…And now for something completely different.
Members of the British comedy group ‘Monty Python’ will reunite for a one-off live show next July. According to a press conference given by the comedy legends, the group wants to see if they are “still funny”.
Original members Michael Palin, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones will perform together for the first time in over 30 years.
According to the group, the show’s content will include “some of Monty Python’s greatest hits, with modern, topical, Pythonesque twists”. However, John Cleese has promised that there will also be some new material.
‘Monty Python’s Flying Circus’, a surreal, DaDa inspired comedy sketch show, first hit British screens in 1969 and remained extremely popular with audiences until it ended in 1974. The show acted as the voice of a new generation, with a fresh approach to comedy and an irreverent, sometimes controversial, edge. Many of the group’s most famous sketches have become treasured parts of British popular culture.
The group released their first feature film ‘And Now For Something Completely Different’ in 1971, but it wasn’t until 1974’s ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ that they filmed an entire movie of new material. The film is an enduring comedy classic, as is its sequel, the controversial ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ (1979). The group’s third feature film ‘Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life’ (1983) was a jet black comedy that was closer in style to the sketch show format of the series, but did not fare as well critically or commercially, despite garnering strong fan support.
In 1989, founding member Graham Chapman sadly passed away from cancer, which put any future reunions in jeopardy.
Following Chapman’s untimely passing, Eric Idle famously stated, “We would only do a reunion if Chapman came back from the dead. So we’re negotiating with his agent.”
Since then, the Pythons have occasionally reformed, with the shows usually featuring an urn containing the ‘ashes’ of Chapman (in reality, his ashes were scattered on Mount Snowdon, Wales by his partner David Sherlock). The urn was, in one instance ‘accidentally’ knocked over on stage before being vacuumed up with a Dust Buster.
The new show is going to feature classic sketches that have never been performed live. Idle, who is also the show’s director, has said that it is going to resemble “a huge musical” in style, whilst John Cleese warned, “The main danger we have is that the audience know the scripts better than we do.”
During the aforementioned press conference, Michael Palin stated that the group “still enjoy getting together to be very silly”.
“After you turn 70, you can be absolutely shameless,” joked Terry Gilliam.
Prior to this news, the troupe’s most recent live performance took place at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles in September 1980, but it has been 40 years since the Pythons last performed on stage in the UK.
The most expensive tickets have been announced at £95, but the cheapest seats will costs just £26.50, with Idle quipping that it was “only £300 cheaper than The Stones”
“I hope to be able to pay off my mortgage!” said Terry Jones.
The show will also be made available on DVD & Blu Ray later in the year.
SOURCES
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25031520
Monday, 20 January 2014
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Who He is & How He Came to be A Review of Batman: Year One
“Gotham City. Maybe it’s all I deserve, now. Maybe it’s just my time in Hell…”
As an opening line, it’s right up there with the one about the dead dog in the alleyway that greets you as you first read ‘Watchmen’. Right away, you can tell that this book is something special. It just grabs you and steadfastly refuses to let go.
Ignoring the controversy caused by this particular reprinting (that’s a blog for another time), what we have here is an enduring graphic classic. It is a gritty piece of exquisitely rendered pulp-noir that has been in high demand since its first printing (in four single issues) back in 1987.
I’ll delve into the backstory, even though you probably know it all by now. In 1986, DC comics decided to revamp their entire line of characters and comic books. Following a monster comics event known as ‘Crisis on Infinite Earths’ the readers and creators found themselves with a veritable tabula rasa upon which to create new stories and furnish them with the rich tapestry of established DC comics concepts, characters and ideas. To this end, The Batman was given an expanded origin story that reflected the sombre, acidic, sometimes brutal nature of his more recent adventures.
Writer Frank Miller volunteered for this daunting task and hand picked rising young star David Mazzucchelli to tackle the art duties. The rest, as they say, is history.
I’m not even going to bother to find faults or flaws with this masterful piece of pulp storytelling. I’m sure they are there, if you care to look for them, but I’m afraid that, when it comes to this volume, I’m like the old man who still swears that his aged wife is as beautiful and radiant as the day he married her. I don’t see flaws, only beauty.
