Science fiction made its broadcast debut long before television. Hundreds of shows have been preserved, largely by the fan community, which thrives now more than ever thanks to mp3s and the Internet. Many shows were scripted by the classic sci-fi authors of the day, or were dramatizations of their published stories. Some are way better than TV.
2000 Plus 2000 X Atom Man Beyond Our Ken Beyond Midnight Beyond Tomorrow Buck Rogers Ceiling Unlimited Dark Fantasy Dimension X Exploring Tomorrow The Fifth Horseman Hall of Fantasy Inner Sanctum Journey Into Space Orbit One Zero Planet Man Space Patrol The Strange Dr. Weird Superman Tom Corbett, Space Cadet The Unexpected Weird Circle Witch's Tale
While we're remembering British shows, let's not forget UFO, a short-lived show that aired about the time of Space 1999. Pretty decent sci-fi. I believe there are still people trying to revive it.
Wow, until now I didn't even know there WERE 50 sci-fi tv shows. I would have guessed more like 20. Like any such list this one is just somebody's opinion, in this case the entertainment staff of the Boston Globe, so who cares about the rankings. I was just interested to read about the shows and see some of the graphics.
Our mindset has changed now, and not a single person in the USA, from a seven year old boy to a ninety year old grandmother, is stupid or cowardly enough to let someone hijack the plane.
I wish I could agree with you. People do seem to have a more militant attitude about not letting terrorists win, and there have been a few incidents of passengers roughing up rowdy or suspicious people. But I think a well rehearsed group of hijackers could drastically reduce the passenger threat. For example, most armchair Rambos would go weak in the knees if they saw something gruesome like a stewardess getting her eyes gouged out or her throat slit with a sharpened piece of plastic. Aside from cowing people with shocking violence, other tactics could include simply flying the plane very erratically to keep people in their seats, or taking over the plane when it is only a few minutes away from the target so there is little time for resistance. After all, armed and unarmed robbers on the ground continue to prey on people today as successfully as ever.
Google would lose as much as $380m of advertising revenue if AOL dropped its search engine and took on MSN's. That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent, potentially giving its huge share price something of a tumble
A 25% dip in profits wouldn't exactly "kill" Google. A loss that size could happen to any company in a bad year, including Microsoft if people don't fall in love with Vista.
These movie piracy articles always have the same themes -- stop p2p, stop camcorders in theaters. The fact that 80% of pirated movies are leaked by industry insiders (New Scientist) is NEVER mentioned. They've got the public convinced that movie piracy consists of techno-geeks sneaking hidden cameras into theaters and posting the files on p2p networks. Never mind that those camcorder versions are crap. The high quality copies everybody wants are made directly from the originals by people within the movie industry. It's the same mentality as blaming terrorists for every problem.
Publishers shouldn't have to bear the burden of record-keeping, agreed Sanfilippo, the Penn State press's marketing and sales director. "We're not aware of everything we've published," Sanfilippo said.
Oh I get it, publishers don't care enough about their own rights holdings to keep records of them, so they want everybody else to do the legwork for them. This is like land owners saying they can't be bothered putting up fences and posting signs, but they want penalties enforced against trespassers anyway. The world of out-of-print books thus becomes a vast, unmapped minefield that everybody is supposed to tiptoe through. And of course copyrights should also last forever. Is there anything else we can get you? Some cake?
Or, if you can't get a story accepted, post the information in comments like right here. That's what I do. I would be very interested in whatever you have to say about Stix fonts, with or without mentioning licenses or copyright.
Wow, that's what I call a cool hack. C64s used to be the funnest things to play around with. Years ago I built a servo control circuit board for a friend to plug into the back slot of a C64, to control exhibits in a coin-operated art gallery (later known as The Church of Elvis, Portland Oregon). Writing the control software in Commodore Basic and seeing the whole thing work was one of the coolest things I ever did.
I'm getting tired of the prevailing idea that There Can Be Only One, whether it's a search engine or an OS or whatever. Why is success nowadays defined as eliminating all competition? Preaching free-market while at the same time trying to own the whole thing is a little like preaching democracy while trying to become king.
