|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » How William Shatner Changed the World
| How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166096] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 00:28 |
|
Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly a,
have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166097 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 00:40 |
|
> Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly a,
> have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
>
> http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
I saw most of the show. I caught the last ten minutes on one
night, and the first half hour on another night.
My thoughts ... man, there were a lot of commercials in that
sucker! Every five minutes, they broke away for three minutes of
commercials.
Shatner is a whale. I thought he was going to fall over and roll
down that hill where he fought the Gorn. Then it would have been a
mercy, had someone come along and crushed his head with a big rock.
I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
hypo-spray? The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
around twenty seconds. What about the concept of a starship that
never lands on a planet? Warp drive? (mathematicians and
cosmologists are looking at the idea) Force fields? (we've got
magnetic bottles now) Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
missed all that stuff.
Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny,
and the show was badly done. If the folks at Nova had done it,
maybe using Patrick Stewart as a voice-over actor, it would have
been ten times better.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166103 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 13:03 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Kstff.529504$1i.180026 [at] pd7tw2no...
> Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly a,
> have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
>
> http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
>
> --
>
Any of you people from up north willing to share with your counterparts in
the US?
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166105 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 07:00 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly
a,
> > have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
> >
> > http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
>
> I saw most of the show. I caught the last ten minutes on one
> night, and the first half hour on another night.
>
> My thoughts ... man, there were a lot of commercials in that
> sucker! Every five minutes, they broke away for three minutes of
> commercials.
>
> Shatner is a whale. I thought he was going to fall over and roll
> down that hill where he fought the Gorn. Then it would have been a
> mercy, had someone come along and crushed his head with a big rock.
Yer point? The man *is* 74 is there some reason *everybody* has to look like
they did 20 or 30 years ago?
> I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
> the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
> important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
> hypo-spray? The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> around twenty seconds. What about the concept of a starship that
> never lands on a planet? Warp drive? (mathematicians and
> cosmologists are looking at the idea) Force fields? (we've got
> magnetic bottles now) Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
> missed all that stuff.
>
> Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny,
> and the show was badly done. If the folks at Nova had done it,
> maybe using Patrick Stewart as a voice-over actor, it would have
> been ten times better.
Geez Al, sounds like your defiantly suffering from a bad case of nofunitus.
I believe the whole point was to do it very tongue in check. Tell me, how
would it be called "How William Shatner Changed the World" if Stewart did
it?
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166107 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 17:02 |
|
>> Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly a,
>> have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
>>
>> http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
Missed the premiere? Here's when you can see it again.
Eastern timezone
Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:00 AM (ET)
Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 3:00 AM (ET)
Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 8:00 PM (ET)
Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 1:00 AM (ET)
Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 4:00 PM (ET)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:00 AM (ET)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 3:00 PM (ET)
Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 2:00 AM (ET)
Pacific timezone
Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 5:00 PM (PT)
Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 9:00 PM (PT)
Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:00 AM (PT)
Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 5:00 PM (PT)
Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:00 PM (PT)
Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 1:00 PM (PT)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 7:00 AM (PT)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:00 AM (PT)
Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:00 PM (PT)
Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:00 PM (PT)
Mountain timezone
Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 6:00 PM (MT)
Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:00 PM (MT)
Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 1:00 AM (MT)
Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 6:00 PM (MT)
Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 11:00 PM (MT)
Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (MT)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 8:00 AM (MT)
Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:00 PM (MT)
Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 1:00 PM (MT)
Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:00 AM (MT)
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, are liars and scam
artists. They make junk phone calls often several times a day to the same
number and refuse to remove you from their calling list (they will give you
a non working number to call to be removed, and the contact address on their
website is phony). This has been going on for a decade. Do not deal with
them.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166110 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 19:07 |
|
>>Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny,
>>> and the show was badly done. If the folks at Nova had done it,
>>> maybe using Patrick Stewart as a voice-over actor, it would have
>>> been ten times better.
>
>
> Geez Al, sounds like your defiantly suffering from a bad case of nofunitus.
> I believe the whole point was to do it very tongue in check. Tell me, how
> would it be called "How William Shatner Changed the World" if Stewart did
> it?
They could have called it "How Star Trek Changed the World" which
would have been a more accurate title, anyway. As for your other
observation, all I can say is, "No fun I."
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166111 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 19:12 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
<Snip>
Hate to be an old curmudgeon, but...
> I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
> the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
> important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
> hypo-spray?
What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived. Not
an invention.
>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> around twenty seconds.
Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
>What about the concept of a starship that
> never lands on a planet?
Yep, probably a TV first there.