Told largely from the point of view of young Lieutenant Jim Gordon (recently transferred to the Gotham Police Department from Chicago), ‘Batman: Year One’ follows both the Dark Knight and his greatest ally through their most formative 12 months. There are no supervillains; there is no Bat-signal, no Batmobile and no Robin. There are just two men who have embarked on individual missions to make this world a better place and happen to cross paths somewhere along the way.
Everything in this book is stripped back, stark and uncompromising. A freezing cold colour palette (although that depends on which version you read) amplifies the emotional alienation of both men, as Gordon becomes slowly separated from his Wife and Bruce Wayne becomes (arguably) annexed from his sanity.
The violence is savage, claustrophobic and hard hitting. A nihilistic riposte to the day-glo captions of the Adam West and Burt Ward TV show of the 60’s, its cartoon ‘BIFFS’ and ‘POWS’ rendered here as achingly wince inducing as possible.
Here, Batman is forced to rely on training and ingenuity, he makes mistakes, but he’s still Batman and that’s what counts.
Both men are stretched to breaking point throughout the course of this book, but, crucially, both men find ways to rise above it with single-minded, (some might say obsessive) determination and a staunch clarity of vision only possible in great works of fiction.
Mention this book to any seasoned comic reader, no matter how cynical and web-weary, and they’ll grow misty-eyed and nostalgic. It is, like a classic of cinema or an album that tethers one to a benighted, embellished youth, an experience to be savoured and enjoyed. Again and again.
As an opening line, it’s right up there with the one about the dead dog in the alleyway that greets you as you first read ‘Watchmen’. Right away, you can tell that this book is something special. It just grabs you and steadfastly refuses to let go.
Ignoring the controversy caused by this particular reprinting (that’s a blog for another time), what we have here is an enduring graphic classic. It is a gritty piece of exquisitely rendered pulp-noir that has been in high demand since its first printing (in four single issues) back in 1987.
I’ll delve into the backstory, even though you probably know it all by now. In 1986, DC comics decided to revamp their entire line of characters and comic books. Following a monster comics event known as ‘Crisis on Infinite Earths’ the readers and creators found themselves with a veritable tabula rasa upon which to create new stories and furnish them with the rich tapestry of established DC comics concepts, characters and ideas. To this end, The Batman was given an expanded origin story that reflected the sombre, acidic, sometimes brutal nature of his more recent adventures.
Writer Frank Miller volunteered for this daunting task and hand picked rising young star David Mazzucchelli to tackle the art duties. The rest, as they say, is history.
I’m not even going to bother to find faults or flaws with this masterful piece of pulp storytelling. I’m sure they are there, if you care to look for them, but I’m afraid that, when it comes to this volume, I’m like the old man who still swears that his aged wife is as beautiful and radiant as the day he married her. I don’t see flaws, only beauty.
Told largely from the point of view of young Lieutenant Jim Gordon (recently transferred to the Gotham Police Department from Chicago), ‘Batman: Year One’ follows both the Dark Knight and his greatest ally through their most formative 12 months. There are no supervillains; there is no Bat-signal, no Batmobile and no Robin. There are just two men who have embarked on individual missions to make this world a better place and happen to cross paths somewhere along the way.
Everything in this book is stripped back, stark and uncompromising. A freezing cold colour palette (although that depends on which version you read) amplifies the emotional alienation of both men, as Gordon becomes slowly separated from his Wife and Bruce Wayne becomes (arguably) annexed from his sanity.
The violence is savage, claustrophobic and hard hitting. A nihilistic riposte to the day-glo captions of the Adam West and Burt Ward TV show of the 60’s, its cartoon ‘BIFFS’ and ‘POWS’ rendered here as achingly wince inducing as possible.
Here, Batman is forced to rely on training and ingenuity, he makes mistakes, but he’s still Batman and that’s what counts.
Both men are stretched to breaking point throughout the course of this book, but, crucially, both men find ways to rise above it with single-minded, (some might say obsessive) determination and a staunch clarity of vision only possible in great works of fiction.
