A couple of nights ago I watched a fascinating documentary about Napoleon Bonaparte and his ill-fated escape from Elba, and his return to France. As one of the historians said, the whole four or five months of 1815 could not have been written as a myth or legend any better than what unfolded.
Napoleon as everyone should know was the great general of France that let his sociopathic delusions of grandeur, get the better of him, by becoming Emperor of France and attempting to conquer the whole of Europe. He nearly succeeded, and only the Russian winter and a certain General sticking a thorn in his side down in Spain and Portugal, stopped Napoleon from achieving his dream.
Of course we all know who that general was; he was the Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley.
In February 1815, Napoleon (in what would be called the ‘hundred days’) with a tiny army of around 1000 of his greatest and most trusted troops, the Imperial Guard, landed near Cannes, he was not welcomed with open arms, the people did not want the little tyrant back. Napoleon did not let this stop him though, he knew if he could get the army on his side then France would be his once more. Arriving near Grenoble, in the centre of France, Napoleon was greeted by the new Royal French army; the monarchy had been restored after many years of the republic. In charge of this army was Marshal Ney, once part of Napoleons Grand Army, now supposedly Napoleons enemy. Bonaparte took one of his many gambles and stood facing this massive force, and he gave a speech, a speech that would lead to him retaking France and eventually meeting his nemesis Wellington at Waterloo.
Throughout Europe the fear generated by Napoleons return was tremendous, and the major powers thought it could be catastrophic, unless he was defeated, all the countries turned to Wellington. Two ragtag armies were being assembled in Belgium, one lead by Marshal Blucher, the ageing Prussian General, the other lead by Wellington.
Napoleon being Napoleon decided to ignore everything he had told his country, about not wanting to fight anymore battles or wars. Raised another Grand Army and went to Belgium to face Blucher and Wellington, he reasoned that the enemy was divided and this division may lead to their downfall. He noticed a split between the two armies and two full advantage of it. He faced Blucher’s Prussians and defeated them; he faced a small British force and could only manage a stalemate. He thought he had nearly won the battle, and he headed towards Brussels.
On the road to Brussels was a little known town called Waterloo, where Wellington had some years earlier, in a kind of sixth sense sort of way, decided he would be able to fight a battle there, if ever it was required. As he had predicted it was required and Wellington placed his troops on a ridge overlooking the whole battlefield; Napoleon was immediately at a disadvantage. As well as this, he had made a grave error of judgement, Bonaparte had sent 30,000 of his troops east supposedly chasing Blucher’s defeated army back to Prussia, but Blucher had went north and was waiting to help Wellington when the time arrived.
So to one of the most significant days in the history of Europe and the World; 17th June 1815, Napoleon with around 70,000 troops faced Wellingtons 60,000 troops. Blucher’s 50,000 were a day’s march away. I will not bore you with the details of the battle suffice to say, Napoleon did not have one of his better days in the field and was eventually routed by Wellington’s superior strategy. Napoleon showed his true colours in defeat and blamed everyone but himself for the loss. He was then exiled to St Helena, in the middle of the Atlantic where he died 6 years later.
The thing that fascinated me apart from the fact it’s an incredible part of history, is the fact it is a sort of mythical battle Waterloo, two great generals who had never fought each other directly facing off for the future of Europe. How significant a battle it turned out to be, there was not another battle in Europe for hundred years afterwards (unless you count the Crimea). There is also the similarities with Hitler and his Wehrmacht matching across Europe, losing in the Russian winter. There is a quote from a captured German general during the Second World War, he said, “There are two people who did not know it gets cold during winter in Russia, Hitler and Napoleon”.
I also find it strange the way Napoleon is thought of in history as being some kind of great hero, which clearly he wasn’t. He was no different to Hitler in many ways, OK Hitler was the more evil man, but they were both deluded sociopaths, megalomaniacs, who had a mass of good fortune, and started to think of themselves as god like, and invincible, which eventually lead to the downfall.
I am not sure what point I am trying to make apart from the fact of the significance of insignificant situations and circumstances, and how these can turn into dreadful misery for many concerned. The fact that power hungry megalomaniacs never seen to learn from past megalomaniacs, I also find interesting; as Hitler was well aware of Napoleon and wanted to emulate him.
