I sure wish I could make it.  Totally impossible.

Y'know, they've got an IMAX theater at Kennedy Space Center; you'd think one of
these days they would show 2001.  That I could do.

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans" <mach25@...> wrote:
>
> Just to let the group know that this coming Sunday at 7:30 pm, the Egyptian
Theater in Hollywood will be showing a 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If
anyone from the group is interested in going, maybe we could all meet up? Let me
know.
>
> Michelle
>

Just to let the group know that this coming Sunday at 7:30 pm, the Egyptian
Theater in Hollywood will be showing a 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If
anyone from the group is interested in going, maybe we could all meet up? Let me
know.

Michelle

I completely agree that some nasty things have been hurled back and forth in the
debate on global warming. Remember that fir myself I do not disagree with the
fact that global warming is indeed occurring. What I do disagree with is that
the cause of global warming has been definitely identified because of other
scientific evidence of things happening elsewhere in our solar system. Then, on
top of that, to be sure to not jump on the GW bandwagon as far as the supposed
fixes for the problem due to the fact, as pointed out in my second email, that
the "fix" might be worse than the problem!

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> Unfortunately, not being a climatologist, I'm just not qualified to evaluate
the data on my own.  What more can I do but accept the findings of the
scientific mainstream?  My personal observation is that most who disagree with
global warming tend to resort to personal attacks, name-calling, straw man
arguments, and debunked data, whereas most of the scientists warning us about
the reality of global warming provide facts and studies.  All the major
scientific journals are in agreement as to the reality of the problem.  Carl
Sagan was warning about it as long ago as 1980 when he did Cosmos.
>
> It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the
scientific community disagrees with the data on global warming, yet the media
(to say nothing of the Internet!) gives them equal attention, and thus makes the
whole debate very confusing.  I wrote to a scientist I sometimes correspond with
and expressed my frustration and asked how a layman with no formal science
background can sort through the debate; he gave me a long answer, but the part
that stayed with me was, "I find it hard to believe that an international
consortium of scientists would conspire to promote an American liberal agenda."
>
> To bring this back to semi-on-topic, someone once said that the destruction of
the Challenger destroyed Americans' faith in the scientific community.  The
people who split the atom, cured polio, put man on the Moon, and discovered DNA
were now fallible -- on live, national television.  The world has not been the
same since.  Despite the daily miracles that science provides us, science itself
is questioned and derided.  Basic, unquestionable tenets of science are openly
questioned.  The scientific method itself has its opponents.  Irrationality has
become the rationality of some.  Belief has become a fact.  Opinion is a proud
banner to wave even in the face of greater knowledge.
>
> Understand, Michelle, I'm not saying any of this about you.  I just mean the
problem exists.
>
> Collin

Thanks for the links.

Unfortunately, not being a climatologist, I'm just not qualified to evaluate the
data on my own.  What more can I do but accept the findings of the scientific
mainstream?  My personal observation is that most who disagree with global
warming tend to resort to personal attacks, name-calling, straw man arguments,
and debunked data, whereas most of the scientists warning us about the reality
of global warming provide facts and studies.  All the major scientific journals
are in agreement as to the reality of the problem.  Carl Sagan was warning about
it as long ago as 1980 when he did Cosmos.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the
scientific community disagrees with the data on global warming, yet the media
(to say nothing of the Internet!) gives them equal attention, and thus makes the
whole debate very confusing.  I wrote to a scientist I sometimes correspond with
and expressed my frustration and asked how a layman with no formal science
background can sort through the debate; he gave me a long answer, but the part
that stayed with me was, "I find it hard to believe that an international
consortium of scientists would conspire to promote an American liberal agenda."

To bring this back to semi-on-topic, someone once said that the destruction of
the Challenger destroyed Americans' faith in the scientific community.  The
people who split the atom, cured polio, put man on the Moon, and discovered DNA
were now fallible -- on live, national television.  The world has not been the
same since.  Despite the daily miracles that science provides us, science itself
is questioned and derided.  Basic, unquestionable tenets of science are openly
questioned.  The scientific method itself has its opponents.  Irrationality has
become the rationality of some.  Belief has become a fact.  Opinion is a proud
banner to wave even in the face of greater knowledge.

Understand, Michelle, I'm not saying any of this about you.  I just mean the
problem exists.

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans" <mach25@...> wrote:
>
> here are a couple of sites that discuss warming on other planets and moons. It
is now politically incorrect to not be on the human-caused GW bandwagon.
>
>
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupite\
r/
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>
> You'll notice that the last one does not actually support the Sun-centric GW
idea but says the correlation stopped in 1975. One problem with that basic
assumption is that when certain levels are reached, it may take a while for them
to react. Looking at the Sun versus Earth warming shows that this does sometimes
happen where there is a lag either going up or down in temperature. Obviously
the last 25-30 years is a long trend away from their supported data, but when
you do take into account some other observations confirmed by NASA about warming
in other parts of our solar system, we might need to remain skeptical about the
source here on Earth being human-made.
>
> I still recall vividly that just a few years ago we were scheduled to be
headed into an Ice Age rather than burning up. I would have much preferred that
myself as I hate the heat. :-)
>
> You might recall that a lot of these problems started when they said that CFCs
were causing the loss of ozone, and thus the ozone hole at the poles. I've seen
some good scientists that disagree with this vehemently when they point out that
the CFCs do not even reach the level in the atmosphere where the ozone could be
destroyed by them. But a huge amount of money was spent on "fixing" this
supposed problem. So my point, with regard to the economy, is that since things
are pretty messed up right now and everyone is going broke, maybe we need to
make sure that what we are doing is the right thing so that there are people
still left when this is all over with. If everything around the world collapses,
we are all in big trouble. If we are wasting time preventing things from
happening that are not related to the actual problem, we're wasting our time,
effort, and money, and the problem still won't get fixed.
>
> Michelle
>
> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@>
wrote:
> >
> > I did not know this was occurring.  Can you point me to more information on
that?  Still, even if it is a natural cycle, it makes no sense to me to shrug,
say there's nothing we can do, and place the economy above the future of the
human race.  We're a smart people, there must be some step we can take.  I live
at the beach, so I ain't too happy about the increase in Katrina-level
hurricanes.  I have an idea for a hurricane deflector/destroyer, but I need to
do more research before I know whether it's actually practical, but I am
considering patenting it if it doesn't turn out to be totally ridiculous.
> >
> > Collin
>

Thanks for the links.

