea of changing the past (or changing anything at all) is meaningless.
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
I time travel all the time. To travel backwards takes memory, travelling forward requires imagination.
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
I like to theorize that if time travel is possible, it has three rules:
1) You can only travel back, not forward. Whatever you do "after"huh arriving in the past huh::huh, you can only get back to your own time by waiting it out. This eliminates all that granny paradox business
2) If you travel back, you take the whole universe with you. So "during" your journey, you would see people walking backwards, the sun moving backwards, people shrinking into newborns and being sucked back up into their mothers' wombs, etc (sort of like in Wells's "The Time Machine".) This also prevents granny paradoxes.
2) You cannot travel back beyond the date of your own birth (you didn't exist there then, and you won't exist there...then)
In addition to those things, I have one very important question about the nature of time travel:
How long would it take?
1) You can only travel back, not forward. Whatever you do "after"
huh arriving in the past huh::huh, you can only get back to your own time by waiting it out. This eliminates all that granny paradox business2) If you travel back, you take the whole universe with you. So "during" your journey, you would see people walking backwards, the sun moving backwards, people shrinking into newborns and being sucked back up into their mothers' wombs, etc (sort of like in Wells's "The Time Machine".) This also prevents granny paradoxes.
2) You cannot travel back beyond the date of your own birth (you didn't exist there then, and you won't exist there...then
)In addition to those things, I have one very important question about the nature of time travel:
How long would it take?
Pipcard
mikusingularity
You blinked, didn't you?"after"
So does that mean you'll shrink into a newborn when you travel to your birth date?2) If you travel back, you take the whole universe with you. So "during" your journey, you would see people walking backwards, the sun moving backwards, people shrinking into newborns and being sucked back up into their mothers' wombs, etc (sort of like in Wells's "The Time Machine".) This also prevents granny paradoxes.
2) You cannot travel back beyond the date of your own birth (you didn't exist there then, and you won't exist there...then
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
I did indeed. Thinking about time travel makes my eyes a little dry
I suppose so, unless your device creates some sort of temporal stasis field, like The Time Machine did.
Pipcard
mikusingularity
TIL that the Hello Kitty character was born in London.
I could explain you that even the Bible says Adam and Eve never existed, but that would probably be to basment-ish...
Izack
Non sequitur
In which case it could probably carry you farther into the past than your birth date. Perhaps into the distant past, where you can find cave-men who speak perfect modern UK English.
mojoey
Bwoah
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,623
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 61
I imagine them all having a horrible Scottish accent, and hitting grapefruits with sticks.