In the end I just marvelled at the mythical status of the battle of Waterloo, and thought of other similar battles with similar significance in history. From Alexander the Great, at Gaugamela, or Hannibal, Julius Caesar, William the Conquer at Hastings, Henry V, at Agincourt. Or Battle of Blenheim, and Nelson at Trafalgar. The significance of the Battle of Yorktown, and of course the many battles throughout the first and second world wars. How many of them hinged on small insignificant things, and how easily history might be different if those insignificant things had not happened or others had happened in their place.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Friday, 14 January 2011
Changing Society for the better
You know I have been thinking about the whole global warming, climate change argument, and why it seems to be necessary in this day and age to sensationalise and exaggerate issues around the world, because it is the only way to change the greedy, selfish attitudes, of many humans.
I remember when I was at school, one of my more eccentric teachers told us how many of the patents to improve life are hidden away, stifled, and literately stopped from happening by large corporations, so we still use oil, we still buy products, and they still make profit.
I wonder if; because of this pig headed attitude towards our planet, and the life forms on it in general, activists accentuate the global warming argument, to make corporations change their attitude and in doing so change our all our lives for the better. I would like to think this is the primary goal, but they seem to go about it wrongly in my opinion.
Then again maybe they haven’t, I have just watched a commercial, where a car company is making their cars more efficient, so they don’t use energy when stationary. I have seen other car companies selling the same ideas, then we have the introduction of hybrid cars (though I feel at present they are more a gimmick than actually doing any good). I remember reading about hydro cars, which I think is the way we should be going.
So all this scaring us to death, is trying to bring about change; to improve our planet and how we exist on it. We lie or exaggerate, make things up, confuse but in the end if we have clean cars, cheap energy and a better standard of living. Is it all worth it? I suspect it is; the problem I have is the fact we have to go to such lengths to see these changes happen.
We shouldn’t have to deceive, delude, confuse or even make people feel guilty to get these changes to happen, because it is not the general public that forces these situations it is the greedy profit making companies, institutions, governments, you name it. And unfortunately we the public have to suffer until the greedy buggers change.
Surely there is an easier way. Surely we need to stop the stupid ideology of stopping patents which may have a beneficial affect on the planet, from being bought and lost in some corporate red tape and bureaucracy. If it can improve, or might improve, it should not be stifled, it should be immediately comprehended, tried and tested, to see if it can have a benefit to us. To hell with profit and protecting old and divisive products and consumables, we need to change this type of thinking.
Would it be better to be honest and say, we are not using our incredible intelligence to its proper levels, by being obsessed with exponential growth, profit and greed? Than to say untruths about our planet like CO2 causes global warming.
It’s just a thought.
I remember when I was at school, one of my more eccentric teachers told us how many of the patents to improve life are hidden away, stifled, and literately stopped from happening by large corporations, so we still use oil, we still buy products, and they still make profit.
I wonder if; because of this pig headed attitude towards our planet, and the life forms on it in general, activists accentuate the global warming argument, to make corporations change their attitude and in doing so change our all our lives for the better. I would like to think this is the primary goal, but they seem to go about it wrongly in my opinion.
Then again maybe they haven’t, I have just watched a commercial, where a car company is making their cars more efficient, so they don’t use energy when stationary. I have seen other car companies selling the same ideas, then we have the introduction of hybrid cars (though I feel at present they are more a gimmick than actually doing any good). I remember reading about hydro cars, which I think is the way we should be going.
So all this scaring us to death, is trying to bring about change; to improve our planet and how we exist on it. We lie or exaggerate, make things up, confuse but in the end if we have clean cars, cheap energy and a better standard of living. Is it all worth it? I suspect it is; the problem I have is the fact we have to go to such lengths to see these changes happen.
We shouldn’t have to deceive, delude, confuse or even make people feel guilty to get these changes to happen, because it is not the general public that forces these situations it is the greedy profit making companies, institutions, governments, you name it. And unfortunately we the public have to suffer until the greedy buggers change.
