On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de> 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...

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

>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.

That hasn't stopped people (people with an appropriate scientific
background and equipment) from trying.

If we ever get Holodecks, it will be because of similar efforts. But
I'm not holding my breath.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
<frank.scrooby@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Oh, come on, just about everybody has heard Elon Musk and/or Charlize
Theron at this point.

> 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

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:lC__J.162186
$Mpg8.8355@fx34.iad:

> 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).
>
I suggest you look up the definition of the word "famous" in the
dictionary.

--
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 Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:09:57 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> schrieb:

<snippo

>> 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...

As with all things fictional, how things work and what is available is
what is needed for the plot to work.

Just eat your popcorn, sit back, and enjoy!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
><tkoenig@netcologne.de> 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...
>
> Indeed. Thanks for the correction.
>
>>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.
>
> That hasn't stopped people (people with an appropriate scientific
> background and equipment) from trying.

The German Museum (of science and technology in Munich) had
excellent exhibits about holograms the last time I visited. What I
found most impressive was a hologram which included a magnifying
glass you could look through. You had to look at the hologram,
though.

If you ever go to Munich (and you're technologically inclined), spare a
day to visit that museum. There is never enough time to see all, but
a day is enough to leave you exhausted.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:12:43 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <t1h199$ot2$1...@dont-email.me>, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >On 24/03/22 18:36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <t1guqp$cbj$1...@dont-email.me>, Titus G <no...@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.

Running off of memories that are also very old, istr the fastest belt
had seating areas screened from the wind. The driving conflict was
a labor dispute.

pt

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 4:07:51 PM UTC, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
> <frank....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
> Oh, come on, just about everybody has heard Elon Musk and/or Charlize
> Theron at this point.
(Trimmed)
IMHO the stereotypical South African accent is unmistakeable, but I doubt if everybody from South Africa has exactly that accent. I have what I am told is a strong local accent from a particular part of N.Ireland, but it is neither the Belfast accent made famous by the troubles nor the Southern Irish accent of a number of successful entertainers and TV personalities. Coupled with my surname, I was relieved to find that it is pretty consistently misidentified in England as Scots.

FWIW I think the ex-soccer Manager and now pundit Martin O'Neill has a reasonably similar accent to mine, although I am not sure why, since he comes from the west coast of N.Ireland, and I from the east coast.

On 24/03/2022 00.36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> 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.

This was "predicted" in _Stand on Zanzibar_, in which a gang killed
somebody by pushing him off the platform onto the tracks.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 24:17

On 3/24/2022 12:03 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 00.36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> This was "predicted" in _Stand on Zanzibar_, in which a gang killed
> somebody by pushing him off the platform onto the tracks.
>
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've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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:
> >> 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?

Probably not. That web page calls it a recorded
image... that walks and walks and appears to be
solid, and is computer controlled but emotionally
conflicted.

I suppose it was left on "greeting" mode with an
assumption that it couldn't be greeting alien intruders,
and since it was greeting alien intruders, it did the best
that it could with that program.

> >> 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.

> > 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...

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.

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 19:42:56 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 12:03 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> > On 24/03/2022 00.36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > This was "predicted" in _Stand on Zanzibar_, in which a gang killed
> > somebody by pushing him off the platform onto the tracks.
> >
> 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 think it occurs in Dorothy L. Sayers' novel
_Murder Must Advertise_ (1933) and
Margery Allingham's _Death of a Ghost_ (1934).
And accidentally in _Anna Karenina_ (1878)
and in 1830 in real life upon the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_the_Liverpool_and_Manchester_Railway>

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.

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:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@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?
>
>Probably not. That web page calls it a recorded
>image... that walks and walks and appears to be
>solid, and is computer controlled but emotionally
>conflicted.
>
>I suppose it was left on "greeting" mode with an
>assumption that it couldn't be greeting alien intruders,
>and since it was greeting alien intruders, it did the best
>that it could with that program.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>> > 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...
>
>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.

A Jedi doesn't care about "muzzle velocity". The Force tells him
where you are aiming so he can interpose the light saber.

On 2022-03-24, Frank Scrooby <frank.scrooby@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know people have significant trouble with 'placing' my accent,
> which is probably because most people have never heard a South
> African speaking.

To keep this marginally SF-related: The TV show _Charlie Jade_ (2005),
which was shot and set around Cape City^H^H^H^HTown, can help with that.

