Slashdot Mirror
Firefly: A Special Feature
Philip B. Gaines writes "Philip B. Gaines announces the completion of an independent multimedia commentary project, "Firefly: A Special Feature", a DVD based on the FOX television series created by Joss Whedon. A free examination copy of the project is available for those willing to provide feedback about this media experiment. "Firefly: A Special Feature" is a 3.5 hour multi-module review of Whedon's innovative space western series. The interactive review features a variety of interpretive and analytical components--all intended to further discussion of this seriously underappreciated show. The bottom line of the project is dialogue, not promotion. If you have seen "Firefly" before and found it intriguing--or even if you haven't--this project will make you think, argue, and perhaps even learn a bit. For "Firefly: A Special Feature", I have acted as writer, video/sound editor, and media producer, working with complete independence from the producers of the show or anyone else whose influence might bias the analysis. Plans are underway to do this kind of project again, so I would appreciate feedback on all levels. See the website for a formal description of the project Email pbgaines@pbgaines.com for a copy of the DVD."
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
What was the last thing that went through the firefly's mind when he hit the spaceship's windshield?
I mean, I'm glad that this isn't a DVD with fan fiction style sex scenes and unplausible dialogue, but fan documentary? Is that any better?
--- http://foo.ca
Congrats on working with a great series that should have had a bit longer time on the air for people to get used to it.
;-P
And congrats on the free ad space
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Mm. If it's wrong to want slashdot to have news instead of unpaid ads - then I don't want to be right.
How many angry readers will you censor by modding them down until you realized that you placed a disguised advert as an article?
.
I liked Firefly a lot, and was pretty pissed off at the mental midgets at FOX for replacing it with that vacuous teen cop show.
You apparently haven't been wathcing Fox for that long then. These are the same folks who canceled Married With Children (probably the best satire of the American family ever on TV) becuase it wasn't "family-friendly" but who think that 7th Heaven and similar shows reflect actual American families.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
"Advertising pretending to be news... again..."
If it's interesting to people, so what?
"Derp de derp."
There were actually 13 episodes. The first 10 were aired in the states, while the last 3 were in the UK. Fox has to be blamed for its low Neilsen ratings since it aired the episodes out of order which probably confused the audience.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
...Science Fiction shows ever put on television (imho). At first, I didn't think I could get use to the "space cowboy" feel, but this show was absolutely fantastic. It was a much more realistic look at what a potential "space wandering" humanity could become (when comparing to something like Star Trek). The cast and acting was great, the episodes, plots, and storyline, all very intriguing. It still completely shocks me that Fox took it off the air. Several friends of mine and myself still wallow in frustration as to why it ever got taken off the air.
I highly recommend picking the series up on DVD, available at Amazon Dec.9.
java guy, tech blog...
The linked article is interesting but Mr. Gaines writes that his target date for completion is July 2003. Wonder if he intended that to read 2004?
An "analysis" written by fans - or even worse, a fan - is generally guaranteed to be uncritical garbage. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to produce/consume masturbation material about a show/series, stick to fanfics stay away from slashdot. This seems like a good place to start for Philip and Hemos .
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Advertising is per se not interesting. If it were interesting it WOULD be news and thus no advertising would be necessary. The two are mutually exclusive.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
'Space Above and Beyond', which was quite an excellent SciFi show, it lasted something like one and a half to two and a half seasons before having the plug pulled on it.
It used revolutionary (for television) special effects for the space scenes. If I am not mistaken, I believe that it was the first to use computer generated graphics for the entirety of the space scenes, from the large cruiser/carrier the space marines were using to the sleek starfighters that that marines were using...
The stories were rather compelling as well. Especially with the whole back history of the clone warriors and the human-looking androids. It's to bad that they ended the whole show as it was beginning to really grow... (I feel that most shows take a good two to three seasons to really get their legs and start running...)
