Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

[Guest guest]

Amy,

That's interesting. I watch those channels from time to time too when there aren't any good documentaries on.

I also find it amazing that old shows like Leave it to Beaver and Gunsmoke are so much better than shows these days. The old movies also tend to be much better. Even though some of the 1950's sci-fi movies were cheesy, they still beat most of what is made today. Too bad mystery science theatre is no longer in production: that really made some of those stinkers watchable.

[Guest guest]

Land of the Lost was a good TV show too, not to mention Sigmund and

the Sea Monster.

Tom

I was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln

Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets; Lego bricks were just gaining a

foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I

also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style

cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones

and The Jetsons); I also remember " Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids " ,

with their lessons on life. This was long before " Pokemon " and

the " Power Rangers " , or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!

[Guest guest]

Would you believe my 9-year-odl HFA son watched TVLand, Boomerang and other oldies channels from the time he was very young and has also "grown up" with the same shows as I did (as well as some of the current ones, of course)?

He's now also into 1950s sci fi -- also something our whole autie/aspie family can enjoy!

Amy

Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

Land of the Lost was a good TV show too, not to mention Sigmund and the Sea Monster.TomI was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets; Lego bricks were just gaining a foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones and The Jetsons); I also remember "Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids", with their lessons on life. This was long before "Pokemon" and the "Power Rangers", or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!

[Guest guest]

Okay, Rurounin Kenshin, a fair (yet a little bit fantastic) lesson of Japanesse history about the age of the transition of government and all the way people thinked about it is banal... [Nods] [u.u] sure. Card Captor Sakura, the best work of CLAMP on the Magical Girl genre with it's OVA like chapter treatment and the sweet way they focus on personal interrelations is bannal.... [Nods] Yeah. InuYasha, the masterpiece of Rumiko Takahashi, a fair tale about Japanesse ancient mythology with some touches of her own is banal... [Nods] yes. Well, guess it's true what is said: "What is written about colors are likings says that about colors and likings there is nothing written"....

Jano VISIGOTH@... escribió:

,

I remember those. The only thing I didn't have was an erector set, but I had Lincoln Logs, Tinkertoys and lots of Legos. A few years ago I found some "nostalgia" sets of Lincoln Logs, so I got some of those. The problem with Legos these days is that they seem all about movie things, like Star Wars. That kind of limits the imagination if you ask me. I used to get the space and knights sets as well as a lot of the general sets.

Another thing I had loads of were the little green army men. I had so many that at one time I put them into platoons, companies and battalions based on WW2 TOEs. Each platoon was kept in a brown paper bag with its number (e.g. 1/1/1: first platoon, first company, first batalion). I was going to label each man, but never got around to it. Later, I modified mass combat rules from Twilight 2000 (a roleplaying game) to use with the troops. A friend of mine and I set them all up in the backyard and had one heck of a wargame that took the fair part of a weekend to run. After that we generally used smaller units, like platoon vs. platoon, because that went much faster and it was easier to keep track of everything.

I also remember those old cartoon shows, though I never really liked the Flintstones or the Jetsons. For last Christmas my mother actually got me the DVD collection of the Fat Albert show. They did have good lessons on that show. Pokemon and the others like it are banal and irritating. Most of the new cartoons on the cartoon network are equally bad.

Tom,

I remember those shows too. I didn't really like Sigmund, but I did like Land of the Lost.

Correo Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquíhttp://correo..es

[Guest guest]

Rob,

Very good observation. Special effects can only go so far. They can make for a thrilling movie, but otherwise it will be forgetable and will be forgotten a few days out.

Then again, maybe they have to focus so much of effects because none of the actors and actresses these days are worthy of the name. They have to use effects because the talent can't carry the plot or be convincing in their rolls. 2 hours of uncut bad acting would be the end of hollywood.

[Guest guest]

The 50's and 60's were a golden age of SciFi back when the story was more

important then the effects... the original " Twilight Zone " " Outer Limits "

" Doctor Who " and many of the " B " movies had a lot of social commentary that

is missing to today replaced by special effect that blind the viewer it the

point the original writers were trying to convey...

A lot of thought went is the those shows because you needed to think about

them a bit to get the point...

Rob...

At 11:05 AM 8/4/2005, you wrote:

>Message: 9

> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:47:46 -0700

> From: " Amy L. " <amyb_short@...>

>Subject: Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

>

>Would you believe my 9-year-odl HFA son watched TVLand, Boomerang and

>other oldies channels from the time he was very young and has also " grown

>up " with the same shows as I did (as well as some of the current ones, of

>course)?

>

>He's now also into 1950s sci fi -- also something our whole autie/aspie

>family can enjoy!