(1) There is the accent of the small number of South African native
English speakers. I keep mistaking that one for a New Zealand
accent (e.g. Lou Llobell in the _Foundation_ TV show), unless
it's so broad that they are rounding the FATHER vowel.
(2) There is the accent of native Afrikaans speakers, which includes
the majority of white South Africans. It may shade into (1),
I'm not sure.
(3) There are the accents of native speakers of one of SA's various
Bantu languages.

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

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@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.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:45:38 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:12:43 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <t1h199$ot2$1...@dont-email.me>, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >On 24/03/22 18:36, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> >> In article <t1guqp$cbj$1...@dont-email.me>, Titus G <no...@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.
>
>Running off of memories that are also very old, istr the fastest belt
>had seating areas screened from the wind. The driving conflict was
>a labor dispute.

The whole thing was roofed over, apparently the roof moved with the
rest of it. There were businesses on the fastest belt and possibly on
the others. And it wasn't really a labor dispute, it was an attempt
as insurrection.

There were windscreens in the centers of some of the lanes to control
turbulence (not exactly how Heinlein described it but that was the
function).

On 25/03/22 11:08, J. Clarke wrote:
snip

With regard to thr problem of wind in The Roads Must Roll - Heinlein.

> The whole thing was roofed over, apparently the roof moved with the
> rest of it. There were businesses on the fastest belt and possibly on
> the others. And it wasn't really a labor dispute, it was an attempt
> as insurrection.
>
> There were windscreens in the centers of some of the lanes to control
> turbulence (not exactly how Heinlein described it but that was the
> function).

Brilliant. Thank you.

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".

> and appears to be
> solid, and is computer controlled but emotionally
> conflicted.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 4:08:13 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> And it wasn't really a labor dispute, it was an attempt
> as insurrection.

Once someone accepted a job keeping the roads rolling,
they weren't permitted to quit.

So if it isn't a labor dispute, I'd move in the other direction
and call it a slave revolt. It wasn't that a bunch of people
wanted to impose a dictatorship on everyone else, it was that
people who were working wanted to regain their basic human
rights in addition to a better wage.

Thus, I find "The Roads Must Roll" to be morally pernicious,
since it seeks to justify as reasonable an illicit social arrangement,
one that tolerates indentured labor.

John Savard

Chris Buckley wrote:

> 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.

Are we losing the meaning of the word "hologram," or just one of the meanings assigned to it?
One can be needlessly pedantic in correcting someone who talks about "the power of work," or "chaotic randomness" which are incorrect according to specialized uses of those common words.
My desk dictionary reminds my that a holograph is a handwritten document. "Whole writing" is the derivation. It does not say when "hologram" ("whole message"?) was coined, merely defining it as produced by holography, so I could argue that any method besides that of photographically recording the interference patterns of light that also gives you the whole picture might still be correctly called a hologram.

--
-Jack

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.

("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.)

--
-Jack

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 4:08:13 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> And it wasn't really a labor dispute, it was an attempt
>> as insurrection.
>
>Once someone accepted a job keeping the roads rolling,
>they weren't permitted to quit.

Incorrect. They were required to give 90 days notice. This is less
onerous than the commitment required in our society to obtain an ROTC
scholarship.

>So if it isn't a labor dispute, I'd move in the other direction
>and call it a slave revolt. It wasn't that a bunch of people
>wanted to impose a dictatorship on everyone else, it was that
>people who were working wanted to regain their basic human
>rights in addition to a better wage.

The leader of the insurrectionists styled himself "Director of the
Provisional Central Committee for the New Order" and stated "This is
it-the functionalist revolution." There was discussion of the
political theory under which the rebels were operating. It was
summarized as "Functionalism was particularly popular among little
people everywhere who could persuade themselves that their particular
jobs were the indispensable ones, and that, therefore, under the
"natural order" they would be top dog."

>Thus, I find "The Roads Must Roll" to be morally pernicious,
>since it seeks to justify as reasonable an illicit social arrangement,
>one that tolerates indentured labor.

<s> Yeah, yeah, Heinlein was a fascist. </s>

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.

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?

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)?

On 3/24/2022 3:09 AM, Thomas Koenig 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).
>
>> 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...

The new Ryan Reynolds movie, The Adam Project, on Netflix has a light
saber variant that Adam 2050 uses to block a machine gun bullet stream.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE8HIsIrq4o

Lynn

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.
>
>
> 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

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.