Mention this book to any seasoned comic reader, no matter how cynical and web-weary, and they’ll grow misty-eyed and nostalgic. It is, like a classic of cinema or an album that tethers one to a benighted, embellished youth, an experience to be savoured and enjoyed. Again and again.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
Will we need the computer mouse in the future
In the era of touch-screens, styluses and those weird little Nokia plectrum dealies (what is up with those exactly?) we have to ask questions about the future of the humble mouse. Is he now considered vermin? Do we cast him aside, banishing him to the world of grammar phones, 8-track tapes and pet rocks?
The other night, I watched Star Trek IV (yeah, the one with the whales) and apart from the fact that it had aged considerably better than the vast majority of mid 80’s movies, I noticed one thing in particular. Mr. Scott, when faced with a 20th Century computer, had no idea what a mouse was. At first, he considers it to be some sort of audio device and talks into it. Have we always considered the mouse a means to an end? A necessary device that will be outmoded by progress? Considering this, I thought about more science fiction (increasingly where we draw our designs for contemporary technology from) and realized that appearances by any sort of hand-held computer interfaces were limited almost exclusively to communications devices and those wrist-things (even then they talked into them more than they pushed buttons) So, are the little mouse’s days numbered?
Laptops tend to use those funny little black pads (though many people attach mice to them for convenience) and whilst I doubt this idea will spread to PC, the current crop of hi-tech gadgets and gizmos are effectively cutting out our ‘mousefied middle men’ and moving steadily into the realm of touch screens and direct Human contact. How long before voice recognition? I can’t say, but I am excited about the idea of a holodeck.
The thing is; the keyboard and mouse pretty much have to be separate from the computer unit itself. Even if I had a touch screen computer, I can’t imagine sitting here and writing this article by tapping on the glass. If the computer were upright and touch-operated (not unlike those in the movie Avatar) it would still not allow me to type words for any length of time (and voice recording would be no substitute for typing anyway). So we’ve surmised that the keyboard has got to stay. What would happen if we had a touch screen and a keyboard but no mouse? Would civilisation decline? Actually, I doubt it, but I do think it would be inconvenient and take a lot of getting used to.
So is the computer mouse a dead technology? Not as far as I can see. But are the tides of progress threatening to wash over its shores? Quite possibly, however, this would involve a fairly drastic re-design of the home computer set up and such a venture always carries risks, so I think its safe the say the mouse is safe for a few years yet. Now when are they going to get around to that holodeck?
The other night, I watched Star Trek IV (yeah, the one with the whales) and apart from the fact that it had aged considerably better than the vast majority of mid 80’s movies, I noticed one thing in particular. Mr. Scott, when faced with a 20th Century computer, had no idea what a mouse was. At first, he considers it to be some sort of audio device and talks into it. Have we always considered the mouse a means to an end? A necessary device that will be outmoded by progress? Considering this, I thought about more science fiction (increasingly where we draw our designs for contemporary technology from) and realized that appearances by any sort of hand-held computer interfaces were limited almost exclusively to communications devices and those wrist-things (even then they talked into them more than they pushed buttons) So, are the little mouse’s days numbered?
Laptops tend to use those funny little black pads (though many people attach mice to them for convenience) and whilst I doubt this idea will spread to PC, the current crop of hi-tech gadgets and gizmos are effectively cutting out our ‘mousefied middle men’ and moving steadily into the realm of touch screens and direct Human contact. How long before voice recognition? I can’t say, but I am excited about the idea of a holodeck.
The thing is; the keyboard and mouse pretty much have to be separate from the computer unit itself. Even if I had a touch screen computer, I can’t imagine sitting here and writing this article by tapping on the glass. If the computer were upright and touch-operated (not unlike those in the movie Avatar) it would still not allow me to type words for any length of time (and voice recording would be no substitute for typing anyway). So we’ve surmised that the keyboard has got to stay. What would happen if we had a touch screen and a keyboard but no mouse? Would civilisation decline? Actually, I doubt it, but I do think it would be inconvenient and take a lot of getting used to.
