# Revolution - S01E13 - "The Song Remains The Same"



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Learned some interesting things in tonight's show:

Diamonds are apparently used as currency, since Tom was carrying diamonds on his truck going to the concrete plant to get the nuke.

Randall must have a lot of pendants at the rate Rachel is destroying them.

Finally some glimer of why/how the power is off. It's apparently absorbed by the huge number of special viruses spread all over the planet out of control because of something going wrong in "the tower". (Sounds kinda like how the force works in Star Wars, eh?) 

So Rachel and Aaron are off to "the tower" to make things right and turn the power back on for everyone?

Tom and his wife are on the lam from Monroe and Randall.

Discussion?

Dave


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Well, we got the techno-babble explanation for how the power went bye-bye. Microscopic power sucking dust bunnies floating around. Rigggght. Oh well. As good as explanation as any I guess.

Since they are in people's bodies, they probably could be programmed to do horrible things.

And yeah, Miles had a somthin'-somthin' going on with Rachel. Good call, whoever predicted that.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> Learned some interesting things in tonight's show:
> 
> Diamonds are apparently used as currency, since Tom was carrying diamonds on his truck going to the concrete plant to get the nuke.


I thought we learned this last week, when somebody was paid off for information with diamonds (before being summarily executed and the diamonds retrieved).


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> So Rachel and Aaron are off to "the tower" to make things right and turn the power back on for everyone?


Even if they "re-enable" power, how many functional power plants are there going to be?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Why do you guys continue to throw logic at this show? lol I think back to BSG and how they kept saying "they had a plan" and they didn't. And how there was no consistency from week to week. One week if you hit the green button the door opens and the next week it causes an explosion (made up to make my point) And it bugged the heck out of me.

So here we are with Revolution and Following (or whatever) and there is absolutely no logic to the writing. These writers suck so bad, how can they even call themselves writers? But the writers here are still way better than the writers in the Following. 

AND I WATCH BOTH SHOWS. So my brain has atrophied and now I accept poorly written shows as entertainment. "They have assimilated me." Where is my red shirt?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

zordude said:


> Even if they "re-enable" power, how many functional power plants are there going to be?


I agree with you. Somehow, however, I'll bet everything starts to "magically" work again.

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> And yeah, Miles had a somthin'-somthin' going on with Rachel. Good call, whoever predicted that.


Several people, including myself, predicted that.



Spoiler



Makes it much more likely, considering how Rachel is acting, that Miles is Charlie's dad.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Well, we got the techno-babble explanation for how the power went bye-bye. Microscopic power sucking dust bunnies floating around. Rigggght. Oh well. As good as explanation as any I guess.


While I agree that it's a _very convenient _explanation, I was assuming that they were nano technology based micro machines and not biological.

Nanotech at least has some basis in reality.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> Why do you guys continue to throw logic at this show? lol I think back to BSG and how they kept saying "they had a plan" and they didn't. And how there was no consistency from week to week. One week if you hit the green button the door opens and the next week it causes an explosion (made up to make my point) And it bugged the heck out of me.
> 
> So here we are with Revolution and Following (or whatever) and there is absolutely no logic to the writing. These writers suck so bad, how can they even call themselves writers? But the writers here are still way better than the writers in the Following.
> 
> AND I WATCH BOTH SHOWS. So my brain has atrophied and now I accept poorly written shows as entertainment. "They have assimilated me." Where is my red shirt?


I'm with you, but the show has to have SOME logic to it, even if it's built on fake science. It's not meant to be a cartoon.

As far as the power plants go (from other posts), it probably would be dangerous just to "turn on" everything at once, since the power plants are falling apart, but not completely, so there's no telling what will happen if they start up unattended.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> While I agree that it's a _very convenient _explanation, I was assuming that they were nano technology based micro machines and not biological.
> 
> Nanotech at least has some basis in reality.


And actually one of the better portrayals of nanotech I've seen...usually, it's miniature machinery, when in fact nanotech looks like...well, kinda like a virus.

Poor Superman. Escapes from prison while chained to a chair using only a nail on the other side of the room, and he's still marked for death by his crazy boss. Rachel was right, they should have killed him...but it was almost worth it for the look on his face when he realized he'd been tricked. 

Is this the first time they haven't had flashbacks?


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

What's a boy band?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> Finally some glimer of why/how the power is off. It's apparently absorbed by the huge number of special viruses spread all over the planet out of control because of something going wrong in "the tower". (Sounds kinda like how the force works in Star Wars, eh?)


The second I heard that explanation I thought, 'So that's where midichlorians came from".



mrdbdigital said:


> Tom and his wife are on the lam from Monroe and Randall.


Did we actually see them leave Phillie? Or just get ready to?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Did we actually see them leave Phillie? Or just get ready to?


I would assume it would be pretty stupid to hang around Phillie.

What are the chances that Tom will come over to the Rebel side? Of course, we don't know yet what Monroe really thinks about Tom's failure.

Dave


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> What are the chances that Tom will come over to the Rebel side? Of course, we don't know yet what Monroe really thinks about Tom's failure.


Well, judging from the dark and threatening look Monroe was giving Tom while uttering vague threats about the consequences of failure, I'd say we have a pretty good idea...


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I just went back and re-watched this episode. 

Rachel says the "devices" are virus sized, not that they are viruses, so apparently they are nano-technology. And Aaron calls them computers and Rachel does not correct him.

Programmed to do 2 things: Absorb electricity and replicate. Apparently the problem in "The Tower" allowed uncontrolled replication and they got up to a couple hundred quadrillion of them, enough to absorb all the electrical power on the entire planet.

This would explain how the pendants and amplifiers work, if they turn off the nano-bots within their range, which would allow electricity to work again within that radius.

Dave


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I'm OK with it, we've had to accept much larger stretches in sci-fi shows before.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> I just went back and re-watched this episode.
> 
> Rachel says the "devices" are virus sized, not that they are viruses, so apparently they are nano-technology. And Aaron calls them computers and Rachel does not correct him.
> 
> ...


So, basically the same thing that happened to the Morris worm back in the early days of the Internet.

(for those not old enough, Robert Morris found a bug in Sendmail that let him gain elevated privilege. He wrote a worm that would attack sendmail, make 10 copies and send those 10 copies to other machines. But his routine that made 10 copies had a mistake in it, and it made infinite copies, effectively bringing the Internet down. As machines became overloaded with hundreds of copies of the worm trying to replicate SysAdmins would reboot them and become infected again in seconds, leading to them eventually disconnecting backbone servers from the backbone, and breaking most of the routing until they brought everything back online again. The Internet was much smaller then).