Surely there is an easier way. Surely we need to stop the stupid ideology of stopping patents which may have a beneficial affect on the planet, from being bought and lost in some corporate red tape and bureaucracy. If it can improve, or might improve, it should not be stifled, it should be immediately comprehended, tried and tested, to see if it can have a benefit to us. To hell with profit and protecting old and divisive products and consumables, we need to change this type of thinking.
Would it be better to be honest and say, we are not using our incredible intelligence to its proper levels, by being obsessed with exponential growth, profit and greed? Than to say untruths about our planet like CO2 causes global warming.
It’s just a thought.
Absolute Zero and the Speed of Light. Waves, Particles, Energy, it's all a bit confusing.
An unusual thought has just popped into my head, and it has got me thinking, I was watching a doc about temperature last night. It is mostly normal, basic stuff, most people should know but clearly don’t; anyway, they are talking about Absolute Zero minus 273 C or 0K, and how you never can reach it. No matter how hard they try to reduce the temperature, by the methods required, they can only ever get close to it. Now this has got me thinking, we say you cannot go faster than the speed of light and when we try to achieve that speed we fall short, getting to 99.99 whatever percent of it.
I am a little confused, maybe I need to do a little bit of research, but all night it has been going through my head, the idea of light being a wave and a particle. The nagging thought that won’t leave me is how light travels at the speed it travels at, and does it do this as a wave or as a particle, I presume the former. Then I thought some more and realised that a wave is only a frequency so to speak (apologies for my laymen’s terms here), the visible part of the whole Electromagnetic spectrum, and then I got more confused, because the spectrum based on the frequency, changes the wave, shorter waves are gamma, x-ray, ultraviolet. Longer waves radio, infrared, and the infrared bit are where the heat comes from. Now what is confusing me, is this; if temperature is just the speed in which atoms move, how do Electromagnetic waves move at the speed of light through deep space, if the temperature through parts of space is near to being, Absolute Zero. Or have I missed something here? If atoms find it difficult to move when temps near Absolute Zero, how does light move at the speed of light, if you know what I mean.
The other perplexing thing for me is this; light can be a particle and a wave, does this mean that the energy emitted hits the particle that makes light, the photon; or is the photon travelling through space at the speed of light, as a wave? Wow this is the most baffled I have been by science for a while, well the basic science I know at least.
Surely the speed of atoms cannot be the only way to produce heat, since the light bursting from every star would produce more heat in a similar vein the amount of light we see from stars. How come we can see light from a distant star but not feel its heat? Or is this to do with the frequency of waves, plus how does the heat or light get from the star to us? I know this maybe a stupid question, but I don’t know. Then again is it just that somehow the energy from the sun has an effect on the atoms even at massive distances causing them to move hence creating the heat?
I realise that the sun is a massive fusion reactor and the smashing of Hydrogen atoms together, fusing them, creates Helium and a tiny amount of energy is released and this energy somehow blasts out of the sun and in approximately 8 minutes, it reaches us in the form of light, heat, and all the other waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, some are blocked by our atmosphere and our own electromagnetic field, others (the ones we use and need) hit our planet and create life. What is the energy, as it leaves our sun and how does it travel here so quickly? And of course it then travels passed us and continues onwards and upwards to the outer solar system and then on further. Is this just plasma? Is the energy travelling as plasma, or I am missing the boat again. I know I am waffling now and I have completely gone off on a tangent from where I originally started, but it is all so confusing.
Space is cold, just above Absolute Zero, at these temperatures atoms have no energy and so cannot move, yet the movement of atoms and I presume particles causes heat, or at least the rise in temperature, yet electromagnetic energy does not seem to be affected by this. It can move at incredible speeds no matter the temperature, yet this does not make sense since energy according to what I have read, “In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. ...”
But isn’t light energy? And if it is, how the hell does it travel so fast without creating heat? Unless it doesn’t, and something else is at work, something we have not figured out yet. Or is it that heat can only be created by a particle moving fast (atom molecule etc), because of the Electromagnetic spectrum.
So back to my original idea about the connection between Absolute Zero and the Speed of Light, one moves fast as a wave I presume (since if it was a particle it would create heat) without producing heat. The other is a circumstance of no movement, the point where there is no energy and atoms or particles are static, and change into a superconductor and work in some kind of unusual tandem state.
