The Director Posted August 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Oh, you meant what color was the mirror... I thought you meant the actual glass used in it's construction. lol Because the glass itself can be dyed any color. You can have green tinted, red tinted, yellow tinted, blue tinted, and pretty much any other color you can think of tinted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Make_Big_Boom Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Oh, you meant what color was the mirror... I thought you meant the actual glass used in it's construction. lol Because the glass itself can be dyed any color. You can have green tinted, red tinted, yellow tinted, blue tinted, and pretty much any other color you can think of tinted. Dangit... I thought I stumped you. Anyway. Is it possible for Humans to achieve Photosynthesis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Dangit... I thought I stumped you. Anyway. Is it possible for Humans to achieve Photosynthesis? Right now? No. However with genetic engineering or advanced machinery, sure. Our skin already has what can be VERY loosely called photosynthesis, where it can convert a small amount of the sun's energy to convert the 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin into Vitamin D3. That's not quite the same as photosynthesis, but conceptually it is. So, it should be a simple matter of some genetic tweaking or discovering the right kind of light rays we need to absorb to replace our food needs. Also, I wouldn't call it "achieving" photosynthesis. Requiring photosynthesis isn't exactly a strength. True, our average lifespan may increase (I say may because this is all hypothetical), however we would require quite a bit of sunlight. The larger and more complex a creature is, the more energy it requires to function. Without machines that can adequately output the same type and amount of energy that we get from the sun, we wouldn't be able to live indoors or in areas of the planet with extended periods of darkness. Yes, we would require less food, but we would still require food. We wouldn't have to eat nearly as much, but we would have to get nutrients that the sun doesn't supply from our food. Just like plants need nutrients from the soil. Not to mention that fearing the dark would no longer be an irrational fear... A far more efficient way to go about things would be to genetically enhance humanity so that we do not require as much energy or nutrients (or at least make it to where we can use them more efficiently) and create artificial food. Food that has the same nutritional content that we require, but in pill form (or in injections). This would increase our lifespans to nearly the same length as photosynthesis and make our food able to be manufactured. We could then fit more food in storage. That way, instead of a month's supply, you can hold a year's supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akali Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Right now? No. However with genetic engineering or advanced machinery, sure. Our skin already has what can be VERY loosely called photosynthesis, where it can convert a small amount of the sun's energy to convert the 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin into Vitamin D3. That's not quite the same as photosynthesis, but conceptually it is. So, it should be a simple matter of some genetic tweaking or discovering the right kind of light rays we need to absorb to replace our food needs. Also, I wouldn't call it "achieving" photosynthesis. Requiring photosynthesis isn't exactly a strength. True, our average lifespan may increase (I say may because this is all hypothetical), however we would require quite a bit of sunlight. The larger and more complex a creature is, the more energy it requires to function. Without machines that can adequately output the same type and amount of energy that we get from the sun, we wouldn't be able to live indoors or in areas of the planet with extended periods of darkness. Yes, we would require less food, but we would still require food. We wouldn't have to eat nearly as much, but we would have to get nutrients that the sun doesn't supply from our food. Just like plants need nutrients from the soil. Not to mention that fearing the dark would no longer be an irrational fear... A far more efficient way to go about things would be to genetically enhance humanity so that we do not require as much energy or nutrients (or at least make it to where we can use them more efficiently) and create artificial food. Food that has the same nutritional content that we require, but in pill form (or in injections). This would increase our lifespans to nearly the same length as photosynthesis and make our food able to be manufactured. We could then fit more food in storage. That way, instead of a month's supply, you can hold a year's supply. So you're saying that Superman is actually Superplant? He absorbs energy in yellow and blue suns but red suns weaken him? Does that mean that Superman found out a way to make humans do photosynthesis and he takes that energy and make himself stronger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 So you're saying that Superman is actually Superplant? He absorbs energy in yellow and blue suns but red suns weaken him? Does that mean that Superman found out a way to make humans do photosynthesis and he takes that energy and make himself stronger? 1. No. Plants are defined by their photosynthesis, they are defined by the way their cells are shaped. 