Unfortunately, not being a climatologist, I'm just not qualified to evaluate the
data on my own.  What more can I do but accept the findings of the scientific
mainstream?  My personal observation is that most who disagree with global
warming tend to resort to personal attacks, name-calling, straw man arguments,
and debunked data, whereas most of the scientists warning us about the reality
of global warming provide facts and studies.  All the major scientific journals
are in agreement as to the reality of the problem.  Carl Sagan was warning about
it as long ago as 1980 when he did Cosmos.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the
scientific community disagrees with the data on global warming, yet the media
(to say nothing of the Internet!) gives them equal attention, and thus makes the
whole debate very confusing.  I wrote to a scientist I sometimes correspond with
and expressed my frustration and asked how a layman with no formal science
background can sort through the debate; he gave me a long answer, but the part
that stayed with me was, "I find it hard to believe that an international
consortium of scientists would conspire to promote an American liberal agenda."

To bring this back to semi-on-topic, someone once said that the destruction of
the Challenger destroyed Americans' faith in the scientific community.  The
people who split the atom, cured polio, put man on the Moon, and discovered DNA
were now fallible -- on live, national television.  The world has not been the
same since.  Despite the daily miracles that science provides us, science itself
is questioned and derided.  Basic, unquestionable tenets of science are openly
questioned.  The scientific method itself has its opponents.  Irrationality has
become the rationality of some.  Belief has become a fact.  Opinion is a proud
banner to wave even in the face of greater knowledge.

Understand, Michelle, I'm not saying any of this about you.  I just mean the
problem exists.

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans" <mach25@...> wrote:
>
> here are a couple of sites that discuss warming on other planets and moons. It
is now politically incorrect to not be on the human-caused GW bandwagon.
>
>
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupite\
r/
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>
> You'll notice that the last one does not actually support the Sun-centric GW
idea but says the correlation stopped in 1975. One problem with that basic
assumption is that when certain levels are reached, it may take a while for them
to react. Looking at the Sun versus Earth warming shows that this does sometimes
happen where there is a lag either going up or down in temperature. Obviously
the last 25-30 years is a long trend away from their supported data, but when
you do take into account some other observations confirmed by NASA about warming
in other parts of our solar system, we might need to remain skeptical about the
source here on Earth being human-made.
>
> I still recall vividly that just a few years ago we were scheduled to be
headed into an Ice Age rather than burning up. I would have much preferred that
myself as I hate the heat. :-)
>
> You might recall that a lot of these problems started when they said that CFCs
were causing the loss of ozone, and thus the ozone hole at the poles. I've seen
some good scientists that disagree with this vehemently when they point out that
the CFCs do not even reach the level in the atmosphere where the ozone could be
destroyed by them. But a huge amount of money was spent on "fixing" this
supposed problem. So my point, with regard to the economy, is that since things
are pretty messed up right now and everyone is going broke, maybe we need to
make sure that what we are doing is the right thing so that there are people
still left when this is all over with. If everything around the world collapses,
we are all in big trouble. If we are wasting time preventing things from
happening that are not related to the actual problem, we're wasting our time,
effort, and money, and the problem still won't get fixed.
>
> Michelle
>
> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@>
wrote:
> >
> > I did not know this was occurring.  Can you point me to more information on
that?  Still, even if it is a natural cycle, it makes no sense to me to shrug,
say there's nothing we can do, and place the economy above the future of the
human race.  We're a smart people, there must be some step we can take.  I live
at the beach, so I ain't too happy about the increase in Katrina-level
hurricanes.  I have an idea for a hurricane deflector/destroyer, but I need to
do more research before I know whether it's actually practical, but I am
considering patenting it if it doesn't turn out to be totally ridiculous.
> >
> > Collin
>

As a follow-up to my comments yesterday, it was asked why not simply do whatever
we can to eliminate sources of global warming and clean up our act. One reason
is that we need to be careful in what we do in response about things like global
warming because we don't want to make things worse by doing something stupid. In
other words, the "cure" could be worse than the "disease."

Case in point: One major thing that is being done is to switch to biofuels in an
effort to eliminate problems with fossil fuels. As pointed out in the most
recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, "the International Council for
Science has concluded that using biofuels aggravates rather than ameliorates
global warming. The cause is the nitrous oxide associated with farming the
plants used for biofuels. Nitrogen oxide is a much more serious greenhouse gas
than carbon dioxide, and the use of biofuels could destabilize the Earth's
nitrogen cycle."

As a famous Flight Director on Apollo once said, "Don't make the situation worse
by guessing." In other words we do need to truly understand what's going on and
what is causing the changes in order to deal with it properly and without
upsetting the balance that Earth has enjoyed for a long time. Recall that we
have natural heating and cooling cycles all the time. When it started to get
cold at the beginning of the last Ice Age, what if we were already in the
Industrial civilization we are today? Would we have tried to prevent this
natural cycle from occurring by eliminating any clean air regulations and
allowing green house gases to be spewed forth at whatever rate was necessary to
stave off climatic calamity? would anything we could have done changed the last
epoch of glaciers--or the next?

Michelle

here are a couple of sites that discuss warming on other planets and moons. It
is now politically incorrect to not be on the human-caused GW bandwagon.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupite\
r/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You'll notice that the last one does not actually support the Sun-centric GW
idea but says the correlation stopped in 1975. One problem with that basic
assumption is that when certain levels are reached, it may take a while for them
to react. Looking at the Sun versus Earth warming shows that this does sometimes
happen where there is a lag either going up or down in temperature. Obviously
the last 25-30 years is a long trend away from their supported data, but when
you do take into account some other observations confirmed by NASA about warming
in other parts of our solar system, we might need to remain skeptical about the
source here on Earth being human-made.

