Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:

> Note that there are occasional reports of /Star Trek/ fans with
> appropriate scientific backgrounds and equipment trying to reproduce,
> in reality, the Princess Leia hologram.

Leia was Star Wars...

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.

On 3/23/2022 1:00 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
>
>> Note that there are occasional reports of /Star Trek/ fans with
>> appropriate scientific backgrounds and equipment trying to reproduce,
>> in reality, the Princess Leia hologram.
>
> Leia was Star Wars...
>
> 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 recall reading about mist generators being experimented with to create
open air holograms but that was some years ago.

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

On 2022-03-23, Frank Scrooby <frank.scrooby@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alternatively, on one of my trips out of SA I did experience
> moving walkways at Frankfurt airport (not a nice place to get stuck
> at for a seven hour lay-over on a Sunday - almost nothing was open,
> and none of the signage was in any language other than German -

All the airport signage in Frankfurt Airport is bi-lingual German/
English. But maybe you are talking about the shops.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:bNH_J.471430$aT3.325746@fx09.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
>
>>> Why yes! Which was my whole point - that the Trek communicator
>>> isn't remotely like a cell phone.
>>>
>>Except for all the ways it is.
>>
>>Those nits must be tasty.
>
> The word "cell" as used in "cellphone" implies many
> recieve/transmit stations (cells) working in concert to provide
> coverage.
>
> The Trek communicator isn't remotely like a cell phone in the
> most basic way.
>
Tell that the guy who invented the modern cell phone, and cited the
Star Trek communicator as an inspiration. I'm sure he'll be
enlightened by your superior wisdom.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:52:15 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:bNH_J.471430$aT3.3...@fx09.iad:
> > Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote in
> >
> >>> Why yes! Which was my whole point - that the Trek communicator
> >>> isn't remotely like a cell phone.
> >>>
> >>Except for all the ways it is.
> >>
> >>Those nits must be tasty.
> >
> > The word "cell" as used in "cellphone" implies many
> > recieve/transmit stations (cells) working in concert to provide
> > coverage.
> >
> > The Trek communicator isn't remotely like a cell phone in the
> > most basic way.
> >
> Tell that the guy who invented the modern cell phone, and cited the
> Star Trek communicator as an inspiration. I'm sure he'll be
> enlightened by your superior wisdom.

You're mistaken.

Martin Cooper later recanted on that claim.
This article seems to have dug down to bedrock on this story.

https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-communicators-martin-cooper-cell-phone/

He was working on portable communications at Motorola before ST:TOS started.

The first cell phones didn't resemble communicators at all - they were single
pieces, and much larger.

The first flip phone, which actually was communicator-like, was the StarTac
in 1996.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a5b959f0-48e7-4b41-a87e-354de4092686n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:52:15 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>> news:bNH_J.471430$aT3.3...@fx09.iad:
>> > Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote in
>> >
>> >>> Why yes! Which was my whole point - that the Trek
>> >>> communicator isn't remotely like a cell phone.
>> >>>
>> >>Except for all the ways it is.
>> >>
>> >>Those nits must be tasty.
>> >
>> > The word "cell" as used in "cellphone" implies many
>> > recieve/transmit stations (cells) working in concert to
>> > provide coverage.
>> >
>> > The Trek communicator isn't remotely like a cell phone in the
>> > most basic way.
>> >
>> Tell that the guy who invented the modern cell phone, and cited
>> the Star Trek communicator as an inspiration. I'm sure he'll be
>> enlightened by your superior wisdom.
>
> You're mistaken.
>
> Martin Cooper later recanted on that claim.

Well, that certainly helps things. Sure it does.

I will note, however, that my original claim has not been disputed:

The most famous prediction of cell phones is, of course, Star Trek.

It did, indeed, predict cell phones, to the extent science fiction
predicts anything, and it is, indeed, the most famous such
prediction (since Dick Tracy is largely forgotten these days).

You're still picking at nits.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
> > Note that there are occasional reports of /Star Trek/ fans with
> > appropriate scientific backgrounds and equipment trying to reproduce,
> > in reality, the Princess Leia hologram.
>
> Leia was Star Wars...

