1527: "Humans"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Dr What
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:43 am UTC

1527: "Humans"

Postby Dr What » Wed May 20, 2015 5:16 am UTC

Image
title="At this point, if we're going to keep insisting on portraying dinosaurs as featherless because it's "cooler", it's time to apply that same logic to art involving bald eagles."

Do androids dream of big pillows?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 20, 2015 5:31 am UTC

Wow, okay. That's pretty abstract.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Algorithm
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Algorithm » Wed May 20, 2015 6:42 am UTC

No, see, it's okay, the movie humans were mixed with frog genes!

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Echo244 » Wed May 20, 2015 9:53 am UTC

Algorithm wrote:No, see, it's okay, the movie humans were mixed with frog genes!


But when they start laying eggs, that's the time to start getting worried...

webdude
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby webdude » Wed May 20, 2015 10:01 am UTC

I'm beat and a bit brainless now. What movie has/had pink humans?* And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin? Helmets? No. Piercings? Doesn't seem to fit.
*I'd guess porn, but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns? Say what?

burtonlang
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby burtonlang » Wed May 20, 2015 10:26 am UTC

webdude wrote:I'm beat and a bit brainless now. What movie has/had pink humans?* And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin? Helmets? No. Piercings? Doesn't seem to fit.
*I'd guess porn, but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns? Say what?


I figured they were talking about mainstream contemporary robot-made action flicks featuring CG humans.

The question I have is why were there fossilized human skeletons wearing only crowns? And what lead them to believe we were pink?

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby cellocgw » Wed May 20, 2015 11:23 am UTC

burtonlang wrote:
The question I have is why were there fossilized human skeletons wearing only crowns? And what lead them to believe we were pink?


At the risk of being a buzzkill, given that us pre-singularity meatbags have started making some scientifically-based guesses not only as to feathers but color as well (of dinosaurs), presumably these future mechabrains have similar paleo-genetic analysis tools at their disposal.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 20, 2015 11:33 am UTC

webdude wrote:*I'd guess porn, but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns? Say what?

One word: Rule 34.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

synp
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby synp » Wed May 20, 2015 11:44 am UTC

webdude wrote:I'm beat and a bit brainless now. What movie has/had pink humans?* And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin? Helmets? No. Piercings? Doesn't seem to fit.
*I'd guess porn, but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns? Say what?

You are way over-thinking this. They are talking about kings and queens. Kings and queens are portrayed in movies as having crowns with spiky points. Real kings and queens tended (and still do!) to hardly ever wear the crown and even then it is usually more of a round thing. Wearing dramatic clothes was far more common.

An even better analogy is the vikings that we portray as wearing helmets with horns.

User avatar
Al-pocalypse
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:35 am UTC
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Al-pocalypse » Wed May 20, 2015 11:49 am UTC

webdude wrote:I'm beat and a bit brainless now. What movie has/had pink humans?* And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin? Helmets? No. Piercings? Doesn't seem to fit.
*I'd guess porn, but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns? Say what?


I think the reference is about the new Jurassic Park film. The fact that since the original film the fossil evidence has shown that Velociraptors were actually feathered "bird type" dinosaurs, instead of the scaled "lizard type". However, the film-makers have insisted on keeping them as the scaled "lizard type" in the movie as they look "cooler" than "bird type" raptors would.

And this comic is about how it would look to us if another species (or robots) made films about us in the future using the same logic.
Ali ;)

"If I were creating a world I wouldn't mess around with butterflies and daffodiles. I'd have started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one!"
[BOOM!]
"...sorry..."

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Plutarch » Wed May 20, 2015 11:53 am UTC

It reminds me of portraying ancient Greek and Roman statues as pristine white marble, when really they were brightly painted. Actually, if I were making a film, I might do that. White marble does seem cooler, somehow.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 20, 2015 12:01 pm UTC

Al-pocalypse wrote:I think the reference is about the new Jurassic Park film. The fact that since the original film the fossil evidence has shown that Velociraptors were actually feathered "bird type" dinosaurs, instead of the scaled "lizard type". However, the film-makers have insisted on keeping them as the scaled "lizard type" in the movie as they look "cooler" than "bird type" raptors would.

In fairness, continuity is a thing. In-universe, they have scales; too bad that science has changed its mind in the interim.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Angelastic » Wed May 20, 2015 12:06 pm UTC

burtonlang wrote:The question I have is why were there fossilized human skeletons wearing only crowns? And what lead them to believe we were pink?
Like dinosaur feathers, other clothes don't fossilise well and probably weren't be discovered by the robots until after the first Anthropocene Park movie came out. What led humans to believe dinosaurs were green?
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

armandoalvarez
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby armandoalvarez » Wed May 20, 2015 12:20 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Al-pocalypse wrote:I think the reference is about the new Jurassic Park film. The fact that since the original film the fossil evidence has shown that Velociraptors were actually feathered "bird type" dinosaurs, instead of the scaled "lizard type". However, the film-makers have insisted on keeping them as the scaled "lizard type" in the movie as they look "cooler" than "bird type" raptors would.