I still recall vividly that just a few years ago we were scheduled to be headed
into an Ice Age rather than burning up. I would have much preferred that myself
as I hate the heat. :-)

You might recall that a lot of these problems started when they said that CFCs
were causing the loss of ozone, and thus the ozone hole at the poles. I've seen
some good scientists that disagree with this vehemently when they point out that
the CFCs do not even reach the level in the atmosphere where the ozone could be
destroyed by them. But a huge amount of money was spent on "fixing" this
supposed problem. So my point, with regard to the economy, is that since things
are pretty messed up right now and everyone is going broke, maybe we need to
make sure that what we are doing is the right thing so that there are people
still left when this is all over with. If everything around the world collapses,
we are all in big trouble. If we are wasting time preventing things from
happening that are not related to the actual problem, we're wasting our time,
effort, and money, and the problem still won't get fixed.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> I did not know this was occurring.  Can you point me to more information on
that?  Still, even if it is a natural cycle, it makes no sense to me to shrug,
say there's nothing we can do, and place the economy above the future of the
human race.  We're a smart people, there must be some step we can take.  I live
at the beach, so I ain't too happy about the increase in Katrina-level
hurricanes.  I have an idea for a hurricane deflector/destroyer, but I need to
do more research before I know whether it's actually practical, but I am
considering patenting it if it doesn't turn out to be totally ridiculous.
>
> Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans" <mach25@...> wrote:
>
> First up, James Hogan. Yes, his Inherit the Stars was an excellent book, and I
read all the others he has put out to date. One thing however to keep in mind is
that he is an ardent believer of the Velikovsky version of the universe.

Well, this little bit of trivia didn't keep me from enjoying the rest of Inherit
the Stars, and I'm looking forward to reading more of his books, but I visited
his website and...yeah, he's a nut.  I think he became a nut after writing
Inherit the Stars, but yeah, he's a quack for sure.  That's too bad.

> I believe there is one single Titanci survivor left alive.

True enough.  Millvina Dean.  She's in good health, but I think she's in a
nursing home now.  She was only nine months old when she was on the Titanic, so
of course she has no memory of it.

> Saying that the Mercury Mission Control is slated for demolition doesn't sound
like something that would ever actually happen. It was registered as a historic
building and site many, many years ago, and it generates from the space
tourists.

There's been lots of discussion about this since I first learned about it.  I
guess the building is in disrepair, the roof is leaking -- and of course all the
consoles are in the Debus Facility now -- and Chris Kraft doesn't care if they
do demolish it.  I don't know whether they're really going to demolish it or
not.  But as I pointed out on another list, according to the brochures, the KSC
Visitors Center is funded entirely by what it takes in from guests.  If they
could afford to build the Shuttle Launch Experience, surely they could afford to
restore and maintain one old building.  They've preserved the blockhouse where
Alan Shepard was launched into space on Freedom 7 -- I'll never forget standing
on the very pad where his Redstone rocket once stood.  It would be nice if they
did something similar with MMC.

> For excellent, if scary documentaries concerning religion in America and
around the world, check out the DVDs "The Root of All Evil" a BBC documentary
from Richard Dawkins, and the recent "Religulous" from comedian Bill Maher.
Also, Dawkins book (which is a New York Times bestseller) "The God Delusion."

I've read The God Delusion.  I enjoyed it, though it wasn't as good as I had
hoped.  His explanation for the persistence of religion didn't quite satisfy me,
and his dire warnings about the rise of religious extremism seemed rather
alarmist to me.  Anyone can go nuts for any reason; religion isn't always the
cause.  Some people have found genuine inner peace thanks to religion, and it's
not only harmless but beneficial.  His call to arms to stamp out even passive
religious belief, to me, contradicted his earlier argument that atheism is a
quiet, personal choice.  My brother (that rare breed of evagelistic atheist)
recommended Religulous, but I haven't seen it.  To me, atheism is just that:  I
don't believe in anything, I simply follow the facts.  If someday those facts
lead me to God, so be it; until then, God is not part of the equation.  Once
atheism becomes something to prosletyze, it's not atheism anymore.

> Then there's global warming. Yes, the evidence clearly shows that this is
occurring, as it has countless times before as energy fluctuations from the Sun
affect our temperature and weather patterns. Earth has been without ice sheets
before and will be again, yet life has survived. As for the idea that this is
all human-made, that is tyhe big question. Considering that recent scientific
evidence from both Mras and Jupiter are also showing that those planets are
undergoing global warming, too, it begs the question, How has humanity been
responsible for that?

I did not know this was occurring.  Can you point me to more information on
that?  Still, even if it is a natural cycle, it makes no sense to me to shrug,
say there's nothing we can do, and place the economy above the future of the
human race.  We're a smart people, there must be some step we can take.  I live
at the beach, so I ain't too happy about the increase in Katrina-level
hurricanes.  I have an idea for a hurricane deflector/destroyer, but I need to
do more research before I know whether it's actually practical, but I am
considering patenting it if it doesn't turn out to be totally ridiculous.

Collin

From Chapter 7: Special Flight:

"Near the horizon, a gleaming silver tower bathed in floodlights, stood the last
of the Saturn V's, for almost twenty years a national monument and place of
pilgrimage."

How did he know?  I don't know when that particular passage was written, but in
those pre-Apollo 11 days it could not possibly have been known by anyone that
Congress would cut the funding and the last three lunar missions would be
scrapped.  How did Clarke know there would be any unused Saturn Vs?  And of
course, one of the last three Saturn Vs is indeed at Kennedy Space Center, and
is indeed a national monument and place of pilgimage.