Shush. ;-) <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/174811.The_Last_Incantation>

"The Interesting green lady who pops up at the end of
most episodes" is achievable, as an effect, with coloured
spectacles.

"The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
is either close to how things go in real life or achieved
with a life size card cutout edged with razor blades.

> 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.

But in most SF, including _Star Wars_, ray guns
are visible from all angles.

Suppose that R2-D2 sprays out many microscopic robots
carrying tiny blue, green, and red lightsabers, which are
turned on and off as required.

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 2:30:33 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha 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
> >>>>
> >>>>"In 1986, near the end of the Soviet Union, a Russian
> >>>>satirical novelist tried to imagine the future of his
> >>>>homeland. He envisioned a head of state who had risen through
> >>>>the ranks of the KGB, used a war to cement his power, elevated
> >>>>his former security colleagues into positions of influence,
> >>>>claimed to derive authority from the Russian Orthodox Church
> >>>>and ruled Russia for decades."
> >>>>
> >>>>"In other words, he predicted Vladimir Putin."
> >>>>
> >>>>"The writer was Vladimir Voinovich, and his novel was
> >>>>“Moscow 2042,” a dystopic satire about a man who takes a
> >>>>journey into the next century."
> >>>>
> >>>>Looks like I missed this book.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hat tip to:
> >>>> https://drudgereport.com/
> >>>>
> >>>>Lynn
> >>>
> >>> Well, yeah, hindsight. I'm sure there were lots of 1986
> >>> Russian novels that predicted a lot of things. I mean, there
> >>> was a Heinlein novel that predicted the cellphone,
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> > _Space Cadet,_ early '50s. The cadet-applicants are waiting for
> > transport to the Academy, and one of them gets a nervous
> > parental call, is he all right, is he taking care of himself?
> > much to his embarrassment. Another cadet tells him he should've
> > packed his phone deep in his baggage.
> >
> The most famous prediction of cell phones is, of course, Star Trek.

Maxwell Smart's shoe was a cell phone...

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:20:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
>
>>> Why yes! Which was my whole point - that the Trek communicator
>>> isn't remotely like a cell phone.
>>>
>>Except for all the ways it is.
>>
>>Those nits must be tasty.
>
>The word "cell" as used in "cellphone" implies many recieve/transmit
>stations (cells) working in concert to provide coverage.
>
>The Trek communicator isn't remotely like a cell phone in the most
>basic way.

That was my whole point but thank you for explaining it far better
than I did. The Dick Tracy 2-way Wrist Radio was also far more Trek
like than modern Cell like and I believe it covered Earth-Moon and
back transmissions.

(It's been35 years or so and I pretty much stopped reading when they
killed off the Moon Maid - tragically to be sure but she was my
favorite Tracy character)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:18:34 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/22/2022 11:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Mechanically simpler, more reliable, more versatile, cheaper and safer
>to use motorized vehicles on a stationary road.

For sure which undoubtedly is why the multiple speed tracks aren't
event used inside airports today.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:09:06 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:14:22 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <a700f03b-30a8-4aff...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Frank Scrooby <frank....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Curiously the one time I was in Frankfurt, I ran into an even worse
>>> passenger safety nightmare: A building with paternoster lifts.
>>
>>I've never encountered those (they look cool), but in Sweden, in the
>>mid-60s, at least some new public elevators had no interior
>>door - there was an ordinary swinging door onto the
>>shaft (locked unless the elevator was stopped at that
>>level), and riding inside, you watched the wall slide up and
>>down. The shaft interior was smooth, and flush with the elevator
>>opening, but I wonder about the safety record - Swedes were
>>usually pretty careful about that.
>
>Most small lifts that I used in Europe in the 70's and
>80's were similar.

