User talk:Capedude2005

Science Fiction Discussions

Doctor Who

Hello Dr. Who Fanatics!

Lately it seems I have become engrossed in the various Dr. Who article page discussions. I've actually spent some time on the TARDIS page, and have been having an interesting time in going through much of the discussion there. Should you wish to discuss various points with me on that subject, please feel free to do so right here. Thanks! Capedude2005 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series Musings and Other Rants

I would like to start out the discussion (that is, assuming anyone else actually comes here and decides to have a discussion with me on the matter) with some thoughts on the situation with the series as a whole, and some of my issues with it.

I am a fan of the Classic Series and a somewhat diminished fan of the new series. However, that being said, I think the biggest single issue I have with Dr. Who overall is the complete lack of ability on the part of the series to stand up to any sort of real scrutiny. It makes discussing the series and elements thereof somewhat unnecessarily dicey because, as has been amply pointed out by others, there's very little canon in a show who's existence spans 40-odd years. I had thought about doing some of my own fanfic on the theory of re-rebooting the series starting earlier in its existence, but I've been dissuaded from doing that because of the overwhelming number of contradictions and lack of definitive sources or other canon going back essentially to the very beginning. And anyone who thinks I am going to sit there for years and literally re-conceive all of Dr. Who's universe's space-time just to do a work of fanfic is out of their mind. (Of course, I've been accused of worse, so who am I to judge? :-p ) Capedude2005 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TARDIS

All one has to do is take a look through the discussion page about The TARDIS to see how much noise and confusion there is on the subject -- I am not directing that at the folks here on Wikipedia as it's not your collective or individual fault that the show is sketchy on details and is plagued by inconsistencies -- to realize trying to discuss this from any kind of really "authoritative" perspective is an exercise in futility. Besides, this is my talk page, not the discussion page for that article anyhow. Capedude2005 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers discussions...

If you're here reading this, it's probably because you clicked on the talk page link in a message I posted to your talk page. Yup, I'm the guy who wants to discuss the matter further. Before you post a response, let me put forth my very best effort to attempt an explanation of what I'm interested in.

As stated, I am working on a fanfic (a rather extensive one as it happens) and in going "back to the drawing board" for certain aspects (read: retconning certain Glen Larson deficiencies) I want to revisit the TOS Colonial measurement system, both chronological and physical. So, that being in mind for the moment... (And yes, it's well understood by yours-truly that Mr. Larson totally screwed the pooch on this one.)

Problem One: Units of Chronological Measure

See, we have to go back a bit here and try to prod around in the cobbled-together maelstrom of different counting systems. Putting Earth aside for a moment, there were twelve colonies. Twelve, just like three and seven, tend to be sort of, oh I dunno what you call them, "focus numbers" for lack of a better term. But yet units of ten seem to keep cropping up in their language. Words like Centon, milli (in the context of millicenton at least), micron, and that suggests a more decimal, or 10-based, arrangement in their culture. Although, on the other hand, it could have been a rather weak attempt to demonstrate diverse cultural elements, just like how we got to hear unfiltered Gemmonese spoken by someone instead of the usual "standard".

So, what is it to be then? It would seem likely that twelve different population centers (planets, moons, and so forth) would all eventually want to standardize on something between them. What about average orbital periods being factored together to generate an average total upon which a standard yahren is then based? And would that be 200 "days" or 250, or 500... see where I'm going with this?

Problem Two: Units of Physical Measure

Much like with Problem One above, there's a messed-up mess we TOS fans not-so-proudly think of as their units of weight, or mass, or distance.

So in thinking about all of this, I'm left with a sort of cultural notion coming from the British. If you look at British culture, it's to an extent linked to much of their proud naval and maritime traditions. So...

We know the Colonials have been at war with the Cylons for a thousand yahren. Obviously they were in space long before that. Moreover, their distant ancestors set them on their way from yet another world -- that is, Kobol -- which probably means the Colonials have had some fairly advanced technology for a while. Now, if so much of their culture's day-to-day existence involves and is impacted by being a space-faring civilization, and of course now that they've been in some degree or other of combat mode for the last thousand of their years, how would that have culturally affected them? And in turn, what kinds of impact would this have had on their measurement system(s)?