So is the computer mouse a dead technology? Not as far as I can see. But are the tides of progress threatening to wash over its shores? Quite possibly, however, this would involve a fairly drastic re-design of the home computer set up and such a venture always carries risks, so I think its safe the say the mouse is safe for a few years yet. Now when are they going to get around to that holodeck?
Thursday, 16 January 2014
‘Shrieks’ Heard From Space
The Voyager one spacecraft, which recently evolved into the 1st man-designed object to depart our solar system, has transmitted creepy, sharp pitched shrieks and squeals from outside the void.
The noises, described by some as a ‘howl’ and by others as a ‘scream’, were recorded from a distance of twelve Billion miles from our sun.
The ‘shrieks’ detected by Voyager’s devices are actually plasma waves. The high-pitched sound emitted by them are muted in space, but within the range of detection by Human ear.
A representative for NASA remarked, “The soundtrack reproduces the amplitude and frequency of those plasma waves as “heard” by Voyager 1. The waves detected by the instrument antennas may be just amplified and trialled in a speaker.”
Ed Stone, a Voyager Project scientist based in the California Institute of Technology said that, “The 36-year old probe is now sailing through unexplored waters of a brand new cosmic sea and it’s brought us alongside for the trip.”
Previously this year, Voyager one’s instruments indicated that craft had either left, or was about to depart, the solar system. Then again, no one could give an explicit figure regarding how long it may take. The transmission of those peculiar sounds has helped scientists to determine, once and for all, that Voyager 1 has indeed left our space for pastures unknown.
The Voyager craft was initially launched in 1977 and, ever since that time, it has traversed billions of miles throughout our solar system. It is now so far away from the planet that radio messages, with the peculiar shrieks of interstellar outer space, take about 17 hours to arrive at NASA headquarters.
Voyager 1 is supposed to carry on transmitting until sometime in 2020.
The noises from outside the limits of our solar system are a fascinating way to mark our species historic entry into interstellar outer space.
The noises, described by some as a ‘howl’ and by others as a ‘scream’, were recorded from a distance of twelve Billion miles from our sun.The ‘shrieks’ detected by Voyager’s devices are actually plasma waves. The high-pitched sound emitted by them are muted in space, but within the range of detection by Human ear.
A representative for NASA remarked, “The soundtrack reproduces the amplitude and frequency of those plasma waves as “heard” by Voyager 1. The waves detected by the instrument antennas may be just amplified and trialled in a speaker.”
Ed Stone, a Voyager Project scientist based in the California Institute of Technology said that, “The 36-year old probe is now sailing through unexplored waters of a brand new cosmic sea and it’s brought us alongside for the trip.”
Previously this year, Voyager one’s instruments indicated that craft had either left, or was about to depart, the solar system. Then again, no one could give an explicit figure regarding how long it may take. The transmission of those peculiar sounds has helped scientists to determine, once and for all, that Voyager 1 has indeed left our space for pastures unknown.
The Voyager craft was initially launched in 1977 and, ever since that time, it has traversed billions of miles throughout our solar system. It is now so far away from the planet that radio messages, with the peculiar shrieks of interstellar outer space, take about 17 hours to arrive at NASA headquarters.
Voyager 1 is supposed to carry on transmitting until sometime in 2020.
The noises from outside the limits of our solar system are a fascinating way to mark our species historic entry into interstellar outer space.
Author Neil Gaiman Defends Children’s Literature From Adult ‘Snobbery’
52-year-old British author Neil Gaiman has spoken out against ‘snobbish’ adult judgements being placed upon children’s literature.
The author, who delivered the second annual Reading Agency lecture in central London this week, chose to use this time, at least in part, to speak out against what he feels is a damaging trend in modern literary criticism.
“I don’t think there is such a thing as a bad book for children,” began the author, addressing a crowd that included many leading figures from the arts and entertainment world, as well as several representatives from educational institutions.
“Every now and again it becomes fashionable among some adults to point at a subset of children’s books, a genre, perhaps, or an author, and to declare them bad books, books that children should be stopped from reading,”
“I’ve seen it happen over and over; Enid Blyton was declared a bad author, so was (‘Goosebumps’ author) RL Stine, so were dozens of others. Comics have been decried as fostering illiteracy”.