>Warp drive? (mathematicians and
> cosmologists are looking at the idea)
Trek didn't invent FTL drives, they'd been around in sci-fi for donkeys'
years- in fact they're obligatory unless you're staying inside one solar
system. The warp drive started off in the pilot as a "time warp drive" and
wasn't in any way scientifically worked out. Just a FTL gizmoid with a
namely crudely borrowed from the beginner's guide to relativity.
>Force fields? (we've got
> magnetic bottles now)
Force fields have been around in sci-fi since the year dot as well, and
invariably are magical, since they use forces unknown to physics to
physically block anything and everything. Unlike a magnetic bottle, which
just traps charged particles.
>Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
> missed all that stuff.
Lasers with a different first phoneme. Again, around in sci-fi since the
year dot. Hardly a Trek first either.
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction with shagging in it
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166112 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 20:38 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot.
>> Defiantly a,
>> have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
>>
>> http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
>
> I saw most of the show. I caught the last ten minutes on one night,
> and the first half hour on another night.
>
> My thoughts ... man, there were a lot of commercials in that sucker!
> Every five minutes, they broke away for three minutes of commercials.
>
> Shatner is a whale.
"If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still
call him
vile names." - Elbert Hubbard.
> I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived the
> show was.
The host even questioned the whole premise. Then showed many people who
disagree. The point of questioning the whole premise seemed to show that
while Trek might have inspired some people to do some interesting work,
it was those people who actually did the work.
> It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really important Trek
> contributions to the modern world. Where was the hypo-spray?
>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were possibly the most
>important of all Trek innovations, and they got around twenty seconds.
Well, if I ever hear of a show which spends a great deal of time talking
about doors I'll be sure to let you know...
>What about the concept of a starship that never lands on a planet?
Didn't they mention the Voyager probes? (Can't remember.) Those are
starships which never land on a planet? So is one of the Pioneer probes.
>Warp drive? (mathematicians and cosmologists are looking at the idea)
The idea was around before Trek and (I hate to brake this to you) we
don't have those yet. So the fictional warp drive hasn't lead to a
change in this world by inspiring the production of real warp drive.
(And they did talk about the idea.)
>Force fields? (we've got magnetic bottles now) Phasers? (we've got beam
>weapons) Maybe I missed all that stuff.
Read about Nicoli Tesla.
> Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny, and
> the show was badly done.
Did the 'get a life sketch' on SNL strike a bit too close to home for
you?
I thought he was interesting and funny, as were many of those on the
show who took inspiration from Trek. (And the 'get a life' sketch made
me laugh at myself.)
> If the folks at Nova had done it, maybe using Patrick Stewart as a
> voice-over actor, it would have been ten times better.
Yeah, I heard some people who hated Shatner after the get a life sketch
rave about how much better an actor Stewart was than Shatner. I think
Stewart is quite competent as an actor. However, when they finally put
the two of them on screen together, it showed that if Next Generation
hadn't been riding Classic Trek's wakes, it likely wouldn't have
survived the first few episodes.
I thought it classy of Shatner to include Takei on the show (and to have
interesting points made by him), in spite of Takei slagging Shatner
previously. I will take inspiration from that on how to settle
differences and get along.
Only problem with the show for me was the one person's suggestion that
Trek was overly utopian. While the show did show some people getting
along and using technology to make life better, in many cases, the show
included violent conflicts and messages about them. Powerful races
providing weapons and teaching the ways of violence to less
technologically developed races. A planet over run by unrestrained
population growth. Racial conflict leading to a war of annihilation.
Artificial intelligence going awry. To name but a few examples.
Karl Johanson
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166113 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 20:45 |
|
> Hate to be an old curmudgeon, but...
>
You are such a negative person. Must be a karma thing.
>
>>> I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
>>> the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
>>> important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
>>> hypo-spray?
>
>
> What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived. Not
> an invention.
>
Ah, yes. Or no. I don't see your point. None of the things on Trek
that foreshadow actual devices of later decades existed when Trek
aired.
>
>>>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>>> around twenty seconds.
>
>
> Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
>
That's hard to say. I remember very distinctly the sensation
caused by those doors on Enterprise. People were very, very
impressed. Unless you lived during that period, you wouldn't be
aware of it. It was not just that they opened automatically, but
that they opened and shut so quickly. It is only in the last few
years that stores have gotten doors that resemble the Trek doors.
My local supermarket has them. Even so, they are still slower than
the Trek doors. In those days, there were no automatic doors -- or
if they existed, they were rare experimental objects.
>
>>>What about the concept of a starship that
>>> never lands on a planet?
>
>
> Yep, probably a TV first there.
>
Needless to say, all of these ideas were foreshadowed in science
fiction literature before Trek. We are talking about TV here.
