Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #83331 > unrolled thread

"Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-18 05:55 -0400
    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-03-19 15:52 +0800
      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-19 04:43 -0400
    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-03-19 15:14 +0100
      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-19 08:49 -0700
      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-19 23:46 -0400
        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-03-20 14:11 +0100
          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-20 23:23 -0400
            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-21 20:26 +0100
              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-22 00:27 -0400
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-22 11:26 +0000
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-22 08:46 -0400
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-22 21:10 +0100
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-23 03:35 +0000
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-23 11:34 +0100
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-23 07:18 -0400
            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-03-26 02:36 +0000
              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:34 +0000
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:55 +0000
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 02:46 -0400
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 08:59 -0700
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 13:54 -0400
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-03-27 18:28 +0000
                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-27 21:13 +0000
                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 00:11 +0000
                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-03-28 21:56 -0400
                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-29 03:47 +0000
                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 16:49 -0400
                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-30 01:18 +0000
                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-30 11:50 +0100
                              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-30 10:33 -0700
                              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-30 20:30 +0000
                                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-30 21:53 -0400
                                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-03-31 08:58 -0700
                                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 17:23 +0100
                                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-31 10:58 -0700
                                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 19:21 +0100
                                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-04-01 15:06 -0400
                                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 21:21 +0100
                                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 15:53 -0500
                                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-01 06:47 -0700
                                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-04-02 15:53 +1300
                                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-02 08:04 -0700
                                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-31 21:28 +0000
                                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-01 06:51 -0700
                                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-01 20:50 +0000
                                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 23:12 +0100
                                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-02 05:57 +0000
                                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-04-03 08:58 +0000
                                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-03 23:56 +0000
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-27 21:17 -0400
                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 03:07 +0000
                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-28 00:07 -0400
                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-28 00:13 -0500
                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 06:47 +0000
                              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:44 +0000
                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:40 +0000
                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 06:45 +0000
                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-28 15:04 +0000
                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 12:12 -0400
                      Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:33 +0000
                        Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 11:57 -0400
                          Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-03-29 09:29 -0700
                            Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 16:11 -0400
                              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 17:02 -0400
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-03-26 08:41 -0700
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-27 09:41 +0000
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-03-27 08:41 -0700
              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:46 +0000
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 02:27 -0400
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 08:40 -0700
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 21:42 +0000
                  Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-03-27 18:24 +0000
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-27 18:27 +0000
                    Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-28 14:27 +0100
              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 01:37 -0400
                Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 18:33 +0000
              Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 07:01 +0000

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#84245

On 28/03/2026 01:17, c186282 wrote:
> Given history and human nature, the results CANNOT
>    be good, not at all.

Ye canna change the Laws of Darwin, cap'n...

What will persist is that which isn't so dumb it cant survive any 
changes in circumstance.

I asked myself when visiting the Yucatan, where are the Mayans now?
Driving through the Quintana Roo, I saw them, In shacks with a patch or 
corn and some peppers and chillies, some bean crops and chickens in the 
yard.

THEY survived,. The high priests of human sacrifice did not...

It takes a lot of plebs to support one self styled 'expert' and it 
behoves the 'experts' to look after those plebs.

Not mock , and call them 'deplorable'.

Noblesse Obligé.

A concept vanishing in Europe. The US of course never gad it in the 
first place

-- 
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit 
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de 
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de 
M. de Voltaire

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84418

On 3/28/26 07:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 28/03/2026 01:17, c186282 wrote:
>> Given history and human nature, the results CANNOT
>>    be good, not at all.
> 
> Ye canna change the Laws of Darwin, cap'n...
> 
> What will persist is that which isn't so dumb it cant survive any 
> changes in circumstance.
> 
> I asked myself when visiting the Yucatan, where are the Mayans now?
> Driving through the Quintana Roo, I saw them, In shacks with a patch or 
> corn and some peppers and chillies, some bean crops and chickens in the 
> yard.
> 
> THEY survived,. The high priests of human sacrifice did not...
> 
> It takes a lot of plebs to support one self styled 'expert' and it 
> behoves the 'experts' to look after those plebs.
> 
> Not mock , and call them 'deplorable'.
> 
> Noblesse Obligé.
> 
> A concept vanishing in Europe. The US of course never gad it in the 
> first place

   The Aztec were even more known for human 'sacrifice'.

