Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Off-topic posts about whatever, including off-the-wall posts about being on walls.

Moderator: Moderators

Which would you choose?

Flight
10
50%
Invisibility
10
50%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
Jesus
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:41 am
Contact:

Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Jesus » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:39 pm

F.1) Flight speed is assumed to be 30 MpH or less (vertical / on takeoff), 60 MpH or less (horizontal / in flight), or higher if falling toward the Earth (depending on steepness of descent). You must land at a speed that is consistent with human survivability (if you want to live).
F.2) Flight does not increase your strength; if you would not normally be able to lift a person, you won't be rescuing people from a burning building by carrying them.
F.3) Flight implies forward momentum; you cannot hover.
F.4) Your ceiling is determined by your body and the equipment you are wearing; if you don't have oxygen, you'll black out, if you don't have a jacket you'll freeze, and so on. If you have a space suit and the strength to lift it, you can leave Earth.


I.1) Invisibility is visual only; dogs can still smell you, your footfalls still make noise. However, you will not trigger laser tripwires.
I.2) Because light apparently passes through you, you do not cast a shadow. However, you will still leave footprints, and standard comic effects such as dumping flour on you will render you partially visible.
I.3) You still emit heat, and can be detected or targeted by the appropriate devices.
I.4) Invisibility is assumed to extend to objects on your person; that is, your clothes and objects on your person become invisible when you do and also become visible when you do. This ability does not extend to other living beings (if you have a mouse in your pocket, it will remain visible).
Jesus (#229) | Solitude (#257)

User avatar
Carygon Nijax
Posts: 1034
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:13 pm
Location: RP Channel... we have cake!!
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Carygon Nijax » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:38 pm

I say Flight.. whether is not the greatest superpower.. you can save a lot off money in transportation :D :lol:
Image
Top 10 on the Total Post list

User avatar
Cristiona
Posts: 4801
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:01 am
Location: the Conservatory with the lead pipe
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Cristiona » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:59 pm

Platypus, dammit.

Oh, er... wrong thread.

This is kind of a neat question, actually. I think I'd probably go with flight as it seems to have more use for mundane, day-to-day tasks. Invisibility is neat, but less useful unless you're a spy or something.

F.3) Flight implies forward momentum; you cannot hover.
Since you can go straight up, it implies that your acceleration is greater than 32 ft/sec^2. Since the super-powered flight isn't dependant on wings, thrust, lift, or Bernoulli effects, there's no reason one couldn't hover. Still, even taking this particular fiat into account, I'd probably still take flight. It'd make getting to work a lot easier.
Image
The churches are empty / The priest has gone home / And we are left standing / Together alone
--October Project: "Dark Time"

Muhandes
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:54 am
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Muhandes » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:30 am

Flight. I've been doing it in my dreams for ages.

Harry Dresden
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Harry Dresden » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:01 pm

As much as I'd love to be able to fly, I choose invisibility. I can see a lot more use for that in my day-to-day life than flying around attracting all that attention.

Satan
Posts: 1855
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Satan » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:29 pm

Now, invisible flight, that'd be a great super power.

Avenger
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Avenger » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:01 am

I chose invisibility.

I never really saw the fun and the usefulness of flying in my life so invisibility would be better.
Trading insanely super XL bowl! Message Avenger in game. :D

User avatar
Patojonas
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:48 am
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Patojonas » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:21 pm

flight, man's oldest dream :wink:

User avatar
Corrupt Shadow
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Corrupt Shadow » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:44 am

Flight... invisibility is overrated and would get old after a while.
Image
I've won the 100k DD bet so many times, I should have the title "Mr. Luck"

seventhcross
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby seventhcross » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:12 am

Jesus wrote:I.2) Because light apparently passes through you, you do not cast a shadow. However, you will still leave footprints, and standard comic effects such as dumping flour on you will render you partially visible.

I.4) Invisibility is assumed to extend to objects on your person; that is, your clothes and objects on your person become invisible when you do and also become visible when you do. This ability does not extend to other living beings (if you have a mouse in your pocket, it will remain visible).

so, if you have flower dumped on you, you can turn visible, then invisible again and be fine, right?
I chose Invisible, cause I like to be sneaky. I'd actually rather have the ability to copy other peoples powers, or the power to read minds. but those aren't options...
Image

User avatar
Jesus
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Jesus » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:24 pm

seventhcross wrote:so, if you have flower dumped on you, you can turn visible, then invisible again and be fine, right?

Exactly. In that case you'd be fine, but if the thing being dumped was continuous (like rain), you'd be out of luck.

I made the last point because invisibility would kind of suck if you couldn't wear clothes; you'd be pretty geographically/seasonally limited. The human body just doesn't take cold well. That kind on/off thing also makes theft tricker to pull off when the thing you're after is under surveillance; you can't just make the thing disappear without revealing yourself.
Jesus (#229) | Solitude (#257)

User avatar
Carygon Nijax
Posts: 1034
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:13 pm
Location: RP Channel... we have cake!!
Contact:

Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Postby Carygon Nijax » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:35 pm

so.. basically:

Flight ---> transportation ----> money save -----> good

Invisibility --> non-transportation---> stealing stuff / sneaking ----> Bad
Image
Top 10 on the Total Post list


Return to “Off the Wall”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests