 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Simulacron 3
I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't been
turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie. (I had
already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to turn
into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:21 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Simulacron 3
>
> I'm about 3/4ths the way through this. I can't imagine why this hasn't
> been turned into what could be an excellent action/suspense movie.
I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
hardly remember anything about it other than the plot. I agree that it
would make a good film but SF films in those days were either “cowboys
in space” or horror movies like “The Thing”.
Another good story of his is “Dark Universe” but that would have made a
better radio play than a movie.
> (I had already read Tunnel Under the World, but it was really too short to
> turn into a movie without spoiling it, methinks.)
>
They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but you
are probably right.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 1:12 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Do you want to share it?;-)
A list of the Series 5 episodes that I have:
1976-03-06 - s05e01 - Footballers Ball 11,150,312
1976-03-13 - s05e02 - Politicians Ball 13,483,870
1976-03-20 - s05e03 - Astronomers Ball. 12,735,844
1976-03-27 - s05e04 - Geographers Ball. 10,838,435
1976-04-03 - s05e05 - Electrical Goods and Allied Ind. 12,793,629
1976-04-10 - s05e06 - Tailors Ball 26,607,153
Here are the series 1 episodes. Farmers' Ball only has one song to the
tune..
1972-04-11 - s01e01 - Dr Finlays Casebook 12,726,325
1972-04-18 - s01e02 - Plumbers Ball 27,906,884
1972-04-25 - s01e03 - Clothing Manufacturers Ball 25,472,818
1972-05-02 s01e04 Zookeepers' Ball 14,127,516
1972-07-04 - s01e13 - Geographical Society Ball 23,535,199
X-1972-05-16 s01e06 Farmers' Ball 2,472,576
I’ve got 6 episodes from series 2, 1 from series 3 and 6 from series 4.
If you let me know what you want I can send them to you. BTW I’ve lost
your email address so you can use mine in the header.
"Do not adjust your set" and "At last the 1948 show" were TV shows,
precursors to Monty P. The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band were the resident
group on "Do not adjust your set". I may have something there too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
it isn't.
Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
(even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly. A group of humans
deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
species.
The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
behavior.
> > You make it sound like every living being could reproduce with any
> > other living being on Earth, but they just won't because they either are
> > of the wrong size or because of instinct. That's not how it works.
> No, I never said anything like that.
You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
role of behavior in the definition of "species".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it tha
t I can
> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie, wi
th
both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical overtones.
> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The S
entinel” but you
> are probably right.
Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
fun
movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
Fair enough. You said it so confidently that I thought you had better
definition in mind.
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
I disagree. The definition of "species" that I'm familiar with is "two
populations are distinct species if they can not or normally would not
interbreed." So even if tigers and lions *could* have fertile offspring,
they'd still be different species because they're in different habitats.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
But the study I pointed to said nothing about the genes of the fruit flies.
You're *assuming* it's merely "instinctive behavoir" that didn't affect the
genes.
If your genes tell you not to interbreed, even if artificial insemination
would work, are you a different species? What if a fertile offspring could
be produced, but only if humans put the embryo in a completely artificial
environment? I.e., if the mother could not bring the offspring to term
naturally?
Plus, of course, we can't really look at genes and tell whether the result
will be fertile offspring. Maybe in theory that's true, but in practice,
while it's pretty easy to tell when the species are far apart, it might be
very difficult to tell if the species is very close together.
> You didn't, but you make it sound like that when you overemphasize the
> role of behavior in the definition of "species".
And to me, you seem to be completely disregarding the role of behavior. I'm
not overemphasizing it except compared to you, perhaps. I'm just thinking
that if human technology has to get involved to create offspring, chances
are good they're different species. If I did genetic engineering to create a
creature that's half human, half ape, that wouldn't make humans and apes the
same species. And if I stick insulin-producing genes into a bacteria, does
that mean I have a new species or what?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> BTW I’ve lost
> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 6:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:09:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> BTW I’ve lost
>> your email address so you can use mine in the header.
>
> Done - just sent you a list of what I've got through 2006. :)
>
Got it :-D
I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2011 16:46, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The definition of species is not dependent on behavior.
>
>> You keep telling me what the definition of species is not.
>> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what the definition of species *is*.
>
> Even if somebody doesn't know what something is, he can still know what
> it isn't.
>
> Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.
No, and I am surprised that you still dare say that without any backup
sources.
> A group of humans
> deciding not to interbreed with another group doesn't make them a different
> species.
Not if it is just for one or a few generations. And it depend on the
reason why.
Note that this remark is either inconsistent or an open door as we would
not call both groups humans if it were different species.
> The decision of whether two groups are of the same species should be
> doable by studying their genes only, without having to observe their
> behavior.
Perhaps in a universe where all species were independently created, but
not in this one. Sometimes I wonder why the whole world has to conform
to your ideas of how it should be. Why can you not just simply admire
its complexity?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 5:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I’m glad you are enjoying it. It is so long since I read it that I can
>> hardly remember anything about it other than the plot.
>
> It's very nicely done, and I can imagine it turning into a good movie,
> with both action, mystery/suspense, and all kinds of philosophical
> overtones.
Too bad he died young. :-(
>
>> They did not do too badly with Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sentinel” but
>> you are probably right.
>
> Yes, but they padded it tremendously. Not unlike how Total Recall made a
> fun movie while retaining only a modicum of plot from the story. :-)
>
Yes they made a novel out of a short story.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