   I put that in quotes because an actual 'sacrifice'
   would be to chop up your OWN family - not strangers.

   Not sure WHY the human 'sacrifice' thing was so
   widely practiced in south/central America.

   The Mayans seem to have been afflicted by a long
   period of drought. That can and does happen even
   way down in the tropics. Too many people too
   dependent on good weather ... it all crashed.

   Nobody knows what happened to the 'priestly class'.
   Their relatives probably have a hut and little
   garden right next to the relatives of the old city
   garbage collector these days.

   It's not *quite* true to say the USA had no
   'noble class', esp near the beginning. The
   established old/big money families often
   wielded a lot of authority and were treated
   almost like euro 'nobles'. By 1900 that had
   largely gone away, but any ultra-rich fam,
   especially if the money was self-earned,
   still got treated almost as royalty.

   However none of that was so rigid/institutional
   as in the UK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84421

On 3/29/2026 8:57 AM, c186282 wrote:
> 
>    It's not *quite* true to say the USA had no
>    'noble class', esp near the beginning. The
>    established old/big money families often
>    wielded a lot of authority and were treated
>    almost like euro 'nobles'. By 1900 that had
>    largely gone away, but any ultra-rich fam,
>    especially if the money was self-earned,
>    still got treated almost as royalty.
> 
Originally only land owning white men could vote in most states in the 
US.  That pretty much made the land owners a form of nobility since they 
had control of the government.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84463

On 3/29/26 12:29, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/29/2026 8:57 AM, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>    It's not *quite* true to say the USA had no
>>    'noble class', esp near the beginning. The
>>    established old/big money families often
>>    wielded a lot of authority and were treated
>>    almost like euro 'nobles'. By 1900 that had
>>    largely gone away, but any ultra-rich fam,
>>    especially if the money was self-earned,
>>    still got treated almost as royalty.
>>
> Originally only land owning white men could vote in most states in the 
> US.  That pretty much made the land owners a form of nobility since they 
> had control of the government.

   A factor.

   However there were lots and lots of lesser
   land-owners/voters. Nobody groveled before
   farmer Brown.

   Great wealth buys diffidence. Being "old money"
   elegant/sophisticated buys even more.

   So, you need both the power of wealth AND sort
   of ACT royal.

   But, as said, it's a class anyone CAN break
   into in the USA, not so much in the UK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84486

c186282 wrote:
> On 3/29/26 12:29, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/29/2026 8:57 AM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>    It's not *quite* true to say the USA had no
>>>    'noble class', esp near the beginning. The
>>>    established old/big money families often
>>>    wielded a lot of authority and were treated
>>>    almost like euro 'nobles'. By 1900 that had
>>>    largely gone away, but any ultra-rich fam,
>>>    especially if the money was self-earned,
>>>    still got treated almost as royalty.
>>>
>> Originally only land owning white men could vote in most states in the 
>> US.  That pretty much made the land owners a form of nobility since 
>> they had control of the government.
> 
>    A factor.
> 
>    However there were lots and lots of lesser
>    land-owners/voters. Nobody groveled before
>    farmer Brown.
> 
>    Great wealth buys diffidence. Being "old money"
>    elegant/sophisticated buys even more.
> 
>    So, you need both the power of wealth AND sort
>    of ACT royal.
> 
>    But, as said, it's a class anyone CAN break
>    into in the USA, not so much in the UK.

Greatly exaggerated.

Ask lords Beaverbrook, Thompson (of Fleet) or Northcliffe.

While you're at it have a word with the Newtons. Or even Bess of Hardwick.

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84110

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:34:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
>
>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
>> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation,
>> etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The
>> story is set in the 32nd century.)
>
>I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will
>figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to
>our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at
>all.
>
>It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their
>body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to
>keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down
>manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else.
>
>But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d
>have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the
>participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external
>world.

The film /Free Guy/ shows this.

Granted, this only happens when special sunglasses are worn, so it's
not internal.
-- 
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84167

On 2026-03-26, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:34:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
>>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
>>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
>>> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation,
>>> etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The
>>> story is set in the 32nd century.)
>>
>>I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will
>>figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to
>>our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at
>>all.
>>
>>It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their
>>body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to
>>keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down
>>manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else.
>>
>>But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d
>>have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the
>>participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external
>>world.
>
> The film /Free Guy/ shows this.
>
> Granted, this only happens when special sunglasses are worn, so it's
> not internal.

So sort of reverse Hoffman lenses?

-- 
Nuno Silva
(not following rec.arts.sf.written)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84191

On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 09:41:23 +0000, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 2026-03-26, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:34:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
>>>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
>>>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
>>>> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation,
>>>> etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The
>>>> story is set in the 32nd century.)
>>>
>>>I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will
>>>figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to
>>>our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their
>>>body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to
>>>keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down
>>>manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else.
>>>
>>>But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d
>>>have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the
>>>participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external
>>>world.
>>
>> The film /Free Guy/ shows this.
>>
>> Granted, this only happens when special sunglasses are worn, so it's
>> not internal.
>
>So sort of reverse Hoffman lenses?

Apparently so, if Bing can be believed.

Alternately, they overlay the normally-visibly stuff with additional
info, and make some things visible that wouldn't be otherwise.

This is a virtual-reality game. The players wear the glasses; the NPCs
do not. Until one day one of the NPCs puts a pair on.

This is the film where you get to see a 1%-er /literally/ take an axe
to a server farm, BTW. In the real world, not the game. (Or, keeping
/eXistenZ/ in mind, what passes for the real world in the film.)
-- 
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84056

On 2026-03-26, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either.
>>
>>    The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never
>>    believed such things could ever exist.
>
> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc.
> (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is
> set in the 32nd century.)

E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84067

On 3/25/26 23:46, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-03-26, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either.
>>>
>>>     The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never
>>>     believed such things could ever exist.
>>
>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
>> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc.
>> (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is
>> set in the 32nd century.)
> 
> E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
> of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.

   Yep - a FEW had "The Vision".

   Early stuff about AI robots goes back into
   the latter 1800s. There was even an 1800s
   female author on the subject ... rare.

   A tiny few kinda SEE ... but, alas, are mostly
   ignored.

   Note that 'see' IS a biased observation - we only
   notice the few who DID kinda get it right, even if
   it was only purest ungrounded speculation. A good
   case is Democritus and his mentor ... surprisingly
   good view of atoms and cosmic order WAY WAY back.
   But, they had little objective EVIDENCE, it was
   just a Lucky Guess. Yet THAT we remember.

   I'd also suggest "R.U.R." ... I suspect a lot of
   Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" came from that view.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84108

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:46:30 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
> of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.

More than the technological predictions, it's amazing how prescient it
was about the *sociologal* consequences; not just the lapse of humanity
into unthinking reliance on the Machine, the ensuing cultural atrophy,
and the resulting catastrophe when it stops (spoiler alert,) but the
way people become ideologically, almost *religiously* attached to it
and treat those who don't use it as anathema should be familiar to any-
one who's had to argue with an "AI" booster in the last few years.

Marvelous little story, should be required reading.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84145

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:40:45 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> More than the technological predictions, it's amazing how prescient it
> was about the *sociologal* consequences; not just the lapse of humanity
> into unthinking reliance on the Machine, the ensuing cultural atrophy,
> and the resulting catastrophe when it stops (spoiler alert,) but the way
> people become ideologically, almost *religiously* attached to it and
> treat those who don't use it as anathema should be familiar to any-
> one who's had to argue with an "AI" booster in the last few years.