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Ereth said:


> So, basically the same thing that happened to the Morris worm back in the early days of the Internet.
> .


Thanks for posting that. I was not aware of it. The explanation you posted wasn't correct though. According to Wikipedia, it was something different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm#The_mistake



> The critical error that transformed the worm from a potentially harmless intellectual exercise into a virulent denial of service attack was in the spreading mechanism. The worm could have determined whether to invade a new computer by asking if there was already a copy running. But just doing this would have made it trivially easy to kill; everyone could just run a process that would answer "yes" when asked if there was already a copy, and the worm would stay away.
> The defense against this was inspired by Michael Rabin's mantra, "Randomization." To compensate for this possibility, Morris directed the worm to copy itself even if the response is "yes", 1 out of 7 times.[3] This level of replication proved excessive and the worm spread rapidly, infecting some computers multiple times. Morris remarked, when he heard of the mistake, that he "should have tried it on a simulator first."


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Tom's escape had me shaking my head. The Padre was so badass he could swordfight 6 guys at once, but he gets taken by surprise and put up against a wall to get skewered. Yeah, right...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

loubob57 said:


> Tom's escape had me shaking my head. The Padre was so badass he could swordfight 6 guys at once, but he gets taken by surprise and put up against a wall to get skewered. Yeah, right...


And as I hinted earlier, it's pretty awesome that he managed to hop that chair all the way across the room, fall over, and pick up the nail, all without making enough noise for the guard to hear.

How could Monroe ever consider disposing of such a god among men?!? 

(I think you're confusing the Padre with Miles's old war buddy...)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

My biggest LOL came when I explained to my son how Neville escaped (using the nail to free himself).

His response?

"that's stupid!" 

he is 7 years old.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He'll understand when he's older.

That TV writers are...complicated.

Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (I think you're confusing the Padre with Miles's old war buddy...)


Uh oh, have I fallen into a bad stereotype?


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Oh, I was also waiting for Tom's wife to get killed. After all doesn't Kim Raver have a new gig with another NCIS spinoff?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

loubob57 said:


> Uh oh, have I fallen into a bad stereotype?


I tried so hard to come up with a joke that wouldn't go badly...


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> I just went back and re-watched this episode.
> 
> Rachel says the "devices" are virus sized, not that they are viruses, so apparently they are nano-technology. And Aaron calls them computers and Rachel does not correct him.
> 
> ...


If the Nano bots turn the power off how are they powered?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Barmat said:


> If the Nano bots turn the power off how are they powered?


they suck the power from anything around them, so at the beginning at least, that is the source. Not sure how they get more power to stay alive or reproduce.

The thing about the explanation so far is that she did not mention any way they were meant to be contained (which is what I assume failed). because the virus' programming, as stated (suck power, reproduce), worked perfectly. Nothing went wrong!


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Their explanation for the power going out makes no sense on their original project of creating free green energy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Barmat said:


> If the Nano bots turn the power off how are they powered?


Nanotech isn't like little machines with wires that carry electricity through them. They are more like tiny organic thingies, that are powered in the same way cells are powered...and since the cells in human bodies aren't affected by the power-damper, we can assume that the power in the nanites isn't either.

This is one thing they've gotten surprisingly right. I'm not sure how the pendants are supposed to work, but since we can't build nanotechnology like that yet, I guess I can pretend that in the development process something will present itself.


robojerk said:


> Their explanation for the power going out makes no sense on their original project of creating free green energy.


It's not really supposed to. This is one of those situations where scientists were trying to do one thing, and stumbled across something completely different.

How were they planning to use nanotech in a power distribution scheme? Dunno. But it's not completely insane that it would play some role.


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

Yeah.... all these comments are valid, but none of them touch on the most important part of this episode. Why in the world does Miles hate Texas so much?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jeff92k7 said:


> Yeah.... all these comments are valid, but none of them touch on the most important part of this episode. Why in the world does Miles hate Texas so much?


It's the school board. He resents the imposition of religious values on the science curriculum.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

jeff92k7 said:


> Yeah.... all these comments are valid, but none of them touch on the most important part of this episode. Why in the world does Miles hate Texas so much?


Everyone not in Texas hates on Texas. It's just jealousy.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

robojerk said:


> Their explanation for the power going out makes no sense on their original project of creating free green energy.


It's not really clear, but at least it appears that the process also works in reverse. When you power up the necklace, things seem to power up around the device. Maybe the nanobots also work as a sort of network of power transmitters too.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

vertigo235 said:


> It's not really clear, but at least it appears that the process also works in reverse. When you power up the necklace, things seem to power up around the device. Maybe the nanobots also work as a sort of network of power transmitters too.


I assumed the necklace blocks the nanos from working, thus allowing the power to work


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Anubys said:


> I assumed the necklace blocks the nanos from working, thus allowing the power to work


That's an option, but where does the power come from? If we are to believe that all these little bots are sucking up the energy by proximity, then why can't they restore energy and as well.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

verdugan said:


> Thanks for posting that. I was not aware of it. The explanation you posted wasn't correct though. According to Wikipedia, it was something different.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm#The_mistake


Ok, so 7. I misremembered. I was on the Net at the time, and was going by memory.

Morris was, if I remember correctly, the first person to be convicted of a computer crime and the fact that he took the Internet down (effectively, since the backbone servers were disconnected from the Net in order to be able to perform their other functions without being reinfected), it was a big deal.

Sendmail rightly deserved it's reputation for security holes. But the whole Internet was originally designed with the idea that you would know everybody on it, and they would all be responsible adults working either for the Government, or Universities researching hand in hand with the Government. Security was not being considered, as they were busy inventing the technology to be able to transfer data at all, and the general public was not supposed to be allowed on at all.

Obviously all of that has changed.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

vertigo235 said:


> That's an option, but where does the power come from? If we are to believe that all these little bots are sucking up the energy by proximity, then why can't they restore energy and as well.


I can't believe I'm defending the writers, but they made it clear that they were not programmed to do so. That is what Aaron wants to now do, and why he is going with Rachel to the tower.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> That's an option, but where does the power come from? If we are to believe that all these little bots are sucking up the energy by proximity, then why can't they restore energy and as well.


