Doctor Who
Jan. 1st, 2008 12:25 pmI have never been a fan of Doctor Who. I never really understood the attraction it held for a surprising number of my friends. I have been reading science fiction (and science) since I was in primary school, but the kind of story I always enjoyed the most was one where the writer played with ideas to alter our perception so that we saw old things in new ways. The other kind of SF I enjoy is where stories convey an important message.
I haven't watched a lot of Dr Who, so I can't speak with any great expertise, but the old series of Dr Who seemed to be about reinforcing prejudices (e.g. ugly = bad), cult of personality (superior stranger comes and saves us), and a simple storyline (inscrutable, melodramatic, psychopathic, bad guys come to destroy or enslave).
Friends brought the third season on DVD and I watched it over the last few days and was pleasantly surprised at the level of improvement. It is still very much about hero worship and inscrutable, psychopathic, bad guys out to destroy, but there are now extra levels to the stories. My favorite so far is "Blink" -- a brilliant, twisting, turning piece of horror. It hardly features the Doctor at all and is mostly about a very well-written young girl (played very believably by Carey Mulligan) and her relationships with those around her as she struggles to understand a dangerous puzzle. Another surprisingly good episode (well, until the bad guys showed up) was the double episode "Human Nature/Family of Blood" in which the Doctor becomes a normal human and gives David Tennant a chance to show that he is capable of some excellent acting when he isn't bound to the overblown Doctor character. In Gridlock there isn't a conventional bad guy, some of the makeup is just beautiful, and the justification for the dangerous situation is simple, but elegant. "42" was a nice concept for a story too. Some of the supporting cast were very good, particularly Michelle Collins who played McDonnall superbly.
So, I'll be on the look out for the earlier episodes of the new series Doctor Who. I'm particularly interested in stories written by Steven Moffat, the guy who wrote "Blink". He also wrote the two-part "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" (season 1) and "The Girl in the Fireplace" (season 2).
I haven't watched a lot of Dr Who, so I can't speak with any great expertise, but the old series of Dr Who seemed to be about reinforcing prejudices (e.g. ugly = bad), cult of personality (superior stranger comes and saves us), and a simple storyline (inscrutable, melodramatic, psychopathic, bad guys come to destroy or enslave).
Friends brought the third season on DVD and I watched it over the last few days and was pleasantly surprised at the level of improvement. It is still very much about hero worship and inscrutable, psychopathic, bad guys out to destroy, but there are now extra levels to the stories. My favorite so far is "Blink" -- a brilliant, twisting, turning piece of horror. It hardly features the Doctor at all and is mostly about a very well-written young girl (played very believably by Carey Mulligan) and her relationships with those around her as she struggles to understand a dangerous puzzle. Another surprisingly good episode (well, until the bad guys showed up) was the double episode "Human Nature/Family of Blood" in which the Doctor becomes a normal human and gives David Tennant a chance to show that he is capable of some excellent acting when he isn't bound to the overblown Doctor character. In Gridlock there isn't a conventional bad guy, some of the makeup is just beautiful, and the justification for the dangerous situation is simple, but elegant. "42" was a nice concept for a story too. Some of the supporting cast were very good, particularly Michelle Collins who played McDonnall superbly.
So, I'll be on the look out for the earlier episodes of the new series Doctor Who. I'm particularly interested in stories written by Steven Moffat, the guy who wrote "Blink". He also wrote the two-part "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" (season 1) and "The Girl in the Fireplace" (season 2).
no subject
Date: 2008-01-01 03:48 am (UTC)SGI were the market leader in 3D till some Microsoft marketroid persuaded them to fire their 3D staff and change their systems over to WindowsNT.
My favorite VRML viewer is still CosmoPlayer which was originally made by Silicon Graphics almost a decade ago. It is a brilliant piece of human-computer interfacing.
SGI gave us OpenGL -- exquisite, yet showing its age a bit now.
You might be interested in the downloadable book:
OpenGL on Silicon Graphics Systems (http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/download.cgi?coll=linux&db=bks&docnumber=007-2392-003) If you have difficulty downloading it let me know and I'll send it to you.
Of course the OpenGL site is great too.
http://opengl.org/
And the Red Book and Blue Book. Both are freely downloadable, and can be bought on paper. I have them both on paper, but prefer the electronic versions.
http://www.rush3d.com/reference/opengl-redbook-1.1/
http://www.rush3d.com/reference/opengl-bluebook-1.0/
Again, if you want easier to use electronic versions let me know. I've spent quite a lot of time reformatting them and making them easier to use in html instead of horrible pdf.
The NeHe tutorials http://nehe.gamedev.net/ are very useful too, though I hate their formatting on the net. I've spent ages reformatting local copies to make them much more usable.
Also the two books Linux 3D Graphics Programming and Advanced Linux 3D Graphics Programming by Norman Lin are amazing sources of info on using OpenGL on Linux (and doubtless BSD).
http://nlin.g0dsoft.com/book.shtml
I bought the books. They have CDs with them containing a lot of resources. It would be great to have electronic copies of these books. I'm only part way through reading the first one.
:) There ya go. Some holiday reading for ya. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-01 03:57 am (UTC)You can get old sgi machines off ebay these days. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 10:14 am (UTC)I've been thinking a lot about computer architecture lately, both software and hardware. I can't help thinking we have been moving in the wrong direction. SGI, Amiga, Archimedes, etc seemed to be something of a high point in computing. We have faster processors, faster video cards, faster comms, and bigger storage, but our machines, by and large don't do stuff much faster (Windows or Linux running on a 1GHz machine is not much faster than an Amiga on a 30MHz processor). Today I listened to renowned technologist Nicholas Negroponte say more or less the same thing. Our faster machines simply stumble under the weight of our slow OSes.
I wish it wasn't true, but older machines still have great advantages.