>
>>>Warp drive? (mathematicians and
>>> cosmologists are looking at the idea)
>
>
> Trek didn't invent FTL drives, they'd been around in sci-fi for donkeys'
> years- in fact they're obligatory unless you're staying inside one solar
> system. The warp drive started off in the pilot as a "time warp drive" and
> wasn't in any way scientifically worked out. Just a FTL gizmoid with a
> namely crudely borrowed from the beginner's guide to relativity.
>
Trek gave the first extended, logical description of warp drive on
television.
Science fiction writers postulated a lot of different ways of
getting from star A to star B in their stories and novels. Warp
drive was only one of them. The dimensional portal, also used on
Trek, was popular. The most often used device was simply to go
faster than light, either ignoring Einstein, or assuming the old
boy had been incorrect in his calculations. Then there was the
time dilation effect popular with Heinlein. The cryogenic storage
technique that we encountered in "Space Seed" or whatever the Khan
episode was titled. The space folding technique used in "Dune."
David Weber came up with the idea of a higher level of space in
which objects appear closer together -- sort of the opposite of
your right-side car mirror.
>
>>>Force fields? (we've got
>>> magnetic bottles now)
>
>
> Force fields have been around in sci-fi since the year dot as well, and
> invariably are magical, since they use forces unknown to physics to
> physically block anything and everything. Unlike a magnetic bottle, which
> just traps charged particles.
>
OK, you got me. I was reaching for this one. We still don't have
effective force field technology. I'm miffed about it. I want my
back patio mosquito force field net, and I want it now!
>
>>>Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
>>> missed all that stuff.
>
>
> Lasers with a different first phoneme. Again, around in sci-fi since the
> year dot. Hardly a Trek first either.
>
Lasers are only one type of beam weapon. We have other beams that
do more damage. The good old US military is experimenting with
using them in tanks and planes to rip the enemy to shreds. They
work pretty well, but power is always a problem. Which brings me
to another huge Trek invention -- batteries that last a long, long
time. Whatever batteries are in those phasers, I want one for my
palmtop computer.
>
> Ian
The other guy.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166115 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 21:41 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:437f69e3$0$9311$da0feed9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> "Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
> news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>> around twenty seconds.
>
> Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
And I thought Circle K stores invented the automatic doors.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166116 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 21:44 |
|
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson [at] shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:vaLff.539755$tl2.526092 [at] pd7tw3no...
> "Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
> news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> Yeah, I heard some people who hated Shatner after the get a life sketch
> rave about how much better an actor Stewart was than Shatner. I think
> Stewart is quite competent as an actor. However, when they finally put the
> two of them on screen together, it showed that if Next Generation hadn't
> been riding Classic Trek's wakes, it likely wouldn't have survived the
> first few episodes.
If TNG had been on a broadcast network (as opposed to being a syndicated
show), it would have been canceled mid-season of its first year.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166117 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 22:40 |
|
Al Smith wrote:
The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> around twenty seconds.
Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166118 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 22:54 |
|
<rrpatterson2003 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132436443.594879.111890 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Al Smith wrote:
> The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>> around twenty seconds.
>
> Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
> Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
> 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
> just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
The Circle K store in my neighborhood had an automatic sliding door.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166119 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 23:39 |
|
Anybody know if the discovery channel is the US will be broadcasting this
anytime soon? :)
~Donna
On 11/19/05 10:02 AM, in article BFA49A9E.5DB57%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net,
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote:
>>> Anyone see the premier show? Shatner's narration was a hoot. Defiantly a,
>>> have friend or two over for a beer or two show.
>>>
>>> http://discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/how_shatner/shatner_home/
>
> Missed the premiere? Here's when you can see it again.
>
> Eastern timezone
> Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:00 AM (ET)
> Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 3:00 AM (ET)
> Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 8:00 PM (ET)
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 1:00 AM (ET)
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 4:00 PM (ET)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:00 AM (ET)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
> Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 3:00 PM (ET)
> Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 2:00 AM (ET)
>
> Pacific timezone
> Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 5:00 PM (PT)
> Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 9:00 PM (PT)
> Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:00 AM (PT)
> Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 5:00 PM (PT)
> Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:00 PM (PT)
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 1:00 PM (PT)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 7:00 AM (PT)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:00 AM (PT)
> Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:00 PM (PT)
> Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:00 PM (PT)
>
> Mountain timezone
> Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 6:00 PM (MT)
> Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:00 PM (MT)
> Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 1:00 AM (MT)
> Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 6:00 PM (MT)
> Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 11:00 PM (MT)
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (MT)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 8:00 AM (MT)
> Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:00 PM (MT)
> Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 1:00 PM (MT)
> Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:00 AM (MT)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166120 ] |
Sa, 19 November 2005 23:55 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived.
> Not
> an invention.