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
it was decent scifi and so a lot of slashdot readers were instant fans, myself included. the universe was not the sanitary one of star trek nor the mystical one of starwars. it was a universe where technology hadn't been humanities savior, and there was enough of it to see that it probably never would. the universe had limited resources: fuel, food, etc. the universe required the characters to be people who did what it took to survive. this allowed for them to be interesting characters without requiring they be jedi or android. the firefly's crew was made up of prositutes, priests, and even the captain killed at least one "bad guy" in cold blood. i didn't watch every episode, but the few i caught i really enjoyed.
Hey, I saw a couple of episodes. I have to agree.
What's so special about Firefly?
Different characters and scenery, but same ol' story. Been there, done that. Even Andromeda is better than that.
I'll probably get modded down as a Troll by the authoritarian Slashdot regime, but what the heck.
The commentary lasts longer than the actual television series! I thought Firefly was actually an OK show. Not great, but not trash either. It's definately better than "The OC" though. What a crock of shit. .2 * "The Family Guy".
I don't get why all you geeks ejaculate for Firefly. I'll admit it was an interesting show, but not nearly as good as you all make it out to be. Personally, I think Andy Richter's show was 100 times better. On a scale of "The OC" to "The Family Guy", I would give Firefly about
By the way, the scale is logarithmic, so "Andy Richter Controls The Universe" != 20 * "The Family Guy".
I liked the show , and thought that the dialogue alone was head and shoulders above ANY show (not just scifi or western) previously or currently broadcast, but that isn't relevant.
Isn't the topic here the interactive multimedia approach to the show's episodes ? No one has commented on that yet.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
One of the unaired episodes of Fire Fly is on Space tonight at 8pm EST it's called Trash.
Space is a Canadian Si-Fi\Fantasy Station.
Never Underestimate A Human Being
...so that I don't have to read about this dead sci-fi show every week on Slashdot. That's what imdb.com is for.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
As seen with family guy, if a cancled series released on DVD gets a high volume of sales, producers start to catch on that they made a mistake .
I know I'll be purchasing my copy when it becomes available! It really was an interesting show, a departure from the typical StarTrek/Babylon5 mushy sci-fi.
I found that the biggest appeal of Firefly wasn't the plots, but how the characters building. To me it seemed as if they first tried to make it obvious who each character was, but then kept showing that each person was really much more complicated and then the interactions between them as well, and then it kept getting more complicated.
Serenity, Part 1
Serenity, Part 2
The Train Job
Bushwhacked
Shindig
Safe
Our Mrs. Reynolds
Jaynestown
Out of Gas
Ariel
War Stories
Heart of Gold
Objects in Space
Trash
The Message
"Advertising is per se not interesting. If it were interesting it WOULD be news and thus no advertising would be necessary. The two are mutually exclusive."
Forgive me if in my sleep depraved state I misunderstand your point, but an advertisement can be interesting without it being mutually exclusive.
"Derp de derp."
Oh damn. I was hoping for a documentary that exposed brain-dead MIT Media Lab dotcom ventures.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Call me crazy, but I felt the whole space cowboy theme was a little much. I watched it, but I don't feel the angst that so many fellow slashdotters feel for its removal. What I do share is the angst of what they replaced it with. They went from mediocre to just plain crap.
Now when they pulled Greg The Bunny, that really pissed me off!
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Uhhuh? And how do you know it's not just "vapourware"?
The owls are not what they seem
Mod parent back up.
Why the hell is the parent modded troll? I've never seen Firefly, and all the fandom on slashdot has me intrigued. But the parent poster has a point... what's so special about it? Instead of modding it down, mod it up and get someone to post a good rebuttal.
Wouldn't that be the better way to win fans?
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*beware the cute-bunny virus
(pop) culture and advertising? not a rhetorical question. i share people's irritation with advertisements showing up everywhere, but what we consume as entertainment is always selling us something. Talking about that is a good thing. I would trust a geek conversation about it more than one in most other populations...
1. Unlike Star Trek, Farscape, and Battlestar Galactica, there was no sound in outer space.
There are more differences, but I only need one to show that you didn't think very hard, so I'll stop there.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Hmmm... not sure I agree with that one. I didn't feel I was watching anything special, and in fact it felt rather dull. I think the first sci-fi series to incorporate frontier motifs was Galaxy Rangers, which rocked the cartoon world hard for the two or so seasons it ran. I loved that show, and I thought it was great that there was some real violence in it.