Haha I suppose this is why physics and the Universe and science and everything involved in the whys and wherefores of our existence is so fascinating. I could sit here all day writing like this but I can imagine it would be dull and boring to read. It might come in useful in the future though, at least for me it will.
Back to my original argument again, I will have to think it through further, but something seems to connect the two, apart from the obvious, energy or the lack of. Or is it our perception of this energy that is the key, does it mean anything to have speed of light multiplied by speed of particles or is it divided or is it particles by waves, who knows but it is fascinating to think about. Brilliant I haven’t had a barmy thought like that for ages.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Test, One Day, or 20/20
As I have mentioned many times I don’t like cricket eh, oh no, I love it, haha. Anyway humour aside I do like to watch and even play cricket, it was a game I was not bad at as a child, but never played enough to get any better at. Hopefully that might change soon.
Digressing again, which form of cricket do I like the best, well that depends on who is playing? I will say I prefer the long game, Test Cricket is definitely the least popular because to most people it is boring, dull, and uninteresting, where nothing seems to happen for long periods of time and then after all this time, it can end up a draw. To me that is missing the point of Test Cricket. I see it as a chess match, a battle of wits and nerves, of skill and determination, as Kipling writes, “Can you keep your head when all around you are losing theirs”. You need to be mentally tough to play Test Cricket, and it’s also a lot to do with statistics, which I also like; highest averages, big scores, most wickets, etc, etc. If you are a professional cricketer, the pinnacle of your sport is to play Test Cricket for your country, if you are English or Australian, it is to play and win the Ashes. I know this sounds boring, but I find parts of test cricket, extremely exciting, nail biting at times. When England was on the verge of beating Australia, in 05 at Edgbaston, on the Sunday morning of the 4th day; believe me that was nerve-racking stuff to watch. We just managed to beat them by 2 runs.
One day cricket you could say is more exciting especially when you get down to the end, but there is less skill involved or should I say a different type of skill. I still like to watch it, but I am not enthused as much by the shorter format, as I am with Test Cricket. One day cricket like Test Cricket was started in England in the 70’s I think, but became popular down under when Kerry Packer started his own World Series Cricket. Since then we have had One Day World Cups, and though popular, to me it’s just not the same as Test Cricket. If you ever look at the one day game, the players who are only noted as one day cricketers are not held in the same high esteem as the best Test Cricketers. I have also heard with the introduction of 20/20, One Dayers may be phased out altogether. I think that would be a shame because it is a good stepping stone between the other two formats, the slow Test and the super fast 20/20. One of the most exciting and possibly the greatest cricket match ever played was in this format, South Africa v Australia; it was being shown on Sky. I switched it on by accident, the Aussies were batting and they scored 6, after 6, after 6, and racked up a World Record 434, at the time no team had went near to 400 runs in a One Day game. Then the South Africans came out to bat, and well they just went for it, they had nothing to lose, it was one of those fantasy games you make up as a kid, in which ever sport you like. In Britain you could say it was one of the ‘Roy of the Rovers’ moments. South Africa hammered the ball all over the park, scoring 6’s and 4’s just as easily as the Aussies, and in the last over they hit the winning runs scoring a new World Record of 438 beating the Aussies, it was an incredible match to watch. Nearly 900 runs in a day, quite unbelievable and something that will never happen again unfortunately.
Twenty/20 or however it is written, is probably one of the fastest growing sports and initially I thought might become one of the biggest sports in the world; and it still might. If test cricket is about control, and skill, then 20/20 is wham bam, quick exciting form of the game. Or at least it was to begin with, in the beginning there were a lot of big scores by eager batsmen, belting the ball out of the ground, the first 20/20 World Cup in South Africa was brilliant to watch because of this. Lots of 6’s and 4’s, US style razzmatazz, I honestly thought this would be the game to sell to the Americans and it still maybe, its far more exciting than baseball. The problem I found with 20/20 happened when the bowlers figured out how to stifle the batsmen, stopping massive scores as many 6’s and 4’s and making the game less interesting. Hopefully considering it is still a fledgling sport it will find a happy medium in the middle. Yesterdays 20/20 Australia v England was exciting, nail biting right down to the last ball, but the scores were mediocre. Still 20/20 is popular with the average sports lover, who does not want to sit around all day, it can be more family orientated, and may eventually become popular in countries that presently do not play cricket. Still it does not take away the fact that even though 20/20 players can now be paid vast sums of money, especially in the IPL (Indian Premier League) the best test cricketers sometimes prefer to miss it out knowing their legacy is made in the longer game.