-- Though perhaps not in the way that Clarke had in mind.  Rather than a
celebration of the beginning of our voyage into space, the Saturn V stands as a
bittersweet reminder of what we once were...

Collin

Lots of points to discuss there.

First up, James Hogan. Yes, his Inherit the Stars was an excellent book, and I
read all the others he has put out to date. One thing however to keep in mind is
that he is an ardent believer of the Velikovsky version of the universe. This
can make for some interesting and fascinating science fiction reading, but
believing that Venus was formed during historical times by being ejected from
what became Jupiter's Great Red Spot, is not supported by any actual science.

I believe there is one single Titanci survivor left alive.

Saying that the Mercury Mission Control is slated for demolition doesn't sound
like something that would ever actually happen. It was registered as a historic
building and site many, many years ago, and it generates from the space
tourists. It is in the middle of a swamp. What purpose would be served to remove
it. It's not like condos are being built there. To say something like that for
me would beg the question, where did you get this information? I personally find
it extremely doubtful that there would be any truth to the story.

For excellent, if scary documentaries concerning religion in America and around
the world, check out the DVDs "The Root of All Evil" a BBC documentary from
Richard Dawkins, and the recent "Religulous" from comedian Bill Maher. Also,
Dawkins book (which is a New York Times bestseller) "The God Delusion."

Then there's global warming. Yes, the evidence clearly shows that this is
occurring, as it has countless times before as energy fluctuations from the Sun
affect our temperature and weather patterns. Earth has been without ice sheets
before and will be again, yet life has survived. As for the idea that this is
all human-made, that is tyhe big question. Considering that recent scientific
evidence from both Mras and Jupiter are also showing that those planets are
undergoing global warming, too, it begs the question, How has humanity been
responsible for that? In other words maybe it is happening but it is not from
humanity. The reason the distinction is extremely important is because of the
economy and all the money poured into saving something that simply may not be
savable. When you interpose a graph of solar fluctuations over a graph of global
warming, they are nearly identical. That to me says we are looking at and
blaming the wrong culprit, and one we can do literally nothing about.

And when you take into account how much money people like Al Gore is making from
his global warming carbon credits and things of that nature, it becomes clear
that his purpose is anything but altruistic.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> Inherit the Stars by James Patrick Hogan is one of the most fascinating
science fiction novels I've read in a very, very long time.  Hogan deliberately
set out to write a science fiction novel better than 2001 - an admirable, if
impractical goal.  But so far he's giving 2001 fair competition.
>
> April 15.  97 years ago today, the luxury liner Titanic sank, taking 1,517
passengers and crew to their deaths.  There were only 705 survivors.  The
tragedy has fascinated the world ever since, and was a recurring obsession of
Arthur C. Clarke's.  In 1993 Clarke wrote a novel about the Titanic called The
Ghost From the Grand Banks.
>
> The Mercury Mission Control Center at Cape Canaveral is slated for demolition.
I am very upset about this.  I realize Cape Canaveral is a functioning Air Force
base, but in my opinion the Mercury Mission Control Center is a historic site
and should be awarded historic status.
>
> According to Skeptical Inquirer, surveys which reveal that Americans are
becoming more religious have been skewed.  Passive belief in the existence of
God, as well as numerous forms of agnosticism and nontheism aside from 100%
outright certainty that there is no God are classified as religious conviction. 
This would tend to reveal that Americans are becoming lessreligious, not more.
>
> Considering the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real
and caused by human activity, I don't understand the intense opposition and
hostility by global warming deniers.  Considering the grave stakes, it makes no
sense to me that people wouldn't want to at least take precautions, even should
the whole thing turn out in the end to be a false alarm.Speaking of the Titanic
. . .

Collin,

Your last two paragraphs are interrelated. It does not seem that
Americans are becoming more religious. But those communities --
most of them in so-called red states -- that declare a presiding
faith hang on to it and go to lengths to promote it with a
zealotry that shunts aside most other matters.  Like science.
Tolerance.  And intellect.  It's puzzling but perhaps no
coincidence that these communities, whole states as farflung as
Kansas, Texas and Utah, are frothing against evolution and global
warming, gay marriage and at least one state, Texas, screaming for
the right to carry concealed firearms in public, allowing guns
into such places as college campuses, airports and national parks.
  You can imagine what some of them believe about an
African-American president (son of a Muslim father), or ordinances
that deny Christian prayer in public, multi-ethnic schools.

In some form or fashion, they say the Bible condones or even
inspires these views and behavior.  Don't dare to challenge them!
They'd want to stone anyone with pantheistic or atheistic views
like those of Sir Arthur.  It's no secret that religion has
pervaded politics, and to a great degree it's winning, hence the
loud, ill-informed and illogical denunciations of bottomless data
confirming the acceleration of potentially catastrophic climate
change: science is not necessary, God will save the True
Believers!  Some of it may even be utterly selfish. If, say, a
huge volume of polar ice melts and seas rise two feet, they are in
denial that it will effect them. They all live far away from
either ocean: all the bi-coastal bisexual liberal gay socialist
cities will be underwater and they'll be running the country.
Given the evidence that they decry The Origin of the Species,
there will be no enlightened environmental policy, no interfaith
harmony, no space elevator or nuclear fusion energy, and possibly
we'd be in too big a mess for even the Star Child to do anything
but watch in vain.