In fairness, continuity is a thing. In-universe, they have scales; too bad that science has changed its mind in the interim.

100% agreed. Either you have them be feathered and treat it like the differences in Klingons between TOS and Wrath of Khan (i.e., pretend there's no difference), or you have some midichlorian-esque (or Enterprise-esque) explanation of what caused the velociraptors to not have feathers in the old movies. Since we're dealing with fictional velociraptors, I think it's fine to just leave them the way they were. It's like complaining that real archaeologists in the 1930's didn't spend much time fighting snakes and Nazis.

Polixenes
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Polixenes » Wed May 20, 2015 12:31 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
burtonlang wrote:The question I have is why were there fossilized human skeletons wearing only crowns? And what lead them to believe we were pink?
Like dinosaur feathers, other clothes don't fossilise well and probably weren't be discovered by the robots until after the first Anthropocene Park movie came out. What led humans to believe dinosaurs were green?


I don't think all dinosaurs are depicted as green, in fact elephant-grey seems quite common. Many modern-day reptiles are green so it seems a useful comparison.

I suppose if descendants of other primates survive the apocalypse, the robots of the future might predict that humans were furry.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 20, 2015 12:43 pm UTC

armandoalvarez wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Al-pocalypse wrote:I think the reference is about the new Jurassic Park film. The fact that since the original film the fossil evidence has shown that Velociraptors were actually feathered "bird type" dinosaurs, instead of the scaled "lizard type". However, the film-makers have insisted on keeping them as the scaled "lizard type" in the movie as they look "cooler" than "bird type" raptors would.

In fairness, continuity is a thing. In-universe, they have scales; too bad that science has changed its mind in the interim.

100% agreed. Either you have them be feathered and treat it like the differences in Klingons between TOS and Wrath of Khan (i.e., pretend there's no difference), or you have some midichlorian-esque (or Enterprise-esque) explanation of what caused the velociraptors to not have feathers in the old movies. Since we're dealing with fictional velociraptors, I think it's fine to just leave them the way they were. It's like complaining that real archaeologists in the 1930's didn't spend much time fighting snakes and Nazis.

And whichever side you want to present it as evidence for, the fact that the dinosaurs were highly fictionalized based on what was then known about the real-life ones makes the focus on the unintentional inaccuracies disproportionate. They might not have known that velociraptors really did properly look like turkeys, but they knew they had the size and proportions of one.

Comic's not about the movie, though. You may not have interacted with them much, but there are people out there who wig the hell out at any mention of feathered dinosaurs - in any context, not in relation to JP - because they're attached to the version from their childhoods and exemplified by Jurassic Park. Those people really are annoying as hell.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

commodorejohn
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby commodorejohn » Wed May 20, 2015 1:30 pm UTC

Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Wed May 20, 2015 1:39 pm UTC

Feathers aren't cool? Ornithologists disagree. And I'll trust scientists on that issue any day.

Eoink
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:33 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Eoink » Wed May 20, 2015 1:41 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.


But is probably more useful in labs.

DR6
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby DR6 » Wed May 20, 2015 1:44 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.


To be fair, in this case I think it would be way cooler to be scientifically accurate. Feathered dinosaurs are the bomb.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby jc » Wed May 20, 2015 2:23 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:And whichever side you want to present it as evidence for, the fact that the dinosaurs were highly fictionalized based on what was then known about the real-life ones makes the focus on the unintentional inaccuracies disproportionate. They might not have known that velociraptors really did properly look like turkeys, but they knew they had the size and proportions of one.

Comic's not about the movie, though. You may not have interacted with them much, but there are people out there who wig the hell out at any mention of feathered dinosaurs - in any context, not in relation to JP - because they're attached to the version from their childhoods and exemplified by Jurassic Park. Those people really are annoying as hell.


Technically, those childhood images of reptilian dinosaurs were fictions, too. One of the earliest commenters about the similarities between dinosaurs and birds was none other than Charles Darwin. Of course, his and others' main conclusions was that "further research is needed" on the topic. But since at least the 1870s, the default assumption should have been that at least the smaller dinosaurs (up to around human size) were feathered. Larger dinosaurs probably lacked such covering, for the same reason that large mammals (hippos, Elephants, etc) lack fur. "Decorative" feathers should have been considered probable, for species recognition, mating, etc.

The ongoing images of dinosaurs as large reptiles was never based on any reality, other than via the argument that "We don't know whether they had fur or feathers, and we don't draw anything we don't know existed." It's easy to see how people might make this argument, but it's not based on any kind of logic. It's mostly an attempt to make them look very primitive and unlike modern animals.