>

>Amy

> Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

>

>

> Land of the Lost was a good TV show too, not to mention Sigmund and

> the Sea Monster.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

> I was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln

> Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets; Lego bricks were just gaining a

> foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I

> also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style

> cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones

> and The Jetsons); I also remember " Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids " ,

> with their lessons on life. This was long before " Pokemon " and

> the " Power Rangers " , or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rob:

Yeah, in that I can fairly agree. Series back then (and I am relatively young, barely 22) were very well thought because they couldn't afford the special effects that would have made them simply beyond this world. The problem is the scales are polarized in the other side now: we got things that blow our eye, but sadly lack content entirely. Is really a pitty.

Jano Leeson Jr <rleeson@...> escribió:

The 50's and 60's were a golden age of SciFi back when the story was more important then the effects... the original "Twilight Zone" "Outer Limits" "Doctor Who" and many of the "B" movies had a lot of social commentary that is missing to today replaced by special effect that blind the viewer it the point the original writers were trying to convey...A lot of thought went is the those shows because you needed to think about them a bit to get the point...Rob...At 11:05 AM 8/4/2005, you wrote:>Message: 9> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:47:46 -0700> From: "Amy L. " <amyb_short@...>>Subject: Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy>>Would you believe my 9-year-odl HFA son watched TVLand, Boomerang and >other oldies channels from

the time he was very young and has also "grown >up" with the same shows as I did (as well as some of the current ones, of >course)?>>He's now also into 1950s sci fi -- also something our whole autie/aspie >family can enjoy!>>Amy> Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy>>> Land of the Lost was a good TV show too, not to mention Sigmund and> the Sea Monster.>> Tom>> >> I was probably part of the last generation to be raised on Lincoln> Logs, Tinkertoys and Erector Sets;

Lego bricks were just gaining a> foothold in the U.S. in the early 1970s, when I was really young. I> also was part of the last generation that grew up on the old-style> cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Popeye the Sailor, The Flintstones> and The Jetsons); I also remember "Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids",> with their lessons on life. This was long before "Pokemon" and> the "Power Rangers", or even those spoiled rotten Bratz!>>

Correo Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquíhttp://correo..es

[Guest guest]

, I agree! I like things to be functional first of all, but also to

have an appealing design. In optimal cases, it should be both technically

functional, pleasing to the eye AND to the touch. Often I find things

designed with only one or two of these taken into consideration.

Just take something like a door handle, for example. There are many with

interesting design on the market; some modernist (often straght lines), some

antique-inspired models. They all open the door alright. But over 90% of

them are actually more or less painful to use. Only a scant few have a sleek

design that follows the natural curve of your hand and feels perfectly

comfortable to open. These are the most beautiful to me. Optimal in ALL

aspects, not just one.

Inger

Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis - a new democracy

Mmmmmmmmmm going to have to disagree with some of this, just a

different opinion/point of view though :-)

" A hammer or vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs

to work. "

Although I would rate function and form over decoration - I still

believe decoration/design has it's place. For instance of course I am

going to want a vacum that does it's job and it's form is going to

reflect that in some ways - but if I can also get it in a colour and

design that is pleasing to my eyes I'm going to go for it.

It is a matter of personal and individual taste. For example a

luggage case is a pretty standard piece of kit - generally a soft or

hard case - with some design additions such as wheels, locks etc.

Previously luggage cases came in average colours - now I have found

one with a purple tie dye affect :-)

I used to buy very plain things and decorate them myself - to some

extent still do - putting my own personal stamp on them so to speak

:-) and recycling old stuff such as packaging etc to make new things.

" The lotsof parkland idea has problems too. That would actually

increase urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People

aren't that inclined to walk, so why would they walk through the park

to associate with people, or even more likely, visit restaraunts in

shops in the next block or certainly the next block after that? That

also wastes valuable building space which would make the other

buildings more expensive.

>

> It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. "

Some are inclined to walk I know plenty of people who either like to

walk or have little choice due to not owning cars. I would also be

likely to visit out of area places on the search for quieter places -

I seek out quiet places :-) Also it would be good to have more park

areas and also safe places for children to play. Many parks in the

area I live in are now getting run down - at one point they were

maintained by park wardens that usually lived in the house on the

park - there were also more clubs for children previously than there

seems to be now.

" ...unused ships in dry-dock would be scrapped,... "

It is possible to re-use such things if inventive. In Leeds there is

an old boat that is now a pub called 'dry dock'. Also when younger

there was a local park that had an old steam engine in it that kids

could play on and in - it was fantastic - it has since gone :-( but

just think of the potential of old disused things.

> Tom,

>

> Some goods ideas, some draconian ones, and some I don't think would

work.

