Stargate SG-1

`

I recently bought the 10-season set of Stargate SG-1. I never watched the series until the last season when Claudia Black (the fabulous Aeryn Suun of Farscape) joined the cast. But since it was on for so many years, I figured it had to be a great show. (Plus, the set was offered from Amazon.com for about fifty bucks.)

The pilot episode referenced back to the original movie (which I have on DVD). Some of the things mentioned I had to think about to remember. And it was pretty good as pilots go. All the characters were introduced and the premise of the series was shown.

The first episode took up where the minor cliffhanger of the pilot ended. And you pretty much knew what had to happen. Unfortunately, the second episode was kind of disappointing. It reminded me too much of some of the Stargate Atlantis eps (which I watched in reruns) -- the team went to a new planet where the culture was different, and there were problems with Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) being captured and having to be rescued.

And I really hope the rest of the shows are better than that one.

A few extra comments: In the pilot episode the bad guys were capturing women to breed. One of the women (Daniel Jackson's wife) was captured, then had her clothes ripped off and she was standing there naked from head to toe - full frontal nudity. But since the show first aired on Showtime I guess they could do that.

A lot of people on the sci-fi newsgroup (now Sy-Fy) mentioned their deep admiration for Amanda Tapping, but I couldn't see it. She has a show called 'Sanctuary' which I never watched until the DVDs were loaned to me. And this Amanda (older, long dark hair) is pretty interesting. But compared to the younger, blond Amanda, not much going on. Maybe she will grow on me.

`

Thor Versus Everybody Else (almost)

`

My last entry was about 'The Avengers' movie and how Thor was weakened so he couldn't be too super compared to the others. But one Marvel Comics hero was left out - Spiderman (or Spider-Man or Spider Man).

Not much Spidey could do against Thor. About his only offensive move would be to zap spidey silk to cover Thor's eyes, which he could easily pull off. Maybe Spidey is agile enough to avoid Thor's hammer, and maybe even a lightning bolt or two, but eventually he would go down.

But there are more superheroes around - the ones in the DC comics world (in alphabetical order) - Aquaman, Batman, Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Superman and Wonder Woman.

There are probably more, lesser heroes, but these are the ones I grew up with.

Batman and Green Arrow we can eliminate right off. Neither have super powers and would be virtually helpless against Thor.

Aquaman doesn't have enough stuff to throw against Thor. One good lighting strike from his hammer and there would be the world's largest fish fry.

Wonder Woman's biggest advantage, her Magic Lasso, wouldn't be nearly magic enough to stand against Thor.

With his super speed, Flash could probably last pretty long, but being that's his only weapon, eventually he would go down.

Green Lantern would be an interesting foe. His major offense/defense would be his mind's ability to withstand an assault from Thor, whether against Thor's strength, or his hammer's two attack modes - the obvious lightning strike (being that sometimes lightning appears yellow - would it be able to penetrate any shield GL could conjure up?), and its tremendous mass/weight/enertia. (According to Odin in the original "Thor" movie, Mjolnir was forged in the heart of a dying sun.) So, I think eventually GL would be defeated.

And that leaves us with Superman versus Thor. And I have to say I believe Superman would come out on top. He certainly could withstand any lightning bolt Thor could throw at him. I know he would have no problem catching the hammer if it was thrown at him, since his strength is so much more than the god of thunder's.

And even using Mjolnir to fly, Thor could never fly as fast as Superman.

So, Superman against Thor --

Superman wins.

`

Thor is The MAN!

`

After watching "The Avengers" last Saturday (May 19th), and thinking about it this past week, I've come to the conclusion that Thor was somewhat emasculated so he wouldn't seem to be too powerful compared to the the others.

But first let's look at the other members of the The Avengers:

Okay, Black Widow and Hawkeye can be eliminated right off the bat since they have no super powers.

Captain America's only real "power" is in his shield, which I will come back to.

Ironman's power is in his suit and his ability to fly and destroy things with it.

The Hulk is really the only "super hero" whose powers can come close to Thor's. Hulk's strength, his virtual invulnerability, and his ability to "leap tall buildings in a single bound" are his only tools.

Thor's powers include almost total invulnerability, his strength, and of course, Mjolnir, his hammer. With the hammer, Thor can bring down lightning, then direct it wherever he wants.

(A single lightning bolt can travel up to 140,000 mph, with a temperature approaching 54,000° F., with an output of about a trillion watts! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Properties ).

He can spin it around until it has the momentum to let him fly. And it goes wherever he throws it, it never misses, and it will come back to him. (Norse mythology says it can cause mountains to crumble.)

In the movie, he did all of that - he directed lightning to strike Ironman (with less damage than there should have been). And he used it to knock Ironman back a few dozen yards, or more. He also grabbed Ironman's armored arm and began to crush it, proving his superior strength.

He also caught Hulk's fist and stopped the punch, so that proves he is stronger than Hulk. In fact, all he would have to do is lay the hammer down on Hulk's chest (as he did with Loki in the "Thor" movie) and Hulk would be helpless to get up: when Hulk tried to pick up Thor's hammer, his feet began to break through the steel decking of the aircraft carrier they were on.

Early in the movie, Thor slammed his hammer down on Capt. America's shield and the result was a tremendous shock wave that felled dozens of trees, if not more, all around them. But neither Thor nor Capt. America seemed fazed.