Similar comments apply to the monocolor (gray or green) images. Modern animals, even the most primitive (and blind), generally have varied coloring. This is mostly protective coloring, for obvious reasons, but special markings for species/sex recognition are common in all groups of animals with vision. The default assumption should be that this was also true 200 million years ago. The needs to avoid predators, attract a mate, etc. were no different then than now.

The general public image of dinosaurs has always been contrary to even the little that was known (or could be inferred) about their appearance.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed May 20, 2015 2:28 pm UTC

webdude wrote:What movie has/had pink humans?
They're typically called "white", and most movies have that variety of human. It's fairly common is sci-fi/fantasy for other species to call (white) humans pink since we look like bipedal pigs from far enough away.
And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin?
The robots found tombs of human monarchs that contained skeletons and gold crowns, everything else rotted away. They took the skeleton of fossilized bone and metal and made guesses about where the flesh should be. Their mistakes being
  1. assuming the crown is part of the skeleton.
  2. assuming no clothes from lack of evidence of clothes.
  3. Humans don't have skin pigments, because the pigments didn't fossilize.
but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns?
Game of thrones.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Kit. » Wed May 20, 2015 2:55 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.

Depends on what kind of entertainment it is.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed May 20, 2015 3:12 pm UTC

Feathers or not, what I want to know is: how EXACTLY were those raptors testing the fences? And were they Certified Electrical Safety Compliance Professionals?

Image

Showsni
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Showsni » Wed May 20, 2015 3:16 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:It reminds me of portraying ancient Greek and Roman statues as pristine white marble, when really they were brightly painted. Actually, if I were making a film, I might do that. White marble does seem cooler, somehow.


I actually thought that was what the comic was about until I read the mouseover text.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 20, 2015 3:18 pm UTC

This kind of reminds me of Mr. Burns, a post-electric play, set in a post-apocalyptic world. In the first act, survivors sitting around camp fires regale one another by recounting Simpsons episodes, trying to remember as much dialogue and plot as they can.

Spoiler:
In the second act, acting troupes have formed, who perform whole episodes as live action, using improvised costumes and scenery, complete with song-and-dance numbers and commercial breaks. By the third act, presumably set long in the future, the Simpsons plots have developed into a kind of religion / creation myth, with the characters represented as god-like beings; their cartoon features exaggerated into magnificent adornments: Bart's spiky hair becomes a crown, Lisa's hair a large tiara and Marge's becomes a huge blue feather headdress:
Image

(spoilered for actual spoilers)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed May 20, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.


Why shouldn't they be allowed to go see a movie?


Also, while scientific accuracy is generally fairly objective, entertainment is highly subjective, and somewhat variable - and often the choice made isn't between more scientific and more entertaining but between lazy and entertaining, or scientific and way cooler, but requires actual research to get right...

Anyone who thinks "high tide everywhere at once" is more dramatic/cooler than "tidal waves sweeping the planet" should probably go back to writing scripts for East Enders and leave Doctor Who to people who can actually understand Brian Cox...

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed May 20, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

armandoalvarez wrote:It's like complaining that real archaeologists in the 1930's didn't spend much time fighting snakes and Nazis.


You don't FIGHT the snakes, you keep them at bay using fire until you can get away from them. Didn't they teach you anything at archeology school?

And where's your whip?

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Echo244 » Wed May 20, 2015 3:27 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
armandoalvarez wrote:It's like complaining that real archaeologists in the 1930's didn't spend much time fighting snakes and Nazis.


You don't FIGHT the snakes, you keep them at bay using fire until you can get away from them. Didn't they teach you anything at archeology school?

And where's your whip?


In the same place that other chap left his revolver?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 20, 2015 3:43 pm UTC

Echo244 wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
armandoalvarez wrote:It's like complaining that real archaeologists in the 1930's didn't spend much time fighting snakes and Nazis.


You don't FIGHT the snakes, you keep them at bay using fire until you can get away from them. Didn't they teach you anything at archeology school?

And where's your whip?


In the same place that other chap left his revolver?

Those Indiana Jones movies may have been ludicrous nonsense, but the phrase "you have chosen ... wisely/poorly" has been an invaluable part of my lexicon ever since. (Unlike "lexicon", which I'm not at all sure is the right word).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Kit. » Wed May 20, 2015 3:57 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:and leave Doctor Who to people who can actually understand Brian Cox...

Must... resist...

Spoiler:
"The darkness heralds only one thing: the end of time itself."

...sorry.

Spoiler:
Image
Last edited by Kit. on Wed May 20, 2015 4:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quercus » Wed May 20, 2015 4:01 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Anybody who thinks scientific accuracy should take precedence over entertainment shouldn't be allowed anywhere near entertainment.

Depends on what kind of entertainment it is.