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the nanobots are absorbing the energy, they must be doing something with it, the most likely thing would be converting it to mass. They'd have to be getting bigger, would they not?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the nanobots are absorbing the energy, they must be doing something with it, the most likely thing would be converting it to mass. They'd have to be getting bigger, would they not?


Or make another one (reproduce)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

of course, no matter the reproductive rate, they would soon run of of space, would they not?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If the nanobots are absorbing the energy, they must be doing something with it, the most likely thing would be converting it to mass. They'd have to be getting bigger, would they not?


Except it takes vast amounts of energy to make tiny bits of matter (that's why, when you do it the other way, atomic bombs are so destructive).

I'm not a physics guy, but wouldn't it be simpler if the nanites just blocked the flow of electricity in current? That would kill machines but not living beings (or nanites), right?


Anubys said:


> of course, no matter the reproductive rate, they would soon run of of space, would they not?


If they're dependent on electricity, then wouldn't they just go dormant after they've stopped it all in their vicinity, and only go active again when new electricity comes along?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think you're confusing the Padre with Miles's old war buddy...)





loubob57 said:


> Uh oh, have I fallen into a bad stereotype?


Actually, as soon as I saw both alpha-male black guys, my Walking Dead cynicism kicked in and I immediately thought one of them wouldn't make it through the episode.

I loved that after Neville killed the Padre, he went and THREW open the door to the room as if there's no chance there could be any other guards outside the door.

And then he bursts into his Philly house without doing any recon. For all he knew, Monroe or even Monroe's wife/girlfriend could have been in there. Not very smart for a guy who thinks he's in the crosshairs of a brutal dictator.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Except it takes vast amounts of energy to make tiny bits of matter (that's why, when you do it the other way, atomic bombs are so destructive).


Granted. But they've been at it for decades now, right? absorbing ALL the electricity in the world?

I like the "reproduce" idea better, though, as it solves that problem rather neatly.



> I'm not a physics guy, but wouldn't it be simpler if the nanites just blocked the flow of electricity in current? That would kill machines but not living beings (or nanites), right?


Electricity flows whenever there's a possibility for it to flow. So you'd have to coat all the connectors. That might explain why all the cars didn't lose power at once, that the nanites didn't complete blocking the circuit on each car at exactly the same moment, but doing it in sequence is clearly dramatic license.

If you actually wanted to simply block the flow of electricity by blocking one end of the path on every electronic device in the world, I'm not sure that several hundred quadrillion nanites are sufficient. They are microscopic after all.

Electricity is lazy. It will always take the shorter path. It makes more sense, then, for the nanites to actually create an easier path for the flow to travel. How you would do that, I have no idea, but I imagine that's the key. They found a way to have the nanites redirect electricity to themselves. Since it diverts to that new path, it doesn't flow along the expected path and the devices dependent upon it don't work.


----------



## rosieambles (Jan 22, 2013)

mrdbdigital said:


> Several people, including myself, predicted that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have assumed that from the pilot.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Ereth said:


> It makes more sense, then, for the nanites to actually create an easier path for the flow to travel. How you would do that, I have no idea, but I imagine that's the key. They found a way to have the nanites redirect electricity to themselves. Since it diverts to that new path, it doesn't flow along the expected path and the devices dependent upon it don't work.


You have probably thought more about this in the last 2 days than the writers ever did/will. The only thing that is "key" is what they decided on in the writers room, regardless of its footing in reality.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zordude said:


> You have probably thought more about this in the last 2 days than the writers ever did/will. The only thing that is "key" is what they decided on in the writers room, regardless of its footing in reality.


Although the fact that they, almost alone among every pop culture story that has dealt with nanotech, have gotten the fundamentals of it right, tells me that they know at least a little of what they're talking about.

When it comes to nanotech, that is. I'm not convinced they've ever met an actual human being...


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although the fact that they, almost alone among every pop culture story that has dealt with nanotech, have gotten the fundamentals of it right, tells me that they know at least a little of what they're talking about.


You're kidding, right? There are so many flaws in the nanotech-takes-out-all-power concept in this show that no one with even a little science and engineering knowledge could have spent more than a few seconds thinking about it before writing the story.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics



> The law of conservation of energy.
> This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.


So what are the nanites, mitochondria, doing with all this energy?

Remember when this show started they said they sat down with some physics person, explained their plot and the physics person said it was "possible". I want that a write up their reasoning.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zordude said:


> You have probably thought more about this in the last 2 days than the writers ever did/will. The only thing that is "key" is what they decided on in the writers room, regardless of its footing in reality.


Well, they told us up front that they took their idea and went to some scientists to see if it would work, so that tells me they did spend some time thinking about it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

btw, if you saw the sneak peek to next week's episode.



Spoiler



We're getting steam powered vehichles!


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

This conversation can go nowhere if we try to hold the logic of this TV show to the laws of physics, so I'm not going to add any more comments


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hmm. Have we seen any evidence of magnetism, or lack thereof in the show? Even just a refrigerator magnet left behind?


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Hmm. Have we seen any evidence of magnetism, or lack thereof in the show? Even just a refrigerator magnet left behind?


Why? You're not going to claim that electricity and magnetism are related in any way are you?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Didn't we know that Miles and Rachel had a thing before she married Charlie's dad? Or did I make that up?

The writers faked me out when Neville didn't escape when he was talking with his son but I was so sure that he'd escape when the Padre was in the room that I ffwd'd through that scene just to get through the stupidity faster.

I lol'd when Rachel knocked the guard out with a lunch tray.

You see it in every action show and movie. Somebody gets caught, tied to a chair to be "softened up" and the torturer guy keeps punching him in the face with his bare knuckles. No, dumbass. Save your hands and beat the crap out of his face with one of the many objects laying nearby.

The big guy has probably walked 1,500 miles and hasn't lost a pound. Now he's going to walk halfway across America and will probably still not be too svelte when we see him again.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You're kidding, right? There are so many flaws in the nanotech-takes-out-all-power concept in this show that no one with even a little science and engineering knowledge could have spent more than a few seconds thinking about it before writing the story.


Nobody is saying that the actual specifics are possible. That's where the "fi" part if sci-fi comes into play. But they did represent nanites as tiny computers capable of very limited functionality. That is pretty good.



cheesesteak said:


> I lol'd when Rachel knocked the guard out with a lunch tray.