According to NEC, their software is designed to sound an alarm when being used, to avoid any copyright conflicts.
Doesn't look like a non-issue to me. Sounding an alarm when I use their product? Excuse me?? Technology is driving us toward a turning point in the history of sharing ideas. Eventually people are going to question whether the benefits of intellectual property rights laws are worth the enormous costs of enforcing them. For that to happen, ordinary people who normally wouldn't understand let alone care about intellectual property issues are going to have to get really annoyed by the enforcment. Personally I think building a little electronic conscience into every media device to tell people they're committing immoral acts is a great way to start turning that tide.
All of the materials are currently available to construct one.
Not quite. The various space elevator startups, including Liftport, are still waiting for the technology to make carbon nanotubes of unlimited length. Several years ago scientists were making the tubes 4 microns long. Now they are up to several centimeters. After a couple more orders of magnitude they will probably have machinery that can crank out continuous nanotube ribbons of any length, and then the space elevator stands a chance of actually being built.
Nuclear rockets would enable fast "point and shoot" missions to Mars -- 3 months outbound, 40 days on Mars, 4 months return; total mission time less than 9 months. Compared with using less powerful chemical rockets and planetary gravity assists, missions using nuclear rockets would involve lower crew radiation exposure, smaller supply and equipment requirements, and other advantages.
NuclearSpace.com has a really interesting article about a hypothetical design for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift ONE THOUSAND TONS of payload into Earth orbit -- that's a whole space hotel in one shot -- and return with an equal size cargo to a soft landing.
The design is based on a "nuclear lightbulb" reactor, consisting of a bulb of synthetic quartz enclosing a cloud of gaseous uranium such as UF6. A lighter buffer gas swirling around the inside of the bulb confines and controls the shape of the uranium cloud, which heats up to 25000C (about 7 times the melting temp of any solid core reactor). The cloud emits intense ultraviolet light, which radiates through the quartz and is absorbed by hydrogen flowing past the outside of the bulb. The hydrogen is superheated (but not irradiated), and shoots out of the rocket nozzle to provide thrust. Because the uranium is completely sealed inside the bulb there is no contamination of the exhaust.
The massive payload carrying capacity of this type of rocket (roughly 30 times that of the space shuttle) would radically change the space travel equation by making weight concerns a thing of the past. We need this technology to move into the future, and we need NASA to brave the PR implications of the word "nuclear" and move ahead with it.
Perhaps by "learns a few tricks," the submitter meant, "takes advantage of the fact that the Apache team didn't apply for tons of stupid software patents." Somebody hand Ballmer a chair to throw now so he can rant about killing Apache.
For php and web dev I like Quanta Plus, a free Linux IDE, on a cheapo Dell 2.8Ghz desktop (nearly silent) with a 19" ViewSonic LCD monitor (crispest, clearest monitor I've ever used). MS ergo keyboard and Logitech optical mouse with a wheel.
I used VStudio for years and still do for MS projects. Liked it but I've always had trouble manipulating web projects and virtual roots with it. Maybe I just didn't understand how it worked. Quanta does less but is much simpler and friendlier. Since you mentioned Eclipse I will check it out.
I'll stop bashing Microsoft when Ballmer stops throwing office furniture in infantile fits of rage. You don't see Linus Torvalds foaming at the mouth while ranting about "destroying" the competition. I used to be a big Microsoft supporter in the days when their mindset was to change the world for the better. And they did. But for years now their mindset has been to beat the crap out of everybody else and control everything. Fuck that and fuck them.
Low-level administrators are usually fearful of saying YES to anything that they can't control. I don't think you have to look for a more elaborate motive than that. It just seems to go with the personality type, which I refer to as "hall monitors." They are good at carrying out decisions made by higher-ups, but when asked to authorize something on their own initiative their default response is NO.