Mark McKennon



On Wed Apr 15 04:58:44 CDT 2009, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:

> Inherit the Stars by James Patrick Hogan is one of the most
> fascinating
> science fiction novels I've read in a very, very long time.
> Hogan
> deliberately set out to write a science fiction novel better than
> 2001 - an
> admirable, if impractical goal.  But so far he's giving 2001 fair
> competition.
>
>  April 15.  97 years ago today, the luxury liner Titanic sank,
> taking 1,517
> passengers and crew to their deaths.  There were only 705
> survivors.  The
> tragedy has fascinated the world ever since, and was a recurring
> obsession
> of Arthur C. Clarke's.  In 1993 Clarke wrote a novel about the
> Titanic
> called The Ghost From the Grand Banks.
>
>  The Mercury Mission Control Center at Cape Canaveral is slated
> for
> demolition.  I am very upset about this.  I realize Cape
> Canaveral is a
> functioning Air Force base, but in my opinion the Mercury Mission
> Control
> Center is a historic site and should be awarded historic status.
>
>  According to Skeptical Inquirer, surveys which reveal that
> Americans are
> becoming more religious have been skewed.  Passive belief in the
> existence
> of God, as well as numerous forms of agnosticism and nontheism
> aside from
> 100% outright certainty that there is no God are classified as
> religious
> conviction.  This would tend to reveal that Americans are
> becoming less
> religious, not more.
>
>  Considering the overwhelming scientific consensus that global
> warming is
> real and caused by human activity, I don't understand the intense
> opposition
> and hostility by global warming deniers.  Considering the grave
> stakes, it
> makes no sense to me that people wouldn't want to at least take
> precautions,
> even should the whole thing turn out in the end to be a false
> alarm.
> Speaking of the Titanic . . .
>
>

More on my previous on this subject: they posted the video and now our baby
grandson is world-famous on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgdM8AucsVk

He got to see a shuttle launch before I did. I can live with that.

BT






> Excellent! I was there by proxy. My daughter and her husband live in Fort
Lauderdale and I have been nagging at them for years to watch a shuttle launch,
even if it was no more than stepping outside and looking north. They did that
one morning, last year, when they remembered at the last second that there was a
morning launch, so the neighbours were treated to the sight of the two of them
running down the street in their pyjamas. It was worth it, though, because they
saw the smoke trail, far away.
>
> So, on Saturday, they decided to drive up to Merritt Island and watch the
launch live. Cleo called me before breakfast on Monday (NZT) to tell me and I
suggested that they watch from Titusville.
>
> Just before lunch (NZT), they texted my wife to say that they had arrived and
were looking for a vantage point. I watched the launch on NASA TV during my
lunch break, which I thought was very obliging of NASA and, an hour later, Cleo
called me at work, still on a high, to say that they were on I95, heading south
from Titusville in very heavy traffic and how fabulous the launch had been and
how noisy it was, even from twelve miles and now they can understand why I had
been nagging at them to see one and they took pics and a video and they'll send
them to me.
>
> Almost as good as Cathy and me being there...
>
> Eek! I'm late for work.
>
> BT going whoosh
>

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik" <collinskocik@...>
wrote:
>
> I watched the shuttle launch last night.  I'm just outside Jacksonville, about
120 miles north of KSC.  It was a wonderfully clear evening.  I spotted it about
a minute or so after the scheduled launch time.  I could clearly see the SRB
sep, and for a long time there were three very distinct stars -- the shuttle and
the two spent SRBs.  Eventually the SRBs fell out of sight and I saw the shuttle
continue to fly off to the northeast.  I could see it until it disappeared below
the roofs of the apartments on the other side of the lot.  It was an incredible
sight, best of luck to Discovery!
>
> Collin


Excellent! I was there by proxy. My daughter and her husband live in Fort
Lauderdale and I have been nagging at them for years to watch a shuttle launch,
even if it was no more than stepping outside and looking north. They did that
one morning, last year, when they remembered at the last second that there was a
morning launch, so the neighbours were treated to the sight of the two of them
running down the street in their pyjamas. It was worth it, though, because they
saw the smoke trail, far away.

So, on Saturday, they decided to drive up to Merritt Island and watch the launch
live. Cleo called me before breakfast on Monday (NZT) to tell me and I suggested
that they watch from Titusville.

Just before lunch (NZT), they texted my wife to say that they had arrived and
were looking for a vantage point. I watched the launch on NASA TV during my
lunch break, which I thought was very obliging of NASA and, an hour later, Cleo
called me at work, still on a high, to say that they were on I95, heading south
from Titusville in very heavy traffic and how fabulous the launch had been and
how noisy it was, even from twelve miles and now they can understand why I had
been nagging at them to see one and they took pics and a video and they'll send
them to me.

Almost as good as Cathy and me being there...

Eek! I'm late for work.

BT going whoosh

I watched the shuttle launch last night.  I'm just outside Jacksonville, about
120 miles north of KSC.  It was a wonderfully clear evening.  I spotted it about
a minute or so after the scheduled launch time.  I could clearly see the SRB
sep, and for a long time there were three very distinct stars -- the shuttle and
the two spent SRBs.  Eventually the SRBs fell out of sight and I saw the shuttle
continue to fly off to the northeast.  I could see it until it disappeared below
the roofs of the apartments on the other side of the lot.  It was an incredible
sight, best of luck to Discovery!

Collin

Thanks all for the good wishes. Never take your heaslth for granted as it can
disappear in a
nanosecond.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon <scoutman12001@...>
wrote:
>
> Good health, Michelle.  Will your spirit to heal the body and
> you'll be well again.
>
> Mark McKennon
>

Good health, Michelle.  Will your spirit to heal the body and
you'll be well again.

Mark McKennon



On Sat Feb 14 17:07:15 CST 2009, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:

> Sorry to hear about your accident.  I wish you the best of luck.
>
>  I have often considered the possibility that the Discovery
> command module
> might have been an Aries design, and might have detached from the
> spine
> after entering the Jupiter system, perhaps even to land on
> various moons.  I
> once saw a schematic of the Discovery - can't remember where,
> don't know if
> it was "official" - in which the command module had its own
> communications
> antenna under a hatch, and its own small engines.  I also heard
> from a very
> unreliable source that the Discovery's spine is too fragile to
> withstand the
> centrifugal force of maneuvers in Jupiter's gravitational
> influence.  I
> wrote a paper on this once.I'll see if I can find it.
>
>  Collin
>
>    _____  From: 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michelle
> Evans
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:50 PM
> To: 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [2001aspaceodyssey] Re: 2001: Fact and Fiction
>
>  First off I would love to talk at much more length on this
> subject so
> I apologize for being short answers. I am currently in a nursing
> home
> after a bad accident. I hope that in a couple months I may walk
> again.
> Please wish me luck.
>
> With that said, I agree that you'd think the pilots would prefer
> direct visibility of the landing site. One thing I have always
> wondered, and maybe has already been discussed, is that the Aries
> hull
> is the same basic construction as the Discovery command module?
> In
> other words, did they "sell" the program to the congress based on
> common heritage cost savings, like Space Shuttle and Ares today?
>
> Michelle
>
> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@
> <mailto:2001aspaceodyssey%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
> <collinskocik@...> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting answer. Thought-provoking. But another issue occurs
>> to me -- the pilots' windows on the Aries 1B face upward when
>> the vehicle is in landing position, so the pilots have no visual
>> of their landing pad. I guess it's possible to land entirely
>> with instruments, and perhaps with talk-down from the Base, but
>> if I know pilots, they'd want to see where they're going. In
>> fact, if I'm not mistaken, that was another, less important,
>> reason why the Apollo CSM was abandoned as a landing craft. Yes,
>> no?
>>
>> Collin
>
>
>
>

First off I would love to talk at much more length on this subject so
I apologize for being short answers. I am currently in a nursing home
after a bad accident. I hope that in a couple months I may walk again.
Please wish me luck.

With that said, I agree that you'd think the pilots would prefer
direct visibility of the landing site. One thing I have always
wondered, and maybe has already been discussed, is that the Aries hull
is the same basic construction as the Discovery command module? In
other words, did they "sell" the program to the congress based on
common heritage cost savings, like Space Shuttle and Ares today?

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting answer.  Thought-provoking.  But another issue occurs to
> me -- the pilots' windows on the Aries 1B face upward when the
> vehicle is in landing position, so the pilots have no visual of their
> landing pad.  I guess it's possible to land entirely with
> instruments, and perhaps with talk-down from the Base, but if I know
> pilots, they'd want to see where they're going.  In fact, if I'm not
> mistaken, that was another, less important, reason why the Apollo CSM
> was abandoned as a landing craft.  Yes, no?
>
> Collin

Interesting answer.  Thought-provoking.  But another issue occurs to
me -- the pilots' windows on the Aries 1B face upward when the
vehicle is in landing position, so the pilots have no visual of their
landing pad.  I guess it's possible to land entirely with
instruments, and perhaps with talk-down from the Base, but if I know
pilots, they'd want to see where they're going.  In fact, if I'm not
mistaken, that was another, less important, reason why the Apollo CSM
was abandoned as a landing craft.  Yes, no?

Collin

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Evans"
<mach25@...> wrote:
>
> Collin,
>
> As long as you have the rocket power, you can do pretty much
whatever
> you want. They were assuming orders of magnitude improvements over
40
> years of space travel. Look at an early barnstormer versus a 747.
And
> as a passenger vehicle, it would be made to be big and comfortable
to
> justify the high ticket price. Apollo had a job to do: get there and
> get back.
>
> Michelle
>
> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
> <collinskocik@> wrote:
> >
> > I was comparing my models of the Orion III spaceplane and the
Space
> > Shuttle.  It's a fascinating comparison, since the two designs
are so
> > similar.  But there are a few things that stood out to me.
> >
> > I've mentioned this before, on this list and others, and never
have
> > gotten a satisfactory explanation -- wish I could contact
Veevers,
> > Cracknell, and Ordway with my questions.  But where the shuttle
has a
> > reinforced carbon-carbon blunt nose, the Orion III's nose is
> > inexplicably open; since the shuttle's nose is optimally designed
for
> > atmosphere entry, presumably ANY other shape, let alone an open
vent,
> > would be lethal.  I'd love to know what the filmmakers were
thinking.
> >
> > Although the airframes of the shuttle and the Orion III are
> > remarkably similar -- more so than I had even realized -- the
shapes
> > of the wings are subtly different.  The shuttle's wings widen
> > gradually, where the Orion III's wings widen at a sharp angle.
I'm
> > certainly no expert on aerodynamics, but it seems to me the wings
> > would snap off, or send the ship into a wild spin.  Then again,
maybe
> > not -- the X-15 had similar wings.
> >
> > Then, moving on to a different spacecraft, I can't help
comparing --
> > well, contrasting, really -- the Aries 1B lunar shuttle with the
> > Apollo lunar module.  I've been assured by spacecraft engineers
that
> > the filmmakers did their homework, that the movie's shuttle is
> > practical, but it's hard for me to understand that.  I mean, the
> > thing is HUGE!  How does it make a precision soft-landing on the
> > Moon, take off again, and head back to Earth orbit?  Early design
> > specs called for the much smaller Apollo CSM to do that, and that
> > idea was abandoned when it was realized the thing would be orders
of
> > magnitude too heavy!  Then we've got the Apollo lunar module -- a
> > tiny, lightweight thing that looks like it's made of kitchen
foil, so
> > fragile that urban legend has it an astronaut had to be careful
not
> > to kick through the hull.  And, by my understanding, the Altair
Lunar
> > Lander is going to be similarly small and lightweight.  I'd be
really
> > curious how spacecraft engineers -- or at least the filmmakers --
> > justify that enormous spacecraft.  I mean, it looks GREAT on
screen,
> > talk about going to the Moon in style!  But I find it hard to
believe
> > that it would actually work.  I know we've got some Apollo
experts
> > here, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Collin
> >
>