“It’s tosh, it’s snobbery and it’s foolishness”, he continued.
Mr Gaiman, who’s works include children’s books (Odd & The Frost Giants), comic books (Sandman, 1602) and prize winning novels (The Graveyard Book, Coraline, American Gods), has seen his works adapted into popular films (Stardust, Coraline), and has written for several TV shows (Babylon 5, Dr. Who, Neverwhere). He is generally considered to be one of the most prolific and celebrated authors of his generation, so it is likely that his criticisms will carry some weight.
Gaiman continued, saying that, “There are no bad authors for children, that children like and want to read and seek out, because every child is different. They can find the stories they need to, and they bring themselves to stories”.
“A hackneyed, worn-out idea isn’t hackneyed and worn out to them. This is the first time the child has encountered it. Do not discourage children from reading because you feel they are reading the wrong thing. Fiction you do not like is the gateway drug to other books you may prefer. And not everyone has the same taste as you.
He continued with a warning to parents, teachers and even older siblings, when he said that,
“Well-meaning adults can easily destroy a child’s love of reading: stop them reading what they enjoy, or give them worthy-but-dull books that you like, the 21st Century equivalents of Victorian ‘improving’ literature. You’ll wind up with a generation convinced that reading is uncool and worse, unpleasant.”
Gaiman’s own book, ‘Neverwhere’ was recently removed from a High School reading list in New Mexico after a parent complained that it was inappropriate.
Gaiman’s response to this was wry and well-considered, as he told a BBC reporter, “I tend to take books of mine being challenged and occasionally being banned – and very occasionally being burned – as a kind of badge of honour. You know you are doing something right.”
Mr. Gaiman’s concerns were echoed by a number of the lecture’s attendees.
SOURCES:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24521225
The author, who delivered the second annual Reading Agency lecture in central London this week, chose to use this time, at least in part, to speak out against what he feels is a damaging trend in modern literary criticism.
“I don’t think there is such a thing as a bad book for children,” began the author, addressing a crowd that included many leading figures from the arts and entertainment world, as well as several representatives from educational institutions.
“Every now and again it becomes fashionable among some adults to point at a subset of children’s books, a genre, perhaps, or an author, and to declare them bad books, books that children should be stopped from reading,”
“I’ve seen it happen over and over; Enid Blyton was declared a bad author, so was (‘Goosebumps’ author) RL Stine, so were dozens of others. Comics have been decried as fostering illiteracy”.
“It’s tosh, it’s snobbery and it’s foolishness”, he continued.
Mr Gaiman, who’s works include children’s books (Odd & The Frost Giants), comic books (Sandman, 1602) and prize winning novels (The Graveyard Book, Coraline, American Gods), has seen his works adapted into popular films (Stardust, Coraline), and has written for several TV shows (Babylon 5, Dr. Who, Neverwhere). He is generally considered to be one of the most prolific and celebrated authors of his generation, so it is likely that his criticisms will carry some weight.
Gaiman continued, saying that, “There are no bad authors for children, that children like and want to read and seek out, because every child is different. They can find the stories they need to, and they bring themselves to stories”.
“A hackneyed, worn-out idea isn’t hackneyed and worn out to them. This is the first time the child has encountered it. Do not discourage children from reading because you feel they are reading the wrong thing. Fiction you do not like is the gateway drug to other books you may prefer. And not everyone has the same taste as you.
He continued with a warning to parents, teachers and even older siblings, when he said that,
“Well-meaning adults can easily destroy a child’s love of reading: stop them reading what they enjoy, or give them worthy-but-dull books that you like, the 21st Century equivalents of Victorian ‘improving’ literature. You’ll wind up with a generation convinced that reading is uncool and worse, unpleasant.”
Gaiman’s own book, ‘Neverwhere’ was recently removed from a High School reading list in New Mexico after a parent complained that it was inappropriate.