Haven't read the article yet, so maybe I should hold off, but as a web programmer working mostly with IE-dependant internal corporate apps, my first reaction is, "Oh great! What Microsoft skills that I mastered 2 years ago do I have to throw away now?" I used to be a hot shot ASP/VBScript developer. Now I'm finally up to speed on C# and ASP.Net. I'm getting tired of switching to the newest Microsoft thing du-jour that everybody wants to use because it's new.
The articles linked aren't specific about mission details, but NASA planners acknowledge that a major problem on any Mars mission will be radiation exposure. Getting to Mars and back at all with chemical rockets requires either taking a long slow trajectory or using gravity assist from other planets, making any Mars mission more than a year-long prospect and exposing the crew to radiation beyond the allowable lifetime limits. The shielding method that stands head and shoulders above others is plain water. A double hull spacecraft with about a foot thick layer of water between the hulls would cut radiation exposure by more than half -- far better than anything else proposed. The water hull would also provide micrometeorite shielding. The outer few inches would freeze. If a micrometeorite penetrated the hull, water leaking out through the hole would freeze re-seal it immediately. The water hull would also provide an enormous heat sink that would eliminate the need for a complex refrigeration system to get rid of heat from human bodies and equipment. But to haul that much water weight around is beyond the current capabilities of chemical rockets.
One possible solution is to use nuclear rockets to get there and back. For sheer power they leave chemical rockets in the dust. A nuclear powered rocket would enable "point and shoot" missions, essentially aiming at the spot in the sky where the destination will be in a few months, overcoming planetary gravity by brute force. Here's an interesting article about a design for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift one thousand tons of payload into Earth orbit and return intact to a powered landing. No solid fuel boosters, no jettisoned fuel tanks. Just a big rocket that takes off and comes back.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nabaztag" must be French for "annoying little bastard."
Science fiction made its broadcast debut long before television. Hundreds of shows have been preserved, largely by the fan community, which thrives now more than ever thanks to mp3s and the Internet. Many shows were scripted by the classic sci-fi authors of the day, or were dramatizations of their published stories. Some are way better than TV.
Related article on sci-fi.com
A few of the many sci-fi/weirdness shows:
2000 Plus
2000 X
Atom Man
Beyond Our Ken
Beyond Midnight
Beyond Tomorrow
Buck Rogers
Ceiling Unlimited
Dark Fantasy
Dimension X
Exploring Tomorrow
The Fifth Horseman
Hall of Fantasy
Inner Sanctum
Journey Into Space
Orbit One Zero
Planet Man
Space Patrol
The Strange Dr. Weird
Superman
Tom Corbett, Space Cadet
The Unexpected
Weird Circle
Witch's Tale
While we're remembering British shows, let's not forget UFO, a short-lived show that aired about the time of Space 1999. Pretty decent sci-fi. I believe there are still people trying to revive it.
Wow, until now I didn't even know there WERE 50 sci-fi tv shows. I would have guessed more like 20. Like any such list this one is just somebody's opinion, in this case the entertainment staff of the Boston Globe, so who cares about the rankings. I was just interested to read about the shows and see some of the graphics.
Our mindset has changed now, and not a single person in the USA, from a seven year old boy to a ninety year old grandmother, is stupid or cowardly enough to let someone hijack the plane.
I wish I could agree with you. People do seem to have a more militant attitude about not letting terrorists win, and there have been a few incidents of passengers roughing up rowdy or suspicious people. But I think a well rehearsed group of hijackers could drastically reduce the passenger threat. For example, most armchair Rambos would go weak in the knees if they saw something gruesome like a stewardess getting her eyes gouged out or her throat slit with a sharpened piece of plastic. Aside from cowing people with shocking violence, other tactics could include simply flying the plane very erratically to keep people in their seats, or taking over the plane when it is only a few minutes away from the target so there is little time for resistance. After all, armed and unarmed robbers on the ground continue to prey on people today as successfully as ever.
Google would lose as much as $380m of advertising revenue if AOL dropped its search engine and took on MSN's. That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent, potentially giving its huge share price something of a tumble
A 25% dip in profits wouldn't exactly "kill" Google. A loss that size could happen to any company in a bad year, including Microsoft if people don't fall in love with Vista.
