The perfect vacation

[Nate the Great]

Since I'm going to go halfway across the country in a few months for some family business (and partially an excuse for sightseeing :)), I've been wondering what my perfect vacation would be. Any opinions? If you had all the money in the world, all the time off you need, where would you go? In fact, I'll even create two categories: Individual and Group. My tastes definately go in different directions depending on whether people are occompaning me or not. By myself, certain destinations are better because the sightseeing locations are more geared toward individual wandering around. You see something you're interested in, you change your itinerary, you Boldly Go off that way. In a group, other tourist priorities take over. You can enjoy certain things better as a group.

Case in point: a few months back I went with a group to one of those cornmaze/hayride/misc. harvest-themed attraction places. This is definately a lot of fun as a group, but by yourself, I'd get bored and depressed really fast. On the other hand, wandering around the riverfront of a city in the early morning is amazing by myself. You can just marvel at the sights, stop for minutes at a time to look at whatever you want, etc.

So what's your Perfect Two Vacations?

[Alexia]

The Maldives. Hands down. In one of those hut things that goes over the sea and you can see the sea underneath the floor.

If I ever have a honeymoon I'm going there.

I don't sightsee. I beach-see.

[Nate the Great]

The old adage about one man's heaven being another man's heck comes to mind. I enjoy the surface of water; it's great. One of my great pleasures is canoeing across the upteen lakes in northern Minnesota. Underneath? Um, no. There's all sorts of stuff down there I'd rather be blissfully ignorant about.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. Or your hut. Whatever. :)

[Zeke]

Oh, I'll tell you what floats her boat.

Buoyancy.

(What were you expecting, thermodynamics?)

[Nate the Great]

I was expecting a counterjoke that was positioned as far from snide as possible, but I guess we can't get everything we expect, or even everything we register for. :)

Well, since no one's asked what my perfect vacation is, I guess I'll have to usurp the podium myself. My ideal solo vacation is a week or so wandering around the Smithsonian. When the traveling version visited Minnesota awhile back, I went on a field trip, and that collection was barely scratching the surface. Imagine what I could see in a week at the real thing!

[Celeste]

Well, as long as the stipulations say I'd be absolutly totaly safe I'd head to Africa on a safari, or visit Inca monuments in Peru. But seing as how it's not toaly safe to be travelin' to those parts of the world, that may have to hold off for a bit. :/

[Chancellor Valium]

A month in bed, with a laptop, my games and DVDs, good food and drink, broadband internet access and a feather pillow.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

What's a vacation?

[Gatac]

Some type of breakfast cereal, I think.

Gatac

[Nate the Great]

A vacation is something you agonize about how you're going to find the time and money for beforehand, then enjoy immensely during it, then take a bunch of photos that you fail to organize properly into albums later. I thought everyone knew that.

I don't recall any safety stipulations. :)

Okay, CV, for the purposes of this discussion I'm evicting you from your bed. You have to cross state lines. Where do you go?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Ah, the mythical substance "money". I've heard of this.

[mudshark]

Some type of breakfast cereal, I think.

Wouldn't that be farina?

[Gatac]

Farin Urlaub, more likely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farin_Urlaub)

Also, Sa'ar, I'll do you one better: I've seen money. It was small and fuzzy and it squealed when I tried to touch it. Then it bounded away into the Caribbean ocean and swam into the sunset.

Gatac

[mudshark]

Farin Urlaub, more likely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farin_Urlaub)
Could have been. I get them mixed up, sometimes.

[Alexia]

Oh, I'll tell you what floats her boat.

Buoyancy.

(What were you expecting, thermodynamics?)

*groans*

[MaverickZer0]

Alas, my ideal vacations are largely impossible, as they involve dimensional/interstellar/time travel. Last I checked, we didn't have any of those. But I'd probably settle for a trip to Japan or Russia. I have no idea why Russia. I just want to see it.

And maybe knock a few chunks off so we can take our rightful place as largest country in the world! XD

[Sa'ar Chasm]

*smuggles arms to the Kamchatkan Separatist Front*

[Nate the Great]

"Rightful place?" If you want American supremacy, I'd rather start with smaller, more realistic goals like universal adoption of the dollar and English as the official language of government and economics. I gave up on Americans adopting the metric system a long time ago. :)

[MaverickZer0]

One teensy problem with that.

I'm Canadian. I don't want AMERICAN supremacy.

We're the second largest country in the world, not you guys, dammit!

[Chancellor Valium]

II: Impossible.

I don't like the US, and Mexico is far to hot for a proper holiday.