You don't have to actually design or build something to get the credit
for an invention. Concepts are patentable, provided that are sufficiently
novel and previously unpublished.
GeneK
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166121 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 00:00 |
|
<rrpatterson2003 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132436443.594879.111890 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Al Smith wrote:
> The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>> around twenty seconds.
>
> Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
> Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
> 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
> just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
You also had to step on a rubber mat to actuate them. Trek's new
spin on the idea was that they were fast (you can *run* through Trek
doors and they open in time) and their actuators not only weren't
switches you had to press or step on, they weren't even visible.
We still don't have doors like that today.
GeneK
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166122 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:21 |
|
"GeneK" <gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:c8Off.50235$Tf5.6952 [at] newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> <rrpatterson2003 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132436443.594879.111890 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Al Smith wrote:
> > The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> >> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> >> around twenty seconds.
> >
> > Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
> > Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
> > 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
> > just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
>
> You also had to step on a rubber mat to actuate them. Trek's new
> spin on the idea was that they were fast (you can *run* through Trek
> doors and they open in time) and their actuators not only weren't
> switches you had to press or step on, they weren't even visible.
> We still don't have doors like that today.
We have infra-red activated doors, at least here in the UK we do :)
As to the speed; it could be done, but it's probably not ergonomic. If
people got used to the doors being really fast, they'd stop waiting for them
to open, and if they didn't open fast enough one time injury would result.
Also, more wear and tear on doors. But you can set them to go pretty fast if
you want. A lot of lift (elevator) doors are fast, for instance.
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166123 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:33 |
|
>>Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny, and
>>> the show was badly done.
>
>
> Did the 'get a life sketch' on SNL strike a bit too close to home for
> you?
>
> I thought he was interesting and funny, as were many of those on the
> show who took inspiration from Trek. (And the 'get a life' sketch made
> me laugh at myself.)
Come on, be totally honest here. When Shatner waddled up the rock
slope on the Gorn set, you winced, didn't you? We all did. The son
of a bitch has no business getting old. He's Kirk, goddamnit!
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166124 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:37 |
|
> The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>
>>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>>> around twenty seconds.
>
>
> Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
> Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
> 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
> just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
>
You must have lived in a very advanced part of the world. Maybe
New Jersey? When I was a kid, we opened our doors by hand. And we
liked it!
I agree, sound effects are everything. I still want my computer to
say "work-ing" in that nasal Nurse Chapel voice, but it never does.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166125 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:41 |
|
>>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>>
>>>>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>>>>> around twenty seconds.
>>
>>>
>>> Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
>>> Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
>>> 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
>>> just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
>
>
> You also had to step on a rubber mat to actuate them. Trek's new
> spin on the idea was that they were fast (you can *run* through Trek
> doors and they open in time) and their actuators not only weren't
> switches you had to press or step on, they weren't even visible.
> We still don't have doors like that today.
>
> GeneK
We are getting close, though. The doors at my local supermarket
open in the middle, but they are a bit slower than the Enterprise
doors. If they were faster to open (closing speed doesn't really
matter) they would be very near the Trek experience.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166126 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:47 |
|
>>>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
>>>
>>>>> >> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
>>>>> >> around twenty seconds.
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Take it from someone who remembers. Automatic doors were around before
>>>> > Star Trek. The supermarket near where I grew up had them in the mid
>>>> > 60's. They just swung out instead of sliding to the side. 8^) They
>>>> > just didn't have the neat "Woosh!" sound when they opened. 8^(
>>
>>>
>>> You also had to step on a rubber mat to actuate them. Trek's new
>>> spin on the idea was that they were fast (you can *run* through Trek
>>> doors and they open in time) and their actuators not only weren't
>>> switches you had to press or step on, they weren't even visible.
>>> We still don't have doors like that today.
>
>
> We have infra-red activated doors, at least here in the UK we do :)
>
> As to the speed; it could be done, but it's probably not ergonomic. If
> people got used to the doors being really fast, they'd stop waiting for them
> to open, and if they didn't open fast enough one time injury would result.
> Also, more wear and tear on doors. But you can set them to go pretty fast if
> you want. A lot of lift (elevator) doors are fast, for instance.
A lot of the engineering challenge has to do with the mass of the
door. If the doors could be made out of carbon fiber composite and
plastic, and were very light, they could be made very fast. But
you get these huge aluminum doors with thick glass slabs in them,
and they are heavy suckers. Takes a lot of power to get that much
mass moving instantly.