Hey....I detect some stealth marketing going on here.... Knock it off!
Oooh, no sound in outer space! Good one, Golias! I guess we can ignore those more trivial things like plots and acting. I bow to your clear ability to "think hard" about stuff.
You missed my point.. move along..
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
I'm a huge Firefly fan, and was pretty eager to see what this project would be like. Sadly, if the "What is Firefly" multimedia project that's available on the website is any indication, the project is going to be little more than a revisiting of a fan's favourite clips along with a voiceover filled with harsh invective and "woe is the world for the cancellation of Firefly!" mopings.
The show was, IMHO, very unique. It took me a while to get around the mix of high and low tech, and I think it took the writers a while to work it through, too, but by the end of its run, it had done an admirable job of building a believable future society where frontiersmen had to do what was "right" without benefit of the law's judgement. I wish that the voiceover focused more on how the show espoused classic Libretarian ideals in an easily consumable medium instead of simply whining about how it was "the best show on television" and "too ahead of its time for FOX executives." The latter gripes are subjective and weaken any analysis of what actually made the show worth watching in the first place.
It is too bad about "Firefly" not receiving the support it needed from Fox, because I've noticed something about ALL of Whedon's series. The first season is just the setup.
If there had only been one season of "Buffy," no one would remember it now. The first season has some good lines and is solidly done, but what made the show special was how Whedon developed the characters and situations he'd established in that first year.
"Angel" was much the same. The first season set the ground rules, and then he started to screw with them.
I enjoyed the episodes we saw of "Firefly," but what I really miss is seeing how it would get fiddled with, as the series progressed.
Make a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Oooh, no sound in outer space! Good one, Golias! I guess we can ignore those more trivial things like plots and acting. I bow to your clear ability to "think hard" about stuff.
Wow, don't you sound smart. Aren't you hot shit?
Seriously, give it a rest. Your virtual dick swinging is really annoying to everyone over the age of 14.
If you'd seen Firefly, you would know that it had a great deal to it that really wasn't like other sci-fi shows. They used handguns because they were more simple, and reliable, and pretty darn effective. There was actual political strife, and people needed to "have a job" to survive, as opposed to being a bunch of peaches-and-cream good-guys cruising around the galaxy.
And there were moral dilemmas - ones that the main characters often resolved in a less-than-satisfactory manner.
I'm not saying you had to "like it", but denying that it's different is pretty frigging impossible to defend. "It sucked" is way easier. And maybe it's true. It's hard to tell just based on half a season aired out of order.
See, now, I could go on, but I've already contributed *so much* more than you to this conversation, and I don't expect you to come up with anything worthwhile in response to my efforts. So why should I waste any more time typing to a worthless little shit like yourself?
I never watched it while it was on the air (a friend gave me copies a few months ago) but what I liked about it was the writing and storylines, which I felt were a notch above most other sci-fi on TV.
Like I said, I was able to come up with one example of how Firefly was different in about 2 seconds. A trivial difference, but I was just demonstrating that the original post was utter nonsense.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The show was cancelled because it just wasn't that great. It didn't take watching more than the first 10 minutes to know it wouldn't survive. And this had nothing to do with any evil Fox conspiracies or not being family-friendly. Had the show merit, more people would have watched it and it would have survived.
What producers and directors of science-fiction shows (apparently including Whedon) don't seem to get is that their potential audience wants big stories, large scale, photon-cannons-blazing action and adventure backed up by solid, plausible science fiction. The the first few episodes of Battlestar Galactica, a few episodes and story arcs from the various Star Treks have hit on this, but weren't able to sustain it.
Unfortunately, what we seem to get more often is dull, inane dialog, pithy humor, sexual innuendo, fist-fights and character-worship.
What makes Firefly worth watching is that it's a well written, well acted, and well-directed show, featuring production values that were about as good as you are likely to see on TV, and story arcs which were entertaining to follow.
