Is it Cthulhu time?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1u2WjEG.jpg[/IMG]
[t]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/lovecraft/images/9/92/Shg2_.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131218213716[/t]
Always Cthulhu time
[img]http://img02.deviantart.net/be90/i/2014/226/6/9/cthulhu_rising_by_tristanberndtart-d7uyugt.jpg[/img]
[img]http://pre05.deviantart.net/7d6a/th/pre/i/2016/061/0/d/cthulhu_rising_by_morkardfc-d9tobss.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img02.deviantart.net/6b2e/i/2016/305/9/e/when_the_stars_are_right_by_samize-damyd92.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img03.deviantart.net/c29b/i/2015/020/a/2/the_legend_by_morkardfc-d8enty0.jpg[/img]
Aight that's all, see you in 6 months.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51717560]Is it Cthulhu time?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1u2WjEG.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
i have the book this is from. it's okay
[thumb]https://ospreypublishing.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/958def80b7ce809d46640f86aa46835c/9/7/9781472807885_5.jpg[/thumb]
there's a disappointing lack of tentacles photoshopped into old timey war photos but all the art is pretty rad
[thumb]http://pre06.deviantart.net/8ccc/th/pre/f/2016/166/1/b/cthulhu_wars___operation_bulldog_by_wraithdt-da6bb79.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://pre04.deviantart.net/7178/th/pre/f/2016/165/3/b/cthulhu_wars___operation_highjump_by_wraithdt-da6af0d.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://pre11.deviantart.net/51f1/th/pre/f/2016/166/f/7/cthulhu_wars___operation_starfish_by_wraithdt-da6b9sy.jpg[/thumb]
I think that it's kinda silly that nuclear weapons don't do anything to him, a friggin sailboat caves his skull in at the end of the original story
For an unspeakable unimaginable horror, Cthulu doesn't have a very creative design.
[QUOTE=Zeos;51719197]I think that it's kinda silly that nuclear weapons don't do anything to him, a friggin sailboat caves his skull in at the end of the original story[/QUOTE]
Spoilers, dude.
[QUOTE=Reds;51719204]For an unspeakable unimaginable horror, Cthulu doesn't have a very creative design.[/QUOTE]i've always thought he doesn't look exactly like that, the "giant reptile thing with dragon wings and octopus head" description is just the closest we can get to understanding what we're seeing
and therefore in my mind the exact details of his features should be constantly changing and shifting, but it's hard to portray that in still images of course
[QUOTE=Zeos;51719197]I think that it's kinda silly that nuclear weapons don't do anything to him, a friggin sailboat caves his skull in at the end of the original story[/QUOTE]
Lest we forget [sp]his head does regenerate[/sp] if I remember correctly.
[QUOTE=Zeos;51719197]I think that it's kinda silly that nuclear weapons don't do anything to him, a friggin sailboat caves his skull in at the end of the original story[/QUOTE]
More like [sp]he kinda drives through its head without really interacting with it[/sp]
[img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/0d45b80c5bce8aa8530f287ff3a365c5/tumblr_okab7yu2yw1s5qhggo10_540.jpg[/img]
[img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/ef8293fc10a7676232e43ad672ab0e06/tumblr_okab7yu2yw1s5qhggo1_540.jpg[/img]
[img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/f1548ad36386ade3ca5c633effbf43d7/tumblr_okab7yu2yw1s5qhggo5_540.jpg[/img]
[img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/5d2ff170c9324563b5afd4237770e3e3/tumblr_okab7yu2yw1s5qhggo6_540.jpg[/img]
[quote=tumblr]While many of the pioneers of green architecture could arguably be criticized as technocratic and dry, this has never applied to Emilio Ambasz. His concept of “green over gray” has been pushing the debate around sustainability forwards since the 1970s, but alongside this concept he has developed a critical approach to architectural meaning and form-making which competes with many of architecture’s more poetic practitioners. Ahead Vladimir Belogolovsky’s upcoming exhibition of Ambasz’s work, “Emilio Ambasz: Architecture Toward Nature,” which is on show at the Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Center from February 6th – 28th, Belogolovsky shares his interview with the architect in ArchDaily’s “City of Ideas” column. [/quote] [url=http://alecwiens.tumblr.com/post/156315782970/emilio-ambasz-while-many-of-the-pioneers-of]x[/url]
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51719383]i've always thought he doesn't look exactly like that, the "giant reptile thing with dragon wings and octopus head" description is just the closest we can get to understanding what we're seeing
and therefore in my mind the exact details of his features should be constantly changing and shifting, but it's hard to portray that in still images of course[/QUOTE]
It kinda sucks seeing the artwork before reading the book when it's suppose to be left to the imagination.
