OT: ISBNs...

[Don Y]

One of the groups I work with \"redirects\" (for want of a better word)
unwanted books to schools for disadvantaged kids, foreign universities,
etc. Silly/sad to discard this stuff just because no one *locally*
wants it (and books are cheap to ship).

We\'ve been preparing manifests using ISBNs as it gives us a way to
retrieve the title without having to TYPE the title of each article.
(To eliminate typographical errors, variations in capitalization,
etc.)

From time to time, I get left a pile of books that have no (!) ISBN.
(E.g., I have AT&T\'s _Statistical Quality Control Handbook_ here
with no ISBN *anywhere* in or on!)

I\'m weighing whether or not to add provisions to directly enter a textual
title (in lieu of the ISBN). But, suspect these are few enough and far
enough between that it\'s easier just to discard the titles (or, not
account for them). And, I don\'t want folks resorting to the \"text
override\" if the ISBN is available.

I *thought* an ISBN was required -- but, perhaps, only for LoC registration?
So, maybe anything \"self published\" was free to skip this step?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/03/2023 03:55, Don Y wrote:

One of the groups I work with \"redirects\" (for want of a better word)
unwanted books to schools for disadvantaged kids, foreign universities,
etc.  Silly/sad to discard this stuff just because no one *locally*
wants it (and books are cheap to ship).

We\'ve been preparing manifests using ISBNs as it gives us a way to
retrieve the title without having to TYPE the title of each article.
(To eliminate typographical errors, variations in capitalization,
etc.)

From time to time, I get left a pile of books that have no (!) ISBN.
(E.g., I have AT&T\'s _Statistical Quality Control Handbook_ here
with no ISBN *anywhere* in or on!)

In house publications and collected datasheet/application notes tend not
to have an ISBN (nor do any older books). Depending on the numbers of
oddball books you have to deal with I\'d be inclined to classify them as
either STEM or fiction or use some (very) small number of categories.

And throw in a few of these misfits with each order to get rid ASAP.

I\'m weighing whether or not to add provisions to directly enter a textual
title (in lieu of the ISBN).  But, suspect these are few enough and far
enough between that it\'s easier just to discard the titles (or, not
account for them).  And, I don\'t want folks resorting to the \"text
override\" if the ISBN is available.

I *thought* an ISBN was required -- but, perhaps, only for LoC
registration?

If it has an ISBN when published then you have to provide free copies to
the various copyright libraries in the UK (about half a dozen in total).
If it is an internal document for a corporate or a periodical then it
probably won\'t.

> So, maybe anything \"self published\" was free to skip this step?

I think it depends more on the scale of the publishing. If it went
through a proper publishing house with a print run >1000 then it usually
ends up with an ISBN. Done internally then probably not, even though the
likes of AT&T or ICI had sophisticated print rooms (as did my university
but then they also had their own formal Publishing House in addition).

--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 3/5/2023 2:53 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/03/2023 03:55, Don Y wrote:
One of the groups I work with \"redirects\" (for want of a better word)
unwanted books to schools for disadvantaged kids, foreign universities,
etc.  Silly/sad to discard this stuff just because no one *locally*
wants it (and books are cheap to ship).

We\'ve been preparing manifests using ISBNs as it gives us a way to
retrieve the title without having to TYPE the title of each article.
(To eliminate typographical errors, variations in capitalization,
etc.)

 From time to time, I get left a pile of books that have no (!) ISBN.
(E.g., I have AT&T\'s _Statistical Quality Control Handbook_ here
with no ISBN *anywhere* in or on!)

In house publications and collected datasheet/application notes tend not to
have an ISBN (nor do any older books).

There has been a trend toward publishing some databooks/datasheets as
regular trade publications. I first *noticed* this with the NS32K
(though I never actually checked, prior to that point in time)

Depending on the numbers of oddball
books you have to deal with I\'d be inclined to classify them as either STEM or
fiction or use some (very) small number of categories.

And throw in a few of these misfits with each order to get rid ASAP.

Disposing of them isn\'t a problem. *Processing* them is. The folks
(volunteers of varying intellectual and physical capabilities) need
a simple set of rules to follow. To date, it has been: \"type in the ISBN
number, place book in box, lather, rinse, repeat; if no ISBN number,
leave in box for Don to triage\".

I have been trying to go through these with some regularity (to keep
*my* backlog to a minimum). Often, they just didn\'t know where to find
the ISBN -- so, I put a \"bookmark\" in the book with the number
handwritten on it and send it back through the process.

Books that truly are missing ISBNs I have to make a decision about;
is there some value in passing this along? Or, should it just get
shredded? This takes a bit more time as I have to consider *who*
it might be destined for (i.e., I\'ll send a technical book along
to a central american university but wouldn\'t send it to an
underprivileged grade school; and the reverse for a novel or
book of puzzles).