That said, there were differences. Firefly paid much closer attention to physics than any TV sci-fi I've ever seen, and had a very rich back-story that easilly stands up against B5 or Farscape. It was certainly an order of magnitude better than either of the last two Star Trek series to emerge from Paramount. When the DVD set comes out next month, borrow it from a friend or something and see for yourself.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
WHOOSH
'cause I never heard it in firefly, but can't think of a single episode of the others where I didn't. And don't get me started on a 'near miss'.
Ads are broken.
Relax, buddy, I am not attacking your world views hee, this is a freaking TV SHOW. I asked an honest question: what makes Firefly "innovative"? Aside from the lame insults and overreaction from you and Golias, I got the answers I was expecting: not much. It's a western, only based in space. And before you freak out as I mentioned in the subject line, this is my opinion, feel free to have your own.
Philip was kind enough to send me a copy of his DVD project a week and a half ago, and while I have yet to finish watching what is unarguably a massive project, everything I've watched so far is fantastic commentary. He exhibits extremely strong character analysis (essential for any discussion of Firefly) and is acutely aware of a plethora of layered subtleties in the show that I somehow completely missed, even having rewatched the episodes time and time again. Pay (if he's asking for money at all) whatever he's asking for material and/or S&H, because the project is well worth it. What I've watched of the DVD I've walked away from having an even greater appreciation for Firefly, and I didn't think that was possible.
Hopefully someone "up there" (that is to say, Whedon) will notice Philip's exemplary work and integrate it into the mythos somehow, because it deserves nothing less. Highly recommended.
You know, you don't have to do a DVD of your own to put in your own commentaries on films. The guy's site mentions he was inspired by Ebert's Dark City track--well, another idea Ebert had, and one that's even been covered by Slashdot in the distant past though I lack the time to dig up the URL for the story, is DVDTracks, a site that hosts do-it-yourself commentaries recorded as MP3s, meant to be downloaded and played simultaneously with the DVDs. I've even done one myself, for the Miyazaki movie Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro , and it was great fun.
There's a lot of other great stuff there, too. Check it out.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Yes, both Westerns and space SF have been made before. Combining both in the same show has not, to my knowledge, and I doubt it had even been considered, being such a bizarre concept and all.
By your criteria it's hard to think of anything that could possibly be considered innovative that involves actors talking and interacting.
...is to "roll my own" and run a Firefly-based rpg. Notes available here.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
But that's been done before, most notably in 2001: a Space Odyssey and 2010.
And, most of the space science in Firefly was really really bad. They confused solar systems with galaxies, for crying out loud! Or "We snuck up on the space station by coasting in from a whole thousand kilometers away." There were other examples.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Like it or don't like it, thats for each person to decide. Firefly hooked me with the first episode aired in the us. Can you imagine anyone at starfleet running the badguy through a warp engine on purpose? The actors were settled in thier roles much better than any other first season show I know of. The characters backgrounds and motivations were hinted at just enough to make you want to know more about all of them. And when you found out more, it just made you want to find out even more. I actually don't watch shows much, and I certainly don't watch to reward 'innovation'. When I watch, I want entertainment. Sometimes that comes from novelty, sometimes familiarity. Sometimes lots of different things at the same time. The only thing I think sucked about firefly was its getting canned.
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
The one big innovation I noticed was the heavy use of handheld cameras and the way they were able to move through the sets.
Of course, as I read through the hype of the Battlestar Galactiga remake, I couldn't help but think that almost every one of their innovations appeared in Firefly.
The difference was that the main characters from the shows you mentioned would never have have kicked the bad guy into the ship's engine and killed him on a whim. Firefly is unique among SiFi TV shows because it comes closest to recreating the version of Star Wars where Han shoots Greedo first. Throw in the great writing that brought us Buffy the Vampire Slayer and you've got someting very unique. A show like that deserves at least two seasons in a good time slot to catch on.
Not too familiar with the Fudge rules, but there is a "western"-like space faring rpg in various incarnations:
;)
Classic Traveller at http://www.farfuture.net/
GURPS Traveller at http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/
d20 Traveller at http://www.travellerrpg.com/T20/
easy framework to mod and expand on; lot's of material, fan based and commerical. my fave is Classic, 'cause I already have the little black books. two d6 is all ya need for Classic!