>

> I would systematically go through each and every man-made creation

> and evaluate it for functionality and artistic craftsmanship. Only

> things that function well, last long, and are visually appealing

> could be produced going forward.

>

> I can see the some of this. Quality items would be better than

junk, but

> quality is more expensive, so a lower grade but better than junk

would be good

> for the majority of people. Functionality is nebulous: there are a

lot of

> things most people would consider functionless but that thing

needed by a few

> other people. Artistic craftsmanship would only add to the cost of

some items. A

> hammer or vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs

to work.

>

> Items would be sold for cost and slight profit with portions of

that

> profit invested in reaseach in order to manufacture still better

> products.

>

> This would not work. A plan like this would have us like the old

Soviet

> Union and would actually serve to stifle inovation. Businesses

exist to make a

> profit, not to produce goods and services. Take away profit and you

take away

> the point of business. The market handles this well enough already.

If a firm

> charges too much for its product, people will buy from a cheaper

competitor.

> Competition also spurs advancement since the companies can't sit

still

> because if they do, another firm might be the first to market with

the next big

> thing and make the high initial profits and secure all important

branding (that

> is to getting people to think of your product when they think

about that line

> of goods, like Kleenex when you need to blow your nose).

>

> Houses and buildings would be considered products.

>

> They already are. This is more prevelant these days than you

probably think.

>

>

> Land use would be evaluated and controled, with fertile land used

> for farming and barren land used for building.

>

> I agree here to a point. Stopping the sprawl would be a great idea

and I

> have always hated seeing good farmland being built over. However,

doing this

> would require stricter building codes for sound protection and

laws ensuring the

> same in the inevitable high rise buildings that would crop up.

>

> Population would be held in check by excessive fines for anyone

> having more than a certain amount of children.

>

> There would be a flat tax on all products purchased with people

> choosing to have no kids getting a lower tax as a benefit and as an

> incentive for others NOT to have kids.

>

> These are draconian provisions. Population growth is not a problem

in the

> West but rather in the under developed nations. The population

problem we do

> have spurs mostly from the lower classes reproducing more than the

middle and

> upper classes. A better solution would be to limit tax credits to

only two

> children. If people wanted more than two, fine, but it would cost

them more

> because they would not be getting the tax write-offs. The same

would apply to

> welfare and other benefits.

>

> A flat tax is a great idea for everyone. Setting a special sales

tax just

> for people with a lot of kids is bad. It would require everyone to

carry ID

> cards with detailed information on their families. It would also

require a large

> bureacracy to monitor and enforce, and collecting said tax would

also have

> cost. The people with more kids already would pay enough through

taxes and

> additional resources they have to spend on each extra child.

>

> Besides, we will still need a number of people having more than 2

kids to

> keep the birth rate over 2.1 or replacement level.

>

> A program would be involved where everything that exists on the

face

> of the earth that is unsightly or not-functional would be

> demolished. Ghettos, slums, and whole cities would be scrapped and

> replaced with different types of projects where urban greenery and

> parkland was at the forefront.

>

> We would have a block of buildings followed by a block of parkland.

> We would have canals stretching through cities like we have in

> Venice.

>

> This is problematic as well. Where are those people going to go

when those

> places are destroyed? What if those people live in a place that is

judged

> " non-functional " but it actually is a functional community? The few

cities are

> going to get REALLY crowded with angry people. Crowding people

together usually

> is asking for trouble, cities have had that trouble since at least

the time

> of Hammurabi.

>

> The lotsof parkland idea has problems too. That would actually

increase

> urban sprawl and fragmentation of the populace. People aren't that

inclined to

> walk, so why would they walk through the park to associate with

people, or even

> more likely, visit restaraunts in shops in the next block or

certainly the

> next block after that? That also wastes valuable building space

which would

> make the other buildings more expensive.

>

> It would be better to have one block in 9 a park. Imagine a square

three

> blocks on a side with the center one a park. Another idea would be

to place

> earthen rooves on the buildings. It would only take about 6 inches

of earth to

> allow grass to grow. This would provide some greenspace, good

insulation for the

> roof and reduce the heat island effect of the cities.

>

> Each city would have a different architectural style so everyone's

> tastes could be accommodated. One would be ultra-modern, another

> Romanesque. One Art Deco, another Prarie Style.

>

> Smaller towns would be molded in the same fashion, many built on

> histrical architectural styles, such as victorian, or colonial, and

> others all new and modern.

>

> I also see this as draconian and expensive. There are many small

towns,

> neighborhoods and big cities that already have their distinctive

style. Refitting

> them would undoubtedly anger lots of people causing displacement,

and cost,

> as they moved to other locations. That's not counting how much the

refitting

> itself would cost not to mention the loss of architectural

heritage.

>

> All existing roads would be evaluated for functionality, and those

> that are superfluous would be removed and replanted with greenery

or

> farmland.