Some elevators today are like that with glass side walls so you can
see where you're going. My doctor's office has one of those but since
I only go from the parkade up the stairs to the ground floor I never
take it.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:15:02 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>TOS Communicators were routinely used to make "person to person" calls
>between members of an away team. They also could be used on board ship
>but were generally not carried around when on the ship.
>
Didn't Kirk use them all the time when he called out "Bones!" or
"Scotty!"? (who knows maybe there was a button he pushed first but it
seem they always responded more or less instantly)

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:36:18 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:18:34 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/22/2022 11:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> >Mechanically simpler, more reliable, more versatile, cheaper and safer
> >to use motorized vehicles on a stationary road.
>
> For sure which undoubtedly is why the multiple speed tracks aren't
> event used inside airports today.

Check this video showing a multi speed slidewalk in actual use (about
4:54 in).

In Paris, in 1890 or so.

Pt

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?

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. 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.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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.

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.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 10:30:08 PM UTC+2, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-03-23, Frank Scrooby <frank....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, on one of my trips out of SA I did experience
> > moving walkways at Frankfurt airport (not a nice place to get stuck
> > at for a seven hour lay-over on a Sunday - almost nothing was open,
> > and none of the signage was in any language other than German -
> All the airport signage in Frankfurt Airport is bi-lingual German/
> English. But maybe you are talking about the shops.

This was pre-2000 and the airport was in the middle of a major renovation. Most of the signage looked like it was meant to be temporary. I was surprised (but not too much). I thought at the very least EU regulations would have required some other language. It wasn't a major problem for us because we had one German speaker and reader in the group. But if the group split up for any reason the part without the German speaker was really on their own.

As for shops.... What shops? There was almost nothing open. We were able to find 1, just 1, kiosk that was selling coffee and Coca-cola (just coke, no diet options, no other Coca-cola brands). And postcards, they were selling postcards. No food, no snacks. The coffee was pretty awful but it at least contained caffeine. Whatever they were serving on Lufthaunsa might have tasted like coffee but sure lacked caffeine. The only other place that was 'open' was apparently an employees only dining room. Open but not to the public.

Bathroom/toilet signs were marked with the typical international images indicating which gender was supposed to go where. But no English. The only other English I can remember seeing was a "Welcome to Frankfurt" sign, which looked like it was next on the renovators list of things to remove.

>
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

Regards
Frank

Hi all,

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:23:04 PM UTC+2, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 6:43:14 AM UTC-4, Frank Scrooby wrote:

<<stuff snipped>>

> > I don't know about how things work elsewhere in the world (my exposure to elsewhere being very, very, very short compared with total hours of life so far) but I live in part of the world where some adults can not easily get onto an escalator. Trying to get them onto a moving walkway and then onto a faster one would just be lining the building's owners / operators up for a law suit.
> I thought you were in the South Bay area in CA, near Santa Cruz.

Sorry, I can't possibly imagine how I created that impression. Do I come across as Californian? From Santa Cruz?

I know people have significant trouble with 'placing' my accent, which is probably because most people have never heard a South African speaking. The difficulty people experienced got considerably worse after my colleagues and I (in previous employment) deliberately culled calloquilisms, borrowed words, contractions and slang out of our professional day-to-day language. Doing this made us significantly easier to understand when speaking with our customers, particularly those who spoke English as a second or third language.

>
> Fun factoid: there are a only two escalators in the entire state of Wyoming.
>

Is there a law against them or do people just not want to use them or are elevators so much more popular? How? Or do the folks there prefer to be healthy and take the stairs (which isn't that healthy if you have more than a few floors in a building)

> pt

Regards
Frank

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
>> > Note that there are occasional reports of /Star Trek/ fans with
>> > appropriate scientific backgrounds and equipment trying to reproduce,
>> > in reality, the Princess Leia hologram.
>>
>> Leia was Star Wars...
>
> Shush. ;-) <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/174811.The_Last_Incantation>
>
> "The Interesting green lady who pops up at the end of
> most episodes" is achievable, as an effect, with coloured
> spectacles.

Ah.

>
> "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
> to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
> is either close to how things go in real life or achieved
> with a life size card cutout edged with razor blades.

Did they mention "holographic" in that episode?

>
>> 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...

> But in most SF, including _Star Wars_, ray guns
> are visible from all angles.