Gosh, you'll have to inform the Japanese that stuff like Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, and Outlaw Star isn't stuff they should like (all anime, which, btw, Firefly has been compared to).
Sci-fi is relegated to too much of a niche compared to other forms of entertainment. Movies can afford fantasy and sci-fi special effects but even there most "sci-fi" is a glorified action or war movie which people can relate to.
People want to relate to what they are watching. A sci-fi movie or TV show can do well if you manage to explain the technology and the world without bogging down the plot and by creating a plot and characters people can get into.
Firefly was too good. It created a whole new world, but it tried to make it familiar by throwing in a very very clever wild west element. It was so subtle it didn't seem camp, just a light seasoning that made me believe "hey, its possible!"
The problem was it was centuries in the future, there is no America, no Russia, no islamic fundamentalists, and no cute teens agonizing over frivolous issues. Not enough people in the US like sci fi enough to make it successful beyond UPN or the sci-fi channel. It's a demand thing, and it sucks.
And to be honest, its not because people are frivolous or stupid or just want the same old thing. It's quite simply because perfectly nice and reasonable people just don't relate to sci-fi.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Jesus Christ on crutches, let me clue you in : HOMER did it all first in the fucking Odyssey. What is this nerd hangup over so-called originality? If that is your metric then Star Trek (three words: Hornblower in space) and, yes, especially that horridly acted, insipidly plotted, wannabe Wagontrain piece of third rate bantha shit Battlestar Galactica were the worst about lifting homeric themes directly. Farscape was a sight better, but really: The Fugitive... in space... with more guns and boobies!
I liked Firefly not because it was original - I consider it Mark Miller's Traveller on TV - but because it was ballsy. For everyone who ever wanted Picard to just beam some annoying Ferengi twit into the nearest star, Firefly payed off in the first ep. But if you want something fairly original and different (for TV, scifi literature has treaded this ground repeatedly) how 'bout: no aliens?
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
One of the things I did when planning my Firefly game, to get ideas, was to take a look at a bunch of Traveller websites. There's quite a few good sites out there.
I considered just running a Traveller game, but several of my players are Firefly fans (like me), so we went with using the Firefly 'verse.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Again, NOT INNOVATIVE. That kind of thing has been done time and time again. I asked what makes Firefly "innovative". You yourself mentioned examples of where the basic premise behind the show originated. My "troll" still stands, despite the self-defensive insults aimed at me for asking "why". Firefly was capitalizin on the pent up demand for scifi on prime time television, but a western done in space is still a western, no matter how many space ships you put in it. I do agree with you that it deserved a second season though. Far worse derivative shows have run longer.
You called us all geeks while simultaneously making up a logarithmic scale to rate your favorite TV shows. Brilliant.
But hey, all name-calling aside, I just liked the show. Opinions are opinions, though-- so I won't bother justifying it anymore than I would try to convince you to adopt my favorite color as your own.
I don't care if Firefly was innovative. It was boring. I watched two weeks in a row and was so bored, I fell asleep. Why? The story sucked. Tell me a story. Keep me engaged. I will watch it. Drone on and on and do silly things like have cowboys in space WITH OUT REASON and I will turn away.
Gorkman
For me what made it different, worlds different, than any other TV science fiction is that it actually had decent writing, well developed characters and something more humanly interesting to do than 'save the universe from the forces of darkness'. This was different because it was about an unheralded struggle to get by, something a little closer to home for most of us than the epic space opera we usually see. Not that epic space opera is bad, I'm just talking about what's different with Firefly, and what makes it special for so many of us.
The line between advertising and news is that /. isn't getting paid for this.
The are, however, providing a service in informing users of new items, old favorites, and some off-the-wall products.
A few other movies, too... but on TV it's unheard of.
And, most of the space science in Firefly was really really bad. They confused solar systems with galaxies, for crying out loud!
