Lost - Season Three


Recommended Posts

He puts his hand to the window then pushes away kind of struggling for a bit then stops moving.

He was supposed to die. He accepted his death and they did the death scene quite well IMO.

Yeah he crosses himself then stops moving...

That is not possible. You have to be physically incapable (including having no energy) of swimming to drown by convincing yourself.

Btw, that is possible. I've studied cases (law student) where people have drown themselves in buckets to commit suicide, it can be done if you have the mental conviction (I have no idea how much mental conviction is required having never tried).

That is not possible. You have to be physically incapable (including having no energy) of swimming to drown by convincing yourself.
I disagree, I think if I wanted to drown myself I could. I'm not going to try just to prove a point, but I think it is possible. Mind over matter.
I am only basing my opinion on

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5402342.stm

"between 1983 and 2000, there were 568 plane crashes. Out of the collective 53,487 people onboard, 51,207 survived."

Notice that it's also on US flights only. As evidenced by that article, however, it is possible to survive plane crashes, but of the 568 crashes, how many were from a commercial airliner or in a remotely similar case to the crash on Lost?

Here's a list of notable crashes. I did a search for the word boeing since I didn't want to include small aircrafts. Just the big boys. But I'm not plane expert, so some of the boeing planes could be small ones too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notab...ercial_aircraft

In 2000, 670 people died, but none were US flights. In 1999, a plane skid off the run way, which killed 11 people. Hardly notable as a significant crash like on Lost. Point being, it was a major crash (Lost), and you have a large number of survivors when a crash like that typically has none or very few (3-10 out of 200 or less). There were obviously other factors in play for them to survive, much less come out walking and not limping.

I can accept it, so long as they don't say, they simply survived :)

I was going to bring that up but my reply was already long enough.

Err, I remembered incorrectly:

Myth: The brace position was actually designed by the airline industry to kill people, rather than save them, during an airplane crash (in order to save money by paying off wrongful death suits rather than continuous injury compensations).

Busted.

The brace position protected the test subject (Buster) from serious and possibly fatal injuries. When the test subject was not braced he received far more serious injuries. At the end of the test the MythBusters-team risked their lives, but everyone survived the drop. There is a greater chance of dying due to smoke inhalation or immolation from burning debris ?€” due to being immobilized by injury or being pinned down by debris. There is a grain of truth to this myth, however; it was learned through research that the amount of money paid by airlines in wrongful death suits is lower than the amount of money paid for injury compensation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mythbusters-season-2

I was thinking about the one where they tested this "myth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAT_Yugoslav_Flight_364

Realistically that many people couldn't have survived much less walk away with a few bumps and bruises without some kind of external force at work. ;)

I was thinking about the one where they tested this "myth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAT_Yugoslav_Flight_364

Realistically that many people couldn't have survived much less walk away with a few bumps and bruises without some kind of external force at work. ;)

Wow, that's quite a miracle for her to have survived from 33,000 feet inside the tail section. I can't even imagine that :|

What I mentioned earlier was the episode where they tested the brace position. They dropped just a few few and walked away going, "Uugggnnnn." So to fall from 1,000, much less 33,000 feet... :|

I was thinking about the one where they tested this "myth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAT_Yugoslav_Flight_364

Realistically that many people couldn't have survived much less walk away with a few bumps and bruises without some kind of external force at work. ;)

Wow :|

For the last time. Charlie did not die because he failed in his attempts to survive. Charlie died because he chose to fulfill Desmond's vision. As far as Charlie was concerned, if he did not die, then (for whatever reason) Claire and Aaron would not be rescued. He died to save them

Get over it.

I don't care if Charlie lived, died or gave birth to live kittens while knitting a sweater made from yak hair; the physics were shown totally incorrectly. First, they never would have been able to close the door in the time follwing the blast, as the moon pool's pressure would have been instantly gone. Second, no amount of pressure in the ocean can fill the space that should have existed as an air pocket at the top of the control room Charlie was in.