One possible way would be to use an explosive release to get the
doors started. Sort of like the explosive bolts that separate the
solid boosters from the space shuttle. You couldn't use
explosives, of course (the door would need to be constantly
refilled with explosive charges, and they would leave a buildup of
messy residue), but you could use compressed air, that is
accumulated under high pressure over a period of several seconds,
and when the open switch is thrown, "bang!" the door opens. That's
probably the route I'd take if I were designing a really
fast-opening sliding door. Of course, it would take a few seconds
to recycle, but that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166127 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 01:55 |
|
"Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:437f69e3$0$9311$da0feed9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> "Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
> news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> <Snip>
>
> Hate to be an old curmudgeon, but...
>
> > I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
> > the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
> > important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
> > hypo-spray?
>
> What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived.
Not
> an invention.
>
> >The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> > possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> > around twenty seconds.
>
> Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
>
> >What about the concept of a starship that
> > never lands on a planet?
>
> Yep, probably a TV first there.
>
> >Warp drive? (mathematicians and
> > cosmologists are looking at the idea)
>
> Trek didn't invent FTL drives, they'd been around in sci-fi for donkeys'
> years- in fact they're obligatory unless you're staying inside one solar
> system. The warp drive started off in the pilot as a "time warp drive" and
> wasn't in any way scientifically worked out. Just a FTL gizmoid with a
> namely crudely borrowed from the beginner's guide to relativity.
>
> >Force fields? (we've got
> > magnetic bottles now)
>
> Force fields have been around in sci-fi since the year dot as well, and
> invariably are magical, since they use forces unknown to physics to
> physically block anything and everything. Unlike a magnetic bottle, which
> just traps charged particles.
>
> >Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
> > missed all that stuff.
>
> Lasers with a different first phoneme. Again, around in sci-fi since the
> year dot. Hardly a Trek first either.
>
>
> Ian
>
> --
> www.jaxtrawstudios.com
> science fiction with shagging in it
>
>
Force fields, lasers, etc.
All done quite well a full decade before Trek.
Rent "Forbidden Planet"
And try not to think about the "police story" or "airplane" movies.
AMUN
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166129 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 03:02 |
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Amun wrote:
> Rent "Forbidden Planet"
>
> And try not to think about the "police story" or "airplane" movies.
I think of the t.v. show, "Honey West". :-)
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166136 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 06:14 |
|
I thought the show was a hoot. My wife generally dislikes him, but this was
a show the whole family watched and enjoyed. If there are more (is it a
series?) we'll watch. It was really entertaining the way it was done.
Someone else said something about the number of commercials. I have NEVER
seen SO MANY commercials in one show. It was really annoying. For every 5
minutes of show, there had to be 10 minutes of commercials. It was brutal.
I don't know much about the FCC, but I would think that there would be
guidelines. The commercials came close to ruining the show - I know I
started flipping.
Brian
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166138 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 14:46 |
|
"Amun" <spamblocker [at] bell.net> wrote:
>
> Force fields, lasers, etc.
> All done quite well a full decade before Trek.
>
> Rent "Forbidden Planet"
>
> And try not to think about the "police story" or "airplane" movies.
>
Or "History Bites". ^_~
--
Dave
"Hosiolics of the world unite!
All you have to lose are your dangling participles."
"Dark Hottie-- er, I mean, Dark Hoshi ROCKS!
LONG LIVE EMPRESS SATO!!!"
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166149 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 21:37 |
|
Amun wrote:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:437f69e3$0$9311$da0feed9 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> > "Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
> > news:QDtff.126118$Ph4.3868954 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > Hate to be an old curmudgeon, but...
> >
> > > I was surprised at just how poorly written and how badly conceived
> > > the show was. It didn't seem to focus closely enough on the really
> > > important Trek contributions to the modern world. Where was the
> > > hypo-spray?
> >
> > What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived.
> Not
> > an invention.
> >
Well, really, what on Trek *was* "technically conceived?" They had
warp drive so they could go to a new star system every week, they had
transporters because the stationary matte was cheaper than a travelling
matte to land a ship or shuttle, they had universal translators so we
could skip the linguistics exercises and get into the story.
> > >The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> > > possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> > > around twenty seconds.
> >
> > Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
> >
> > >What about the concept of a starship that
> > > never lands on a planet?
> >
> > Yep, probably a TV first there.
> >
> > >Warp drive? (mathematicians and
> > > cosmologists are looking at the idea)
> >
> > Trek didn't invent FTL drives, they'd been around in sci-fi for donkeys'
> > years- in fact they're obligatory unless you're staying inside one solar
> > system. The warp drive started off in the pilot as a "time warp drive" and
> > wasn't in any way scientifically worked out. Just a FTL gizmoid with a
> > namely crudely borrowed from the beginner's guide to relativity.