Digressing again, which form of cricket do I like the best, well that depends on who is playing? I will say I prefer the long game, Test Cricket is definitely the least popular because to most people it is boring, dull, and uninteresting, where nothing seems to happen for long periods of time and then after all this time, it can end up a draw. To me that is missing the point of Test Cricket. I see it as a chess match, a battle of wits and nerves, of skill and determination, as Kipling writes, “Can you keep your head when all around you are losing theirs”. You need to be mentally tough to play Test Cricket, and it’s also a lot to do with statistics, which I also like; highest averages, big scores, most wickets, etc, etc. If you are a professional cricketer, the pinnacle of your sport is to play Test Cricket for your country, if you are English or Australian, it is to play and win the Ashes. I know this sounds boring, but I find parts of test cricket, extremely exciting, nail biting at times. When England was on the verge of beating Australia, in 05 at Edgbaston, on the Sunday morning of the 4th day; believe me that was nerve-racking stuff to watch. We just managed to beat them by 2 runs.
One day cricket you could say is more exciting especially when you get down to the end, but there is less skill involved or should I say a different type of skill. I still like to watch it, but I am not enthused as much by the shorter format, as I am with Test Cricket. One day cricket like Test Cricket was started in England in the 70’s I think, but became popular down under when Kerry Packer started his own World Series Cricket. Since then we have had One Day World Cups, and though popular, to me it’s just not the same as Test Cricket. If you ever look at the one day game, the players who are only noted as one day cricketers are not held in the same high esteem as the best Test Cricketers. I have also heard with the introduction of 20/20, One Dayers may be phased out altogether. I think that would be a shame because it is a good stepping stone between the other two formats, the slow Test and the super fast 20/20. One of the most exciting and possibly the greatest cricket match ever played was in this format, South Africa v Australia; it was being shown on Sky. I switched it on by accident, the Aussies were batting and they scored 6, after 6, after 6, and racked up a World Record 434, at the time no team had went near to 400 runs in a One Day game. Then the South Africans came out to bat, and well they just went for it, they had nothing to lose, it was one of those fantasy games you make up as a kid, in which ever sport you like. In Britain you could say it was one of the ‘Roy of the Rovers’ moments. South Africa hammered the ball all over the park, scoring 6’s and 4’s just as easily as the Aussies, and in the last over they hit the winning runs scoring a new World Record of 438 beating the Aussies, it was an incredible match to watch. Nearly 900 runs in a day, quite unbelievable and something that will never happen again unfortunately.
Twenty/20 or however it is written, is probably one of the fastest growing sports and initially I thought might become one of the biggest sports in the world; and it still might. If test cricket is about control, and skill, then 20/20 is wham bam, quick exciting form of the game. Or at least it was to begin with, in the beginning there were a lot of big scores by eager batsmen, belting the ball out of the ground, the first 20/20 World Cup in South Africa was brilliant to watch because of this. Lots of 6’s and 4’s, US style razzmatazz, I honestly thought this would be the game to sell to the Americans and it still maybe, its far more exciting than baseball. The problem I found with 20/20 happened when the bowlers figured out how to stifle the batsmen, stopping massive scores as many 6’s and 4’s and making the game less interesting. Hopefully considering it is still a fledgling sport it will find a happy medium in the middle. Yesterdays 20/20 Australia v England was exciting, nail biting right down to the last ball, but the scores were mediocre. Still 20/20 is popular with the average sports lover, who does not want to sit around all day, it can be more family orientated, and may eventually become popular in countries that presently do not play cricket. Still it does not take away the fact that even though 20/20 players can now be paid vast sums of money, especially in the IPL (Indian Premier League) the best test cricketers sometimes prefer to miss it out knowing their legacy is made in the longer game.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Day
Day move by as you would, so I can understand you more,
Day move by faster if you are being such a bore,
Day move by slower if things are turning out to be good,
Day please stop if you are greater than you could,
Day what are you really, a bit of light, a bit of dark,
Day sometimes nothing, other times you leave your mark,
Day when you finally end, I hope I will miss you greatly,
Day when you say goodbye forever, I will say thanks for meeting thee.