These movie piracy articles always have the same themes -- stop p2p, stop camcorders in theaters. The fact that 80% of pirated movies are leaked by industry insiders (New Scientist) is NEVER mentioned. They've got the public convinced that movie piracy consists of techno-geeks sneaking hidden cameras into theaters and posting the files on p2p networks. Never mind that those camcorder versions are crap. The high quality copies everybody wants are made directly from the originals by people within the movie industry. It's the same mentality as blaming terrorists for every problem.
Publishers shouldn't have to bear the burden of record-keeping, agreed Sanfilippo, the Penn State press's marketing and sales director. "We're not aware of everything we've published," Sanfilippo said.
Oh I get it, publishers don't care enough about their own rights holdings to keep records of them, so they want everybody else to do the legwork for them. This is like land owners saying they can't be bothered putting up fences and posting signs, but they want penalties enforced against trespassers anyway. The world of out-of-print books thus becomes a vast, unmapped minefield that everybody is supposed to tiptoe through. And of course copyrights should also last forever. Is there anything else we can get you? Some cake?
Or, if you can't get a story accepted, post the information in comments like right here. That's what I do. I would be very interested in whatever you have to say about Stix fonts, with or without mentioning licenses or copyright.
Wow, that's what I call a cool hack. C64s used to be the funnest things to play around with. Years ago I built a servo control circuit board for a friend to plug into the back slot of a C64, to control exhibits in a coin-operated art gallery (later known as The Church of Elvis, Portland Oregon). Writing the control software in Commodore Basic and seeing the whole thing work was one of the coolest things I ever did.
I get the vampire cowboys, but WTF is a spectral prostitute?
I'm getting tired of the prevailing idea that There Can Be Only One, whether it's a search engine or an OS or whatever. Why is success nowadays defined as eliminating all competition?
Preaching free-market while at the same time trying to own the whole thing is a little like preaching democracy while trying to become king.
from the article:
According to NEC, their software is designed to sound an alarm when being used, to avoid any copyright conflicts.
Doesn't look like a non-issue to me. Sounding an alarm when I use their product? Excuse me?? Technology is driving us toward a turning point in the history of sharing ideas. Eventually people are going to question whether the benefits of intellectual property rights laws are worth the enormous costs of enforcing them. For that to happen, ordinary people who normally wouldn't understand let alone care about intellectual property issues are going to have to get really annoyed by the enforcment. Personally I think building a little electronic conscience into every media device to tell people they're committing immoral acts is a great way to start turning that tide.
All of the materials are currently available to construct one.
Not quite. The various space elevator startups, including Liftport, are still waiting for the technology to make carbon nanotubes of unlimited length. Several years ago scientists were making the tubes 4 microns long. Now they are up to several centimeters. After a couple more orders of magnitude they will probably have machinery that can crank out continuous nanotube ribbons of any length, and then the space elevator stands a chance of actually being built.
Unbreakable office furniture!
Nuclear rockets would enable fast "point and shoot" missions to Mars -- 3 months outbound, 40 days on Mars, 4 months return; total mission time less than 9 months. Compared with using less powerful chemical rockets and planetary gravity assists, missions using nuclear rockets would involve lower crew radiation exposure, smaller supply and equipment requirements, and other advantages.
NuclearSpace.com has a really interesting article about a hypothetical design for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift ONE THOUSAND TONS of payload into Earth orbit -- that's a whole space hotel in one shot -- and return with an equal size cargo to a soft landing.
The design is based on a "nuclear lightbulb" reactor, consisting of a bulb of synthetic quartz enclosing a cloud of gaseous uranium such as UF6. A lighter buffer gas swirling around the inside of the bulb confines and controls the shape of the uranium cloud, which heats up to 25000C (about 7 times the melting temp of any solid core reactor). The cloud emits intense ultraviolet light, which radiates through the quartz and is absorbed by hydrogen flowing past the outside of the bulb. The hydrogen is superheated (but not irradiated), and shoots out of the rocket nozzle to provide thrust. Because the uranium is completely sealed inside the bulb there is no contamination of the exhaust.