[Celeste]

The US has some nice places to visit you know. Including the worlds largest hole in the ground, and some dead guys faces carved into the side of a mountain. :)

[Nate the Great]

If YOU want American Supremacy. Quote me correctly, please. I don't, necessarily. I'd be satisfied with English language supremacy and a universal measuring system.

Maverick, most of your "second-largest country" is snowy wasteland, just like Russia. Maybe someone could look up the largest "habitable area" country.

Valium, it's NTG! I will beat this dead horse until everyone complies or I'M dead. Infinite Improbability as a name only exists as an ancient holdover. Within actual messages it's Nate, Nate the Great, NTG, Infinite Improbability (as a full name), Triforce, Infinity, NateDawg (guys from high school), any of these things. II is Roman for two. I am not a two.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

If YOU want American Supremacy. Quote me correctly, please.

He did. You said "if YOU want", and he interpreted that "you" to mean "him", since you were addressing him. Of course, you could have meant "you" to mean "I", meaning you, which might make a bit of sense.

I'd be satisfied with English language supremacy and a universal measuring system.

There already is one. You just can't be arsed to use it.

All hail Esperanto! *snicker*

[MaverickZer0]

Hey! We have the polar bear capital of the world up there! It's no wasteland!

...What's wrong with snow? It's still on the land, and I believe that is what counts towards size, after all. We're bigger than you, and we're on top! If Earth was a prison...fill-in-the-blank. ;p

Esperanto: the language of the future.

[Nate the Great]

Maverick: I have no idea why Russia. I just want to see it. And maybe knock a few chunks off so we can take our rightful place as largest country in the world!
NTG: "Rightful place?" If you want American supremacy...

I meant Maverick (in a vague sort of way).

There's nothing wrong with snow, it just shouldn't count in the final tally of a country's size, at least where bragging rights are concerned.

Sa'ar: He did. You said "if YOU want", and he interpreted that "you" to mean "him", since you were addressing him. Of course, you could have meant "you" to mean "I", meaning you, which might make a bit of sense.

Was that supposed to make sense? ;)

SI/metric isn't universal because Americans don't use it. That's the point.

[MaverickZer0]

The Americans are not the universe. It's not universal because the ALIENS don't use it. Duh.

Snow counts. S'all I'm saying. You'd get pretty much every Canadian (except native Vancouverites maybe) agreeing if you marched into an open space (like Saskatchewan) and yelled 'snow sucks!' But if you said 'it also means the land it's on doesn't count!' you'd get a lot of arguments. And pitchforks. Mind you, that's what you'd get for going to Saskatchewan in the first place.

And in December, 95% of Canada is snow. Does that mean only the Lower Mainland counts as Canadian land in December? Or it the rest supposedly uninhabitable just because there's no cities there? We could put cities there, but that would ruin the beauty of nature.

I am also amused about how people started taking my jokes so seriously. You seem to not realize sarcasm is my default inflection, especially with the ridiculous statements I make on caffeine when not fully awake.

[mudshark]

The Americans are not the universe.
No. We're not claiming Nate, either. In fact, you can have him... cheap. :D




Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Nate the Great]

Until extraterrestrial life is proven to exist, they don't matter in the universal tally.

Snow does not mean "doesn't count." It's the "snow all the time, so you can't use it productively for anything" that counts. Winter snow is periodic, and the land that it falls on in more temperate regions is useful. Snow in upland Canada is more permanent, and much less useful in the greater scheme of things.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Was that supposed to make sense?

No, which was exactly my point. *snicker*

And in December, 95% of Canada is snow.

Not this past December. Most of the East had a green Christmas. You might have missed it while your power was out during one of the 347 ginormous windstorms that blew threw the Lower Mainland. The BC Interior was one of the few places that had a white Christmas, which is all sorts of bizarre.

Snow in upland Canada is more permanent, and much less useful in the greater scheme of things.

There are trees and oil and uranium up there. The tree line (ie, northernmost limit at which you find trees) is a lot farther north than you seem to realise - it vague follows the Nunavut border. There's a lot of habitable land up there, we just don't have enough people to exploit it.

So nyah. :P How about all that desert you've got in the Southwest?

[mudshark]

How about all that desert you've got in the Southwest?
That would be mine. :)

[Chancellor Valium]

Valium, it's NTG!

You want *me* to call *you* 'Great'? Mmmm...no.

I will beat this dead horse until everyone complies or I'M dead.

So long.

II is Roman for two. I am not a two.

Ha! What gibberish. And your new name, Number Two.