My interest is in freeing myself from as many critical paths as
I can. I donate 10 hours per week to \"charities\" and try hard
not to let that number climb -- unless essential and temporarily.
The more things I can free myself of, the more \"important\" tasks
I can spend my time on.

[Maybe I\'ll see if I can find a better place to stash the \"unknowns\"
so I can reduce the frequency of my culls.]

I\'m weighing whether or not to add provisions to directly enter a textual
title (in lieu of the ISBN).  But, suspect these are few enough and far
enough between that it\'s easier just to discard the titles (or, not
account for them).  And, I don\'t want folks resorting to the \"text
override\" if the ISBN is available.

I *thought* an ISBN was required -- but, perhaps, only for LoC registration?

If it has an ISBN when published then you have to provide free copies to the
various copyright libraries in the UK (about half a dozen in total). If it is
an internal document for a corporate or a periodical then it probably won\'t.

I think there\'s something like that with the Library of Congress.

And, there are some rules regarding copyright waivers that apply
but, perhaps, only to texts that have been submitted to the LoC?

So, maybe anything \"self published\" was free to skip this step?

I think it depends more on the scale of the publishing. If it went through a
proper publishing house with a print run >1000 then it usually ends up with an
ISBN. Done internally then probably not, even though the likes of AT&T or ICI
had sophisticated print rooms (as did my university but then they also had
their own formal Publishing House in addition).

I looked through my hard-cover titles (I\'ve been scanning all of the
paperbacks and discarding them).
_Error Correcting Codes_
_Instruction Manual for Braille Transcribing_
_Cartooning The Head and Figure_ (and i suspect the rest of Hamm\'s books)
_A Simplified Technique of Control System Engineering_
_The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics_
_Approximations for Digital Computers_
_Versalog Slide Rule Instructions_
etc.

The Braille book is published by the LoC so you\'d expect *it* to
be \"prime time\". It has to be at least the 4th printing, based
on dates of revision (why note a revision date if you never
*released* it?)

Cartooning (and other Hamm books) are sold at retail so I can\'t
imagine there were \"few\" copies printed (I have two copies; the
one in my hand is likely a first as I see no printing history).

Error claims to be a third printing. Three copyright dates on
the Control text.

Trachtenberg has no print history. Nor the Versalog.

Sixth printing for Approximations.

I.e., unless they\'re printing a few copies at a time, I suspect there
are a fair number of imprints. (How many slide rules were sold?)
OTOH, I can see Post not bothering with registering the title as
it\'s likely only given to customers.

I\'ll have to check dates to see if there\'s some magical age that
differentiates them from \"modern\" texts. (Perhaps if the first
printing predated ISBN, they never bother with that step on
subsequent printings?)

Ooooo! Thunderbirds are on TV! The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof! Gotta go... (priororities)

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/03/2023 13:17, Don Y wrote:

On 3/5/2023 2:53 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

I think it depends more on the scale of the publishing. If it went
through a proper publishing house with a print run >1000 then it
usually ends up with an ISBN. Done internally then probably not, even
though the likes of AT&T or ICI had sophisticated print rooms (as did
my university but then they also had their own formal Publishing House
in addition).

I looked through my hard-cover titles (I\'ve been scanning all of the
paperbacks and discarding them).
  _Error Correcting Codes_
  _Instruction Manual for Braille Transcribing_
  _Cartooning  The Head and Figure_ (and i suspect the rest of Hamm\'s
books)
  _A Simplified Technique of Control System Engineering_
  _The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics_
  _Approximations for Digital Computers_
  _Versalog Slide Rule Instructions_
etc.

The Braille book is published by the LoC so you\'d expect *it* to
be \"prime time\".  It has to be at least the 4th printing, based
on dates of revision (why note a revision date if you never
*released* it?)

Cartooning (and other Hamm books) are sold at retail so I can\'t
imagine there were \"few\" copies printed (I have two copies; the
one in my hand is likely a first as I see no printing history).

Error claims to be a third printing.  Three copyright dates on
the Control text.

Trachtenberg has no print history.  Nor the Versalog.

Sixth printing for Approximations.

I.e., unless they\'re printing a few copies at a time, I suspect there
are a fair number of imprints.  (How many slide rules were sold?)
OTOH, I can see Post not bothering with registering the title as
it\'s likely only given to customers.

I\'ll have to check dates to see if there\'s some magical age that
differentiates them from \"modern\" texts.  (Perhaps if the first
printing predated ISBN, they never bother with that step on
subsequent printings?)

Most commercial books in the UK after 1965 will have an ISBN number.

