On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:29:42 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:=20
>>> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>
>>> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,=20
>>> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project=20
>>> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.=20
>>> > >=20
>>> > > I expect that's why the smoke.=20
>>> >=20
>>> > Possibly...
>>> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly=20
>>> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -=20
>>> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where=20
>>> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.=20
>>> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional=20
>>> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought=20
>>> was a type of record player.
>>
>>An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "sol=
>>id sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid=
>> sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>>
>>Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think th=
>>e current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>
>A 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 speaker setup is called surround sound. 2.0 or 2.1 is
>stereo.

Despite what I said elsepost, I would allow 2.1 as stereo, provded the
".1" is a separate Woofer needed because the 2 aren't large enough to
accomodate the really low notes.

I actually have a BD of /The New Mutants/ with a sound system so
sophisticated, so advanced, so ... so ... stupid ... that I actually
have to turn up the volume on the TV just to hear it. This leaves me
with three volume settings:

VHS (some DVDs use this) -- 15
DVDS/BDs (genearlly) -- 25
The New Mutants -- 35

Note that this is not the problem I had with /Arrival/ and at least
one other film, where the dialog was overpowered by the machine sounds
or done so low that it wasn't ever audible while the rest of the sound
was clearly at the right setting. The entire soundtrack is affected.

And the trailer, being in two-channel stereo, sounded just fine.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <m8cu3hppgquu6nmirqnqrtej1uclu8lmdp@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:29:42 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:=20
>>>> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>>
>>>> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,=20
>>>> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project=20
>>>> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.=20
>>>> > >=20
>>>> > > I expect that's why the smoke.=20
>>>> >=20
>>>> > Possibly...
>>>> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly=20
>>>> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -=20
>>>> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where=20
>>>> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.=20
>>>> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional=20
>>>> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought=20
>>>> was a type of record player.
>>>
>>>An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "sol=
>>>id sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid=
>>> sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>>>
>>>Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think th=
>>>e current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>>
>>A 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 speaker setup is called surround sound. 2.0 or 2.1 is
>>stereo.
>
>Despite what I said elsepost, I would allow 2.1 as stereo, provded the
>".1" is a separate Woofer needed because the 2 aren't large enough to
>accomodate the really low notes.
>
>I actually have a BD of /The New Mutants/ with a sound system so
>sophisticated, so advanced, so ... so ... stupid ... that I actually
>have to turn up the volume on the TV just to hear it. This leaves me
>with three volume settings:
>
>VHS (some DVDs use this) -- 15
>DVDS/BDs (genearlly) -- 25
>The New Mutants -- 35
>
I heart subtitles for film. Now I need a similar system for shows filmed
in macular-degeneration-o-vision.

An early archive of the radio show Mind Webs for some reason had the
spoken parts drowned out by the incidental music. Later archives managed
to fix this.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:

>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
>> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
>> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
>> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
>> > >
>> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
>> >
>> > Possibly...
>> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
>> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
>> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
>> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
>> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
>> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
>> was a type of record player.
>
>An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>
>Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.

So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.

Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.

This confusion once occurred in an article in /Consumer Reports/ (20+
years ago, when mass-marked multispeaker systems were relatively new),
which claimed that a 5.1 system would "duplicate the sound of a
symphony orchestra in a concert hall".

I was amazed when, on the one of our practice building evacuations
that did /not/ herd us onto the ferry dock for the inevitable tsunami
to remove, took us instead into the local symphony's concert hall.

There I saw the entire orchestra, in full dress, /on the stage/
instead of scattered about the room, as they would, of course have had
to be for anything more than 2-speaker stereo to be needed to
reproduce their sound. Well, depending on room acoustics, of course.

My interpretation is that the broadening of "stereo" to include
multi-speaker systems plus the lingering knowledge that "stereo" was
originally intended to, and Flander and Swann put it, "reproduce the
exact effect of having a symphony orchestra playing in your living
room" produced the strange assertion about 5.1 system and a symphony
orchestra.

The accurate statement would, of course, have been "duplicate the
multitrack sound system of the higher-end movie theaters, thus making
it harder (in some cases) to actually hear the dialog". After all,
these systems were being sold for use with Home Theaters (that is, BD
or DVD players and TV sets), not for purely audio systems, so
"symphony orchestra" was really irrelevant.

>("Stereotomy" is the study of solid shapes, with applications to stonecutting, including precious stones. Alan Parsons came across it in a Poe story, and liking its evocation of stereophonics, and also Rock (well, rocks) made it one of the few five-syllable words to be an album title.)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
> >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
> >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
> >> > >
> >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
> >> >
> >> > Possibly...
> >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
> >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
> >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
> >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
> >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
> >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
> >> was a type of record player.
> >
> >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
> >
> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>
> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
>
> Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
> mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.

You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
and all that?

Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
'crypto'.