Collin,

As long as you have the rocket power, you can do pretty much whatever
you want. They were assuming orders of magnitude improvements over 40
years of space travel. Look at an early barnstormer versus a 747. And
as a passenger vehicle, it would be made to be big and comfortable to
justify the high ticket price. Apollo had a job to do: get there and
get back.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:
>
> I was comparing my models of the Orion III spaceplane and the Space
> Shuttle.  It's a fascinating comparison, since the two designs are so
> similar.  But there are a few things that stood out to me.
>
> I've mentioned this before, on this list and others, and never have
> gotten a satisfactory explanation -- wish I could contact Veevers,
> Cracknell, and Ordway with my questions.  But where the shuttle has a
> reinforced carbon-carbon blunt nose, the Orion III's nose is
> inexplicably open; since the shuttle's nose is optimally designed for
> atmosphere entry, presumably ANY other shape, let alone an open vent,
> would be lethal.  I'd love to know what the filmmakers were thinking.
>
> Although the airframes of the shuttle and the Orion III are
> remarkably similar -- more so than I had even realized -- the shapes
> of the wings are subtly different.  The shuttle's wings widen
> gradually, where the Orion III's wings widen at a sharp angle.  I'm
> certainly no expert on aerodynamics, but it seems to me the wings
> would snap off, or send the ship into a wild spin.  Then again, maybe
> not -- the X-15 had similar wings.
>
> Then, moving on to a different spacecraft, I can't help comparing --
> well, contrasting, really -- the Aries 1B lunar shuttle with the
> Apollo lunar module.  I've been assured by spacecraft engineers that
> the filmmakers did their homework, that the movie's shuttle is
> practical, but it's hard for me to understand that.  I mean, the
> thing is HUGE!  How does it make a precision soft-landing on the
> Moon, take off again, and head back to Earth orbit?  Early design
> specs called for the much smaller Apollo CSM to do that, and that
> idea was abandoned when it was realized the thing would be orders of
> magnitude too heavy!  Then we've got the Apollo lunar module -- a
> tiny, lightweight thing that looks like it's made of kitchen foil, so
> fragile that urban legend has it an astronaut had to be careful not
> to kick through the hull.  And, by my understanding, the Altair Lunar
> Lander is going to be similarly small and lightweight.  I'd be really
> curious how spacecraft engineers -- or at least the filmmakers --
> justify that enormous spacecraft.  I mean, it looks GREAT on screen,
> talk about going to the Moon in style!  But I find it hard to believe
> that it would actually work.  I know we've got some Apollo experts
> here, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
>
> Collin
>

I was comparing my models of the Orion III spaceplane and the Space
Shuttle.  It's a fascinating comparison, since the two designs are so
similar.  But there are a few things that stood out to me.

I've mentioned this before, on this list and others, and never have
gotten a satisfactory explanation -- wish I could contact Veevers,
Cracknell, and Ordway with my questions.  But where the shuttle has a
reinforced carbon-carbon blunt nose, the Orion III's nose is
inexplicably open; since the shuttle's nose is optimally designed for
atmosphere entry, presumably ANY other shape, let alone an open vent,
would be lethal.  I'd love to know what the filmmakers were thinking.

Although the airframes of the shuttle and the Orion III are
remarkably similar -- more so than I had even realized -- the shapes
of the wings are subtly different.  The shuttle's wings widen
gradually, where the Orion III's wings widen at a sharp angle.  I'm
certainly no expert on aerodynamics, but it seems to me the wings
would snap off, or send the ship into a wild spin.  Then again, maybe
not -- the X-15 had similar wings.

Then, moving on to a different spacecraft, I can't help comparing --
well, contrasting, really -- the Aries 1B lunar shuttle with the
Apollo lunar module.  I've been assured by spacecraft engineers that
the filmmakers did their homework, that the movie's shuttle is
practical, but it's hard for me to understand that.  I mean, the
thing is HUGE!  How does it make a precision soft-landing on the
Moon, take off again, and head back to Earth orbit?  Early design
specs called for the much smaller Apollo CSM to do that, and that
idea was abandoned when it was realized the thing would be orders of
magnitude too heavy!  Then we've got the Apollo lunar module -- a
tiny, lightweight thing that looks like it's made of kitchen foil, so
fragile that urban legend has it an astronaut had to be careful not
to kick through the hull.  And, by my understanding, the Altair Lunar
Lander is going to be similarly small and lightweight.  I'd be really
curious how spacecraft engineers -- or at least the filmmakers --
justify that enormous spacecraft.  I mean, it looks GREAT on screen,
talk about going to the Moon in style!  But I find it hard to believe
that it would actually work.  I know we've got some Apollo experts
here, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Collin

Some of the background music sounded like it was from the movie "Zulu" - the
account of
the Battle of Rorkes Drift.

BT

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon <scoutman12001@...>
wrote:
>
> I'm wondering how he/they got permission for the clips. But so
> what?
>
>
> http://architectsofanewdawn.com/
>
>
> Join up!
>
>
> Mark McKennon
> Brooklyn NY
>

I'm wondering how he/they got permission for the clips. But so
what?


http://architectsofanewdawn.com/


Join up!


Mark McKennon
Brooklyn NY

HAL was basically the first of his kind to venture forth into the
cosmos. he was only five (or ten) years old at the time of the
mission's launch in September 2002, he would  still be considered a
child, even though he had this ultra smart computing power. My point
being that besides doing routine checks on Discovery's systems,
running the ship, burning the engines as required, and keeping in
communication with Earth, he has very little practical and real world
experience. Think of a small child and how they react to the unknown.
It is not uncommon for kids to act in ways that adults would see as
cruel. They might throw rocks at a bird or try to stomp on some
animal, more out of fun than any innate badness. it is through
learning from adults that certain things are not the right way to do
things, that the child grows and develops.

For HAL, the programmers had given him a single-minded mission with no
practical and basic real world practice in interacting with human
beings. He was never taught that shutting off (i.e., killing) a human
being is wrong just because it may conflict with his programming. In a
bizarre sort of way, you could see Dr. Langley (or Chandra) chastising
HAL after he learns what HAL did by killing his crewmates. "Now HAL,
that is not the way you are supposed to react. Murder is not a way to
eliminate problems. You must talk with your crew and with Earth before
taking such steps in the future." :-)

HAL is a child and he needs to be guided as do all children. Too bad
the computer geeks never figured that out before launch, and is
something that needs to be addressed in the real world of evolving AI.