I didn\'t realise until I looked up the history that the high street
stationers W.H. Smith were behind it (they had consultants design it).
They have fallen on hard times lately and are just about hanging on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN#History

In ROW it got adopted about 1970 so there are plenty of otherwise good
books about that don\'t have an ISBN printed in them. At the risk of
getting the odd false match you could suggest that your sorters use Abe
books or Amazon as a reference to obtain an ISBN from book titles. Both
sources show pictures of the book so it should be mostly reliable.

The other heuristic that might help is if the publishing date is after
1970 then they should look a bit harder for one. At least one book I
have within arms reach only has its ISBN on the dust cover!

My timeline (or the Wiki one) must be a bit awry because I have some
1960\'s UK books with an ISBN. With my librarians hat on and curiosity
piqued I can\'t find any with ISBNs prior to 1957 and in the early years
the ISBN was of the form nnnnn nnnn A (ending with an alphanumeric).

There seem to be quite a few random variants after that including

0 nnnnn nnn n
0-nnnnnn-nn-n
0-nnn-nnnnn-n
1-nnnnn-nnn-n

And one very modern reprinting of Gauss\'s classic \"Theoria Motus\" in
translation with no ISBN at all - just a barcode number inside.

Ooooo!  Thunderbirds are on TV!  The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof!  Gotta go...  (priororities)

Thunderbirds are GO!

They just don\'t look right without the strings attached!

Brilliant how well they worked and they did some very cool scaled down
explosions work with dimensional analysis to get things to look right.

UFO runs from time to time on the horror channel here (which doubles as
SciFi). That and various antique Dr Who series when monsters were
visibly made of green bubble wrap and duct tape!

--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/03/2023 13:17, Don Y wrote:
On 3/5/2023 2:53 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

I think it depends more on the scale of the publishing. If it went through a
proper publishing house with a print run >1000 then it usually ends up with
an ISBN. Done internally then probably not, even though the likes of AT&T or
ICI had sophisticated print rooms (as did my university but then they also
had their own formal Publishing House in addition).

I looked through my hard-cover titles (I\'ve been scanning all of the
paperbacks and discarding them).
   _Error Correcting Codes_
   _Instruction Manual for Braille Transcribing_
   _Cartooning  The Head and Figure_ (and i suspect the rest of Hamm\'s books)
   _A Simplified Technique of Control System Engineering_
   _The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics_
   _Approximations for Digital Computers_
   _Versalog Slide Rule Instructions_
etc.

The Braille book is published by the LoC so you\'d expect *it* to
be \"prime time\".  It has to be at least the 4th printing, based
on dates of revision (why note a revision date if you never
*released* it?)

Cartooning (and other Hamm books) are sold at retail so I can\'t
imagine there were \"few\" copies printed (I have two copies; the
one in my hand is likely a first as I see no printing history).

Error claims to be a third printing.  Three copyright dates on
the Control text.

Trachtenberg has no print history.  Nor the Versalog.

Sixth printing for Approximations.

I.e., unless they\'re printing a few copies at a time, I suspect there
are a fair number of imprints.  (How many slide rules were sold?)
OTOH, I can see Post not bothering with registering the title as
it\'s likely only given to customers.

I\'ll have to check dates to see if there\'s some magical age that
differentiates them from \"modern\" texts.  (Perhaps if the first
printing predated ISBN, they never bother with that step on
subsequent printings?)

Most commercial books in the UK after 1965 will have an ISBN number.

I didn\'t realise until I looked up the history that the high street stationers
W.H. Smith were behind it (they had consultants design it). They have fallen on
hard times lately and are just about hanging on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN#History

In ROW it got adopted about 1970 so there are plenty of otherwise good books
about that don\'t have an ISBN printed in them. At the risk of getting the odd
false match you could suggest that your sorters use Abe books or Amazon as a
reference to obtain an ISBN from book titles. Both sources show pictures of the
book so it should be mostly reliable.

The other heuristic that might help is if the publishing date is after 1970
then they should look a bit harder for one. At least one book I have within
arms reach only has its ISBN on the dust cover!

My timeline (or the Wiki one) must be a bit awry because I have some 1960\'s UK
books with an ISBN. With my librarians hat on and curiosity piqued I can\'t find
any with ISBNs prior to 1957 and in the early years the ISBN was of the form
nnnnn nnnn A (ending with an alphanumeric).

There seem to be quite a few random variants after that including

0 nnnnn nnn n
0-nnnnnn-nn-n
0-nnn-nnnnn-n
1-nnnnn-nnn-n

And one very modern reprinting of Gauss\'s classic \"Theoria Motus\" in
translation with no ISBN at all - just a barcode number inside.

Ooooo!  Thunderbirds are on TV!  The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof!  Gotta go...  (priororities)

Thunderbirds are GO!

They just don\'t look right without the strings attached!