The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
systems with exactly two speakers.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
>> >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >
>> >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
>> >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
>> >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
>> >> >
>> >> > Possibly...
>> >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
>> >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
>> >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
>> >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
>> >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
>> >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
>> >> was a type of record player.
>> >
>> >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>> >
>> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>>
>> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
>>
>> Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
>> mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.
>
>You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
>and all that?
>
>Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
>change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
>people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
>'crypto'.
>
>The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
>systems with exactly two speakers.
>

Ah, but back in the halcyon days of rec.audio.high-end, if it didn't
have tubes/valves, two speakers and a $1000 turntable, it wasn't a
stereo :-)

In the later digital days, it really got crazy with jitter correctors,
outboard DACs, magic cable supports and oxygen free copper.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
>> >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >
>> >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
>> >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
>> >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
>> >> >
>> >> > Possibly...
>> >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
>> >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
>> >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
>> >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
>> >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
>> >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
>> >> was a type of record player.
>> >
>> >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>> >
>> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>>
>> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
>>
>> Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
>> mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.
>
>You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
>and all that?
>
>Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
>change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
>people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
>'crypto'.
>
>The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
>systems with exactly two speakers.

Further, what is a "speaker" anyway? My old ('60s) stereo has two
"speakers" but each one contains two devices each of which if removed
from the enclosure becomes a "speaker" in its own right, so is that
two speakers or 4? And there were and are PA "speakers" that are
strictly monophonic but may contain a dozen or more "speakers".

On 24 Mar 2022 12:12:38 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <t1h199$ot2$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>On 24/03/22 18:36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <t1guqp$cbj$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/22 02:13, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:18:37 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 8:55:57 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 7:20:06 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps Paris, 1890:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_eZuOTBNc
>>>>>>>>> Scroll to 4:54
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the comments, apparently the moving sidewalks
>>>>>>>> were from the Paris Exposition of 1900.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it's still wonderful that you remembered this
>>>>>>> and posted the link. Even though that wasn't even the
>>>>>>> first moving sidewalk, those were still only something
>>>>>> >from the science-fiction future during the 1960s, and
>>>>>>> it wasn't until much later that they were a common
>>>>>>> sight at airports - although attempts were made, I
>>>>>>> see from Wikipedia, in 1958 at a railway station, and
>>>>>>> in 1960 at an airport.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>> The whole point of Heinlein's version was that there were several rows
>>>>>> of 'roads' at incremental speeds where one was expected to move from
>>>>>> left ot right or right versa to reach a comfortable speed. I've been
>>>>>> on of airport moving sidewalks but have never seen anything at all
>>>>>> like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Heinlein safely changing your speed was a skill everybody
>>>>>> knew from childhood. If it were that simple wouldn't we all be using
>>>>>> those by now?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go back and look at the fin-de-siecle Paris YT clip I posted earlier.
>>>>> The moving sidewalk there has two different speed belts. Late
>>>>> Victorian Parisians aren't having a problem with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> pt
>>>>
>>>> I loved the Heinlein moving sidewalks concept and also enjoyed the YT
>>>> clip, (not just the discussion relevant part, the whole thing), thank you.
>>>> Nowadays, (in New Zealand), such a facility would not gain licence to
>>>> operate as a public service without catering to the disabled, children,
>>>> etc for safety concerns.
>>>> I can't remember but suspect such issues were ignored by Heinlein.
>>>> Another example, was wind a problem?
>>>
>>> I'm sure it wouldn't fly now, but if it already existed it would probably
>>> be grandfathered.
>>
>>Yes. I agree.
>>
>> After all New York et all are just noticing people
>>> can be pushed off of subway platforms. Certainly if those were new, there
>>> would be a different design.

You mean as Kevin Spacey demonstrated in House of Cards? (Admittedly
DC not NYC)

>>Yes. I agree again but you didn't reply to my question, "..was wind a
>>problem?"
>>Please be reassured that I wasn't inferring any disrespect to your
>>collection of mermaids and their personal behaviour in their natural
>>habitat, but to travelling at 100mph on a Heinlein sidewalk.
>
>Heh. Well in truth I read "The Roads Must Roll" so long ago that I have
>no idea what the answer to that is. Assuredly there were problems or
>there would have been no story.

My original point on that was that safely navigating things was no
more difficult than a modern escalator might be - something children
of a sufficient age should be able to do.

The main theme of The Roads Must Roll was about a labor stoppage which
caused everything to stop - long before modern labor relations were
settled to what they now are.

Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> schrieb:
> On 25 Mar 2022, Thomas Koenig wrote
> (in article <t1ku6c$3gh$4@newsreader4.netcologne.de>):
>
>> J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> > <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>> > > > The muzzle velocity of their weapons is low enough so that a
>> > > > Jedi can actually counter it with his light saber. Again, had
>> > > > Han Solo fired a submachine gun at Darth Vader instead of his
>> > > > nearly useless blaster...
>> > >
>> > > Well, this is a whole other field. Presumably there is a
>> > > reason to have ray pistols besides "it is science fiction".
>> > > Maybe. Perhaps force fields and Jedi mojo work
>> > > extremely well against bullets and against people who
>> > > use them. Or perhaps bullets aren't popular inside
>> > > spaceships since they would tend to go outside
>> > > the spaceship.
>>
>> The big battle of "Attack of the Clones" was planetside.
>>
>> > A Jedi doesn't care about "muzzle velocity". The Force tells him
>> > where you are aiming so he can interpose the light saber.
>>
>> Assume an MG 42, for argument's sake, firing a burst of ten bullets
>> in a bit less than 0.4 seconds. They spread out over the target
>> area (the Jedi). How fast can the Jedi interpose his light saber
>> to catch all of them?
>
> he’ll use the Force on the gunner, or the gun, or both, so that it misses.

Didn't work too well when the Jedi confronted the droids.

>>
>> Or assume a hand grenade going off next to a Jedi. Is he going
>> to interpose his light saber to catch all the splinters (or the
>> shockwave)?
>
> again, use the force to send the grenade back to sender. then charge and use
> the lightsaber close in.

>
> Anakin Skywalker demonstrated just how effective a Force user could be
> against massed enemies with firearms in the last few minutes of Rogue One.
> The combination of the Force and a lightsaber (and the power of the
> scriptwriter) ensured that he waded through a couple dozen rebels without
> raising a sweat. Action starts at about 2:03:50. At about 2:04:05 Annie
> lights his lightsaber and the rebs panic, and with reason. Annie, and Ben,
> also showed the Power of the Force in several encounters in Star Wars II and
> III, most notably against battledroids in II.
>
> The only reliable ways to kill a Force user are:
>
> 1. when another Force user cuts them into pieces with a lightsaber, and even
> that’s not certain; see further Darth Maul, and Annie himself
>
> 2. when another Force user throws them off a building or a cliff or
> something, and that’s also not reliable; Darth Maul again, and the Emperor
> demonstrate this
>
> 3. when a non-Force user takes them by surprise; the fight on the beach in
> Rogue One is an example

Why didn't the Jedi win against the droids in "Attack of the Clones"
on their own? Because it wasn't in the script that they won, I guess.

> Non Force users are pretty much toast when facing Force users, no matter what
> the weapons, unless the Force user doesn’t know what’s coming.

Or the non-force users are shelling them from afar...

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
> >> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> >> >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
> >> >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
> >> >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Possibly...
> >> >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
> >> >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
> >> >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
> >> >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
> >> >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
> >> >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
> >> >> was a type of record player.
> >> >
> >> >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
> >> >
> >> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
> >>
> >> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
> >>
> >> Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
> >> mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.
> >
> >You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
> >and all that?
> >
> >Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
> >change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
> >people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
> >'crypto'.
> >
> >The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
> >systems with exactly two speakers.
> Further, what is a "speaker" anyway? My old ('60s) stereo has two
> "speakers" but each one contains two devices each of which if removed
> from the enclosure becomes a "speaker" in its own right, so is that
> two speakers or 4? And there were and are PA "speakers" that are
> strictly monophonic but may contain a dozen or more "speakers".

I could check with my brother, who is a professional in high-end audio,
but I think he'd say that the sound making devices are 'drivers', and the
structure they are set in is a 'speaker'. Of course, there are exceptions
and corner cases. Language is squishy, and changes across time and
space.

Pt

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 13:21:58 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> >> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
>> >> >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
>> >> >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
>> >> >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Possibly...
>> >> >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
>> >> >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
>> >> >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
>> >> >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
>> >> >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
>> >> >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
>> >> >> was a type of record player.
>> >> >
>> >> >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>> >> >
>> >> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>> >>
>> >> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
>> >>
>> >> Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
>> >> mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.
>> >
>> >You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
>> >and all that?
>> >
>> >Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
>> >change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
>> >people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
>> >'crypto'.
>> >
>> >The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
>> >systems with exactly two speakers.
>> Further, what is a "speaker" anyway? My old ('60s) stereo has two
>> "speakers" but each one contains two devices each of which if removed
>> from the enclosure becomes a "speaker" in its own right, so is that
>> two speakers or 4? And there were and are PA "speakers" that are
>> strictly monophonic but may contain a dozen or more "speakers".
>
>I could check with my brother, who is a professional in high-end audio,
>but I think he'd say that the sound making devices are 'drivers', and the
>structure they are set in is a 'speaker'. Of course, there are exceptions
>and corner cases. Language is squishy, and changes across time and
>space.

