In "Love's Labors Lost in Space", we see a hologram of a planet, Vergon 6, and a robot voice says "This is Vergon 6", only to be echoed by Farnsworth.
This metallic voice (and the name) seems to ring a bell. Where was it from? A video game, a sci-fi show?
Gorizo
"Gorizo" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
from? A
AFAIR it is the voice of David X. Cohen. Holograms with robotic voices are very popular in the SF genre.
Michael Herzog wrote:
I have to say it did strike a weird cord for me as well. But I just wrote it off as coincidence. But perhaps there is something more too it.
On Fri, 04 May 2001 01:23:24 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:
Seeing how Futurama has payed homage/stolen ideas from every other Sci-Fi show ever made, it's no surprise that it rings a bell in someones head somewhere.
To stop you all scratching your heads trying to think where you heard it before. Vergon has probably reminded you of the Vogons in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
An impossible to answer question.
Where does homage stop and plagiarism start?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but X201 said...
I really don't see how the names and concepts could be related. On one hand, a dying planet and a crew which plans to pull a Noah on it, the other a group of nasty and ugly aliens who are feared by everyone.
No, it has to do with the metallic voice saying "THIS IS Vergon 6". I'm sure it's from somewhere and I shall not rest until I find it! If it's nothing, then why don't we ever see the hologram and hear the voice again later? It's gotta be something.
Gorizo
On Sat, 05 May 2001 02:28:59 GMT, [email] (Gorizo) wrote:
Has anyone got a wav or mp3 of it?
what ep was it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but X201 said...
It's from Loves Labors Lost in Space.
I'm posting an extract in avi form on alt.binaries.multimedia.futurama
Look for a post which looks like this: Attn: X201 - This is vergon 6 (extract, about 5 sec).
Gorizo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gorizo said...
sure
Oops, bad post. I'll do it again.
Gorizo
On Sun, 06 May 2001 03:00:55 GMT, [email] (Gorizo) wrote:
<snip>
Thanks got the post (both of them actually)
It is familiar.. can't think what it reminds me of though
On Sun, 06 May 2001 08:49:57 GMT, X201 wrote:
Wargames?
It was just a thought.
Oh, come on! You left out the best part: "And is that not what man has dreamt of since first time he looked up at the stars?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ostap Bender said...
I know. I really liked the "point 2", though. And besides, I follow netiquette (usenetiquette?), which stipulates a sig should not be more than 4 lines...
Gorizo
Gorizo wrote:
But how do you define 4 lines? I way up at 1280X1024 and all that would fit in 1 line. Besides the 4 line thing is ancient, back when 9600 Baud modems were considered really really fast it was important. Now days its just something people use as a means of bitching at other people.
"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...
fit in 1
something
Sorry, but you're a little off base. I refer you to son of 1036:
Posting agents SHOULD limit the length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering on abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a common limit.
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html#4.3.2
It's not a hard fast rule, but flaunting it would definitely be poor netiquette. Your sig isn't that bad (you *could* fit it into 4 lines tho')...but look at the reasoning there, "verbose excess bordering on abuse is common if no restraint is imposed".
LooseChanj wrote:
"Early difficulties in inferring return addresses from article headers led to "signatures": short closing texts, automatically added to the end of articles by posting agents, identifying the poster and giving his network addresses etc. If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to an article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD limit the length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering on abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a common limit."
Im afraid it actually says nothing official about an absolute 4 line limit. It states the Mechanical construction of a Signature then it wanders off into Should territory. And makes an assumptive statement about limits not based on any solid fact. It then goes on in "notes:" to state unnecessary and unwanted personal opinion.
Infact the only real limitation I see is 4.6 "All implementations MUST be able to handle an article totalling at least 65,000 octets, including headers and EOL representations, gracefully and efficiently. All implementations SHOULD be able to handle an article totalling at least 1,000,000 (one million) octets, including headers and EOL representations, gracefully and efficiently. "Gracefully and efficiently" is intended to preclude not only failures, but also major loss of performance, serious problems in error recovery, or resource consumption beyond what is reasonably necessary. "
Which proposes a maximum acceptable limit at 1,000,000 octets, and a standard of 65,000. As long as the post remains within these boundaries it is mechanically acceptable. It then goes back into Should territory again stating personal opinion.
This document seems to have trouble separating Mechanical formatting standards from Personal opinion. And I find that very unprofessional.
"Mike Zaite" schrieb
limit.
It's no law and this newsgroup is in the alt.* hierarchy. Just don't use more than 10 lines. ;)
Well, in that case i think it'd be fair to sacrifice the first two lines in favor the last.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ostap Bender said...
Hmm... Interesting idea. But I like it the way it is because it crosses Star Trek and Futurama. Like my previous one, "A good captain needs many skills, such as daring, boldness, and a velour uniform."
Still, the "And in the end, isn't that what man has always dreamed about" is quite funny, but it's the start that got to me. You have to hear it said, in written form, it's a little bland, I admit.
Gorizo