F A B

Have you seen the TB 6 film? All cgi. <frown> Best part of the
film was the \"special features\" showing vintage footage of
supermarionation.

I\'ve toyed with the idea of trying to reproduce a lifesize
version of Lady P\'s car. THAT would turn heads (even amongst
the ignorant)

Brilliant how well they worked and they did some very cool scaled down
explosions work with dimensional analysis to get things to look right.

Yeah, but the water in the Tracy\'s pool always belied its true size.

And, I always looked forward to watching the palm trees \"bounce\"
as they were lowered for TB2\'s takeoff!

UFO runs from time to time on the horror channel here (which doubles as SciFi).
That and various antique Dr Who series when monsters were visibly made of green
bubble wrap and duct tape!

Some of the 60\'s sci-fi shows, here, were known for using the
same \"monster/creature\" costume -- just PAINTED a different
color from one \"guest appearance\" to the next.

I will have to see if this is a \"regular program\" airing each week.
I just happened to have the TV on \"to keep me company\" while doing my
taxes, else I never would have stumbled on it!

Almost as much fun as watching the smoke rise from the \"exhaust\"
of Flash Gordon\'s spaceships!

 

[Don Y]

On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

In ROW it got adopted about 1970 so there are plenty of otherwise good books
about that don\'t have an ISBN printed in them. At the risk of getting the odd
false match you could suggest that your sorters use Abe books or Amazon as a
reference to obtain an ISBN from book titles. Both sources show pictures of the
book so it should be mostly reliable.

The other heuristic that might help is if the publishing date is after 1970
then they should look a bit harder for one. At least one book I have within
arms reach only has its ISBN on the dust cover!

You\'ve not grasped the \"capabilities\" of these folks. :< They can follow
*simple* directions. Navigating a web page would be beyond them.

There\'s also a psychological/emotional aspect of the process. You want
them to feel like they have succeeded, not been overwhelmed by the
\"project\". This wants to be a \"productive\" experience for them, even
if someone else could do their 4 hours of work in 15 minutes!

E.g., when we triage equipment for them to disassemble, we think carefully
about the types of tools they will need and the *number*. Ideally, everything
comes apart with the *same* tool (e.g., #2 Phillips). Processor heat sinks
are often daunting (too many variations of attachment techniques).

It\'s easier to tell them \"look here (and here) for \'ISBN\'; type in the number
that follows (with or without dashes/spaces/etc.). If we find *this* to be
too hard for the person, then we gently assign them to some other task.
(again, want them to feel like they are \"getting it\" and not \"failing\")

My timeline (or the Wiki one) must be a bit awry because I have some 1960\'s UK
books with an ISBN. With my librarians hat on and curiosity piqued I can\'t find
any with ISBNs prior to 1957 and in the early years the ISBN was of the form
nnnnn nnnn A (ending with an alphanumeric).

There seem to be quite a few random variants after that including

0 nnnnn nnn n
0-nnnnnn-nn-n
0-nnn-nnnnn-n
1-nnnnn-nnn-n

Here, the *value* determines the partitioning of the number.
Certain portions of the namespace (numberspace) are larger than
others (for bigger publishers) so there may be more digits
to the right of a hyphen. Other portions may be smaller -- but
there may be support for more *of* those spaces (lots of small
publishers).

[I built a datatype that knows how to hyphenate based on the
\"value\" in question]

And one very modern reprinting of Gauss\'s classic \"Theoria Motus\" in
translation with no ISBN at all - just a barcode number inside.

I find lots of titles with library of congress catalog numbers
(far too few digits for modern times) yet without ISBNs. I wonder
what we\'ll do when books disappear?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/03/2023 08:29, Don Y wrote:

On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
In ROW it got adopted about 1970 so there are plenty of otherwise good
books about that don\'t have an ISBN printed in them. At the risk of
getting the odd false match you could suggest that your sorters use
Abe books or Amazon as a reference to obtain an ISBN from book titles.
Both sources show pictures of the book so it should be mostly reliable.

The other heuristic that might help is if the publishing date is after
1970 then they should look a bit harder for one. At least one book I
have within arms reach only has its ISBN on the dust cover!

You\'ve not grasped the \"capabilities\" of these folks.  :<  They can follow
*simple* directions.  Navigating a web page would be beyond them.

OK. I hadn\'t realised that restriction. Raising plants is quite a good
one for that in that it only requires some manual dexterity to do well.

There\'s also a psychological/emotional aspect of the process.  You want
them to feel like they have succeeded, not been overwhelmed by the
\"project\".  This wants to be a \"productive\" experience for them, even
if someone else could do their 4 hours of work in 15 minutes!