But even if somehow the shield was able to withstand the tremendous crash of Mjolnir , and not break apart or be crushed, the force of the blow should have driven Capt. America deep, deep into the ground, and should have killed him.

Is Thor really that much stronger than Hulk?

Is there magic involved in Thor being able to wield Mjolnir so easily?

Or is Thor's magic the result of Asgard's technological advances, and it only seems like magic to us?

But like I said at the beginning - Thor couldn't be seen as TOO super-powered, otherwise the movie would have to be called "Thor and the Avengers."

`

Joss Whedon's "The Avengers"

`

Went to see the movie today, in 3D. and while it wasn't as good as 'Avatar' it was still pretty damned good. It lasted almost two and half hours, but it moved along and it didn't seem that long.

Thor is my fave, even more so than Iron Man or the Hulk. And there were a few times when he should have been stronger, and his hammer (named Mjolnir, but never called that in the movie; wasn't called anything) should have done more damage, but I guess he couldn't be completely overwhelming.

For example, in the beginning he, Iron Man and Capt America were testing each other (fighting). And a couple of times Thor used his hammer . Once he used it to call down lightning and hit Iron Man with a few million or billion volts, and it stunned him, but didn't put him out of action.

Then he slammed it down on Capt America's shield, and it just caused a huge shock wave that decimated some of the forest they were in. Even if the shield was able to withstand the impact, the force should have driven Capt America a half mile into the ground.

I say that because later on in the movie the Hulk, as strong as he is, couldn't pick up the hammer. When he tried, his feet started breaking through the steel deck of the aircraft carrier he was standing on. Hulk did throw Thor around some, but of course there was no serious damage.

Not sure if I'll go back to see it a second time as I did 'Avatar,' but I'll definitely get the DVD when it comes out.

Just as an added thought, since 'The Avengers' has made over a billion dollars so far, I wonder how much of that goes into Joss' pocket.

`

Vampires and Vampirism

`

I was a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan (still am) and sometimes on the newsgroups or other sites there have been speculation about the creation of vampires, and this is my pseudoscientific explanation.

(Okay, for some reason, when some people see the word 'pseudoscietific' they seem to think it means 'kind of scientific' and therefore - is real, legitimate science. But 'pseudo' means "false."

Pseudoscience is false science!)

Vampirism is caused by a virus, and for a lack of a better name, I call it the 'vampovirus'. These vampoviruses are very weak and are easily killed by the white blood cells we have coursing through our veins.

Most of the time a vampire sucks out enough blood to satisfy his hunger, which also kills the person, but any vampoviruses he leaves behind are easily killed by the white cells.

But what if he/she happens to suck out so much blood that there aren't enough white cells to kill the invading vampoviruses? Three of four days later the vampoviruses have reproduced enough of themselves that a new vampire is created (and that is why so many of them have to dig themselves out of their graves).

But - when vampires DO want to sire someone, they suck out most of the blood, then they let the person drink some of their blood in order to flood the body with vampoviruses (but not knowing about vampoviruses, they don't know why it works, just that it does).

And when they do, there are now more vampoviruses flooding the body than the white cells can kill. And in just a few hours -- another vampire.

`

Rick Santorum and Birth Control

`

I recently heard that Rick Santorum wanted to do away with all birth control / contraception.

(There are no links here to his specific statements, but you only have to Google "Santorum birth control" to see for yourself.)

So, if that is the case, then he MUST be an advocate for abortion:

People are going to have sex, there is no way they won't (and even HE must realize this). And without birth control, eventually most women will get pregnant whether they want to or not. And those that don't want to be pregnant for whatever reason (economic, rape, incest, etc.) will get an abortion, legal or illegal.

So, repeating the third paragraph, if Rick Santorum is so against birth control, then he HAS to be advocating abortion!

`

Daylight Savings Time

`

Well, once again we are subjected to setting our clocks ahead one hour.

I don't like it, and it's not so bad.

What I hate the most is that it's now dark when I drive to work (around 6:30) and it it SO hard to see the kids walking to the bus stops to wait for the school buses to come. It just doesn't make sense to start DST so early!

But I guess having the extra hour of daylight in the afternoon isn't so bad. But I don't see how that saves us energy. In the summer it is hotter and people are turning on the AC later in the day and having to run them later in the evening.

Also - we have lawn-watering restrictions. And we are told not to water between 10 am and 4 pm because that is the hottest time of day. but when we move the clocks ahead one hour that means the hottest time of day is now between 11 am and 5 pm. But they never say to change the time to water the grass!

And one more thing - "they" say when we change the time we lose an hour of sleep, which is WRONG (even you move your clock ahead before you go to sleep then get up at the same time you will still get the same number of hours of sleep).

Let's say you always go to bed at 10 pm and get up at 6 am, which means you sleep 8 hours and are awake for 16. So now you go to bed at 10 pm, get up at 6 and then set your clocks ahead one hour to 7, but you still go to bed at 10 pm that night.

You are now awake for 15 hours, so you have lost one hour of being awake, not an hour of sleep. (Of course just the opposite happens when you change back to EST in October - you add one hour of awake time.)

The only way you would lose an hour's sleep is if you went to sleep at the same time you always do, your alarm clock reset itself from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m., and your alarm went off at its normal time.

But in case you are wondering why you feel so groggy despite all of the above, you are STILL getting up an hour earlier than you normally do.

`