Not only that, but then she and Charlie stood there talking over his body, as if there were absolutely no possibility that he'd regain consciousness anytime soon.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nobody is saying that the actual specifics are possible. That's where the "fi" part if sci-fi comes into play. But they did represent nanites as tiny computers capable of very limited functionality. That is pretty good.


And also as something that doesn't look like a mechanical engineer built it in a metal shop and then shrunk it down to molecular size.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nobody is saying that the actual specifics are possible. That's where the "fi" part if sci-fi comes into play. But they did represent nanites as tiny computers capable of very limited functionality. That is pretty good.


But it does not even make sense in general. It is totally absurd in almost every way.

Also, the fiction part of science fiction does not mean that the fictional technology does not have to make sense. It only means that the technology need not be real at the moment.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And also as something that doesn't look like a mechanical engineer built it in a metal shop and then shrunk it down to molecular size.


But it cannot be "molecular size". It would take thousands of molecules to have a prayer of accomplishing all the things that these nanomachines supposedly are capable of. That would make it roughly micron size, not molecular size (which would be nanoscale).

But if it is micron size, then it would not be able to easily spread through the air and be undetected for weeks, let alone for years.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

I think the nanos operate similar in theory as darksuckers do.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

So how did the DoD guy beat the good guys to the rendez-vous point?

Because the new guy had all the roads covered, right?

oh, you say he flew? 

so why didn't Tom fly?


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Anubys said:


> So how did the DoD guy beat the good guys to the rendez-vous point?
> 
> Because the new guy had all the roads covered, right?
> 
> ...


If you were in the room with the writers, you would be asked to leave.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Just idle speculation on my part but I'm convinced that if this show lasts more than one season, Neville will join the resistance at some point. Unless Giancarlo Esposito asks for a big raise in which case, Neville will be killed.

It seemed to me over the last couple of episodes that Rachel was becoming the focus of the show over Charlie. It shocked me that they sent her packing.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

I was waiting for this ep to be the end of Giancarlo's contract. Not like the old time serials that show a "hero" miraculously escaping.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> It seemed to me over the last couple of episodes that Rachel was becoming the focus of the show over Charlie. It shocked me that they sent her packing.


We haven't seen the last of Rachel and Aaron. Adventures await at "The Tower". 

Dave


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And as I hinted earlier, it's pretty awesome that he managed to hop that chair all the way across the room, fall over, and pick up the nail,...


...at least he didn't use his feet complete with finely manicured toenails....


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I actually thought the explination for the power being out was one of the better ones fr a sci-fi show and from what I was expecting.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pmyers said:


> I actually thought the explination for the power being out was one of the better ones fr a sci-fi show and from what I was expecting.


Well, that is more a critique on how bad the sci-fi shows you watch must be, rather than praise for Revolution, because the nanomachines explanation is full of major flaws (although I did predict quite a while ago that was the way the show would go).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Just idle speculation on my part but I'm convinced that if this show lasts more than one season, Neville will join the resistance at some point. Unless Giancarlo Esposito asks for a big raise in which case, Neville will be killed.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if he joins the rebels within the next couple episodes. He's now got nowhere else to go and that's where his son is.

[QUOTE="cheesesteak;9611344"It seemed to me over the last couple of episodes that Rachel was becoming the focus of the show over Charlie. It shocked me that they sent her packing.[/QUOTE]

They haven't gotten rid of Rachel. They're just spreading the characters out so they can have A, B, and C stories in each episode rather than us having to spend the entire episode with the same characters.

I was surprised at Miles' reaction to Rachel's plan. Outside of Monroe and Randall, who want to hoard the power to gain wealth and status, I can't figure out why anyone else would be opposed to bringing the power back online.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I was surprised at Miles' reaction to Rachel's plan. Outside of Monroe and Randall, who want to hoard the power to gain wealth and status, I can't figure out why anyone else would be opposed to bringing the power back online.


I think the writers are pushing Miles towards being tired of all the killing. It started with the disgusted way he made his comment about this is how war used to be fought after the rebels were attacked by Monroe's helicopter. Maybe he thinks if the power is restored for everyone, it will just make more killing possible and he'll have even more blood on his hands.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I was surprised at Miles' reaction to Rachel's plan. Outside of Monroe and Randall, who want to hoard the power to gain wealth and status, I can't figure out why anyone else would be opposed to bringing the power back online.


Especially since, as Rachel pointed out, "the bad guys have power". I could maybe understand it if nobody had it, but that's no longer the case.


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

Ok, serious question... Based on this episode, and the rate at which Blondie is destroying the pendants, they will be all out of pendants in about 6 weeks. However, didn't Blondie tell Monroe that the pendants were key to turning the power back on? That was back in one of the episodes where she was still being held captive before the 4 month mid-season break.

Now, after the last couple of episodes, it seems the storyline has changed to where the pendants are pointless pieces of jewelry and the key for turning the power back on rests in the mysterious 'tower'.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Did we actually see Rachel packing food into her knapsack before she left?


----------



## Topher5000 (Jan 2, 2006)

If the pendants stop the nanites from sucking up the power, how'd the lighthouse come on? Wouldn't a pendant or two be needed at the power plant & along the hydro wires leading to the lighthouse?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> Did we actually see Rachel packing food into her knapsack before she left?


I hope so, or Google Guy will be very upset with her!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Topher5000 said:


> If the pendants stop the nanites from sucking up the power, how'd the lighthouse come on? Wouldn't a pendant or two be needed at the power plant & along the hydro wires leading to the lighthouse?


Aaron, who was hiding in the basement of the lighthouse, did have a pendant, and when it came on, it allowed the lighthouse generator to start up and power the light.

Of course, we now know the pendants were being turned on intermittantly (and seemingly randomly) by Randall to check their location, a technique Randall learned from Grace.

Apparently, the nano-bots don't extend beyond Earth's atmosphere, so the GPS satellite array is still functional to allow him to obtain tracking locations.


----------



## Topher5000 (Jan 2, 2006)

mrdbdigital said:


> Aaron, who was hiding in the basement of the lighthouse, did have a pendant, and when it came on, it allowed the lighthouse generator to start up and power the light.


Ah, forgot about the generator. Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

It'd be funny if Rachel had to plug one of those USB thingies in but the port took a micro USB connection.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm wondering how they're going to explain getting power plants working again after sitting idle for 15 years?