E.g., when we triage equipment for them to disassemble, we think carefully
about the types of tools they will need and the *number*.  Ideally,
everything
comes apart with the *same* tool (e.g., #2 Phillips).  Processor heat sinks
are often daunting (too many variations of attachment techniques).

I find a big breaking and entering flat screwdriver very effective at
getting into recalcitrant LCD monitor assemblies. Increasingly they seem
to be put together on a hot glue once and for all basis That or a
sharpened paintscraper and hot air gun for the other difficult cases.

It\'s easier to tell them \"look here (and here) for \'ISBN\'; type in the
number
that follows (with or without dashes/spaces/etc.).  If we find *this* to be
too hard for the person, then we gently assign them to some other task.
(again, want them to feel like they are \"getting it\" and not \"failing\")

I understand. Even so a hint that anything after 1970 should have one on
somewhere might help a bit.

My timeline (or the Wiki one) must be a bit awry because I have some
1960\'s UK books with an ISBN. With my librarians hat on and curiosity
piqued I can\'t find any with ISBNs prior to 1957 and in the early
years the ISBN was of the form nnnnn nnnn A (ending with an
alphanumeric).

There seem to be quite a few random variants after that including

0 nnnnn nnn n
0-nnnnnn-nn-n
0-nnn-nnnnn-n
1-nnnnn-nnn-n

Here, the *value* determines the partitioning of the number.
Certain portions of the namespace (numberspace) are larger than
others (for bigger publishers) so there may be more digits
to the right of a hyphen.  Other portions may be smaller -- but
there may be support for more *of* those spaces (lots of small
publishers).

[I built a datatype that knows how to hyphenate based on the
\"value\" in question]

That is probably the rule then. I just had a quick look at some of the
textbooks I have around me (I have a lot of books some quite ancient).

And one very modern reprinting of Gauss\'s classic \"Theoria Motus\" in
translation with no ISBN at all - just a barcode number inside.

I find lots of titles with library of congress catalog numbers
(far too few digits for modern times) yet without ISBNs.  I wonder
what we\'ll do when books disappear?

I don\'t think that will happen any time soon. But the digitisation
programme of ancient texts is proceeding apace. One of the most obscure
books I have referred to recently was written by Barker in 1757 - the
language is arcane English but he describes solving a cubic equation.

You have to Google with its title to find the book on Google books.
Amazon will sell you a copy for ~£20 but even for a specialist I\'m not
sure it is good value for money.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/discoveries-concerning-improvements-constructing-calculating/dp/1170637019

\"discoveries concerning comets,\" is the minimal search term to hit it.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/03/2023 18:28, Don Y wrote:

On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/03/2023 13:17, Don Y wrote:

Ooooo!  Thunderbirds are on TV!  The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof!  Gotta go...  (priororities)

Thunderbirds are GO!

They just don\'t look right without the strings attached!

F A B

Have you seen the TB 6 film?  All cgi.  <frown>  Best part of the
film was the \"special features\" showing vintage footage of
supermarionation.

No. I only remember the original TB 6 from 1968 - a Gipsy Tiger Moth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_6

I have some Thunderbirds viewmaster 3D disks and a viewer somewhere.

I\'ve toyed with the idea of trying to reproduce a lifesize
version of Lady P\'s car.  THAT would turn heads (even amongst
the ignorant)

The missile launcher under the radiator grill would be interesting. It
was a very bright shade of pink. Closest you get these days are the hen
night specials which are stretch Hummers in shocking pink.

Brilliant how well they worked and they did some very cool scaled down
explosions work with dimensional analysis to get things to look right.

Yeah, but the water in the Tracy\'s pool always belied its true size.

Some things you can\'t quite get right but it is amazing how well
altering the timebase can work to make things a lot more realistic.

And, I always looked forward to watching the palm trees \"bounce\"
as they were lowered for TB2\'s takeoff!

Jetex engines had a lot to answer for.

UFO runs from time to time on the horror channel here (which doubles
as SciFi). That and various antique Dr Who series when monsters were
visibly made of green bubble wrap and duct tape!

Some of the 60\'s sci-fi shows, here, were known for using the
same \"monster/creature\" costume -- just PAINTED a different
color from one \"guest appearance\" to the next.

We are spoilt by modern CGI effects movies.

I will have to see if this is a \"regular program\" airing each week.
I just happened to have the TV on \"to keep me company\" while doing my
taxes, else I never would have stumbled on it!

When I was at university Clive James used to run a late night cinema
show of the worst ever SciFi movies - Plan B from Outer Space etc.

Almost as much fun as watching the smoke rise from the \"exhaust\"
of Flash Gordon\'s spaceships!

Gravity is rather tricky to eliminate. The first hyper real space
sequences were the ones for 2001 A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick shot
with huge depth of field in painstaking single frame animation for the
main space station and the pilots displays inside the shuttle.