The thing is, you go to buy the device that makes the sound, and you
are buying a "speaker". It might be used as one sort of driver or
another in a particular system depending on how the crossover is set,
but until it's in a system, if you connect a signal to it it speaks.
>
>Pt

On 26 Mar 2022, Thomas Koenig wrote
(in article <t1nr6p$2b2$2@newsreader4.netcologne.de>):

> Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> schrieb:
> > On 25 Mar 2022, Thomas Koenig wrote
> > (in article <t1ku6c$3gh$4@newsreader4.netcologne.de>):
> >
> > > J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > > > <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > The muzzle velocity of their weapons is low enough so that a
> > > > > > Jedi can actually counter it with his light saber. Again, had
> > > > > > Han Solo fired a submachine gun at Darth Vader instead of his
> > > > > > nearly useless blaster...
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this is a whole other field. Presumably there is a
> > > > > reason to have ray pistols besides "it is science fiction".
> > > > > Maybe. Perhaps force fields and Jedi mojo work
> > > > > extremely well against bullets and against people who
> > > > > use them. Or perhaps bullets aren't popular inside
> > > > > spaceships since they would tend to go outside
> > > > > the spaceship.
> > >
> > > The big battle of "Attack of the Clones" was planetside.
> > >
> > > > A Jedi doesn't care about "muzzle velocity". The Force tells him
> > > > where you are aiming so he can interpose the light saber.
> > >
> > > Assume an MG 42, for argument's sake, firing a burst of ten bullets
> > > in a bit less than 0.4 seconds. They spread out over the target
> > > area (the Jedi). How fast can the Jedi interpose his light saber
> > > to catch all of them?
> >
> > he’ll use the Force on the gunner, or the gun, or both, so that it misses.
>
> Didn't work too well when the Jedi confronted the droids.

the Power of the Script strikes. again. That, and numbers. Annie handled
dozens of rebs by himself, but Annie’s Special. And there were _scores_ of
battledroids all firing at once. Maybe Annie or Yoda could have held out, but
a regular Jedi would have problems.
>
>
> > >
> > > Or assume a hand grenade going off next to a Jedi. Is he going
> > > to interpose his light saber to catch all the splinters (or the
> > > shockwave)?
> >
> > again, use the force to send the grenade back to sender. then charge and use
> > the lightsaber close in.
>
> >
> > Anakin Skywalker demonstrated just how effective a Force user could be
> > against massed enemies with firearms in the last few minutes of Rogue One.
> > The combination of the Force and a lightsaber (and the power of the
> > scriptwriter) ensured that he waded through a couple dozen rebels without
> > raising a sweat. Action starts at about 2:03:50. At about 2:04:05 Annie
> > lights his lightsaber and the rebs panic, and with reason. Annie, and Ben,
> > also showed the Power of the Force in several encounters in Star Wars II and
> > III, most notably against battledroids in II.
> >
> > The only reliable ways to kill a Force user are:
> >
> > 1. when another Force user cuts them into pieces with a lightsaber, and even
> > that’s not certain; see further Darth Maul, and Annie himself
> >
> > 2. when another Force user throws them off a building or a cliff or
> > something, and that’s also not reliable; Darth Maul again, and the Emperor
> > demonstrate this
> >
> > 3. when a non-Force user takes them by surprise; the fight on the beach in
> > Rogue One is an example
>
> Why didn't the Jedi win against the droids in "Attack of the Clones"
> on their own? Because it wasn't in the script that they won, I guess.

that would be it. And they were taken by surprise. I guess that Jedi Mind
Tricks have their limits.
>
>
> > Non Force users are pretty much toast when facing Force users, no matter
> > what
> > the weapons, unless the Force user doesn’t know what’s coming.
>
> Or the non-force users are shelling them from afar...

that would count as the Force user not knowing what’s coming. Missiles
wouldn’t work, the Force user would see them coming. Directed energy
weapons (‘blasters’, ’turbo lasers’) mounted on ships opr other
vehicles would be of limited use; they’re line-of-sight, so if they got a
hit with the first salvo, then no more Force user. If they missed, then they
have the Force user’s complete attention, and that would probably not be
survivable. Ballistic artillery could be inbound and the Force user would
have little chance of backtracking it to the launch point, unless the Force
provides the equivalent of fire-spotter radar, and even then shoot and scoot
should work.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:11:24 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 13:21:58 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
> >> >> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.

Usually, the term for Dolby 5.1 is "surround sound" as opposed to stereo.

> >> >> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.

> >> >The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
> >> >systems with exactly two speakers.

Yes, that much is true. The Greek word from which the prefix "Stereo-" is
taken, as noted in a portion of this that I've snipped, means "solid", as we
can see, for example, in the word "stereoisomer".

However, historically, "stereo" as a word for "stereophonic sound" refers
to the type of system in which this concept was originally introduced.

So with four speakers, you get _quadraphonic_ as distinct from stereo, and
with 5.1 you get _surround sound_ as distinct from stereo.

> >> Further, what is a "speaker" anyway? My old ('60s) stereo has two
> >> "speakers" but each one contains two devices each of which if removed
> >> from the enclosure becomes a "speaker" in its own right, so is that
> >> two speakers or 4? And there were and are PA "speakers" that are
> >> strictly monophonic but may contain a dozen or more "speakers".

