m (Talk:Homo Novus moved to Talk:Scenario: Homo Novus: Would people please start putting these kinds of pages under the correct title?)
Line 10: Line 10:
   
 
:The Chronoscope was first theorized as far as I know, by Arthur C. Clarke. Based on my limited knowllege of quantum physics, it is possible to fold space time as much as possible to the point shortly after the big bang. --[[User:YNot1989|YNot1989]] 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 
:The Chronoscope was first theorized as far as I know, by Arthur C. Clarke. Based on my limited knowllege of quantum physics, it is possible to fold space time as much as possible to the point shortly after the big bang. --[[User:YNot1989|YNot1989]] 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  +
  +
== A few small problems ==
  +
  +
Good timeline, though there are a few things that could need clearing up. First is that it says Homo Novi have access to 70% of their brainpower, as opposed to the 'normal' 10% - are you aware that the whole 10% business is merely a lie? Or are you referring to using 70% of brainpower at one time (which would be more plausible).
  +
  +
Also, by calling them Homo Novi you are implying they are technically a different species altogether, and therefore incapable of interbreeding with humans. And as they are mostly human, wouldn't it make more sense to call them Homo Sapiens Novus or something similar? That way they are separate but similar, just like Homo Sapiens Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens were/are, as well as being capable of cross subspecies breeding.
  +
  +
--[[User:Fegaxeyl|Fegaxeyl]] 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:25, 16 May 2009

June 21st: Theo, like many users on YouTube, finally gets fed up with the web sights restrictive policies that only encourage senseless dribble that promotes no free exchange of ideas. Having read countless books on programming, he simply decides to make his own site, one with higher quality, easier to upload videos, and no restrictions on content what-so-ever. Known simply as "The Forum," it quickly explodes as a website for the free and open exchange of ideas. He designs a separate piece of software that deletes all criticism towards himself from angry parents and the morally self-righteous.

Its a bit contradictory around the deletes all morality problems and angry parents section. Besides there would be paedo rings, terrorists, Neo Maoists and Neo-Nazis to be dealt with. Buk5 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Buk5, I love an open exchange of ideas, and from everything I've heard you say, you apparently do not. If there are commies, fascists and wannabe terrorists on a video sight along with your definition of good clean moral human beings...GOOD! If you don't like what a person is saying, just leave a post that outlines either why you think they are wrong, or just call them a fucking moron and leave! You don't have to watch a video if you don't agree with it, and if you were misled and watched it, you have a backspace key, and you can leave without finishing it unless your so completely incapable of your own thoughts that one video is going to change your mind on something you totally disagree with. The advantage of the internet is that these psychos will be marginalized when multiple people with different ideas leave countless posts on how they are wrong, so fuck em'!

well, im all for free exchange of ideas, but Paedos are a completely different matter. Buk5 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How far back would the Chronoscope go? I'd imagine many people would want it to see the dinosaurs, and solve the age-old mystery of exactly what their skin tones were. And, of course, many would try to use it as ultimate proof of evolution, and figure out exactly where and how life on Earth started. --Fegaxeyl 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chronoscope was first theorized as far as I know, by Arthur C. Clarke. Based on my limited knowllege of quantum physics, it is possible to fold space time as much as possible to the point shortly after the big bang. --YNot1989 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A few small problems

Good timeline, though there are a few things that could need clearing up. First is that it says Homo Novi have access to 70% of their brainpower, as opposed to the 'normal' 10% - are you aware that the whole 10% business is merely a lie? Or are you referring to using 70% of brainpower at one time (which would be more plausible).

Also, by calling them Homo Novi you are implying they are technically a different species altogether, and therefore incapable of interbreeding with humans. And as they are mostly human, wouldn't it make more sense to call them Homo Sapiens Novus or something similar? That way they are separate but similar, just like Homo Sapiens Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens were/are, as well as being capable of cross subspecies breeding.

--Fegaxeyl 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.