Gaiman’s response to this was wry and well-considered, as he told a BBC reporter, “I tend to take books of mine being challenged and occasionally being banned – and very occasionally being burned – as a kind of badge of honour. You know you are doing something right.”
Mr. Gaiman’s concerns were echoed by a number of the lecture’s attendees.
SOURCES:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24521225
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Why do bose make one of the best TV sound systems
When I was young and inexperienced about the ways of the world, my Mum used to buy me those electric toothbrushes that you see on TV.
Those things don’t actually have a very long shelf life, but they do work a treat (it was 27 years before I needed my first filling). Therefore, whenever an old one bit the dust, my Mum would somehow stump up the money and replace it. Good as gold.
One of the many disillusions I’ve endured since leaving home about six years ago, (first for Uni and then for the big, scary real world) is that you have to pay for your own stuff. Like, all the time. For example, the other day our washing machine broke and it cost the best part of £40 to repair it (amazingly, all that palaver was just because the button had come off of my girlfriend’s trousers and gotten caught somewhere in the mechanism). The week after that, our food bill spiralled upwards to almost twice its previous amount with no warning from our local recession-maligned supermarket. As a matter of necessity, my much-loved electric toothbrush was forced out of my life
So, last week, with a little more money in my pocket than usual, I ‘treated’ myself to a new toothbrush and, wouldn’t you know it? The damn thing died on me this morning. For **** sake!
What does this have to do with the Bose TV sound system? Not a lot, but I was pissed about it and I wanted to vent.
Actually, the two products do have quite a lot in common (in a good way). Like my preferred brand of toothbrush, the Bose TV speaker doesn’t come cheap, however, it is also arguably the best product of its kind and, like the toothbrush; no home should be without one
Your average flat panel TV screen doesn’t have wonderful speakers to match its exceptional picture; you’ve probably noticed. The size and shape of those speakers are all wrong for anything but the most basic aural experience. Today’s average flatscreen TV viewer hooks an external sound system up to the TV as a matter of course.
What I’m saying, then: is if you’re going to buy speakers; buy Bose.
With a flawless, easy set up and a smart, compact design, Bose’s new TV sound system provides you with a broader, more detailed sound. You can hear every bone crunching in your favourite high-octane action fest, or experience fully the subtle nuances of heartbreak in your favourite rom coms (probably).
Using proprietary digital signal processing (look it up – I have a word limit and I wasted almost half of it talking about a toothbrush), these speakers adjust and optimise the sound at almost any volume level. In practical terms, this basically means that you won’t have to turn the sound right up to hear the dramatic whispery bits, only to be deafened, in turn, by the sonic assault of the massive explosion-y bits.
This speaker array will bring audio quality into your home that is damn close to cinema level and perfectly compliments a Blu Ray/Plasma screen setup, in fact, I’ll go one better: it completes it.
On the downside, this system is not the cheapest. However, sometimes it’s worth shelling out a little (OK, a lot) extra in order to get the nicest product on the rack. When I consider how much time the average family spends watching TV, it makes sense that they’d want to invest in a superior product. Anyway, the point is this; whether its oral or aural technology you’re after, it pays to buy the best.
Those things don’t actually have a very long shelf life, but they do work a treat (it was 27 years before I needed my first filling). Therefore, whenever an old one bit the dust, my Mum would somehow stump up the money and replace it. Good as gold.
One of the many disillusions I’ve endured since leaving home about six years ago, (first for Uni and then for the big, scary real world) is that you have to pay for your own stuff. Like, all the time. For example, the other day our washing machine broke and it cost the best part of £40 to repair it (amazingly, all that palaver was just because the button had come off of my girlfriend’s trousers and gotten caught somewhere in the mechanism). The week after that, our food bill spiralled upwards to almost twice its previous amount with no warning from our local recession-maligned supermarket. As a matter of necessity, my much-loved electric toothbrush was forced out of my life
So, last week, with a little more money in my pocket than usual, I ‘treated’ myself to a new toothbrush and, wouldn’t you know it? The damn thing died on me this morning. For **** sake!
What does this have to do with the Bose TV sound system? Not a lot, but I was pissed about it and I wanted to vent.