Uh, no they didn't. The opening dialog referred to "the system", and there are frequent references to "the inner worlds" or "the inner/outer planets", but it's clear from the context of the show that they are not speaking about a solar system, but using slang to refer to distance from Galactic Central Point (just as deep space is referred to as "the black"). Just because you got confused about what they were talking about doesn't mean that they did.
And the space science in Firefly was the best on TV ever. A great example would be the episode when somebody disabled Firefly's engines. The ship did not stop; it kept drifting in the direction it was going.
Shortly afterwards, when the ship was under attack, they decided to use Jayne's shotgun through the airlock, since it was the biggest weapon they had access to (the Firefly was an unarmed freighter ship). Since the shotgun needed O2 environment to fire, there was a very amusing scene of Jayne hanging out the airlock with his hand up the ass of a spacesuit in which the gun was enclosed, shooting a short burst of slugs through the visor glass.
How many Star Trek episodes have you seen where ships come to a skidding halt when the warp engines fail? I'm sure I've seen at least a dozen. How often have sci-fi shows forgotten about simple things like the need for oxygen in order to burn gunpowder?
Or "We snuck up on the space station by coasting in from a whole thousand kilometers away." There were other examples.
A chunk of random debris the size of the Firefly, 1000 km away, would not be particularly alarming. Firefly was a small enough ship that it's plausible that such a deception might work, especially against somebody who's just looking at something like radar blips as opposed to the magical "Long Range Scanners - On The Bridge Display" of Star Trek. Even with a solar system, something as small as the Firefly probably would not be visible without a telescope at that distance. We are talking about over 600 miles here. Man-made satellites which are barely visible at night from Earth are much, much closer than that.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
so we went with using the Firefly 'verse.
And, ain't a power in the 'verse can stop you...
On a closely related note, we LIKED Jewel Saite.
Carthago delenda est!
Unlike Star Trek, Farscape, and Battlestar Galactica, there was no sound in outer space.
Good one. But I think Babylon 5 got there first (discounting the shadow-ship noise, which is explained suitably in one of the later episodes).
But I'll give you something else to think about. If you ever try to write fiction at a serious level, you will come up against the following again and again: THERE ARE NO NEW IDEAS. So we just have to do our best with what's already been done.
We take a situation which has been done before (i.e. a universe with numerous worlds in which some are technologically backwards while others are highly advanced), fill in some arbitrary backplot (there's been a civil war recently), create some characters (this is the interesting bit, and this is where firefly really shone, IMO), and give them some problems (being fugitives from justice is hardly original, but it works well... and that's just the beginning!). Then, for a TV series, throw them into more specific problems with each episode.
This is standard plot construction. Its how almost everything is done. No, there is no single aspect of the show that is utterly original. But the combined result is...
As an aside, a lot of similar shows, whether in the SF genre or others, seem to miss out the stage about giving the characters their own intrinsic problems. I'm thinking of shows like Star Trek (although a lot of the later ST episodes and the later series fixed this problem, think of the early TNG episodes and the original series...), a lot of police dramas or similar... basically anything where the same group of people go up against a different problem each episode. The examples in each genre that shine through do so because, I think, they have characters that have their own problems as well. Maybe something any aspiring TV producers need to think about.
In space 1000 km is right on top of you. I mean, good grief, Apollo 13 did the alignment for a return burn of 350,000 km by eyeballing it through the command capsule window. And, any chunk of random debris headed your way is alarming, much less a chunk of debris the size of a cargo plane. I mean, hello, 9/11?
Also, gunpowder contains its own oxidizer, and therefore needs no additional oxygen to burn. That's why a glock can fire underwater (though probably not well). The soviets had a 20mm autocannon mounted on one of their cold war era space stations.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
"On top of you," perhaps. Visible to the naked eye? Not likely, unless you are either emitting or reflecting a lot of light.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No, it cannot be.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Radar.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Right, which we knew they had because civilizations who sometimes use horse-drawn carts always have access to advanced technology.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
While you might not expect to find radar on a horse cart, you would certainly expect to find it on a spaceship or a space station. Especially a space station run by a wealthy person like Niska.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.