I would think all the nuclear plants faced a "China Syndrome" event when the power went out, and had a core meltdown. Since the feed water pumps are electric motor driven, they would have died and the core would have lost cooling. I don't know much about how the control rods are controlled. I've always assumed their positions are controlled by some sort of winching mechanism, probably with electric winches, but are they designed to drop down completely and stop the nuclear reaction if there is a electrical failure?

I would not imagine any of the nuclear engineers would be too interested into going into the containment without any light source. I doubt they have candles around in case the power dies. Maybe there would be enough light to see by from the blue glow of the reactor pool? They'd probably be getting the hell out of Dodge in that scenario.

Anyone here work in a nuclear plant?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> I'm wondering how they're going to explain getting power plants working again after sitting idle for 15 years?
> 
> I would think all the nuclear plants faced a "China Syndrome" event when the power went out, and had a core meltdown. Since the feed water pumps are electric motor driven, they would have died and the core would have lost cooling. I don't know much about how the control rods are controlled. I've always assumed their positions are controlled by some sort of winching mechanism, probably with electric winches, but are they designed to drop down completely and stop the nuclear reaction if there is a electrical failure?
> 
> ...


Maybe the same effect that keeps iPhone batteries from draining also stops radioactivity.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

There are nuclear power plant designs that do not require active cooling. The French demonstrated one in the 1970s where the design of the reactor itself caused the radioactive elements to repel one another in the absence of water, thus cooling by air. If I remember correctly, they ran it for a week without water just to prove they could.

IF my memory isn't faulty, I think that's a "pebble bed" reactor, but I admit it's been decades since I read about it.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Ereth said:


> There are nuclear power plant designs that do not require active cooling. The French demonstrated one in the 1970s where the design of the reactor itself caused the radioactive elements to repel one another in the absence of water, thus cooling by air. If I remember correctly, they ran it for a week without water just to prove they could.
> 
> IF my memory isn't faulty, I think that's a "pebble bed" reactor, but I admit it's been decades since I read about it.


But, to my knowledge, none of our commercial plants are of that type, although Georgia Power is building the additional units at Plant Vogle with the new design with the water storage above the containment, so in the event of pump faillure, gravity will allow cooling water flow. That was what got me to wondering if the control rods would drop down automatically in the event of an electrical failure.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

allan said:


> Maybe the same effect that keeps iPhone batteries from draining also stops radioactivity.


It really would not surprise me if they came out with that explanation.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Ereth said:


> There are nuclear power plant designs that do not require active cooling. The French demonstrated one in the 1970s where the design of the reactor itself caused the radioactive elements to repel one another in the absence of water, thus cooling by air. If I remember correctly, they ran it for a week without water just to prove they could.
> 
> IF my memory isn't faulty, I think that's a "pebble bed" reactor, but I admit it's been decades since I read about it.


But none of them are in the U.S.

Anyone wonder why the most important person in the world (Rachel) is left to fend for herself (with Aaron) on the most important mission in the world (restoring power)?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Anubys said:


> But none of them are in the U.S.
> 
> Anyone wonder why the most important person in the world (Rachel) is left to fend for herself (with Aaron) on the most important mission in the world (restoring power)?


I predict she's going to get captured by Monroe and Randall.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

What they really need to work on is some type of "anti-tracking-box" that they can put the pendants in so Randall can't find them.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

pmyers said:


> What they really need to work on is some type of "anti-tracking-box" that they can put the pendants in so Randall can't find them.


If science had any meaning in this world, all it would take is a simple metal box, or even wrapping them in a couple layers of aluminum foil would do it.


----------



## GAViewer (Oct 18, 2007)

Ereth said:


> Electricity flows whenever there's a possibility for it to flow. So you'd have to coat all the connectors. That might explain why all the cars didn't lose power at once, that the nanites didn't complete blocking the circuit on each car at exactly the same moment, but doing it in sequence is clearly dramatic license.


I thought based on the view of the Earth showing power going out in a circle from NE United States that the nanites were released and "attacked" the first power source they found, then using the power they absorbed to create more nanites which went to next power source and repeat. The speed of the spread over the Earth and the highway didn't match, but maybe the view of the entire Earth was sped up. Now what the nanites used to create more nanites I am not sure of since the cars weren't used up as material to make nanites.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

andyw715 said:


> I think the nanos operate similar in theory as darksuckers do.


That was FUNNY!!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

GAViewer said:


> I thought based on the view of the Earth showing power going out in a circle from NE United States that the nanites were released and "attacked" the first power source they found, then using the power they absorbed to create more nanites which went to next power source and repeat. The speed of the spread over the Earth and the highway didn't match, but maybe the view of the entire Earth was sped up. Now what the nanites used to create more nanites I am not sure of since the cars weren't used up as material to make nanites.


A more "reasonable" theory would be that the nanites had already been released and spread, and that the "event" was their activation...


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> A more "reasonable" theory would be that the nanites had already been released and spread, and that the "event" was their activation...


This.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> A more "reasonable" theory would be that the nanites had already been released and spread, and that the "event" was their activation...


Not reasonable at all, because then you have the absurd situation that quadrillions of micromachines had invaded every nook and cranny in the world (including semiconductor cleanrooms and highly controlled biological warfare research labs), and yet no one had noticed them while looking at some electrical device under a microscope.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> This.


Not.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Not.


We'll see.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> We'll see.


You misunderstood my "not".


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> You misunderstood my "not".


I took it to mean that you disagreed with my response? I was agreeing with Rob Helmerichs. Educate me, please.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> I took it to mean that you disagreed with my response? I was agreeing with Rob Helmerichs. Educate me, please.


Sigh. We cannot "see" whether the explanation will make sense or not, since we already know that the explanation will not make sense, whatever it is.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Anubys said:


> But none of them are in the U.S.


So Americentric of you. So, if France gets power back when Rachel turns power on in the world, and can actually run their reactors and restore their country while the US cannot, you think it won't play out in this US TV Show?

Yeah, ok, I'll give you that one.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

OTOH, given how fast they walk from one place to another, France is just a 3-hour swim away!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> I'm OK with it, we've had to accept much larger stretches in sci-fi shows before.


Finally watched this, and, this is kind of where I am. Yeah, not the most plausible, but at least it makes some kind of sense in the scheme of things. I have more problems with the characters than I have with the technology. There's too much of these rebellious family members and no rhyme or reason of what brought these characters to where they are now?

But I'm still liking it, but less and less as the week's progress. To me, it lost something with the long hiatus.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Not reasonable at all, because then you have the absurd situation that quadrillions of micromachines had invaded every nook and cranny in the world (including semiconductor cleanrooms and highly controlled biological warfare research labs), and yet no one had noticed them while looking at some electrical device under a microscope.