Actually, the two products do have quite a lot in common (in a good way). Like my preferred brand of toothbrush, the Bose TV speaker doesn’t come cheap, however, it is also arguably the best product of its kind and, like the toothbrush; no home should be without one
Your average flat panel TV screen doesn’t have wonderful speakers to match its exceptional picture; you’ve probably noticed. The size and shape of those speakers are all wrong for anything but the most basic aural experience. Today’s average flatscreen TV viewer hooks an external sound system up to the TV as a matter of course.
What I’m saying, then: is if you’re going to buy speakers; buy Bose.
With a flawless, easy set up and a smart, compact design, Bose’s new TV sound system provides you with a broader, more detailed sound. You can hear every bone crunching in your favourite high-octane action fest, or experience fully the subtle nuances of heartbreak in your favourite rom coms (probably).
Using proprietary digital signal processing (look it up – I have a word limit and I wasted almost half of it talking about a toothbrush), these speakers adjust and optimise the sound at almost any volume level. In practical terms, this basically means that you won’t have to turn the sound right up to hear the dramatic whispery bits, only to be deafened, in turn, by the sonic assault of the massive explosion-y bits.
This speaker array will bring audio quality into your home that is damn close to cinema level and perfectly compliments a Blu Ray/Plasma screen setup, in fact, I’ll go one better: it completes it.
On the downside, this system is not the cheapest. However, sometimes it’s worth shelling out a little (OK, a lot) extra in order to get the nicest product on the rack. When I consider how much time the average family spends watching TV, it makes sense that they’d want to invest in a superior product. Anyway, the point is this; whether its oral or aural technology you’re after, it pays to buy the best.
TECH NEWS: Tycoon Unveils ‘Hyperloop’ Transport Project
American entrepreneur Elon Musk, founder of website Paypal.com (as well as many other companies/ventures), has this month unveiled a potentially revolutionary form of travel.
The ‘Hyperloop’ would hypothetically connect the US cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco by transporting commuters at near supersonic speeds. By using a system of magnets and fans, the Hyperloop would be able to travel between the sprawling cities in about 30 minutes.
The system, which would ideally be solar-powered, represents a cleaner, cheaper and far more efficient system of public transport, at least in theory.
A high-speed train service between the two cities is currently in development, but the Hyperloop is potentially a better mode of travel. Mr. Musk is confident that the idea has potential, writing in his proposal that, “Short of figuring out real teleportation, which would of course be awesome… the only option for superfast travel is to build a tube over or under the ground that contains a special environment,”
Musk estimated the overall cost of the project at $6bn (£3.9bn), which is surprisingly low considering that it involves the development of a new and untested technology.
He suggests that cars could leave at intervals of 30 seconds and that they would reach an incredible speed of up to 760MPH. The eventual ticket cost would be around $20 (£13 at the current exchange rate), according to Musk’s projections.
According to Musk, the Hyperloop would be faster than taking a plane between cities, as it would not spend time ascending and descending.
However, not everyone is as optimistic as the project’s founder. Dave Lee, technology reporter for BBC news wrote, “The bright idea of transporting people using some kind of vacuum-like tube is neither new nor imaginative”. He went on to remind readers that Robert Goddard, the father of modern rocket propulsion, proposed a similar, vacuum powered system back in 1909.
MIT aeronautics and astronautics Professor John Hansman was a little more optimistic, saying that the important question is not whether the idea is theoretically sound (it is), but is instead “could you do it in a way that makes sense from an energy-efficiency standpoint and makes sense from an economic standpoint?”
Other critics have attacked Musk’s projected costs, Alan Wickens, former director of British Rail said that Musk’s cost projections were “extremely optimistic”.
The Billionaire tycoon asserts that a working prototype would take roughly 4 years to build, but has also said that he is too busy to build it right away, as he is currently working on SpaceX, a commercial spaceflight project.
What, if any, future the Hyperloop will have depends greatly on the project’s ability to capture the imaginations of investors, engineers and the general public. We’ll keep you updated.
SOURCES:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)