> >I could check with my brother, who is a professional in high-end audio,
> >but I think he'd say that the sound making devices are 'drivers', and the
> >structure they are set in is a 'speaker'. Of course, there are exceptions
> >and corner cases. Language is squishy, and changes across time and
> >space.

> The thing is, you go to buy the device that makes the sound, and you
> are buying a "speaker". It might be used as one sort of driver or
> another in a particular system depending on how the crossover is set,
> but until it's in a system, if you connect a signal to it it speaks.

Certainly, there is the term "driver" (an element that transduces
electrical voltage into audio) a distinct from "loudspeaker" in the sense of
a transducer system that can be directly connected within a high-fidelity
audio system which is complete in itself.

Rather than disturbing some electronics expert, though, I'll just consult
an old Radio Shack catalog...

Radio Shack 1977 catalog...

Page 45

Under the heading "Realistic Has Everything in Component
Speakers", the items we see listed include...

High-Frequency Dome Tweeter
6" Midrange with Crossover
10" Round Woofer

Thus, we can see that indeed you are right.

While in some contexts, the tweeter, midrange, and woofer within a
loudspeaker are referred to as its drivers, they can also be called
loudspeakers in their own right.

John Savard

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:39:31 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <m8cu3hppgquu6nmirqnqrtej1uclu8lmdp@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:29:42 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>>>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:=20
>>>>> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:=20
>>>>
>>>>> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,=20
>>>>> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project=20
>>>>> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.=20
>>>>> > >=20
>>>>> > > I expect that's why the smoke.=20
>>>>> >=20
>>>>> > Possibly...
>>>>> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly=20
>>>>> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -=20
>>>>> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where=20
>>>>> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.=20
>>>>> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional=20
>>>>> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought=20
>>>>> was a type of record player.
>>>>
>>>>An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "sol=
>>>>id sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid=
>>>> sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
>>>>
>>>>Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think th=
>>>>e current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>>>
>>>A 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 speaker setup is called surround sound. 2.0 or 2.1 is
>>>stereo.
>>
>>Despite what I said elsepost, I would allow 2.1 as stereo, provded the
>>".1" is a separate Woofer needed because the 2 aren't large enough to
>>accomodate the really low notes.
>>
>>I actually have a BD of /The New Mutants/ with a sound system so
>>sophisticated, so advanced, so ... so ... stupid ... that I actually
>>have to turn up the volume on the TV just to hear it. This leaves me
>>with three volume settings:
>>
>>VHS (some DVDs use this) -- 15
>>DVDS/BDs (genearlly) -- 25
>>The New Mutants -- 35
>>
>I heart subtitles for film. Now I need a similar system for shows filmed
>in macular-degeneration-o-vision.

So will we all, if we live long enough, I suppose.

That's a quite steady demand; looks like money waiting to be made by
someone.

>An early archive of the radio show Mind Webs for some reason had the
>spoken parts drowned out by the incidental music. Later archives managed
>to fix this.

Some Perry Mason episodes have a mild form of that problem (not
actually drowned out, but certainly harder than usual to hear), but
those scenes were filmed outdoors and, apparently, the concept of
separate recording tracks for voice and effects or of re-recording the
voice separately so it could be enhanced had not yet reached
TV-series-land.

So, for some /early/ programs, some technical excuses can be made.
Maybe for some very-low-budget items as well.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 08:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:11:24 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 13:21:58 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> >> >> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
>
>Usually, the term for Dolby 5.1 is "surround sound" as opposed to stereo.

On DVDs of a certain generation, "Dolby Surround" appears to be a
2-channel mix intended to provide the illusion of "surround sound"
with 2 speakers, while "Dolby Digitial 5.1" is presumably actually 5.1
channel sound -- which, if all you have is two-speaker audio, your DVD
player gets to downmix for you.

The irony here, of course, is that "Dolby Digitial 5.1" actually /is/
Surround Sound, while "Dolby Surround" appears to only be a
simulation.

Personally, /my/ preference is:
1) (restored) mono -- that is, the actual soundtrack used in the
theaters way back when
2) (sometimes restored) stereo -- that is, the actual soundtrack used
in the more advanced theaters way back when
and then "Dolby Surround" since that was, presumably, at least mixed
by a human being who listened to the result instead of a mindless
machine.

BTW, I'm not interested in hearing how many tracks the film itself
had. Nothing prevents all tracks from being identical (mono) or split
into two groups (stereo). Just having multiple tracks isn't enough. Or
multiple speakers -- to have, say, 5.1 you must have not only multiple
speakers but /each speaker must be putting out different sound/, at
least some of the time.