Ray guns don't have to be Laser, they could also be Plasma weapons
(whose beams ould be easy to see, but hard to keep focused over
any distance in vacuum).

> Suppose that R2-D2 sprays out many microscopic robots
> carrying tiny blue, green, and red lightsabers, which are
> turned on and off as required.

The weapons technology in Star Wars is weird. I shudder to think
what a WW II infantry platoon with three machine guns would have
done to the Jedi in the grand finale of "Attack of the Clones".

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...

Frank Scrooby <frank.scrooby@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:23:04 PM UTC+2, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Fun factoid: there are a only two escalators in the entire state of Wyoming.
>
> Is there a law against them or do people just not want to use
> them or are elevators so much more popular? How? Or do the folks
> there prefer to be healthy and take the stairs (which isn't that
> healthy if you have more than a few floors in a building)

The obviously superior method of moving between floors is the
Paternoster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift ).
I just moved offices (not that I went there a lot during the last
couple of years). The building I left had one of these. It is
now deemed too dangerous for general use, but after receicing a
safety instruction, I was permitted to use it.

(And yes, it's safe to go below the lowest and above the highest
floor. Despite what some cartoon films show, you do not come out
head over feet).

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.
>
>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.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:a5b959f0-48e7-4b41-a87e-354de4092686n@googlegroups.com:
>

>>
>> Martin Cooper later recanted on that claim.
>
>Well, that certainly helps things. Sure it does.
>
>I will note, however, that my original claim has not been disputed:
>
>The most famous prediction of cell phones is, of course, Star Trek.

Actually, I suggest you re-read _Space Cadet_; I'm currently
half-way through, but there is a paragraph stating that Matt's
phone wasn't useful off-planet because it wasn't close enough
to a cell (local exchange office in the text).

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:36:18 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:18:34 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/22/2022 11:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >Mechanically simpler, more reliable, more versatile, cheaper and safer
>> >to use motorized vehicles on a stationary road.
>>
>> For sure which undoubtedly is why the multiple speed tracks aren't
>> event used inside airports today.
>
>Check this video showing a multi speed slidewalk in actual use (about
>4:54 in).
>
>In Paris, in 1890 or so.

And "Terra Station" in _Space Cadet_ had slidewalks in the main
concourse (published 1948).

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>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.
>>
>>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.

IIRC the roads were covered - if only to keep the rain and snow off.

On 2022-03-24, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> schrieb:
>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 20:00:28 UTC, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
>>> > Note that there are occasional reports of /Star Trek/ fans with
>>> > appropriate scientific backgrounds and equipment trying to reproduce,
>>> > in reality, the Princess Leia hologram.
>>>
>>> Leia was Star Wars...
>>
>> Shush. ;-) <https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/174811.The_Last_Incantation>
>>
>> "The Interesting green lady who pops up at the end of
>> most episodes" is achievable, as an effect, with coloured
>> spectacles.
>
> Ah.
>
>>
>> "The interesting holographic lady whom it is deadly
>> to touch" in <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/That_Which_Survives_(episode)>
>> is either close to how things go in real life or achieved
>> with a life size card cutout edged with razor blades.
>
> Did they mention "holographic" in that episode?
>
>>
>>> 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...
>
>> But in most SF, including _Star Wars_, ray guns
>> are visible from all angles.
>
> Ray guns don't have to be Laser, they could also be Plasma weapons
> (whose beams ould be easy to see, but hard to keep focused over
> any distance in vacuum).

I suspect that if we don't have wide-spread holograms now, we will in
the very near future. Not because the technology is there, but because the
language is changing.

There has to be some word to describe the live concerts of virtual
singers like Hatsune Miku, and like it or not, the word used in that
population is "hologram". It isn't a true hologram; it's projective
technology onto a semi-see-through screen. But the vast majority of
articles about the concerts, even technical articles, nowadays use
"hologram". I don't see that stopping and I certainly don't see the
concerts stopping - their "exponential" (another word we've lost the
meaning of) growth was paused by the pandemic but I'm sure will resume.

Hatsune Miku concert (3-4 minutes in gives the best 3d effects)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJA8-Z6H5dM

Chris