Unless the nano-machine is designed to look like a common virus or something so as to not raise suspicion.

Also why would the nano-machines need invade clean rooms and bio-labs? I'm assuming whatever is used to keep dust, etc out of them would keep out the nano-machine. The rooms would lose power when the building lost power.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

morac said:


> Unless the nano-machine is designed to look like a common virus or something so as to not raise suspicion.
> 
> Also why would the nano-machines need invade clean rooms and bio-labs? I'm assuming whatever is used to keep dust, etc out of them would keep out the nano-machine. The rooms would lose power when the building lost power.


This. Filters to remove virus size particles would trap these nano-bots. We had filters on the air supply of our Ampex VPR-3 1" tape machines that would capture viruses. There was a warning in the service procedure to properly dispose of said filters as they were potentially a bio hazard.

I would think a clean room or bio-warfare lab would filter the air to below virus sizes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And then when the outer world failed, it would lead eventually to the safe room failing, and becoming contaminated.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Sigh. We cannot "see" whether the explanation will make sense or not, since we already know that the explanation will not make sense, whatever it is.


Sigh. That's one opinion. Doesn't happen to be mine.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> Sigh. That's one opinion. Doesn't happen to be mine.


No, I expressed no opinion. The fact is that there is no explanation possible that is even close to being plausible. It may be your opinion that the implausibility does not detract from your enjoyment of the show, but the fact is that the whole situation is wildly implausible.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

morac said:


> Unless the nano-machine is designed to look like a common virus or something so as to not raise suspicion.
> 
> Also why would the nano-machines need invade clean rooms and bio-labs? I'm assuming whatever is used to keep dust, etc out of them would keep out the nano-machine. The rooms would lose power when the building lost power.


You can't be serious?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> No, I expressed no opinion. The fact is that there is no explanation possible that is even close to being plausible. It may be your opinion that the implausibility does not detract from your enjoyment of the show, but the fact is that the whole situation is wildly implausible.


This whole discussion with you is apples and oranges. The original discussion was in the context of the show "science", not in the context of what can really be done, but what we see as plausible *in the context of the show.*

Let it go.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And then when the outer world failed, it would lead eventually to the safe room failing, and becoming contaminated.


Agreed. Not to mention that you need people to run a clean room. They would be affected by what was going on outside.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> ...Let it go.


That's impossible considering your advisary


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> This whole discussion with you is apples and oranges. The original discussion was in the context of the show "science", not in the context of what can really be done, but what we see as plausible *in the context of the show.*


That's absurd. Nothing is remotely plausible in the show. It is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with science. If you enjoy the show despite that, well, I have nothing to say about that. But it is absurd to argue that the show makes any kind of sense at all, because it is completely flawed, both scientifically and by any sort of internal logic. If that is your argument, then you are the one who needs to "let it go".


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

verdugan said:


> Agreed. Not to mention that you need people to run a clean room. They would be affected by what was going on outside.


No, it is not plausible.

If the micromachines got into a clean room before they turned off electric current, then they would be noticed in no time. Most cleanrooms are carefully monitored.

If they did not get in, then all the battery powered devices in clean rooms would continue to work for a while after the power event since it would take time for enough of the micromachines to get into the former clean room and cut off the current. So lots of people in cleanrooms around the world would know that whatever caused the power outage, it was thwarted by cleanroom filtering. It would not take long for them to take the next logical step and sterilize a small hermetically sealed chamber or room (a propane torch would almost surely destroy the micromachines), thus allowing electrical devices to work within the sealed chamber.

Another clue would be that hermetically sealed, battery powered devices would continue to work. Offhand, I do not know how common those sorts of devices are around the world, but one common application I do know is many surgically implantable devices (eg., some pacemakers) have the battery and the circuit all hermetically sealed.

But all of this ignores the glaring issue of how these quadrillions of micromachines were not noticed by anyone in the world. If they spread before the power event, then they would be in the air, collecting in the HEPA filters, and presumably crowding all over whatever they use for their power and matter sources for reproduction. There are thousands (if not millions) of optical microscopes in the world, not to mention all the electron microscopes, and they see frequent use looking at all sorts of samples, substances, devices, etc., and many of them are not in highly controlled environments like cleanrooms. There is absolutely no way that the micromachines would fail to be noticed. They would easily be distinguishable from known viruses or bacteria. Even if they looked just like a bacteria (highly unlikely, since all the functionality these things have would not be able to be hidden inside a common bacterium shape), the way the micromachines reproduce would be quite distinctive from a common bacterium. Also, in order to receive a radio or millimeter wave signal, they would have to cooperate in some way, joining together in chains to form an antenna. That would be easily noticed.

If, on the other hand, the micromachines did not spread significantly before the event, then there is the problem that no way could the speed of the power outage (the leading wave of which seemed to travel at very high speeds) have been caused by reproducing micromachines.

Obviously, there is no plausible explanation. The writers are essentially saying, something too small to see did it, nyah, nyah, nyah! Midichlorians, indeed.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Also, in order to receive a radio or millimeter wave signal, they would have to cooperate in some way, joining together in chains to form an antenna.


It was already established in earlier episodes that radio transmission still works, provided you had a pendant to power the transmitter/receiver. That was how Grace was communicating with others in her "group".

And, how do you know how the nano-bots communicate with each other? I don't really care how they communicate, if they communicate with each other at all.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

john4200 said:


> That's absurd. Nothing is remotely plausible in the show. It is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with science. If you enjoy the show despite that, well, I have nothing to say about that. But it is absurd to argue that the show makes any kind of sense at all, because it is completely flawed, both scientifically and by any sort of internal logic. If that is your argument, then you are the one who needs to "let it go".


Since you are such an "expert" on everything, I can see where you would like to continue to argue your concept of how things could not possibly work. You'll have to do so without me, however, as I feel any further conversation with you on this subject serves no useful purpose, as do most of your other comments on various subjects.

You appear to enjoy argument for argument's sake, and I have no time for that.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Anubys said:


> OTOH, given how fast they walk from one place to another, France is just a 3-hour swim away!


Ocean crossing is interesting, especially in light of


Spoiler



next week's previews state that the Georgia Confederation is trading with Europe.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Wow.