[QUOTE=TheThing;51720142]It kinda sucks seeing the artwork before reading the book when it's suppose to be left to the imagination.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, they still had the statues and the bas reliefs all describing Cthulhu as an octopus faced creature with the body of a man and the wings of a dragon.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51717560]Is it Cthulhu time?[/QUOTE]
That depends. The time is easy to know. Has mankind become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy? Have the liberated Old Ones taught them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth flames with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom?
[editline]24th January 2017[/editline]
If so, yes. It is Cthulhu time.
[QUOTE=Reds;51719204]For an unspeakable unimaginable horror, Cthulu doesn't have a very creative design.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/D0GLtrE.jpg[/t]
this is howard's own interpretation of it
i like it the best over any other depiction, cthulhu is [url=https://youtu.be/4p7rIVXeNZI?t=1m18s]chub[/url] with fish scales. the depictions of it being super ripped are lame af and try too hard to make it look cool when it shouldn't look cool
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51720599]That depends. The time is easy to know. Has mankind become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy? Have the liberated Old Ones taught them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth flames with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom?[/QUOTE]
I just looked outside. Just two dogs shagging.
Guess it ain't time yet.
Zepplins need to come back
[IMG]http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1929-Packard-and-the-Graf-Zeppelin.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Zeppelin_Graf_Zeppelin.jpg[/IMG]
I'm pretty sure once fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive/extinct, jets and ICE's will be replaced with solar powered airships and renewable fuel steam power. The only alternatives are nuclear and hydrogen, both woefully impractical and in need of a fundimental revolution before they come safe or practical for use in this way
Plus you have to admit, the modernist era had their shit together. A disproportionate amount of the most beautiful and impressive things in western history are from just that 30ish years. Something was right about it. Even if there was [URL="https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5305/5722839367_5422a2f218_b.jpg"]a swastika or two[/URL] on some of it
I best not just have read you talking shite about nuclear mate
nuclear bad = no
zeppelins cool as shit= yes
the real question is how do i rate it
Well, we have had new blimps
[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01538/Top-Gear-airship-c_1538622c.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;51722728]I best not just have read you talking shite about nuclear mate[/QUOTE]
Oh no, i'm not talking about nuclear full stop. Nuclear is the #1 best power source we have in stationary plants. i'm just thinking about it used to power transport.
Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a plane? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in joe average's car? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a train?
In well maintained, well managed stationary plants, hell yes, there's no reason not to go full boar with it. In vehicles that need a large concentration of energy that tend to crash a lot and have the slightest risk of getting into the hands of people who might want to make dirty bombs, hell no. That's never going to happen with nuclear. Because even if you manage to make a reactor, containment cell and auxilarry equipment light enough, powerful enough, reliable enough, small enough and strong enough to work in a plane with no risk of disaster under worst case scanario conditions, if there was a widespread adoption of that technology, you'd have radioactive material being transported everywhere. All it takes is one tanker to be stolen for half a city to be wiped out. No government would allow it no matter how well thought out it was
And with the electric car, they've about plateued with the battery technology at the moment. They'd need a fundamental revolution in batteries before you can get close to the range of the gas car, let alone the recharging times.
I see a future where inner city cars are electric, and some people have steam cars for long range traveling, which can freely intermingle in traffic in the cities. Either that or the car for long distance trips just becomes obsolete and the train comes back as a popular means of mass transport.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51722955]Well, we have had new blimps
[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01538/Top-Gear-airship-c_1538622c.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It looks like someone taped an inflatable beach float to a reliant robin.
Since we're posting pictures of zeppelins
[img]http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0003/680/MI0003680454.jpg?partner=allrovi.com[/img]
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51723371]Oh no, i'm not talking about nuclear full stop. Nuclear is the #1 best power source we have in stationary plants. i'm just thinking about it used to power transport.
Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a plane? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in joe average's car? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a train?
In well maintained, well managed stationary plants, [B]hell yes, there's no reason not to go full boar[/B] with it. In vehicles that need a large concentration of energy that tend to crash a lot and have the slightest risk of getting into the hands of people who might want to make dirty bombs, hell no. That's never going to happen with nuclear. Because even if you manage to make a reactor, containment cell and auxilarry equipment light enough, powerful enough, reliable enough, small enough and strong enough to work in a plane with no risk of disaster under worst case scanario conditions, if there was a widespread adoption of that technology, you'd have radioactive material being transported everywhere. All it takes is one tanker to be stolen for half a city to be wiped out. No government would allow it no matter how well thought out it was
And with the electric car, they've about plateued with the battery technology at the moment. They'd need a fundamental revolution in batteries before you can get close to the range of the gas car, let alone the recharging times.