Not that the DVD/BD players I have used have done a reasonable job
downmixing the highly-sophisticated sound systems. Indeed, it appears
that the BD player can even handle sound tracks with "DTS" in their
name -- like the "DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1" used in /The New Mutants/.

But perhaps DTS no longer needs a special separate decoder.

>> >> >> So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
>
>> >> >The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
>> >> >systems with exactly two speakers.
>
>Yes, that much is true. The Greek word from which the prefix "Stereo-" is
>taken, as noted in a portion of this that I've snipped, means "solid", as we
>can see, for example, in the word "stereoisomer".
>
>However, historically, "stereo" as a word for "stereophonic sound" refers
>to the type of system in which this concept was originally introduced.
>
>So with four speakers, you get _quadraphonic_ as distinct from stereo, and
>with 5.1 you get _surround sound_ as distinct from stereo.
>
>> >> Further, what is a "speaker" anyway? My old ('60s) stereo has two
>> >> "speakers" but each one contains two devices each of which if removed
>> >> from the enclosure becomes a "speaker" in its own right, so is that
>> >> two speakers or 4? And there were and are PA "speakers" that are
>> >> strictly monophonic but may contain a dozen or more "speakers".
>
>> >I could check with my brother, who is a professional in high-end audio,
>> >but I think he'd say that the sound making devices are 'drivers', and the
>> >structure they are set in is a 'speaker'. Of course, there are exceptions
>> >and corner cases. Language is squishy, and changes across time and
>> >space.
>
>> The thing is, you go to buy the device that makes the sound, and you
>> are buying a "speaker". It might be used as one sort of driver or
>> another in a particular system depending on how the crossover is set,
>> but until it's in a system, if you connect a signal to it it speaks.
>
>Certainly, there is the term "driver" (an element that transduces
>electrical voltage into audio) a distinct from "loudspeaker" in the sense of
>a transducer system that can be directly connected within a high-fidelity
>audio system which is complete in itself.
>
>Rather than disturbing some electronics expert, though, I'll just consult
>an old Radio Shack catalog...
>
>Radio Shack 1977 catalog...
>
>Page 45
>
>Under the heading "Realistic Has Everything in Component
>Speakers", the items we see listed include...
>
>High-Frequency Dome Tweeter
>6" Midrange with Crossover
>10" Round Woofer
>
>Thus, we can see that indeed you are right.
>
>While in some contexts, the tweeter, midrange, and woofer within a
>loudspeaker are referred to as its drivers, they can also be called
>loudspeakers in their own right.

In 2, 2.1, 5.1 and so on systems, the numbers should refer to the
number of physically separate speaker /enclosures/. Each enclosure may
indeed contain more than one actual speaker.

The point isn't the sheer number of vibrating surfaces, it is how they
are spread out and arranged that, together with the acoustics of the
room, determines what you hear.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:43:16 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
> was a type of record player.

A stereograph is a device for viewing stereograms, and
a stereogram is often just a stereo pair of images. The
View-Master was the last suriviving stereograph in common
use.

A single point on a hologram is not enough to contain an
image, but, yes, a small area on a hologram will contain the
entire 3-D image - from a limited set of points of view, if
viewed close-up.

The reason for that can be understood if you think of a
hologram being like a mirror - but one in which the image
is frozen from some time in the past, rather than a reflection
of what is in front of it now. A small area on the mirror is a
peep-hole into its reflected world in that case.

Essentially, a hologram acts like a diffraction grating, forming
the light that hits it into a full three-dimensional image. Simple
holograms can only do this with monochromatic light; if the
hologram registers an image not just on its surface, but through
its depth, it can be set up to form images in full color under appropriate
illumination.

John Savard

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 3:47:42 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 20:43:16 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> > > > "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
> > > > to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
> > >
> > > Did they mention "holographic" in that episode?
> > Probably not. That web page calls it a recorded
> > image... that walks and walks
> I meant "walks and talks".

Yes, I don't believe the word "holographic" was used.

Instead, the appearance and disappearance of the projection
was described as being "like a door opening and closing".

John Savard

On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 03:46:55 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 3:47:42 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 20:43:16 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> > > > > "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
> > > > > to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
> > > >
> > > > Did they mention "holographic" in that episode?
> > > Probably not. That web page calls it a recorded
> > > image... that walks and walks
> > I meant "walks and talks".
>
> Yes, I don't believe the word "holographic" was used.
>
> Instead, the appearance and disappearance of the projection
> was described as being "like a door opening and closing".

I think I forgot to mention that way of simulating
the effect. I meant to! I think on screen it looks
better than that (somewhat), but lately I've only
seen the "remastered" episode.

The projection is said to be computer operated
and to be interactive enough to contain the
actual Losira's reservations about killing the
intruders, and that's about equal to what happens
on the 24th century "holodeck", including with
interactive versions of dead people.

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 03:46:55 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> > > > > > "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
> > > > > > to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
> > > > >
> >
> > Yes, I don't believe the word "holographic" was used.
> >
> > Instead, the appearance and disappearance of the projection
> > was described as being "like a door opening and closing".