2. That's correct, according to the comics, which are not real btw. 3. No, Superman was born the way he is. He didn't do any gene splicing or anything scientific. Not to mention that he's not human. Or real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Make_Big_Boom Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 What is NASA's $ budget compared to the 60s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 What is NASA's $ budget compared to the 60s? In the 1960's NASA's budget peaked at just under 6% of the total federal budget. Right now, their budget is less than 1% of the total federal budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guts Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Do you think humans will land on the Moon again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIWBC Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Why does language exist? And why are the letters and symbols/runes we have in all of our alphabets associated with the sounds that they're associated with? I mean why is the sound "Ay" not associated with the letter "S"? Same with all other sounds that are associated with letters. How can we actually say that the visual representation of letters is what the sound actually looks like? It's not what the sounds of our language look like, so how can we associate them with letters? And why did I just ask so many questions questioning language and the way we know language itself? Also we can't say for certain that the visual representations of the sounds are actually right. I mean in theory when English writing first started letters were actually made up scribbles associated with sounds. So if the made up squiggles were different in the beginning we wouldn't know any differently and therefore the alphabet could actually look completely different to what it is today, infact all alphabets could. The Latin alphabet could actually go like this "Y B N L P Q R" but it doesn't because that's not how it started off. However if it did start off like that when English writing first began then we wouldn't know any differently and our actual alphabet that we have now of: "A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" would seem a very weird concept, so basically. Why do the letters we have now represent the sounds of our language that they do? Has anybody else actually thought about this extremely weird and crazy concept before? And woo that was actually boggling my own mind writing that down lol . Also do you even see what I mean, any sound could be represented by any letter. They just aren't. They are the way they are now, so it seems a very weird concept to talk about. Proper mind boggler lol . So in theory, why do letters exist in the way they do right now? Also I'm not crazy this is literally just designed by me to try and fool people lol . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Do you think humans will land on the Moon again? Eventually. Not in the near future though. Why does language exist? And why are the letters and symbols/runes we have in all of our alphabets associated with the sounds that they're associated with? I mean why is the sound "Ay" not associated with the letter "S"? Same with all other sounds that are associated with letters. How can we actually say that the visual representation of letters is what the sound actually looks like? It's not what the sounds of our language look like, so how can we associate them with letters? And why did I just ask so many questions questioning language and the way we know language itself? Also we can't say for certain that the visual representations of the sounds are actually right. I mean in theory when English writing first started letters were actually made up scribbles associated with sounds. So if the made up squiggles were different in the beginning we wouldn't know any differently and therefore the alphabet could actually look completely different to what it is today, infact all alphabets could. The Latin alphabet could actually go like this "Y B N L P Q R" but it doesn't because that's not how it started off. However if it did start off like that when English writing first began then we wouldn't know any differently and our actual alphabet that we have now of: "A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" would seem a very weird concept, so basically. Why do the letters we have now represent the sounds of our language that they do? Has anybody else actually thought about this extremely weird and crazy concept before? And woo that was actually boggling my own mind writing that down lol . Also do you even see what I mean, any sound could be represented by any letter. They just aren't. They are the way they are now, so it seems a very weird concept to talk about. Proper mind boggler lol . So in theory, why do letters exist in the way they do right now? 1. Language exists so that we may communicate with each other. Even if we communicated with grunts and gestures, it would still be a language. 2. Because the people who created the written language that we speak (English) decided to associate those sounds with those letters. Even the names of the letters themselves are based on this. The letter's names are also based on what those letters represent (or did at the time). For instance, the letter "S" looks like a snake, which makes a hissing noise (ssssssss). 3. English writing first began AFTER the letters had been decided upon. Once they were decided upon, they were taught to people who then became writers. 4. Written language is literally scribbles (symbols) that are meant to be able to be translated into a verbal component. For instance, the sound "Bang" could just have easily been "Sldk". However, a group of people sat down, hashed it all out, and decided that the "ABC" alphabet would be the one used for the English language. Unfortunately, they didn't keep transcripts of this meeting (primarily because they didn't have a way to write it all down ;D) 5. Yes, other people have thought of this before. It's actually not as complicated as you think it is. That's actually how Gaelic turned into English. Languages change all the time. Letters exist the way they do now because it has been decided upon by society at large. If everyone started replacing the letter F with S, that would then become a part of our language (that's a joke btw, you should google it). Everything that communicates is doing so in a language. Flowers use the language of pollen and spores, animals use barks or chirps, computers use binary (and other languages), and people use English, Spanish, etc. Languages that are in use are also subject to change. Sometimes very rapidly. A good for instance of this is the definition of the word "gay". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinWarrior Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Pick one current franchise that you want to end. Pick one old franchise you'd revive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Pick one current franchise that you want to end. Pick one old franchise you'd revive. 1. End Call of Duty 2. Revamp Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic (not SWTOR but Kotor) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Orbis Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 What's your IP address? How old are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surveillance Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Why is the United States so monolingual? In non-English speaking countries including my own, we dedicate a lot of time to learning English. Although that may just be why. Is the US monolingual because they see themselves at the top of the pyramid and other languages aren't required because they speak the lingua franca? Or is there a different reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrhuntington Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Could Human Zombies have the potential to exist? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 What's your IP address? How old are you? See the "personal information" part of the OP. And I am very close to being 25. Why is the United States so monolingual? In non-English speaking countries including my own, we dedicate a lot of time to learning English. Although that may just be why. Is the US monolingual because they see themselves at the top of the pyramid and other languages aren't required because they speak the lingua franca? Or is there a different reason? The United States isn't monolingual at all. As a matter of fact, where I nearly half the residents speak Spanish. In other areas, there aren't many people who speak English at all. If you are talking about the fact that different languages are not required for most of elementary and middle school, well it IS offered. In high school (this varies by state) you are required to take a different language (I took Spanish) to receive your diploma. I believe it's also required in most colleges to receive a degree. You are supposed to pass a class, you don't have to master the language though. The reason we do not require mastery of other languages is because it's unlikely that an average American will need to use another language. Our country is rather large, and the only two languages of the countries that border us are French and Spanish. If those are required to learn for your chosen career field, then you have the option of doing so. Otherwise, it's a waste of time because it's unlikely you'll be put in a situation where you require another language. Unless you live in one of the areas I mentioned previously, in which case you probably already know the language... Could Human Zombies have the potential to exist? No. Not in the way imagined in the movies. For a simple reason as well. Rigor Mortis would literally prevent the corpse from moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderWombat Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 How much can't could a white girl can't if a white girl literally could not even? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Would a member of PETA kill a mosquito that bit them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 How much can't could a white girl can't if a white girl literally could not even? A white girl could can't as much can't as a white girl could can't when a white girl literally could not even. Would a member of PETA kill a mosquito that bit them? Depends on the member. Some believe in saving all life, some only believe in saving animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIWBC Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Would it be correct to say that a human zombie would be more like a highly mutated version of the human body if it was to exist? The disease would not kill but mutate heavily in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Would it be correct to say that a human zombie would be more like a highly mutated version of the human body if it was to exist? The disease would not kill but mutate heavily in a sense. No. A zombie is a reanimated corpse. If there were a virus that mutated the human body but didn't kill the body, then the victims wouldn't be called zombies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIWBC Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 When you first signed up for the site did you ever think you would be a mod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 When you first signed up for the site did you ever think you would be a mod? Nope. Moderator wasn't something I aimed for, it's something I stumbled upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIWBC Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 When did you first start your life as a gamer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Director Posted August 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 When did you first start your life as a gamer? Around the age of 8, with the Atari and SNES. Then I got the Nintendo 64 at the age of 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.