Day move by faster if you are being such a bore,
Day move by slower if things are turning out to be good,
Day please stop if you are greater than you could,
Day what are you really, a bit of light, a bit of dark,
Day sometimes nothing, other times you leave your mark,
Day when you finally end, I hope I will miss you greatly,
Day when you say goodbye forever, I will say thanks for meeting thee.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
A Gory Painting
Apologies I have a weird sense of humour but I found this comment hilariously funny. I also apologise for entering tennis geekidom, by even writing about it. It was said by a tennis commentator, about Rafa Nadal, after he just blasted a forehand winner. This is roughly what he said.
“It’s not an impressionist painting is it? It’s more of a gory one”.
Well I thought it was a funny haha analogy to say, and made me laugh. I told you I had a weird sense of humour, but describing Nadal’s tennis being like a gory painting, I suppose in contrast to Federer’s impressionist style of tennis, I just thought was funny.
I would describe Nadal’s tennis, if like a painting genre, more similar to modern abstract. Loads of colour, totally illogical, but somehow it just works.
Maybe that is what the commentator meant by gory, who knows, I just found it incredibly funny. I like to make analogies and I suppose in some ways I can see what he means, but Nadal’s tennis isn’t gory; it’s brutal and destructively devastating for any opponent, but it’s never gory.
“It’s not an impressionist painting is it? It’s more of a gory one”.
Well I thought it was a funny haha analogy to say, and made me laugh. I told you I had a weird sense of humour, but describing Nadal’s tennis being like a gory painting, I suppose in contrast to Federer’s impressionist style of tennis, I just thought was funny.
I would describe Nadal’s tennis, if like a painting genre, more similar to modern abstract. Loads of colour, totally illogical, but somehow it just works.
Maybe that is what the commentator meant by gory, who knows, I just found it incredibly funny. I like to make analogies and I suppose in some ways I can see what he means, but Nadal’s tennis isn’t gory; it’s brutal and destructively devastating for any opponent, but it’s never gory.
Gory implies a lack of self control, limited mindfulness, and no will power; which Nadal certainly does not lack in every aspect, more so excels in, way beyond normality. Maybe that is why I found it so funny.
Monday, 3 January 2011
3D – Does it have a future?
I watched Tron Legacy at the IMAX 3D cinema yesterday, and I thought it was excellent, far better than I expected. I had a feeling it would be one of the few films presently being produced, which I actually thought would benefit from 3D. The only other film was of course Avatar, but most 3D creations have so far either not been necessary, or made the film worse. When I watched Toy Story 3D I didn’t think the film was enhanced greatly by the 3D, it was just as good in 2D. I didn’t think Alice in Wonderland, was better in 3D and Clash of the Titans was much, much worse. You get the impression the big studios licked their greedy lips after Avatar, but only a fool would think the cash cow could continue for long. And they were even more foolish by drastically shortening its longevity by making so much crap in 3D. Will 3D survive the cinemas devaluation of the product, maybe not? Somehow though I think it will, and it will thrive.
Why?
They did not realise what it was about Avatar that made people go wow, and want to go back and see it again. It wasn’t the story or the characters; it was the wonder and joy of witnessing an alien world with florescence, and all its bluish beauty. It was the flying in amongst the clouds, weaving between the floating mountains, and lush green forest. With Tron, it was fluorescence again, this time enhanced by music.
Seeing Woody with Buzz is not any funnier in 3D, neither will Captain Jack Sparrow in the next Pirates film, or Harry Potter flourishing his wand, yet we have or will be nearly forced to watch these films in 3D, and then there is all the dreadful garbage that is also produced. Will they eventually learn, I somehow doubt they will, before it’s too late, TV will rule 3D.