Having lived through four, or is it five, AI winters I don't bother. 
However I do deduct 20 IQ points from anyone who starts with 'I asked 
Claude...'.  What bothers me is the implication that Clause is some sort 
of sentient entity that 'I googled' never had. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84206

At Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:40:45 -0700, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:46:30 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
> > of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.
> 
> More than the technological predictions, it's amazing how prescient it
> was about the *sociologal* consequences; not just the lapse of humanity
> into unthinking reliance on the Machine, the ensuing cultural atrophy,
> and the resulting catastrophe when it stops (spoiler alert,) but the
> way people become ideologically, almost *religiously* attached to it
> and treat those who don't use it as anathema should be familiar to any-
> one who's had to argue with an "AI" booster in the last few years.
> 
> Marvelous little story, should be required reading.

I found it:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72890

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
   OS: Linux 7.0.0-rc5 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (595.45.04)
   "The behavioral scientist pulls habits out of rats."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84207

On 27/03/2026 18:24, vallor wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:40:45 -0700, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:46:30 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
>>> of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.
>>
>> More than the technological predictions, it's amazing how prescient it
>> was about the *sociologal* consequences; not just the lapse of humanity
>> into unthinking reliance on the Machine, the ensuing cultural atrophy,
>> and the resulting catastrophe when it stops (spoiler alert,) but the
>> way people become ideologically, almost *religiously* attached to it
>> and treat those who don't use it as anathema should be familiar to any-
>> one who's had to argue with an "AI" booster in the last few years.
>>
>> Marvelous little story, should be required reading.
> 
> I found it:
> 
> https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72890
> 
For some reason I am reminded of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTeLWnnso_M

-- 
     “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the 
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most 
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of 
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which 
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by 
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

     ― Leo Tolstoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84252

On 2026-03-27 19:24, vallor wrote:
> At Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:40:45 -0700, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:46:30 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> E.M. Forster's 1909 novel "The Machine Stops" describes a number
>>> of today's inventions, including communication through a tablet.
>>
>> More than the technological predictions, it's amazing how prescient it
>> was about the *sociologal* consequences; not just the lapse of humanity
>> into unthinking reliance on the Machine, the ensuing cultural atrophy,
>> and the resulting catastrophe when it stops (spoiler alert,) but the
>> way people become ideologically, almost *religiously* attached to it
>> and treat those who don't use it as anathema should be familiar to any-
>> one who's had to argue with an "AI" booster in the last few years.
>>
>> Marvelous little story, should be required reading.
> 
> I found it:
> 
> https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72890
> 

I read it long ago, is a scifi collection. A thick book collecting 
several histories from many authors.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84063

On 3/25/26 22:36, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either.
>>
>>     The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never
>>     believed such things could ever exist.
> 
> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it
> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc.
> (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is
> set in the 32nd century.)

   Yep ... the idea was pure sci-fi - nobody ever
   really EXPECTED such things - kinda like the
   flying cars or Flash Gordon's rockets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84122

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:37:01 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 3/25/26 22:36, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either.
>>>
>>>     The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never believed such things
>>>     could ever exist.
>> 
>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it to
>> call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc.
>> (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is set
>> in the 32nd century.)
> 
>    Yep ... the idea was pure sci-fi - nobody ever really EXPECTED such
>    things - kinda like the flying cars or Flash Gordon's rockets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJbBAzpDRn4

'21st Century Blues'   Steve Earle

"where the hell is my flying car?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84071

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either.
>>
>>    The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never believed such things
>>    could ever exist.
> 
> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and
> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless
> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it to
> call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc.
> (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is set
> in the 32nd century.)

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

Not as fancy but more people read the comic strip than Clarke. Then there 
is the Pip-Boy that looks like a tracking ankle bracelet for people that 
screwed up very badly.

It pairs with a smart phone but my $100 Amazfit Active 2 takes phone 
calls, plays music, shows maps, and so forth. It took me a while to get 
all that crap turned off. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web