[Nate the Great]

Sabrina Spellman: What's with the sudden obsession with pronouns? :)

347 storms? Where'd you read that?

Uh, the actual tree line isn't particularly useful. I'd be more interested in the "lumberable" tree line, which is much further south.

There are all sorts of acceptable aliases on the list that don't involve Great, please use one of them if you feel the need. After all, Nan isn't quite a Romulan either, is she? Nor is Valium a Chancellor.

[MaverickZer0]

Seriously? Yes, there were a lot of windstorms here. I also don't keep up on the weather that isn't right outside. That is all kinds of messed-up and freaky.

We don't want Nate. You guys keep him, or throw him to Mexico or something.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

347 storms? Where'd you read that?

I kept count as they rolled through and I read about them on the news, and then I made up a number with 47 in it. :P

The "you" in my previous post regarding this was addressed to Maverick. I haven't quite figured out how to quote so that the quotee's name appears with it. I'm getting old, and this newfangled technology confuses me. In my day, we downloaded out mail from bulletin boards and read it offline. Back then, the Internet was steam-powered, and information was carried by ants in little glass tubes.

I appear to have gotten off-topic.

Uh, the actual tree line isn't particularly useful. I'd be more interested in the "lumberable" tree line, which is much further south.

Surely there's a huge market for ornamental dwarf tree-bushes. Anyway, even if you can't sell it for lumber, you can still run a trapline through it, and the number of trees on top of it doesn't affect the vast mineral resources underneath it. Can I offer you a polar bear diamond?

[mudshark]

The "you" in my previous post regarding this was addressed to Maverick. I haven't quite figured out how to quote so that the quotee's name appears with it.
If you use the "Quote" button at the bottom of the post to be quoted, you'll note that in the text window, the quoted post, before editing, starts with something like this:

[QUOTE=Sa'ar Chasm;71864]

The first part (QUOTE=) designates the name of the poster being quoted -- in this case, you -- and causes it to appear thus:
Originally Posted by Sa'ar Chasm
The number following the semicolon is the discrete ID for that post which is being quoted. It allows that little arrow ( http://www.fiveminute.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif ) within the quote box to take you back to the post from whence it came, should that be desirable.

The above applies to vBulletin software as implemented here. Other software at other BBS-type boards may differ in one minor detail or another, but they all end up looking pretty much the same, in the end.

Disclaimer: Now would be an opportune time, for anyone who wishes, to come barging in to point out where I've gotten it all wrong.

[e of pi]

Well, I've thought over this, and I have a response.

Personal favorite ideas for single person vacations:
22-24th century, anywhere other than an active combat zone, anytime other than open war.
In real possibility, Wonderfest in Lousiville, various other Trek/Wars/Sci-fi stuff, basically, if it's nerdy or geeky, I'm there. Except that I can't drive without a licensed driver in the passenger seat, for now. Dang.

In a group trip, a cruise in the Carribean or the Atlantic or the Pacific or in Alaska or something OR an excursion trip by rail, Canada, US, Europe, whatever. Amtrak, whatever. Trains without sleeper cars or some form of internet access need not apply. I like spending time with friends and family without having to worry about being on the right highway, or missing an exit, or finding our Motel, or whether the meals will come, then being lulled to sleep whenever I want by the rythym of the rails. It's sappy, but it's pretty much the truth.

[Nate the Great]

"I appear to have gotten off-topic" will go down in the annuals of fiverdom as the official motto of the 5M.net forums, mark my words.

Hey, a new subset question! Taking away Trek, Wars, Who, and B5, what scifi universe would you want to vacation in, assuring safety, translation, etc. I'm looking for some more obscure ideas here.

If you want travel that structured, take a plane or a cruise. I personally find a few unexpected events add spice to a trip. Positive ones, of course. :)

[MaverickZer0]

Safety's boring. Besides, isn't Whoverse supposed to be kind of <i>our</i> universe? If you didn't get to travel with the Doctor, what's the point?
Wars is just...no. Same for B5.

...Can I vacation in cartoon world, where you can hit someone with a giant mallet and they're still okay after? Otherwise I pick Trek for the holodecks, replicators, and 40% possibility of time and/or parallel universe travel.

Of course, too much Stargate makes me go 'Replicators! Aah! Kill!' but it shouldn't be a problem.

[Nate the Great]

Whoverse? My inner self quips that that should be Seussverse (go Horton!), but moving on...

Who says you couldn't travel with Doctor Who ("The Doctor" is reserved for Holodoc in my book)?