The massive payload carrying capacity of this type of rocket (roughly 30 times that of the space shuttle) would radically change the space travel equation by making weight concerns a thing of the past. We need this technology to move into the future, and we need NASA to brave the PR implications of the word "nuclear" and move ahead with it.
Perhaps by "learns a few tricks," the submitter meant, "takes advantage of the fact that the Apache team didn't apply for tons of stupid software patents." Somebody hand Ballmer a chair to throw now so he can rant about killing Apache.
For php and web dev I like Quanta Plus, a free Linux IDE, on a cheapo Dell 2.8Ghz desktop (nearly silent) with a 19" ViewSonic LCD monitor (crispest, clearest monitor I've ever used). MS ergo keyboard and Logitech optical mouse with a wheel.
I used VStudio for years and still do for MS projects. Liked it but I've always had trouble manipulating web projects and virtual roots with it. Maybe I just didn't understand how it worked. Quanta does less but is much simpler and friendlier. Since you mentioned Eclipse I will check it out.
If 5 Funny and 5 Insightful could happen at the same time, you'd have got them.
for some things, the big-ass whiteboard is really handy
I have no comment really, I just like the phrase "big-ass whiteboard."
Get rid of men? No way! As long as we can do heavy lifting, reach light fixtures and hook up home entertainment systems they'll keep us around.
I'll stop bashing Microsoft when Ballmer stops throwing office furniture in infantile fits of rage. You don't see Linus Torvalds foaming at the mouth while ranting about "destroying" the competition. I used to be a big Microsoft supporter in the days when their mindset was to change the world for the better. And they did. But for years now their mindset has been to beat the crap out of everybody else and control everything. Fuck that and fuck them.
Low-level administrators are usually fearful of saying YES to anything that they can't control. I don't think you have to look for a more elaborate motive than that. It just seems to go with the personality type, which I refer to as "hall monitors." They are good at carrying out decisions made by higher-ups, but when asked to authorize something on their own initiative their default response is NO.
Haven't read the article yet, so maybe I should hold off, but as a web programmer working mostly with IE-dependant internal corporate apps, my first reaction is, "Oh great! What Microsoft skills that I mastered 2 years ago do I have to throw away now?" I used to be a hot shot ASP/VBScript developer. Now I'm finally up to speed on C# and ASP.Net. I'm getting tired of switching to the newest Microsoft thing du-jour that everybody wants to use because it's new.
The articles linked aren't specific about mission details, but NASA planners acknowledge that a major problem on any Mars mission will be radiation exposure. Getting to Mars and back at all with chemical rockets requires either taking a long slow trajectory or using gravity assist from other planets, making any Mars mission more than a year-long prospect and exposing the crew to radiation beyond the allowable lifetime limits. The shielding method that stands head and shoulders above others is plain water. A double hull spacecraft with about a foot thick layer of water between the hulls would cut radiation exposure by more than half -- far better than anything else proposed. The water hull would also provide micrometeorite shielding. The outer few inches would freeze. If a micrometeorite penetrated the hull, water leaking out through the hole would freeze re-seal it immediately. The water hull would also provide an enormous heat sink that would eliminate the need for a complex refrigeration system to get rid of heat from human bodies and equipment. But to haul that much water weight around is beyond the current capabilities of chemical rockets.
One possible solution is to use nuclear rockets to get there and back. For sheer power they leave chemical rockets in the dust. A nuclear powered rocket would enable "point and shoot" missions, essentially aiming at the spot in the sky where the destination will be in a few months, overcoming planetary gravity by brute force. Here's an interesting article about a design for a fully reusable, non-polluting nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift one thousand tons of payload into Earth orbit and return intact to a powered landing. No solid fuel boosters, no jettisoned fuel tanks. Just a big rocket that takes off and comes back.