> >
> > >Force fields? (we've got
> > > magnetic bottles now)
> >
> > Force fields have been around in sci-fi since the year dot as well, and
> > invariably are magical, since they use forces unknown to physics to
> > physically block anything and everything. Unlike a magnetic bottle, which
> > just traps charged particles.
> >
I vaguely recall a story (I think it was by Asimov) who tried to give a
half-way rational explanation; something about disintegrating a plate
of metal and 'leaving behind' the forces that had held it together?
I like how most skiffy force fields let EM energy through; there's
never a simple laser around when you need one.
> > >Phasers? (we've got beam weapons) Maybe I
> > > missed all that stuff.
> >
> > Lasers with a different first phoneme. Again, around in sci-fi since the
> > year dot. Hardly a Trek first either.
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > --
> > www.jaxtrawstudios.com
> > science fiction with shagging in it
> >
> >
>
> Force fields, lasers, etc.
> All done quite well a full decade before Trek.
>
> Rent "Forbidden Planet"
>
> And try not to think about the "police story" or "airplane" movies.
>
"The Id? What is it?"
"It's a fictional kingdom in a Johnny Hart cartoon, but that isn't
important right now."
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeeeeevil Cabal deck of cards.
"Voyager to alien fleet- Hold your fire! Hold your fire!! I promise
that WASN'T a kamikaze attack; that's the way Chakotay ALWAYS lands his
shuttles!!"
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166150 ] |
So, 20 November 2005 21:57 |
|
>>>What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived.
>>
>>> Not
>>
>>>> > an invention.
>>>> >
>
>
>
> Well, really, what on Trek *was* "technically conceived?" They had
> warp drive so they could go to a new star system every week, they had
> transporters because the stationary matte was cheaper than a travelling
> matte to land a ship or shuttle, they had universal translators so we
> could skip the linguistics exercises and get into the story.
>
They had the good fortune to hire real science fiction writers to
work on the scripts. That prevented the Trek universe from being
completely illogical and silly.
We're getting closer to the universal translator. They've got
thingies today where, if you speak a simple English phrase into
it, the device produces the equivalent phrase in a foreign
language. It's a great ice breaker when you're taken prisoner by a
bunch of Islamic fanatics with rifles.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166158 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 00:59 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:iRJff.126414$Ph4.3878559 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >>Summary: I didn't like it. Shatner wasn't interesting or funny,
> >>> and the show was badly done. If the folks at Nova had done it,
> >>> maybe using Patrick Stewart as a voice-over actor, it would have
> >>> been ten times better.
> >
> >
> > Geez Al, sounds like your defiantly suffering from a bad case of
nofunitus.
> > I believe the whole point was to do it very tongue in check. Tell me,
how
> > would it be called "How William Shatner Changed the World" if Stewart
did
> > it?
>
> They could have called it "How Star Trek Changed the World" which
> would have been a more accurate title, anyway.
<snip>
And it wouldn't have been half as fun.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166159 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 01:17 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:uzPff.126564$Ph4.3883102 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I agree, sound effects are everything. I still want my computer to
> say "work-ing" in that nasal Nurse Chapel voice, but it never does.
Well change your windows opening sound to....
http://soundwavs.trekkieguy.com/soundfx/comp02.wav
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166160 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 02:35 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:Nq5gf.126938$Ph4.3893801 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >>>What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically
conceived.
> >>
> >>> Not
> >>
> >>>> > an invention.
> >>>> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, really, what on Trek *was* "technically conceived?" They had
> > warp drive so they could go to a new star system every week, they had
> > transporters because the stationary matte was cheaper than a travelling
> > matte to land a ship or shuttle, they had universal translators so we
> > could skip the linguistics exercises and get into the story.
> >
>
> They had the good fortune to hire real science fiction writers to
> work on the scripts. That prevented the Trek universe from being
> completely illogical and silly.
Indeed, and TOS was a superb show, the first time science fiction was done
with dignity on TV. And I love it. Every minute of it. Except that lawyer in
a dress, with the children. I don't love any minute of that.
But, fundamentally... Trek was a show about stories and issues and made no
serious attempt to technologically predict the future and I think this whole
thing about how it predicted so many things is simply over-egging the
pudding. There were loads of Trek "inventions" but they were plot devices,
not mechanical ones. The transporter was a way to avoid expensive (and, in
those days unavoidably) naff spaceship landing sequences. The communicator
was just a walkie-talkie. The "universal translator" wasn't even brought in
until Metamorphosis, as a way of talking to the energy being, and was
presented as a special device for that episode. Prior to that it was just,
aliens speak english, like german generals did in war films, because it's
easier that way.
Automatic sliding doors were just considered cool in the 60s. I was born in
the 60s. I remember how cool automatic doors were in the old days. When they
built a shopping centre in my home town that had automatic doors, people
drove miles just to visit and walk through the doors. Nobody could get in to
do any shopping for several months because of the crowds rushing in and out
of the doors, just because they were cool.