> I think I forgot to mention that way of simulating
> the effect. I meant to! I think on screen it looks
> better than that (somewhat), but lately I've only
> seen the "remastered" episode.

To me the effect looked like she became a 2-D cutout, then reduced to a vertical line, which turned into a dot, and dissappeared.
The end part looked like an old TV turning off (except that line is horizontal), but, yes, I like the effect, too.

--
-Jack

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:47:42 PM UTC-4, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 03:46:55 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> > > > > > > "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
> > > > > > > to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't believe the word "holographic" was used.
> > >
> > > Instead, the appearance and disappearance of the projection
> > > was described as being "like a door opening and closing".
>
> > I think I forgot to mention that way of simulating
> > the effect. I meant to! I think on screen it looks
> > better than that (somewhat), but lately I've only
> > seen the "remastered" episode.
> To me the effect looked like she became a 2-D cutout, then reduced to a vertical line, which turned into a dot, and dissappeared.
> The end part looked like an old TV turning off (except that line is horizontal), but, yes, I like the effect, too.

Here you go (SFW), I don't know if this is the original or the rework:
https://youtu.be/1JddCZEd07I?t=137

I think its kind of cartoonish. This compares the two versions,
but doesn't have this particular shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVH8e4s-ep4

pt

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 12:52:01 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:46:36 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:30:28 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> ><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >>news:r95u4...@kithrup.com:
> >>
> >>> In article <t1d2tg$o4v$5...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
> >>>>Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> schrieb:
> >>>>> In article <t1bg6n$ql4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>"A 1986 dystopian Russian novel basically predicted Vladimir
> >>>>>>Putin"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-1986-dystopian-russian-n
> >>>>>>ovel-basically-predicted-vladimir-putin/ar-AAVjwxz
> >>>>Which one, and when? Cellphones seem notably absent from a lot
> >>>>of SF. Even "Neuromancer", from 1984, has phone booths and
> >>>>no mobile phones, after the first mobile phone came on the
> >>>>market.
> >
> >OK so I'm not crazy or demented. THought I remembered that.
> >
> >Of course there was always Dick Tracy's (40s era?) Two Way Wrist Radio
> >- I stopped reading when they killed off the Moon Maid
> Some time in the '60s the Two Way Wrist Radio got video.

1964

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_TV

Diet Smith kept rolling out the upgrades.

1986

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_Computer

1997

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/Wrist_Geenee

2011

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/Wrist_Wizard

Six-two and even, over and out!

{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Tracy_Show }

--
Kevin R

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:38:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> >On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 19:42:56 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> I'm pretty sure multiple movies from at least 20 years ago have had
> >> scenes involving someone being deliberately pushed off the platform onto
> >> the tracks.
> >
>
> >
> >I gather the remedy is a passenger platform with walls
> >and sliding doors. When a train arrives behind the wall,
> >it stops with the train doors congruent with the doors
> >on the platform, and all doors are opened.
> That's how most of the automated inter-terminal trains work
> at the large airports, such as DIA or ORD.

Also: the tram between Manhattan and Roosevelt Islands in
the borough/county of New York.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMvUdlyVE&ab_channel=ActionKid

I've never been attacked by the Green Goblin going to visit my sisters. :)

--
Kevin R

On 30/03/22 12:49, Kevrob wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:38:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 19:42:56 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure multiple movies from at least 20 years ago have had
>>>> scenes involving someone being deliberately pushed off the platform onto
>>>> the tracks.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I gather the remedy is a passenger platform with walls
>>> and sliding doors. When a train arrives behind the wall,
>>> it stops with the train doors congruent with the doors
>>> on the platform, and all doors are opened.
>> That's how most of the automated inter-terminal trains work
>> at the large airports, such as DIA or ORD.
>
> Also: the tram between Manhattan and Roosevelt Islands in
> the borough/county of New York.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMvUdlyVE&ab_channel=ActionKid
>

If I was a character in a novel attempting to escape from another
character in that same novel who was pursuing me with malodorous intent,
I could board your Roosevelt Island tram and run out the other side
before it closed because the video shows that not all doors are opened
when the train stops and that the exit doors do not close until shortly
after the entrance doors open. But, who cares? :-)

> I've never been attacked by the Green Goblin going to visit my sisters. :)
>

I'm familiar with neither and have no idea why the Green Goblin would
visit your sisters and attack you while doing so.