I see a future where inner city cars are electric, and some people have steam cars for long range traveling, which can freely intermingle in traffic in the cities. Either that or the car for long distance trips just becomes obsolete and the train comes back as a popular means of mass transport.[/QUOTE]
Except the trash, eh?
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51723371]Oh no, i'm not talking about nuclear full stop. Nuclear is the #1 best power source we have in stationary plants. i'm just thinking about it used to power transport.
Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a plane? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in joe average's car? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a train?
In well maintained, well managed stationary plants, hell yes, there's no reason not to go full boar with it. In vehicles that need a large concentration of energy that tend to crash a lot and have the slightest risk of getting into the hands of people who might want to make dirty bombs, hell no. That's never going to happen with nuclear. Because even if you manage to make a reactor, containment cell and auxilarry equipment light enough, powerful enough, reliable enough, small enough and strong enough to work in a plane with no risk of disaster under worst case scanario conditions, if there was a widespread adoption of that technology, you'd have radioactive material being transported everywhere. All it takes is one tanker to be stolen for half a city to be wiped out. No government would allow it no matter how well thought out it was
And with the electric car, they've about plateued with the battery technology at the moment. They'd need a fundamental revolution in batteries before you can get close to the range of the gas car, let alone the recharging times.
I see a future where inner city cars are electric, and some people have steam cars for long range traveling, which can freely intermingle in traffic in the cities. Either that or the car for long distance trips just becomes obsolete and the train comes back as a popular means of mass transport.[/QUOTE]
Synthetic fuels from nuclear are already a thing.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51723371]Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a plane? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in joe average's car? Do you want a reactor and it's fuel source in a train?[/QUOTE]
Why would you place a powersource on a train under any circustances? Have you not heard of power lines or powered rails? Also, if hyperloop becomes a thing, we don't really need planes for travelling between cities on the same landmass anymore. Couple that with fusion reactors and you have fast as hell zero-emission way to move things and people around for long distances.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;51723540]Except the trash, eh?[/QUOTE]
Modern reactors can use what was previously "waste" as primary fuel, so no.
[QUOTE=download;51723549]Synthetic fuels from nuclear are already a thing.[/QUOTE]
that'd be the prohibitively expensive part i was talking about. That'd probably be fine for arlines, which can float the cost, but for anything down near civilian level, that'd take some huge refinement in the process and vast expansion of scale, presuming the foundations are sufficiently refined to comfortably replace traditional fossil fuels
Also i can only find stuff on natural gas/coal synthetics, nothing about nuclear
[QUOTE=Jukka K;51724914]Why would you place a powersource on a train under any circustances? Have you not heard of power lines or powered rails? Also, if hyperloop becomes a thing, we don't really need planes for travelling between cities on the same landmass anymore. Couple that with fusion reactors and you have fast as hell zero-emission way to move things and people around for long distances.[/QUOTE]
To finish electrifying new york to phillidelphia in the late 20's, PRR took out the largest loan in history at that point, after also burning through their rainy day funds. And at the time they were the largest company in the world, and employed more people than the entire US government. And that was just to electrify a small portion of their mainline.
Electrifying the entire planet is impossible. Supposing god dropped overhead wire over every inch of rail in the world, complete with relay stations, transformers and a full stock of parts, rolling stock and internal infrastructure to support it, just maintaining that amount of electrified line would be so costly as to be impossible. In fact Amtrack took down a good portion of PRR's electrification later on because it was too costly to maintain. And that's a state run operation in a heavily urbanized area
Ditto for hyperloops/vaccum tube rail. Through major arteries that travel exclusively through relitively dense areas that can support it, sure. Maintaining even a simple third rail line through the middle of the nevada desert or canadian prarires or tundra, 365 days a year? Impossibly costly and difficult. And only viable in places where the car already has a monopoly, and would have a monopoly even if ICE's disappeared tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51728412][video=youtube;-_tvJtUHnmU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_tvJtUHnmU[/video][/QUOTE]
I don't get why this hasn't caught on massively yet.
edit
like yeah i mean there's a bunch of them but getting almost all of our greens with this would be fucking amazing
What are the economics like though? Artificial sun can't be cheap to run.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Auxiliary Pics V BRUTALISM 𝔸 𝔼 𝕊 𝕋 ℍ 𝔼 𝕋 𝕀 ℂ