The Kubrick exhibition is well worth travelling to see if it is ever
anywhere near you. His perfectionism and attention to details was
incredible (as was how much he was prepared to spend on lenses).

It wasn\'t really bettered until Star Wars used the same basic tricks but
with early computer controlled relative movement of camera and subjects.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 3/6/2023 3:34 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/03/2023 18:28, Don Y wrote:
On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/03/2023 13:17, Don Y wrote:

Ooooo!  Thunderbirds are on TV!  The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof!  Gotta go...  (priororities)

Thunderbirds are GO!

They just don\'t look right without the strings attached!

F A B

Have you seen the TB 6 film?  All cgi.  <frown>  Best part of the
film was the \"special features\" showing vintage footage of
supermarionation.

No. I only remember the original TB 6 from 1968 - a Gipsy Tiger Moth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_6

Yes, I have that on DVD. I misremembered. There was another \"Thunderbirds\"
movie (with CGI) and the \"special features\" included some snippets of the
original marionettes. I will have to look through my collection...

I have some Thunderbirds viewmaster 3D disks and a viewer somewhere.

I\'ve toyed with the idea of trying to reproduce a lifesize
version of Lady P\'s car.  THAT would turn heads (even amongst
the ignorant)

The missile launcher under the radiator grill would be interesting. It was a
very bright shade of pink. Closest you get these days are the hen night
specials which are stretch Hummers in shocking pink.

I\'m more amused by the dual wheels up front. IIRC, a real
car *was* made (for the film that I can\'t quite remember).

UFO runs from time to time on the horror channel here (which doubles as
SciFi). That and various antique Dr Who series when monsters were visibly
made of green bubble wrap and duct tape!

Some of the 60\'s sci-fi shows, here, were known for using the
same \"monster/creature\" costume -- just PAINTED a different
color from one \"guest appearance\" to the next.

We are spoilt by modern CGI effects movies.

Sadly, the \"effects\" are more than the film, often. OTOH, when I do
small 3D animations and see the number of MIPS that go into the effort,
I have a special appreciation for how filmmakers can put together
a film that they can\'t *see* in real time -- until it\'s \"done\"
(rendered). With live acting, you can do another take in a matter
of minutes and make changes on the fly. Not so with CGI.

I will have to see if this is a \"regular program\" airing each week.
I just happened to have the TV on \"to keep me company\" while doing my
taxes, else I never would have stumbled on it!

When I was at university Clive James used to run a late night cinema show of
the worst ever SciFi movies - Plan B from Outer Space etc.

I recall going to see Deathrace 2000 in the student center. They\'d empty
one side of the building of furniture and you\'d sit on the floor. I wasn\'t
keen on the film but that\'s where we ended up.

Lights went down and a B&W scene of palm trees blowing in hurricane force
winds came on. It was as if my brain had a specific receptor *tuned* to
that imagery. I think they showed two episodes before the main feature.
By that time, I was sated and ready to leave -- \"Oh, you mean we haven\'t
seen the *movie* yet?\" <frown>

Almost as much fun as watching the smoke rise from the \"exhaust\"
of Flash Gordon\'s spaceships!

Gravity is rather tricky to eliminate. The first hyper real space sequences
were the ones for 2001 A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick shot with huge depth
of field in painstaking single frame animation for the main space station and
the pilots displays inside the shuttle.

The Kubrick exhibition is well worth travelling to see if it is ever anywhere
near you. His perfectionism and attention to details was incredible (as was how
much he was prepared to spend on lenses).

_The Lost Worlds of 2001_ is a good read, if you can find it.
Apparently, Kubrick didn\'t want Clarke to release the novel
before the film -- so, kept insisting on major rewrites (to delay
that event). Clarke was smart enough to keep the rewrites (which
form the referenced title).

If you\'ve not read it, _The Sentinel_ (basis for 2001) has to be
one of the pithiest short stories I\'ve ever read. And, easy to
see the evolution to 2001.

It wasn\'t really bettered until Star Wars used the same basic tricks but with
early computer controlled relative movement of camera and subjects.

I enjoyed films like Forbidden Planet -- even though their \"effects\"
(matte paintings, etc.) were hokey. And, \"Robbie\" has to be the
best mechanical man ever created (sorry C3PO). He (the prop)
would be cool to have standing in your living room or greeting
guests at the front door!

[I went through a period where I was reading every book from which
a film had been made, along with viewing the associated film(s).
It was interesting to see which ideas from the texts didn\'t make
it into the film and what changes were made -- better or worse.
_John Dies at the End_ is the most amusing modern example (for me)]

 

[Don Y]

On 3/6/2023 2:29 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/03/2023 08:29, Don Y wrote:
On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
In ROW it got adopted about 1970 so there are plenty of otherwise good books
about that don\'t have an ISBN printed in them. At the risk of getting the
odd false match you could suggest that your sorters use Abe books or Amazon
as a reference to obtain an ISBN from book titles. Both sources show
pictures of the book so it should be mostly reliable.