As always, any other additional constructive input is welcome. Thanks! Capedude2005 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Battlestar Galactica units of measure

There are a few things to consider:

Most generally, and most importantly, how do systems of measurement evolve over time? How are the units of measurement defined?
- Here on Earth, systems of measurement have historically been (essentially) totally arbitrary, and often needlessly complex. (For example, see the diagram of the avoirdupois system of weights.) This arbitrariness was prevalent up until the advent of the metric system, which defines units in terms of natural, observable phenomena (i.e. "fundamental constants of nature"). Let's look more closely at the metric system. (Note that the International System of Units, SI, is the "international metric system", and is thus frequently thought of as being synonymous with the metric system.) In the metric system:
  - Time - second. ultimately based on astronomical phenomena seen from earth, though the metric system ridiculously defines it as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
  - Length - meter. used to be based on arbitrary marks on a metal bar, but is now defined as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. that's a rather odd basis for length measurement, since it is ultimately derived from the speed of light - which is itself defined using meters! (the speed of light is defined as the reciprocal of the meter, and vice versa.)
  - Mass - kilogram. in the process of being redefined in terms of moles. one kilgram water = one cubic meter water.
  - Temperature - degrees celsius, or kelvin. in the case of the kelvin scale, temperature is basically a measurement of the movement of atoms/molecules, which are always vibrating/moving. the more movement, the higher the temperature.
  - Amount of substance - mole. equal to the number of molecules present in a particular volume. (volume is derived from length in three dimensions.)
  - Pressure - pascals. non-metric unit is the "atmosphere" (atm), based on... you guessed it, the pressure of the atmosphere (at sea level)
  - Electric current, light intensity, etc., etc.

Systems of time measurement have always been based off of astronomical phenomena, i.e. the movements of the sun and moon. This is no doubt why seconds have been preserved as a unit in the metric system, and why measurement of time is the most standardized system of measurement in the world.
- However, only hours, minutes and seconds are accepted as worldwide standards. Monthly/yearly calenders vary considerably from culture to culture. So, with the ties such calenders have to religious beliefs, and the fact that time is based off of astronomical phenomena that is specific to whatever satellites happen to orbit (or appear to orbit) a planet... I would think that each of the twelve colonies would develop some type of unique calender, if not entirely new systems of time measurement based off of the movement of their specific planets' suns/moons (some planets may not moons, and perhaps on certain planets the moon is a more meaningful frame of time reference).

Did the twelve colonies adopt the Earth system of measurement? What was the timeline involved, i.e., when were the colonies settled?

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BsG units 3

It think there are levels to this issue.

Implied/Assumed comparisons.
Possibilities vs Impossibilities.
Ironing out contradictions.
What you need to use, what you intend to ignore.

1. Many of the assumed meanings are pretty clear. Instead of saying Year (usually) they say Yahren Of course, this was late 70s, early 80s TV, so beyond that there was no sign of any thinking beyond that. 2. What could the meanings possibly be? What can't they mean? Remembering we're talking TV time here. TV shows whether they need to or not imply that time is travelling similar to the real world. Babylon 5 & Star Trek (TNG era) stardates work on each season being a calender year. Other shows refer to "a week ago" as a default for last episode, but/also match season issues (holidays, etc). In BsG they'd been in space a Yahren pretty early in the show, IIRC, so maybe it's less then a year. But then no one aged an Earth year. But then they are aliens and in space. In War of the Gods pt 2 Adama puts their life expectancy at 200 yahren. Does that mean 100 years and a yahren is vaguely 6 months? Does it mean 200 actual years? Do they age like humans or is a 200 yahren person 200 years old but looks 50? I think Adama's speech implies that they live longer than Earth humans... that as a species they live longer and thus have begun evolving psychic powers... he goes on to imagine the powers a race that lives a thousand yahren might have. Sure, lenght of life and special powers don't have to be related, by that's what Adama is implying. Microns as roughly seconds or minites have the usually TV time problems as well. A Bomb that has second left on the clock can take minutes to explode... so a stop watch on any "Nine Microns... Eight Microns... Seven..." isn't relevant. 3. Contradictions exist. This is an advantage. Ignore what you like, use what you like, blame the flaws in the original for any problems. 4. Are you being faithful to just the original series, the spin-off material, or deimagining things like they've done recently? For a reimagination does it matter what they say? If you're following every bit of material you may have problems.

Not sure any of that was helpful, but I've said it.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome from Mermaid

Welcome!

Hello, Capedude2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umkay, I fixed the article's discussion page. Woohoo. Capedude2005 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from my talk page

The message I left above is not a criticism of any edit you've made, it is merely a welcome template filled with standard text. Sooner or later, nearly every editor gets noticed and welcomed. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved down to the bottom to get it out of the way of other actual discussions. Capedude2005 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony and Matters Pertaining

I've had to re-org this bit as well to put it in context. I used to work for Sony Electronics at their Gateway, Florida telephone tech support center known as the Sony Customer Information Services Center (or CISC). However, that article has since been removed, so until such time as either it is restored or I become involved in other Sony-related discussions (and neither of those options seems likely at this time) I am going to deprecate this discussion and anything else associated with it. If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know. Thanks! Capedude2005 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wiersma

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Dan Wiersma, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Resurgent insurgent 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Danwiersma01.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Danwiersma01.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]