They did it wrong. Get over it.

I don't care if Charlie lived, died or gave birth to live kittens while knitting a sweater made from yak hair; the physics were shown totally incorrectly. First, they never would have been able to close the door in the time follwing the blast, as the moon pool's pressure would have been instantly gone. Second, no amount of pressure in the ocean can fill the space that should have existed as an air pocket at the top of the control room Charlie was in.

They did it wrong. Get over it.

You know that brings up something I had not thought of. As soon as that window was busted, the rush of water coming up from the pool would have been immediate and extremely powerful as the air pocket was forced OUT of the blast hole. No way in hell would water have begun to flow inward at all.

You know that brings up something I had not thought of. As soon as that window was busted, the rush of water coming up from the pool would have been immediate and extremely powerful as the air pocket was forced OUT of the blast hole. No way in hell would water have begun to flow inward at all.

Exactly. As it did in Deep Blue Sea.

I don't care if Charlie lived, died or gave birth to live kittens while knitting a sweater made from yak hair; the physics were shown totally incorrectly. First, they never would have been able to close the door in the time follwing the blast, as the moon pool's pressure would have been instantly gone. Second, no amount of pressure in the ocean can fill the space that should have existed as an air pocket at the top of the control room Charlie was in.

They did it wrong. Get over it.

Err, Charlie locked the door before the window was busted.

Also, if the top of the room had an opening, then there would've been an opening for the water to escape, ja? If so, then maybe you got it wrong. However, we simply do not know because we haven't seen the ceiling of that room.

Edited by Mathachew

You guys are forgetting one key element, You guys are assuming that there is no other outlet for air. In most cases, they would not make a room that small with no ventilation. It is obviously not an air chamber as the computer stuff is in there. If the door was air tight- there WOULD be ventilation that would let air escape. End of discussion.

We're not talking about small planes. We're talking about large Boeing planes, like the 777 that can carry over 300 people, the one they flew on in Lost. Look up how many people have survived plane crashes. Judging from the list I looked at, and the number of survivors, the ratio is extremely small, with all dying in most cases. Even when a plan is able to land, people have died. One incident had a plane make an emergency landing in a field, where 11 of 134 people survived the landing. Hitting water is really no different than hitting ground when it is from a high altitude. Jump from a 200ft bridge into the water and let me know if you survive the smack; you could possibly get out of it if you toothpick your way into the water, you know, body completely straight, feet first, head last, but it's likely that you would be knocked out from the impact.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 was hijacked on November 23, 1996 en route from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, by three Ethiopians seeking political asylum. The plane crashed in the Indian Ocean near Comoros after running out of fuel, killing 123 of the 175 passengers and crew on board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961

The aircraft was Boeing B767-260ER, the plane had crash landed on water and 52 had survived. Almost same as the number of survivors in LOST.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 was hijacked on November 23, 1996 en route from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, by three Ethiopians seeking political asylum. The plane crashed in the Indian Ocean near Comoros after running out of fuel, killing 123 of the 175 passengers and crew on board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961

The aircraft was Boeing B767-260ER, the plane had crash landed on water and 52 had survived. Almost same as the number of survivors in LOST.

I remember that, if you look at the photo you see that the plance was not at a high altitude when it hit the water and the pilots were trying to land it on the surface of the water. So, this was a case of a botched landing more than a free fall from the sky at 1000 ft. I can't believe we are actually debating the scientific merits of LOST. If we do that, we are in for a long Summer...

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 was hijacked on November 23, 1996 en route from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, by three Ethiopians seeking political asylum. The plane crashed in the Indian Ocean near Comoros after running out of fuel, killing 123 of the 175 passengers and crew on board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961

The aircraft was Boeing B767-260ER, the plane had crash landed on water and 52 had survived. Almost same as the number of survivors in LOST.

It also didn't split in half in mid-air.

Aaaaaaanyways, I think you're missing my point. I'm done talking about plane crashes. Back to Lost.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!