The other heuristic that might help is if the publishing date is after 1970
then they should look a bit harder for one. At least one book I have within
arms reach only has its ISBN on the dust cover!

You\'ve not grasped the \"capabilities\" of these folks.  :<  They can follow
*simple* directions.  Navigating a web page would be beyond them.

OK. I hadn\'t realised that restriction. Raising plants is quite a good one for
that in that it only requires some manual dexterity to do well.

I think there are a couple of \"practical\" issues that \"the powers
that be\" try to address.

First, many live with parents. Mom & Dad \"need a break\". So, having
<someplace> that the kid can go gives mom & dad time to recuperate
from the constant care required.

Second, it lets them socialize. Being around Mom & Dad, solely, isn\'t
good for personality development.

Third, it gives them something to focus on to build their self
confidence as well as ability to take and follow direction.

Sit them down with some plants and you lose all of those things
(and what if a plant *dies*?!)

There\'s also a psychological/emotional aspect of the process.  You want
them to feel like they have succeeded, not been overwhelmed by the
\"project\".  This wants to be a \"productive\" experience for them, even
if someone else could do their 4 hours of work in 15 minutes!

E.g., when we triage equipment for them to disassemble, we think carefully
about the types of tools they will need and the *number*.  Ideally, everything
comes apart with the *same* tool (e.g., #2 Phillips).  Processor heat sinks
are often daunting (too many variations of attachment techniques).

I find a big breaking and entering flat screwdriver very effective at getting
into recalcitrant LCD monitor assemblies. Increasingly they seem to be put
together on a hot glue once and for all basis That or a sharpened
paintscraper and hot air gun for the other difficult cases.

I use a tiny slotted screwdriver (just a wee bit bigger than a \"pot tweeker\").
Most of the monitors that I\'ve serviced are just snapped together with
semi-flexible plastic members. The trick is figuring out *where* they are
so you can coax them apart.

As I always want to reuse the (repaired) monitor, I can\'t afford to be
heavy-handed with the disassembly. But, we now get *so* many monitors
that repair only makes sense for units that I want to claim as my own
(if they don\'t work, there is no value to the organization beyond
\"scrap\" value -- AFTER someone has \"processed\" it -- so it\'s a \"perk\")

[We don\'t let these folks disassemble monitors as it\'s too frustrating.
And, even testing is debatable as they don\'t always know which connector
to use and how to select THAT video source to be displayed.]

And one very modern reprinting of Gauss\'s classic \"Theoria Motus\" in
translation with no ISBN at all - just a barcode number inside.

I find lots of titles with library of congress catalog numbers
(far too few digits for modern times) yet without ISBNs.  I wonder
what we\'ll do when books disappear?

I don\'t think that will happen any time soon.

How often do you see people \"read\" books? It seems like most \"reading\"
is wikis and search results. I have several 1000pp datasheets and I
make no claim to have *read* any of them in their entirety; I just
cherry pick the information that I *think* I need and revisit the
document if I find \"that didn\'t quite work\". It\'s as if everything
has become a \"reference\" to be consulted in small pieces instead
of studied in entirety.

I use the same approach in preparing my documentation; can\'t expect someone
to wade through 1000pp before they can get to work using (or modifying)
something. So, \"design\" the documents in a way that makes them easy to
access as *references* and provide enough hints (and cross-references) as
to other topics that may be pertinent in a given description.

But the digitisation programme of
ancient texts is proceeding apace. One of the most obscure books I have
referred to recently was written by Barker in 1757 - the language is arcane
English but he describes solving a cubic equation.

You have to Google with its title to find the book on Google books. Amazon will
sell you a copy for ~£20 but even for a specialist I\'m not sure it is good
value for money.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/discoveries-concerning-improvements-constructing-calculating/dp/1170637019

\"discoveries concerning comets,\" is the minimal search term to hit it.

I see this as a double-edged sword: a win in that it makes much more
material \"accessible\" (easier) but a risk of creating a two-tiered
set of \"material\" as someone is deciding what order to do these
conversions -- do the early converts gain more influence than those
who are slower to the party?

[We inherited a really *ancient* encyclopedia when I was a kid.
I was surprised, as I grew older, that the \"new\" encyclopedia
at school didn\'t have all of the same information. It\'s as if
someone had culled what they thought unimportant from earlier
knowledge giving preference to that which they retained]

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/03/2023 12:26, Don Y wrote:

On 3/6/2023 3:34 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/03/2023 18:28, Don Y wrote:
On 3/5/2023 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/03/2023 13:17, Don Y wrote:

Ooooo!  Thunderbirds are on TV!  The REAL ones, not that CGI crap.
What a goof!  Gotta go...  (priororities)

Thunderbirds are GO!