Indeed. Diamond-hard SF FTFW.

Invertin
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Invertin » Wed May 20, 2015 5:01 pm UTC

I'd actually prefer scientific accuracy over 'dumb cool' in specific circumstances. If I'm playing a game where I'm flying a jetpack while firing dual machineguns at dinosaurs I don't give the slightest crap what the dinosaurs look like, but if it's a low-tech sci-fi along the lines of jurassic park, or a murder mystery, or a medical drama, I'd prefer everything to be kept as realistic as possible outside of specific things that we know aren't real, like the behaivour of some human characters or, I dunno, the existance of aliens on earth.

Yes fiction is the playground of the imagination and I love it for being that, sci-fi and fantasy can do whatever the hell they want, but at the same time, this kind of thing can actually have an impact on the real world in unfortunate ways. Like juries getting upset and confused at the lack of forensic evidence, not understanding that forensic evidence doesn't work the way fiction has taught them it does. Or people copying the actions of 'realistic' heroes in order to try to help and just making the situation worse because it doesn't work like that (first-aid being the most obvious example off the top of my head), or even hearing a gunshot and not recognising it as a gunshot. It's even worse outside of america, where people will take their knowledge of american media and assume that to still be true where they are (in england, 911 automatically redirects to 999, the actual emergency line, because of this effect).

Jurassic park at least can get away with it if only by grandfather clause-they didn't know any better and it'd just piss people off in a slightly different way if they went back and made it more accurate. But I do have to wonder whether misinforming thousands of people is really worth a slightly more interesting gun sound effect, a cooler looking helmet, or giant lizards.

Cervisiae Amatorem
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Cervisiae Amatorem » Wed May 20, 2015 5:23 pm UTC

I think it is wonderful that entertainment and science diverge on the details. Art that follows science too closely becomes a documentary. Most importantly, we can quickly know if someone is an speaking knowledgeably or not on a topic we are well versed in based on if they parrot what they learned from a movie or from actual knowledge.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby dg61 » Wed May 20, 2015 5:34 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
webdude wrote:What movie has/had pink humans?
They're typically called "white", and most movies have that variety of human. It's fairly common is sci-fi/fantasy for other species to call (white) humans pink since we look like bipedal pigs from far enough away.
And what's the reference to metal crowns poking through the skin?
The robots found tombs of human monarchs that contained skeletons and gold crowns, everything else rotted away. They took the skeleton of fossilized bone and metal and made guesses about where the flesh should be. Their mistakes being
  1. assuming the crown is part of the skeleton.
  2. assuming no clothes from lack of evidence of clothes.
  3. Humans don't have skin pigments, because the pigments didn't fossilize.
but porn movies where the "actors" wear crowns?
Game of thrones.


Right but you should also be finding other fastening(buttons, brooches, etc), as well as paintings and carvings showing clothes within and without the tomb itself.

speising
Posts: 2265
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby speising » Wed May 20, 2015 5:35 pm UTC

We wouldn't have profited from Randall's raptor phobia if they had shown them in their real size in JP!

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quercus » Wed May 20, 2015 5:43 pm UTC

Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:I think it is wonderful that entertainment and science diverge on the details. Art that follows science too closely becomes a documentary.

I guess that finding science and nature to be some of the most beautiful things in existence gives me an atypical perspective on this. It's possible to craft amazing stories that are absolutely true to science, and the veracity that that brings to the story can enhance it massively.

I'm not saying that all entertainment, or even most entertainment, should be scientifically accurate. I'm saying that it's a good thing if some of it is, even in minor details - different strokes for different folks.

Most importantly, we can quickly know if someone is an speaking knowledgeably or not on a topic we are well versed in based on if they parrot what they learned from a movie or from actual knowledge.

Um, if movies were scientifically accurate then what they learned from a movie would be actual knowledge.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed May 20, 2015 6:17 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:Right but you should also be finding other fastening(buttons, brooches, etc), as well as paintings and carvings showing clothes within and without the tomb itself.
Fair enough, but terrible archeologists are a lot funnier.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Invertin
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Invertin » Wed May 20, 2015 6:19 pm UTC

Cervisiae Amatorem wrote:Most importantly, we can quickly know if someone is an speaking knowledgeably or not on a topic we are well versed in based on if they parrot what they learned from a movie or from actual knowledge.


This sounds valid until you remember that 90% of human knowledge is learned from other humans, other humans who may be misinformed due to the aforementioned media getting it wrong to be more 'fun'

At a certain point, it becomes impossible to tell a real expert from a fake expert without being an expert yourself, and since most humans are not experts in every scientific field, that presents a problem.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Whizbang » Wed May 20, 2015 6:23 pm UTC

We should make an online encyclopedia of information that anyone can access at any time to verify facts and information.

Someone get on that.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archgeek, Soupspoon and 46 guests