Page 1 of 1

Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:39 pm
by Jesus
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).

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

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:38 pm
by Carygon Nijax
I say Flight.. whether is not the greatest superpower.. you can save a lot off money in transportation :D :lol:

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

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:59 pm
by Cristiona
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.

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

Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:30 am
by Muhandes
Flight. I've been doing it in my dreams for ages.

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

Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:01 pm
by Harry Dresden
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.

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

Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:29 pm
by Satan
Now, invisible flight, that'd be a great super power.

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

Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:01 am
by Avenger
I chose invisibility.

I never really saw the fun and the usefulness of flying in my life so invisibility would be better.

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

Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:21 pm
by Patojonas
flight, man's oldest dream :wink:

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

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:44 am
by Corrupt Shadow
Flight... invisibility is overrated and would get old after a while.

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

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:12 am
by seventhcross
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...

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

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:24 pm
by Jesus
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.

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

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:35 pm
by Carygon Nijax
so.. basically:

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

Invisibility --> non-transportation---> stealing stuff / sneaking ----> Bad