And phasers were just lasers, with a different name that sounded cooler,
because everybody else had lasers.
I don't think Trek was in any way technically prophetic and I think it's a
bit daft to claim it was. Science fiction isn't in the main about technical
prophecy (with the exception of the likes of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars
books type stuff, where you get told every detail down to what fabric
underoos are made from in the future). Certainly in Trek, technical details
and devices and machines were mentioned and brought in purely when they
aided a plot, and that's the way things should be. 5 minutes listening to
TNG+ cast members wearily plodding through their babbloton particles and
inverse phase balances of the warp core is enough to realise why Trek should
steer clear of really explaining how things work.
> We're getting closer to the universal translator. They've got
> thingies today where, if you speak a simple English phrase into
> it, the device produces the equivalent phrase in a foreign
> language. It's a great ice breaker when you're taken prisoner by a
> bunch of Islamic fanatics with rifles.
Alternatively, calm the situation by offering them a drink.
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction with shagging in it
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166161 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 02:40 |
|
>>They had the good fortune to hire real science fiction writers to
>>> work on the scripts. That prevented the Trek universe from being
>>> completely illogical and silly.
>
>
> Indeed, and TOS was a superb show, the first time science fiction was done
> with dignity on TV. And I love it. Every minute of it. Except that lawyer in
> a dress, with the children. I don't love any minute of that.
People always say this, but I don't get it. I love the Friendly
Angel episode.
Fire and snow, fire and snow,
Friendly angel for to go,
Far away, for to see,
Friendly angel, come to me.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166166 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 06:26 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166167 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 06:26 |
|
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:3hLff.126447$Ph4.3879821 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > Hate to be an old curmudgeon, but...
> >
>
>
> >
> >>>The automatic doors were under-examined -- those were
> >>> possibly the most important of all Trek innovations, and they got
> >>> around twenty seconds.
> >
> >
> > Nobody else ever thought of automatic doors before Trek? Really?
> >
>
> That's hard to say. I remember very distinctly the sensation
> caused by those doors on Enterprise. People were very, very
> impressed. Unless you lived during that period, you wouldn't be
> aware of it. It was not just that they opened automatically, but
> that they opened and shut so quickly. It is only in the last few
> years that stores have gotten doors that resemble the Trek doors.
> My local supermarket has them. Even so, they are still slower than
> the Trek doors. In those days, there were no automatic doors -- or
> if they existed, they were rare experimental objects.
I can remember the grocery store having automatic doors when I was a kid,
and this had to be the early 70s.
How abot Uhura's little earpiece? Looks like today's Bluetooth earpieces.
The electronic clipboards resemble today's tablet computers.
And look at how people in red shirts are always getting killed in real life
;]
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166168 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 06:29 |
|
"GeneK" <gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:O3Off.50234$Tf5.14351 [at] newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> "Jaxtraw" <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
> > What about it? It wasn't a real design, it wasn't technically conceived.
> > Not
> > an invention.
>
> You don't have to actually design or build something to get the credit
> for an invention. Concepts are patentable, provided that are sufficiently
> novel and previously unpublished.
>
Utter nonsense. You have to provide an actual design - you can't patent an
idea. I can't patent, say, anti-gravity boots unless I have some specific
method or mechanism to make them work.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166169 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 07:12 |
|
>>> Indeed, and TOS was a superb show, the first time science fiction was done
>>> with dignity on TV. And I love it. Every minute of it. Except that lawyer in
>>> a dress, with the children. I don't love any minute of that.
>>
>>
>> People always say this, but I don't get it. I love the Friendly Angel episode.
>
>
> It should have been a Friendly Fish.
He did sort of look like a huge shimmering, multicolored jellyfish.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166170 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 10:06 |
|
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote...
>
> Utter nonsense. You have to provide an actual design - you can't patent
> an
> idea. I can't patent, say, anti-gravity boots unless I have some specific
> method or mechanism to make them work.
It's true that you can't patent a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream of a concept,
but as long as you can describe the basic operating principle and also
demonstrate that the idea has not been enumerated by others and is
not clearly obvious to a person of normal skills in the associated trade,
a concept is patentable. For example, if in the 1950's era of automatic
doors that opened when people stepped on switching pads you were the
first person to submit the concept of an automatic door that detected an
approaching person by body heat, you could have patented that idea
without actually designing a working system, even if the idea predated
the necessary technology to actually detect a person by body heat.