I just made this discussion thread a LOT shorter by clicking "ignore" on a poster who is incessantly arguing about impossible scientific minutiae in this science _fiction _story. The poor guy is sounding way too much like a sadly pedantic Sheldon Cooper but without any of Sheldon's amiable and whimsical qualities.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

MikeCC said:


> Wow.
> 
> I just made this discussion thread a LOT shorter by clicking "ignore" on a poster who is incessantly arguing about impossible scientific minutiae in this science _fiction _story. The poor guy is sounding way too much like a sadly pedantic Sheldon Cooper but without any of Sheldon's amiable and whimsical qualities.


there's a difference between science fiction and science stupidity

this show is absolutely science stupid

they should just go with 
http://www.xenafan.com/sounds/simpson_sounds/breastplate.wav
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

jamesl said:


> there's a difference between science fiction and science stupidity
> 
> this show is absolutely science stupid
> 
> ...


I was reacting less to the substance of the poster's argument, and more the arrogance and condescension toward anyone who dared post anything counter.

It is entirely possible to suspend disbelief and enjoy the show. And I will certainly grant it is often enjoyable to point out mistakes in the underlying science. But when posters become unrelenting and humorless about it, they can alienate the very TCF forum members they hope to win over.

A less tiresome, more affable approach could be more persuasive.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

MikeCC said:


> I was reacting less to the substance of the poster's argument, and more the arrogance and condescension toward anyone who dared post anything counter.


Sadly, that is often his technique, which has made him a favorite target for the IGNORE feature for many users here.

I've been in this situation with him before. I won't be drawn into another one.

Meanwhile, back to Revolution........


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jamesl said:


> there's a difference between science fiction and science stupidity
> 
> this show is absolutely science stupid
> 
> ...


You should apply the concepts of Capitalization and Punctuation to your posts. It would give you more credibility.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

MikeCC said:


> Wow.
> 
> I just made this discussion thread a LOT shorter by clicking "ignore" on a poster who is incessantly arguing about impossible scientific minutiae in this science _fiction _story. The poor guy is sounding way too much like a sadly pedantic Sheldon Cooper but without any of Sheldon's amiable and whimsical qualities.


The ignore list is one of the best features of this forum.

It also comes in very handy in the Big Bang Theory Threads.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> It was already established in earlier episodes that radio transmission still works, provided you had a pendant to power the transmitter/receiver. That was how Grace was communicating with others in her "group".
> 
> And, how do you know how the nano-bots communicate with each other? I don't really care how they communicate, if they communicate with each other at all.


Since you are not going to keep posting ridiculous comments that I have to patiently explain to you, I'll respond to this one.

I never said radio transmission does not work. Obviously, it does work, since the pendants can be tracked by satellite.

I don't see how anyone could possibly miss the fact that the micromachines are able to receive a signal, since they deactivate when the pendants send them a signal. Also, anyone who claims that the micromachines were spread and then later activated by a signal (they obviously were NOT on a time delay) should really understand that they have to RECEIVE a signal in order to be activated. And since micron scale (or smaller) entities cannot possibly receive a radio or millimeter wave signal by themselves, they must somehow cooperate in order to form antennas.

I'm glad you are not going to be responding anymore, because I don't really have much more patience with explaining blatantly obvious things to you.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

jamesl said:


> there's a difference between science fiction and science stupidity


Well said. It also makes you wonder about the people who insist on arguing that the show is at all plausible, and then get all bent out of shape when someone patiently explains all the glaring flaws.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I think some people don't understand the concept of science *fiction*. I can only assume those people can't bear to watch Star Trek what with transporters and Heisenberg compensators and other "ridiculous" things.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Yes. He's arguing about how things work in real life, and I'm talking about how they supposedly work in context with the "pseudo science" within the show. Apples and Oranges. I don't care if they don't stick to strict scientific principles. After all, it is a science fiction show. He must really love Dr. Who.

He just gets some sort of sick amusement from trying to be argumentative. It's usually the best technique not to be drawn in. He does this in all sorts of threads. The ignore feature is really handy at times.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Gosh, if these nano-bots have to join up in arrays to receive their radio commands, I wonder how they know in advance when to form said arrays to receive data? Sounds like a poor design feature.

I think it's pretty obvious, within the "pseudo science" of the show, that they are not controlled by radio transmission, but by some effect of the original DOD project science. We know the pendant's flash drive contains some sort of control software, but we don't know as yet what is in the rest of the pendant. We don't know if it's radio or something else for communication.

Next week:


Spoiler



Steam Powered Vehicles!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> Why can't we all just get along?





MikeCC said:


> Wow.
> 
> I just made this discussion thread a LOT shorter by clicking "ignore" on a poster who is incessantly arguing about impossible scientific minutiae in this science _fiction _story. The poor guy is sounding way too much like a sadly pedantic Sheldon Cooper but without any of Sheldon's amiable and whimsical qualities.


He's been on my IL for a looooong time....


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mrdbdigital said:


> Gosh, if these nano-bots have to join up in arrays to receive their radio commands, I wonder how they know in advance when to form said arrays to receive data? Sounds like a poor design feature.


Which is one of the glaring flaws in the show. Finally you noticed one!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

morac said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of science *fiction*.


Like you, for instance? You seem to have it confused with fantasy.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Like you, for instance? You seem to have it confused with fantasy.


I notice you conveniently left out the rest of the quote. Cherry picking quotes is a sign of a poor debater (or a political corespondent).

SciFi and fantasy are usually grouped under the same genre.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

If you guys continue to ruin this thread for others with your bickering, the easiest step for us is to remove your ability to post.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Mike Lang said:


> If you guys continue to ruin this thread for others with your bickering, the easiest step for us is to remove your ability to post.


Thanks, Mike!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Mike Lang said:


> If you guys continue to ruin this thread for others with your bickering, the easiest step for us is to remove your ability to post.


Sorry, I'll just use the ignore feature. Though it would be easier to do so, if I didn't have to go searching for it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mike Lang said:


> If you guys continue to ruin this thread for others with your bickering, the easiest step for us is to remove your ability to post.


Please? Please? Pretty Please?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

morac said:


> Sorry, I'll just use the ignore feature. Though it would be easier to do so, if I didn't have to go searching for it.


Really? It's not that hard to find...


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Nanotech at least has some basis in reality.