I am not sure about the rest of the world but I would expect it is likely the same, 3D TV is starting to take off, once Murdoch and Sky started showing sports, especially football, 3D TV seems to be on the increase. I expect everyone will have a 3D TV in less than 5 years because so much TV will be made in 3D. Most people will probably say rubbish, but here is why I think so, for one Sky or Murdoch, who owns Fox, and most of the newspapers in the world, as well as news channels, you name it he has a finger in the pie if its media communication. They start with films then sport, sports grows from football (soccer if you are American), darts, golf, cricket, imagine American Football in 3D, they might be doing it already in the US; it would look pretty cool seeing the Super Bowl in 3D. I hear The Masters; golf major will be in 3D. So once sports are shown in 3D you have a massive audience, I then hear that Sir David Attenborough is creating a nature documentary series in 3D, how cool will that look? Documentaries will be created in 3D especially ones about nature or space, imagine seeing the Hubble imagines in 3D, wait a minute you can on a massive IMAX and if you live in the US. I would buy a 3D TV just for that alone, the one thing that I think would not do well, is drama, or comedy; horror knows they have a niche market, and definitely porn will find a way to make a buck or two.
Gaming will also benefit, and I would imagine the internet, dating sites will do a roaring business when you can see a 3D version of a potential partner. The ability to see objects we have never had the good fortune to see before, whatever they are. The opportunities are endless, making cheap 3D monitors for computers, so the internet will become 3D; I see that side of the 3D revolution potentially being the biggest, and most influential over all. Learning will never be the same again.
So even though the film industry has for years tried to destroy 3D, now technology has advance enough, to allow 3D to enter our living rooms, and change our visual experience for the first time since the emergence of television itself.
PS
I forgot the one area where we will see a 3D market, smart phones with 3D screens, and eventually the ability to show 3D without the need for glasses.
Why?
They did not realise what it was about Avatar that made people go wow, and want to go back and see it again. It wasn’t the story or the characters; it was the wonder and joy of witnessing an alien world with florescence, and all its bluish beauty. It was the flying in amongst the clouds, weaving between the floating mountains, and lush green forest. With Tron, it was fluorescence again, this time enhanced by music.
Seeing Woody with Buzz is not any funnier in 3D, neither will Captain Jack Sparrow in the next Pirates film, or Harry Potter flourishing his wand, yet we have or will be nearly forced to watch these films in 3D, and then there is all the dreadful garbage that is also produced. Will they eventually learn, I somehow doubt they will, before it’s too late, TV will rule 3D.
I am not sure about the rest of the world but I would expect it is likely the same, 3D TV is starting to take off, once Murdoch and Sky started showing sports, especially football, 3D TV seems to be on the increase. I expect everyone will have a 3D TV in less than 5 years because so much TV will be made in 3D. Most people will probably say rubbish, but here is why I think so, for one Sky or Murdoch, who owns Fox, and most of the newspapers in the world, as well as news channels, you name it he has a finger in the pie if its media communication. They start with films then sport, sports grows from football (soccer if you are American), darts, golf, cricket, imagine American Football in 3D, they might be doing it already in the US; it would look pretty cool seeing the Super Bowl in 3D. I hear The Masters; golf major will be in 3D. So once sports are shown in 3D you have a massive audience, I then hear that Sir David Attenborough is creating a nature documentary series in 3D, how cool will that look? Documentaries will be created in 3D especially ones about nature or space, imagine seeing the Hubble imagines in 3D, wait a minute you can on a massive IMAX and if you live in the US. I would buy a 3D TV just for that alone, the one thing that I think would not do well, is drama, or comedy; horror knows they have a niche market, and definitely porn will find a way to make a buck or two.
Gaming will also benefit, and I would imagine the internet, dating sites will do a roaring business when you can see a 3D version of a potential partner. The ability to see objects we have never had the good fortune to see before, whatever they are. The opportunities are endless, making cheap 3D monitors for computers, so the internet will become 3D; I see that side of the 3D revolution potentially being the biggest, and most influential over all. Learning will never be the same again.
So even though the film industry has for years tried to destroy 3D, now technology has advance enough, to allow 3D to enter our living rooms, and change our visual experience for the first time since the emergence of television itself.
PS
I forgot the one area where we will see a 3D market, smart phones with 3D screens, and eventually the ability to show 3D without the need for glasses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)