Michelle

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon
<scoutman12001@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, very true. HAL was only as good as "his" original,
> fundamental design. The folly, of course, was the humans'
> assumption that he was "foolproof and incapable of error."  No
> such condition exists or can exist -- in part because inevitably
> the system -- any system -- comes up against conditions for which
> variables have not been accounted for and has only its default or
> primary pre-programmed setting and "knows" of no other conditions
> it can create so as to adapt.  Evolution is a closed system,
> spiraling ever more ambitiously and elegantly but still unable to
> transcend intrinsic limitations. Transformation must be abrupt,
> drastic and aided by circumstances outside any ability to control
> or even foresee.  No one is to blame, really; everyone and
> everything in the universe operates on the principle of trial and
> error.
>
>
> Mark McKennon

Yes, very true. HAL was only as good as "his" original,
fundamental design. The folly, of course, was the humans'
assumption that he was "foolproof and incapable of error."  No
such condition exists or can exist -- in part because inevitably
the system -- any system -- comes up against conditions for which
variables have not been accounted for and has only its default or
primary pre-programmed setting and "knows" of no other conditions
it can create so as to adapt.  Evolution is a closed system,
spiraling ever more ambitiously and elegantly but still unable to
transcend intrinsic limitations. Transformation must be abrupt,
drastic and aided by circumstances outside any ability to control
or even foresee.  No one is to blame, really; everyone and
everything in the universe operates on the principle of trial and
error.


Mark McKennon



On Mon Jan 12 17:24:46 CST 2009, Bruce Thompson
<cathybt@...> wrote:

> --- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon
> <scoutman12001@...> wrote:
>>
>> HAL 9000 became operational "today" on January 12 in Urbana,
>> Illinois.
>>
>>
>> [Ohh, for all "his" flaws, that it was somewhere even
>> artificially intelligently close to being true.
>
>> Mark McKennon
>> Brooklyn NY
>
>
> HAL's flaws were human flaws. He had been inadeqautely
> programmed.
>
> BT
>
>
>
>

--- In 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com, Mark McKennon <scoutman12001@...>
wrote:
>
> HAL 9000 became operational "today" on January 12 in Urbana,
> Illinois.
>
>
> [Ohh, for all "his" flaws, that it was somewhere even artificially
> intelligently close to being true.

> Mark McKennon
> Brooklyn NY


HAL's flaws were human flaws. He had been inadeqautely programmed.

BT

Yes, you can chose which birthday you want for HAL. Is he 12 years old
or 17? (movie versus book)

As for the problems facing the world, yes they are many and varied.
people should be freed from drudgery as much as possible. Every
generation someone laments that their job is lost to a new technology.
That just means that like the rest of the world, we must evolve and adapt.

At a talk by Arthur C. Clarke many years ago that I attended, he
talked about how we had this whole concept of unemployment completely
turned around. Instead of striving for 100 percent employment and
lamenting those without jobs, we should instead be striving for 100
percent unemployment so that everyone can be free to pursue what they
personally need to pursue. He saw and hoped that things such as AI
(hopefully better programmed than HAL) could lead us all in that
direction if it could ever be achieved.

Michelle

There could be plenty of jobs for people.  We could have a job for
almost everyone who wants one.  But because the crowd "in charge"
has not figured out how to make it politically viable or
profitable for themselves, and because it's not ideologically
palatable to a small elite, we have a lot of silly stifling
make-work in offices that produce nothing but documents, and
factories of second-rate products that people don't *really* need
or that are actually harmful in a number of ways -- instead of
doing more to pay people to improve their lives and their
surroundings by putting more and/or a different value on their
energies.  As people are discovering, the bulk of the population
spends much of its time producing/buying/consuming commodities
that the wealthy control and that confer limited, lasting benefit
upon 90% of the populace. Clearly, that cycle becomes 100%
problematic when the top 10% (or less) utterly screw up the
process.

Yes, I've heard that idealism is unrealistic. But our current
reality is so far from ideal that we need to rethink everything
from the ground up. Now.  Not in 2029.  That may include replacing
more daily drudgeries with machines to free the humans to improve
and revive their environment. There are enough large-scale and
economically invaluable projects on the boards to employ millions
of ordinary but skilled people (e.g., construction and auto
workers) that could make them feel like they are a key part of an
inspired movement rather than a replaceable unit in an army of
dull robots at the mercy of unethical or pathological MBAs.

The resources are plentiful; the lack of vision and leadership is
excruciating.


Mark McKennon
The Location Station
Brooklyn NY  11215
718.768.5539 (ph/f) / 917.744.8730 (c)
www.scoutman.com
www.globalproducer.com/ID11526



On Mon Jan 12 08:13:50 CST 2009, "Collin R. Skocik"
<collinskocik@...> wrote:

> HAL could certainly solve many of our problems.but on the other
> hand he'd
> put a lot of people out of work.  I do television closed
> captioning using
> voice recognition software; HAL could easily do my job for me.
> Then what
> would I do?  I'm content to wait for AI another, oh, twenty
> years.
>
>  Collin
>
>    _____  From: 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
> McKennon
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:55 AM
> To: acc-list@yahoogroups.com; 2001aspaceodyssey@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [2001aspaceodyssey] It's HAL's birthday
>
>  HAL 9000 became operational "today" on January 12 in Urbana,
> Illinois.
>
> [Ohh, for all "his" flaws, that it was somewhere even
> artificially intelligently close to being true.
>
> On the other hand, I read hardly any of the literature on present
> A.I. functionality, so perhaps the Turing machine, Kurzweil's
> prophesy and Clarke's vision are closer to reality than I know.
>
> Good, then let it run our big machine because the humans in
> charge of economic and political matters are clearly quite
> deficient. This philosophy is quite in keeping with that of
> Kubrick/Clarke.]
>
> Mark McKennon
> Brooklyn NY
>
>