GeneK
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166172 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 15:45 |
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:06:37 -0800, "GeneK"
<gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>a concept is patentable. For example, if in the 1950's era of automatic
>doors that opened when people stepped on switching pads you were the
>first person to submit the concept of an automatic door that detected an
>approaching person by body heat, you could have patented that idea
>without actually designing a working system, even if the idea predated
>the necessary technology to actually detect a person by body heat.
I doubt it. From the point of view of the patent system it wouldn't
make sense to preclude the actual invention of such a device and
that's what your suggested version would do.
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166173 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 16:18 |
|
"David Johnston" <rgorman [at] block.net> wrote in message
news:43818510.2943379 [at] news.telusplanet.net...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:06:37 -0800, "GeneK"
> <gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>
>
> >a concept is patentable. For example, if in the 1950's era of automatic
> >doors that opened when people stepped on switching pads you were the
> >first person to submit the concept of an automatic door that detected an
> >approaching person by body heat, you could have patented that idea
> >without actually designing a working system, even if the idea predated
> >the necessary technology to actually detect a person by body heat.
>
> I doubt it. From the point of view of the patent system it wouldn't
> make sense to preclude the actual invention of such a device and
> that's what your suggested version would do.
AFAIK you need to show details of the invention in your patent. For
instance, Bell and Edison were both working on inventing telephones at the
same time and Bell made it to the patent office first; if they'd been able
to patent the idea there'd have been no race. I also seem to remember
reading that there was a lot of ingenuity at the time thrown at making
telephones that circumvented the patent; e.g. the handset's microphone was
full of carbon particles which, compressed by sound waves, varied their
resistance. Other people who wanted to make telephones had to think up
different microphones. Patents are pretty definitely based on inventions. Or
at least they were up until the ridiculous free-for-all with software
patents, which are just based on trying to grab a patent on something that's
bleeding obvious but which nobody has thought of patenting before.
Even so- for instance the patent on LZW compression is absolutely based on
the precise method of compression. Nobody could patent something as vague as
"a system for compressing digital data" without showing the mechanics of
that scheme.
If I'm wrong, I'll be off to the patent office to register my patents on "a
device for transporting matter as a beam of pure energy", "an engine which
allows faster than light travel by warping space and time" and "a device for
manufacturing food, drink and crockery from thin air".
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166174 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 16:58 |
|
"David Johnston" <rgorman [at] block.net> wrote...
> I doubt it. From the point of view of the patent system it wouldn't
> make sense to preclude the actual invention of such a device and
> that's what your suggested version would do.
Do a search on "patentable concept, then sift past all the sites from
companies telling their employees that they own the rights and lawyers
promising to help you with yours, and you will find a number of
professional societies and orgs discussing the issue. Here are a few
that discuss what constitutes a patentable concept:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9410.ht ml
http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/IntellectualProperty.php ?IP_branch=IP-Patents
In the example I used previously, the idea of a door that opens by
itself when someone approaches it would not be patentable. The
idea for a self-opening door that uses *the detection of body heat*
to open the door would be, but only if the first person who comes
up with it patents it. If someone publishes a concept and does
not submit a patent application, it will become "prior art," and the
only patent opportunity related to it would be in some technical
aspect of making it work. There's a huge body of ideas that can
never be patented simply because somebody published them in
some technical journal or even in fictional works and thus donated
them to the public domain by rendering them "non-novel." OTOH,
the US Patent Office has, over the years, granted hundreds, if not
thousands, of patents for ideas that simply can't ever work.
GeneK
|
|
|
| Re: How William Shatner Changed the World [message #166175 ] |
Mo, 21 November 2005 18:28 |
|
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:58:16 -0800, "GeneK"
<gene [at] genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorman [at] block.net> wrote...
>
>> I doubt it. From the point of view of the patent system it wouldn't
>> make sense to preclude the actual invention of such a device and
>> that's what your suggested version would do.
>
>Do a search on "patentable concept, then sift past all the sites from
>companies telling their employees that they own the rights and lawyers
>promising to help you with yours, and you will find a number of
>professional societies and orgs discussing the issue. Here are a few
>that discuss what constitutes a patentable concept:
>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9410.ht ml
>
> http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/IntellectualProperty.php ?IP_branch=IP-Patents
>
>In the example I used previously, the idea of a door that opens by
>itself when someone approaches it would not be patentable. The
>idea for a self-opening door that uses *the detection of body heat*
>to open the door would be, but only if the first person who comes
>up with it patents it.
No it wouldn't. The website you yourself referenced says that you'd
need more detail. Specifically, you'd need technical drawings of your
idea and how it is supposed to operate or a similarly precise
description. Just saying "theres this thing that detects body heat"
without saying how it works wouldn't be enough.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 00:58:27 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14580 Sekunden |