They just don\'t look right without the strings attached!

F A B

Have you seen the TB 6 film?  All cgi.  <frown>  Best part of the
film was the \"special features\" showing vintage footage of
supermarionation.

No. I only remember the original TB 6 from 1968 - a Gipsy Tiger Moth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_6

Yes, I have that on DVD.  I misremembered.  There was another
\"Thunderbirds\"
movie (with CGI) and the \"special features\" included some snippets of the
original marionettes.  I will have to look through my collection...

This one from 2004? I haven\'t seen it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(2004_film)

We are spoilt by modern CGI effects movies.

Sadly, the \"effects\" are more than the film, often.  OTOH, when I do
small 3D animations and see the number of MIPS that go into the effort,
I have a special appreciation for how filmmakers can put together
a film that they can\'t *see* in real time -- until it\'s \"done\"
(rendered).  With live acting, you can do another take in a matter
of minutes and make changes on the fly.  Not so with CGI.

I have a lot of sympathy for performers working against a green screen
and talking to a green ball on a stick held up by some minion all
dressed in green like a Japanese puppeteer would be in black.

I enjoyed films like Forbidden Planet -- even though their \"effects\"
(matte paintings, etc.) were hokey.  And, \"Robbie\" has to be the
best mechanical man ever created (sorry C3PO).  He (the prop)
would be cool to have standing in your living room or greeting
guests at the front door!

Robbie the robot was fun back in those days. That and Fireball XL5...
I have a friend with a real ex-BBC series 1 Dalek in their living room.


--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 3/6/2023 8:03 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

Have you seen the TB 6 film?  All cgi.  <frown>  Best part of the
film was the \"special features\" showing vintage footage of
supermarionation.

No. I only remember the original TB 6 from 1968 - a Gipsy Tiger Moth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_6

Yes, I have that on DVD.  I misremembered.  There was another \"Thunderbirds\"
movie (with CGI) and the \"special features\" included some snippets of the
original marionettes.  I will have to look through my collection...

This one from 2004? I haven\'t seen it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(2004_film)

Likely so. I recall Frakes\' involvement with it (and, given what a dog
it was, can\'t imagine he followed up with a SECOND effort!)

We are spoilt by modern CGI effects movies.

Sadly, the \"effects\" are more than the film, often.  OTOH, when I do
small 3D animations and see the number of MIPS that go into the effort,
I have a special appreciation for how filmmakers can put together
a film that they can\'t *see* in real time -- until it\'s \"done\"
(rendered).  With live acting, you can do another take in a matter
of minutes and make changes on the fly.  Not so with CGI.

I have a lot of sympathy for performers working against a green screen and
talking to a green ball on a stick held up by some minion all dressed in green
like a Japanese puppeteer would be in black.

Yup. Watching the making of \"special feature\" associated with
\"Ready Player One\", it was amazing to see how anyone could act
and direct on/in what was nothing more than a green *room*
(half of the film is CGI in a virtual world so even the
hills, stairs, etc. are \"virtual\" yet the actors have to
move in a 3d space as if they were there!)

I enjoyed films like Forbidden Planet -- even though their \"effects\"
(matte paintings, etc.) were hokey.  And, \"Robbie\" has to be the
best mechanical man ever created (sorry C3PO).  He (the prop)
would be cool to have standing in your living room or greeting
guests at the front door!

Robbie the robot was fun back in those days. That and Fireball XL5...

He was present in a number of films \"intact\". And, I recall his *body*
being used in at least one other (but with a different *head* -- WTF?)

> I have a friend with a real ex-BBC series 1 Dalek in their living room.

That wouldn\'t have as much appeal on this side of the pond.
(and, it\'s not as articulated as Robbie so it would just be
like an upside-down trash can on wheels -- *if* mobile)

OTOH, a TARDIS phone booth would be entertaining as it would
be recognizable *as* a phone booth... yet \"odd\" (not in the
nature of the booths that we had here a lifetime ago)

Extra points if it truly *was* larger on the inside!!

Movie props are always worth a chuckle, esp if for less well
known offerings. (I\'ve thought of making one of these:
<https://mega.nz/file/tyYmnTaD#cgWJqxwyOnR6GXtb_GUxLmwNlNP90XXC9wtqsT75hZs>
for the coffee table. Small enough to not be too obtrusive
and odd enough to turn heads. Of course, getting the mouse inside
would be a bit of a chore... OTOH, I\'m sure I could make it
\"randomly\" emit the appropriate noises!)