Yeah....my first thought on quadrillions of self-replicating nanobots is where do they get the material to replicate with?? Actual, real-life viruses hijack cells in larger organisms and turn them into virus-making factories, making the organisms sick in the process. Apparently nobody gets the nanobot plague so HOW are they reproducing and of what? A quadrillion of anything is going to require a significant mass of SOME kind of material.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

morac said:


> I think some people don't understand the concept of science *fiction*. I can only assume those people can't bear to watch Star Trek what with transporters and Heisenberg compensators and other "ridiculous" things.


Does Star Trek really have a thing called a Heisenberg Compensator? Is it a thing that allows you to simultaneously know both the position and the speed of a particle?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> Does Star Trek really have a thing called a Heisenberg Compensator? Is it a thing that allows you to simultaneously know both the position and the speed of a particle?


Yes.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Heisenberg_compensator


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> Yeah....my first thought on quadrillions of self-replicating nanobots is where do they get the material to replicate with?? Actual, real-life viruses hijack cells in larger organisms and turn them into virus-making factories, making the organisms sick in the process. Apparently nobody gets the nanobot plague so HOW are they reproducing and of what? A quadrillion of anything is going to require a significant mass of SOME kind of material.


Hmm, I was wondering what happened to my missing socks.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> Yeah....my first thought on quadrillions of self-replicating nanobots is where do they get the material to replicate with?? Actual, real-life viruses hijack cells in larger organisms and turn them into virus-making factories, making the organisms sick in the process. Apparently nobody gets the nanobot plague so HOW are they reproducing and of what? A quadrillion of anything is going to require a significant mass of SOME kind of material.


I said that nanotech has some basis in reality.
I didn't say that this show does.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

not gonna get any answers tonight. NBC pre-empted tonight's episode for a news special to cover the events in Boston.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Not sure what coverage is like outside of Boston metro, but here it's been non-stop coverage on every broadcast network since 3pm. I turned off the TV after the 11pm news was over. All Monday shows were pre-empted.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Around here, it looks like Revolution was the only thing on any network that was pre-empted.

Which doesn't say much for what NBC thinks of Revolution...


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Around here, it looks like Revolution was the only thing on any network that was pre-empted.
> 
> Which doesn't say much for what NBC thinks of Revolution...


Or, it was pulled because somebody felt that the last thing people would want to see was a storyline about a bomb. NBC would not be the first network to pull an episode for reasons like this.

Isn't Revolution one of NBC's highest-rated scripted shows? (Okay, who just said, "That's not saying much"?)


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I agree, I think the nature of the show may have had some effect on the decision. Who knows, maybe there were several bombs in last night's episode, they may have just wanted to play it safe.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> Or, it was pulled because somebody felt that the last thing people would want to see was a storyline about a bomb. NBC would not be the first network to pull an episode for reasons like this.


I hadn't heard that until you mentioned it in the other thread just now...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I hadn't heard that until you mentioned it in the other thread just now...


The networks certainly have precedent for delaying episodes that might be too insensitive, given unfolding current events: for the Whedon-lovers out there, I remember the Buffy episode _Earshot._


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MikeCC said:


> The networks certainly have precedent for delaying episodes that might be too insensitive, given unfolding current events: for the Whedon-lovers out there, I remember the Buffy episode _Earshot._


Yes, I know, but in this instance I HADN'T HEARD THAT. Now I have.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Hey, I wasn't chiding you or anything... I was just showing off that despite my age, I am still capable of remembering the Buffy ep around the time of Columbine.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

According to a report I read last night, the network is pushing out the season by 1 week and will play the episode that should have aired last night, next Monday.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

since it would take several days to update the guide, i hope they wait until next week and don't air the missed episode on an alternate day or time - i'd probably miss it without a chance to catch it again for months.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> since it would take several days to update the guide, i hope they wait until next week and don't air the missed episode on an alternate day or time - i'd probably miss it without a chance to catch it again for months.


see my post above yours. It is scheduled to air next monday. They just pushed out the season by 1 week.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

pmyers said:


> see my post above yours. It is scheduled to air next monday. They just pushed out the season by 1 week.


Now I just have to remember to tell my TiVo because it thinks it just recorded it.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Vendikarr said:


> Now I just have to remember to tell my TiVo because it thinks it just recorded it.


I changed my season pass to "All (with duplicates)" just to see if it picks it up. I've never used that option before.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Vendikarr said:


> Now I just have to remember to tell my TiVo because it thinks it just recorded it.


good point. It might think it is a rerun or 28day rule.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

pmyers said:


> good point. It might think it is a rerun or 28day rule.


28 day rule will hit if it actually recorded in that timeslot. It won't get picked up without TiVo intervention, or manually recording that episode.

--Carlos V.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I wonder what they're going to do with the other Monday shows, locally. If Revolution is the only one moved nationally who knows when the others will appear... and it's unlikely TiVo will be informed.

Not that I really care much right now.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

My guide (TWC) show "Home" episode on 4.22 according to Wikipedia "Home" should air on the 29th. So not sure where this missed episode nor "The night...in.." went. 
I guess I'll actually have to check local listings for this one.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Around here, it looks like Revolution was the only thing on any network that was pre-empted.
> 
> Which doesn't say much for what NBC thinks of Revolution...


Hmm... not sure what else on NBC was pre-empted in the West Coast, but I only discovered Revolution being pre-empted when I tried to watch my recording today.

A local news broadcast was aired in its place...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes, I know, but in this instance I HADN'T HEARD THAT. Now I have.


I disagree...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cwerdna said:


> Hmm... not sure what else on NBC was pre-empted in the West Coast, but I only discovered Revolution being pre-empted when I tried to watch my recording today.
> 
> A local news broadcast was aired in its place...


AFAIK, only Revolution was preempted on the West Coast.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> AFAIK, only Revolution was preempted on the West Coast.


I think that's true everywhere outside of the Boston area. Certainly here.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Here in Arizona, we got the NBC News special from 7-8 pm, and then The Voice ran from 8-10. Usually it's The Voice from 7-9 and then Revolution from 9-10. 

My recordings of HIMYM on CBS and The Following on FOX were fine, so I'm guessing those networks didn't preempt anything like NBC did.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Poor Superman. Escapes from prison while chained to a chair using only a nail on the other side of the room, and he's still marked for death by his crazy boss. Rachel was right, they should have killed him...but it was almost worth it for the look on his face when he realized he'd been tricked.


I seriously LOL'd when Jason opened the door and Miles and crew were standing there.



mrdbdigital said:


> What are the chances that Tom will come over to the Rebel side?


About 100%


----------