>

> All disused and abandoned railroads would be removed, unused ships

> in dry-dock would be scrapped, and also, all dumps would be mined

> for recycleable materials.

>

> Again this is not entirely practical unless everyone was rounded up

and

> forced to live in approved cities. There are lots of people who

live int he

> country and like it that way, maybe even living where their family

has lived for

> generations. Tearing up old roads is expensive and creates a lot of

waste that

> made from asphalt and containing years of oil, break fuild etc.

This would

> have to be disposed of somewhere, possibly somewhere secure

because of the

> contaminents in the material. I would be better to leave the roads,

especially

> any smaller ones, in place and let nature take them back. It takes

time but I

> have seen places where this has happened. After 30 years the road

is almost

> gone with trees even beginning to grow through it.

>

> Railroads are often already torn up and the metal sold as scrap.

There used

> to be 2 lines in the 8 miles between Beatrice and Buena Vista but

they have

> both been abandonned and torn up. Some of this though has come

back to bite the

> railroad as they could now use that extra capacity because demand

for rail

> shipping has gone up so much and will continue to rise in the

future.

>

> Going forward, everything that is ever built would be made of

> something that could and would be recycled.

>

> This is the case with most things. Most buildings can be recycled

as car

> cars. Many are as they end up in junkyards where they are pciked

over fo parts

> before being crushed. The problem here is that there is a

substantial cost to

> recycling. Going back to the car, you pretty much have to have a

crew take the

> car apart to remove the various bits the can be resold or

otherwise need

> different recycling methods. Then there is the transport of the lot

and the

> energy put into the actual recycling. Those costs actually make

recycling more

> expensive than using new material and those materials are

progressively weaker

> than fresh material.

>

> The best use of recycling for now would be to convert the carbon

wastes into

> oil which could be used for a great many things. This would reduce

waste by

> probably well over 50%. The metals could then be concentrated in a

few dumps,

> with the more economically viable bits recycled and the rest kept

until such

> time as it would be feasible to use it.

>

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I can see your point about household appliances being nice looking. Having the big appliances blend in and look good is a must. Vaccuums and such for household use, if they look good they are more likely to be used and to sell. I meant more industrial type tools where looks wouldn't matter so much.

Why does looks not matter so much in industry?? Where on earth did this idea come from that just because you work in a factory, everything can be ugly?

Have you seen n factories? There, there was not one single bolt that was not beautifully designed. The building itself was often made of brick in a pleasing design. (Only thing was that they were often dark, noisy, smelly and generally unsafe.)

Engines and tools were usually so beautiful that they were like a piece of art., often painted in harmonious colors, sometimes with shiny brass details.

*Inger sighing wistfully over the beauty of a lost era.*

[Guest guest]

I never did care for the Star Trek spin-offs. Most of them were badly done, pretentious and so forth. The Next Generation didn't do much for me either, especially since the new Enterprise was so darned ugly and was more a flying city with families, shopping malls and all that. It never made sense to me that a military exploration vessel would have so many civilians and non-combatants aboard, none of whom played any significant role in the show. I mean, why would someone take their family onto a ship which they knew would be facing great dangers that could get them all killed? Having the kids along might be ok on a freighter in secure territory, but on a warship going into unexplored territory or patrolling hostile borders?

One reason the movies went downhill was because of the directors. Leonard Nimoy directed 3, the one where they went looking for Spock and that one was well done. Shatner got jealous of this and wanted to direct the next one. That was 4 and that one stank. When they started making them with the new crew it was heavy on the FX, though did manage to salvage the acting to a degree. But they just weren't as good as the old crew and the first couple of movies.

If I recall, there was a girl in the Tempest. Its been a while though since I have read it. Anyway, this was a case of packaging the movie. They needed a girl and a romantic storyline to bring in the woman and some men, or so it was believed. That is why there was almost always that kind of subplot going on in those movies. Bascially it was pandering to the mass that wouldn't get the nuances of the movie.

[Guest guest]

I think they should design door handles that don't hurt so much when

I walk into them :-)

> , I agree! I like things to be functional first of all, but

also to

> have an appealing design. In optimal cases, it should be both

technically

> functional, pleasing to the eye AND to the touch. Often I find

things

> designed with only one or two of these taken into consideration.

>

> Just take something like a door handle, for example. There are many

with

> interesting design on the market; some modernist (often straght

lines), some

> antique-inspired models. They all open the door alright. But over

90% of

> them are actually more or less painful to use. Only a scant few

have a sleek

> design that follows the natural curve of your hand and feels

perfectly

> comfortable to open. These are the most beautiful to me. Optimal in

ALL

> aspects, not just one.

>

> Inger

>

>