A visit to the Stargate universe would by necessity not include Replicators, given that I guaranteed safety. That, or else we'd have impenetrable forcefields so we could observe them.

[MaverickZer0]

But safety's no fuuuuun! :p I'd rather do cool stuff than be safe. And play around with neat gadgets. That's where Trek would come in. But I didn't know Stargate was an option.

I pick Atlantis, and to heck with the Wraith. Maybe I'd have the Ancient gene.

[Nate the Great]

Uh, the ATA gene hardly protects you from Wraith. At least not by itself.

Dave Barry: Guys like neat stuff. And by "neat" I mean "mechanical and unnecessarily complex."

Oh, so the Wraith can have fun with Phil the Prince of Insufficient Light? I'm sure that they'd be terrified of that pitchspoon! :)

[MaverickZer0]

No, but the cool tech you get to use with it does! And then I could fly a Puddle Jumper. Which is win points in itself...not to mention I might pull a Daniel and geek out at the whole thing, just because it's there.

[Nate the Great]

One thing I like about Stargate is that you can get away with naming ships things like Puddlejumpers. You just KNOW that if it was Trek they would've used Gateship.

Oh, and are you assuming that just having the ATA gene automatically gives you the ability to pilot a starship? I'd definately stratch some paint off of the Gate the first time I tried to fly one.

[JVTruman]

One thing I like about Stargate is that you can get away with naming ships things like Puddlejumpers. You just KNOW that if it was Trek they would've used Gateship.

Or if it was 'Moebius'.

[MaverickZer0]

Well, I'd be better than Carson, for sure. And probably Rodney. I've actually flown a small plane before and didn't do badly. As in crash or hit anything. Okay, it was in a field, but there were a couple trees I could've hit. I can also concentrate quite well when I try.

Puddle Jumpers for the win. One of the reasons Sheppard is awesome. And I don't know...'Delta Flyer' sounds pretty rad.

[Nate the Great]

Yeah, well, in Moebius there was no Sheppard to come up with a better name. Plus I think it was there so that Rodney can sleep better knowing (on a subconscious level) that there are universes out there where his name won out.

And did those trees almost feel like they were kissed? (Obscurity is my bread and butter)

Okay, informal poll, who is more of a blatant O'Neill clone: Sheppard or Mitchell?

I'd want a vacation in the h2g2 universe. I'd be sure to bring my towel.

[MaverickZer0]

Neither of them are really much like O'Neill, by Mitchell really is far more. He likes all the stuff blowing up, is kinda dense sometimes, etc. Sheppard generally tries to calm down the people who get overexcited about some new thing (unless 'some new thing' is an Ancient toy, then he has fun with it) I do like Sheppard better than Mitchell, too.

Mitchell isn't an O'Neill knockoff, though--he's Jack if he'd grown up about twenty years later. Fairly different, though there are similarities.

I think Rodney is less concerned about the universes that won out than his sister telling people his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_McKay">real first name</a>.

[Nate the Great]

Rodney has enough problems, let's let him stew over his unfortunate name on his own time. :)

[PointyHairedJedi]

I would, on my own, go and see the sheild volcanoes of the Tharsis region of Mars. Hocking a loogie off the side of Olympus Mons (or indeed any of the three other volcanoes) would be problematic though - aside from the deadly atmosphere, pretty thin though it would be at that altitude, the shape of the volcano itself (basically a dome of rock) means I'd have to get a pretty respectible velocity going on said loogie if it were to have any chance of clearing Olympus Mons and reaching the ground below, even in Martian gravity. Of course, while I was over there I'd probably take the oppertunity to see Argyre and Elysium too, as it's probably not the sort of holiday I'd be able to afford too often.

[Nate the Great]

Don't forget to make faces at the Mars lander while you're there. Go Calvin and Hobbes!

[mudshark]

Hocking a loogie off the side of Olympus Mons (or indeed any of the three other volcanoes) would be problematic though - aside from the deadly atmosphere, pretty thin though it would be at that altitude, the shape of the volcano itself (basically a dome of rock) means I'd have to get a pretty respectible velocity going on said loogie if it were to have any chance of clearing Olympus Mons and reaching the ground below, even in Martian gravity.
Easy. All you have to do is wait for a dust storm to kick up, providing you with an adequate tailwind. Should be a piece of cake.

[Nate the Great]

Okay, here's the kicker. How far away from a manned Mars mission are we, really? I'd say that probably the technology is theoretically a decade away, but it'll take a LOT longer than that to accumulate the money, fuel, and an appropriate orbit location to jump off from.