On 3/29/2022 9:49 PM, Titus G wrote:
>
> On 30/03/22 12:49, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:38:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 19:42:56 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure multiple movies from at least 20 years ago have had
>>>>> scenes involving someone being deliberately pushed off the platform onto
>>>>> the tracks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gather the remedy is a passenger platform with walls
>>>> and sliding doors. When a train arrives behind the wall,
>>>> it stops with the train doors congruent with the doors
>>>> on the platform, and all doors are opened.
>>> That's how most of the automated inter-terminal trains work
>>> at the large airports, such as DIA or ORD.
>>
>> Also: the tram between Manhattan and Roosevelt Islands in
>> the borough/county of New York.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMvUdlyVE&ab_channel=ActionKid
>>
>
> If I was a character in a novel attempting to escape from another
> character in that same novel who was pursuing me with malodorous intent,
> I could board your Roosevelt Island tram and run out the other side
> before it closed because the video shows that not all doors are opened
> when the train stops and that the exit doors do not close until shortly
> after the entrance doors open. But, who cares? :-)
>
>> I've never been attacked by the Green Goblin going to visit my sisters. :)
>>
>
> I'm familiar with neither and have no idea why the Green Goblin would
> visit your sisters and attack you while doing so.

Because Scott is Spider Man!!! Obviously.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> schrieb:
>
> On 30/03/22 12:49, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:38:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 19:42:56 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure multiple movies from at least 20 years ago have had
>>>>> scenes involving someone being deliberately pushed off the platform onto
>>>>> the tracks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gather the remedy is a passenger platform with walls
>>>> and sliding doors. When a train arrives behind the wall,
>>>> it stops with the train doors congruent with the doors
>>>> on the platform, and all doors are opened.
>>> That's how most of the automated inter-terminal trains work
>>> at the large airports, such as DIA or ORD.
>>
>> Also: the tram between Manhattan and Roosevelt Islands in
>> the borough/county of New York.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMvUdlyVE&ab_channel=ActionKid
>>
>
> If I was a character in a novel attempting to escape from another
> character in that same novel who was pursuing me with malodorous intent,

With badly-smelling intent? Does that other character have some
amines or mercaptanes in his posession and intents to throw it
at the first character? I would seek open spaces, then.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 12:49:35 PM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
> > <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 08:10:01 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> schrieb:
> > >> > > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > >> > >> Holograms are the most misunderstood concept in science fiction,
> > >> > >> bar none. They are _not_ solid, and it is not possible to project
> > >> > >> one into thin air so it is visible from the side.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I expect that's why the smoke.
> > >> >
> > >> > Possibly...
> > >> I'm hazy on this subject but I think that strictly
> > >> a "hologram" is a particular type of visible effect -
> > >> I avoid saying illusion - a sort of photograph where
> > >> each point contains the entire image, somehow, maybe.
> > >> It's not (probably) any general three-dimensional
> > >> representation. That's a stereogram, which I thought
> > >> was a type of record player.
> > >
> > >An article once explained stereoscopy as coming from the ancient Greek "solid sight." "So now, if an ancient Greek says to you, 'Man, she was a solid sight!' you will know what he means: she was three-dimensional."
> > >
> > >Stereophonics began with two speakers, to fool the two ears, but I think the current 5.1 speaker setup is still called stereo.
> >
> > So far as I am concernted, it also /ends/ with two speakers.
> >
> > Anything else is called "abomination". Or, when I am in a more relaxed
> > mood, "highly advanced" or some similar bit of satirical speech.
> You're something of a Platonist, aren't you? Theory of Abstract Objects,
> and all that?
>
> Words, especially new words referencing a rapidly evolving field,
> change their used meaning all the time, often to the chagrin of
> people already accustomed to an older meaning. Consider 'hacker' and
> 'crypto'.
>
> The is nothing in the etymology of 'stereophonic' that restricts it to
> systems with exactly two speakers.
>
>

....or to "systems."

https://youtu.be/SzBJQnD7TRM

As a kid, before I had headphones, I would sometimes
listen to music on two radios, tuned to the same station,
each with it s own monaural ear phone. It made the sound
seem to be coming from inside one's head, even if there
was no separation.

My family did get an Emerson portable stereo record player -
the turntable/changer folded up between the two speakers
and a clasp kept it in place as you carried it - but it had no
headphone jack. It was very much like this.

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/9713-1962-63-emerson-stereophonic-phonograph

Ours was black.

I bought a pair of $20 realistic `phones in my Freshmen year of college.
I used them DJing on our campuses carrier current AM radio station,* which
you could only hear within the buildings. My roommate would let me use
his stereo while he was out of the room, or even while he studied, if I had
the cans† plugged in.

I didn't buy my own all-in-one compact stereo until I wasn't living in the dorms,
and wasn't in school. (Summer 1978?) It cost me around a $100 bucks - ~ $97
on sale plus tax for some off-brand at the mall. It cost me about a week's after-
tax pay from my new job at B. Dalton. I picked up something like it at a thrift store
for much less a couple of years ago. I put it in my storage room this past summer,
as it was collecting dust, and I sold all my vinyl over a decade ago. It could still
play some cassette tapes I saved.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_current

† https://www.radioconnection.com/glossary/c/
The headphones.

--
Kevin R