Recommended Posts

On 21/02/2023 at 16:10, George P said:

how heavy it is with the Easter eggs and nostalgia

I feel it’s fair in a 1st episode kinda way. There’s some world building and so on, plus I get the feeling that the past will be relevant here.

So much Star Trek 3 tho, loved it!

So, I've just finished watching episode 2 and finally realised what's been bothering me.... The Titan-A.. It's the wrong class of ship!!! I guess I've not really been paying attention, but that is NOT a Luna class design, which the Titan is KNOWN to be! That's a Constitution III !!  What the hell?!  Even with a refit, you don't change a ship class to a completely obsolete century old one!!

 

On 24/02/2023 at 15:54, FloatingFatMan said:

So, I've just finished watching episode 2 and finally realised what's been bothering me.... The Titan-A.. It's the wrong class of ship!!! I guess I've not really been paying attention, but that is NOT a Luna class design, which the Titan is KNOWN to be! That's a Constitution III !!  What the hell?!  Even with a refit, you don't change a ship class to a completely obsolete century old one!!

 

said it in the first episode, "Neo" Constitution , what ever that means. I wish they'd turn on the lights

  • Like 1
On 24/02/2023 at 10:54, FloatingFatMan said:

So, I've just finished watching episode 2 and finally realised what's been bothering me.... The Titan-A.. It's the wrong class of ship!!! I guess I've not really been paying attention, but that is NOT a Luna class design, which the Titan is KNOWN to be! That's a Constitution III !!  What the hell?!  Even with a refit, you don't change a ship class to a completely obsolete century old one!!

 

Some info on that, https://gizmodo.com/star-trek-picard-titan-neo-constitution-enterprise-1850128821

Otherwise, episode 2 was pretty good.

Spoiler

Captain Vadic acts like a child with a ship of mass destruction and she knows way too much information about Starfleet.

Worf was awesome and interesting that he's Raffi handler.

I'm still on the fence that Jack is Picard son, let alone naming him after her late husband.  But we'll see and if so, why did Crusher teach him to be a 'criminal'?

I'm liking Shaw :D

 

On 24/02/2023 at 16:12, primortal said:

I read that and all I see are the words  "We don't give a flying f*ck about established facts, canon or anything else. We're going throw ALL that away and do what we want because we don't care.

 

On 24/02/2023 at 16:12, primortal said:

Otherwise, episode 2 was pretty good.

  Hide contents

Captain Vadic acts like a child with a ship of mass destruction and she knows way too much information about Starfleet.

Worf was awesome and interesting that he's Raffi handler.

I'm still on the fence that Jack is Picard son, let alone naming him after her late husband.  But we'll see and if so, why did Crusher teach him to be a 'criminal'?

I'm liking Shaw :D

 

Spoiler

Vadic is your typical OP villain with an OP ship, in much the same way Nero and the Narada were in Abrams Lensflare Trek...

Worf looks GREAT with white hair.

Jack sure as hell doesn't look around 20, which he would HAVE to be... And yes... She wouldn't teach him to be a criminal... Period.

Shaw is a dick. I hope he stays. :p

Have to say, episode 2 and I'm rapidly going off it already...

 

On 24/02/2023 at 18:07, Som said:

said it in the first episode, "Neo" Constitution , what ever that means. I wish they'd turn on the lights

It means what it says, it's a bit of old mixed in with some new.  It actually goes back to the roots of kit bashing the show has done in the past. 

  • Like 2
On 24/02/2023 at 17:54, FloatingFatMan said:

So, I've just finished watching episode 2 and finally realised what's been bothering me.... The Titan-A.. It's the wrong class of ship!!! I guess I've not really been paying attention, but that is NOT a Luna class design, which the Titan is KNOWN to be! That's a Constitution III !!  What the hell?!  Even with a refit, you don't change a ship class to a completely obsolete century old one!!

 

It's not a old one, aside from sharing some of the older saucer section design from the front.  Anything mid-saucer and back is all new. 

 

And what does it matter if the Titan was a Luna class originally?  The enterprise has changed class 5 times by my count.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
On 24/02/2023 at 16:30, George P said:

It's not a old one, aside from sharing some of the older saucer section design from the front.  Anything mid-saucer and back is all new. 

 

And what does it matter if the Titan was a Luna class originally?  The enterprise has changed class 5 times by my count.  

Because it's a refit, not a new build...  And honestly, it's not even really that. The problem is that it's just one more case of the current show runners not giving a flying crap about what already exists and just doing what THEY want because they can.  It's another beardless lady dwarf in LOTR...

On 24/02/2023 at 08:34, FloatingFatMan said:

Because it's a refit, not a new build...  And honestly, it's not even really that. The problem is that it's just one more case of the current show runners not giving a flying crap about what already exists and just doing what THEY want because they can.  It's another beardless lady dwarf in LOTR...

Repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax...

On 24/02/2023 at 18:34, FloatingFatMan said:

Because it's a refit, not a new build...  And honestly, it's not even really that. The problem is that it's just one more case of the current show runners not giving a flying crap about what already exists and just doing what THEY want because they can.  It's another beardless lady dwarf in LOTR...

It's a refit of the constitution class not the Luna class.  We've already established that ship names can be transformed to a different class.  So where is the problem exactly?    Where does it state in the canon that they can't go back and refit / modernize the older designs anymore? 

 

You're making up a issue where there isn't one. 

On 24/02/2023 at 21:07, George P said:

It's a refit of the constitution class not the Luna class.  We've already established that ship names can be transformed to a different class.  So where is the problem exactly?    Where does it state in the canon that they can't go back and refit / modernize the older designs anymore? 

 

You're making up a issue where there isn't one. 

Quiet possibly his issue is the -A designation. 

On 25/02/2023 at 02:07, George P said:

It's a refit of the constitution class not the Luna class.  We've already established that ship names can be transformed to a different class.  So where is the problem exactly?    Where does it state in the canon that they can't go back and refit / modernize the older designs anymore? 

 

You're making up a issue where there isn't one. 

Because it BUGS me, mainly because of their admission in the press.  They didn't do it for any in-canon reason, they did it because they thought it LOOKS cool and nothing else.  Am I not allowed to get annoyed by things any more?

If your favourite franchise was Fast and Furious, and they decided to swap out all the cool cars for bright pink Prius' because the director liked them, wouldn't that annoy you?

On 25/02/2023 at 08:39, FloatingFatMan said:

Because it BUGS me, mainly because of their admission in the press.  They didn't do it for any in-canon reason, they did it because they thought it LOOKS cool and nothing else.  Am I not allowed to get annoyed by things any more?

If your favourite franchise was Fast and Furious, and they decided to swap out all the cool cars for bright pink Prius' because the director liked them, wouldn't that annoy you?

At this point in Trek we should be used to getting new ships in new shows unless they are like SNW and restricted by story setting.  

I mean what was the in-canon reason for the enterprise-e changing class?  And don't tell me it's because the D crashed because we both know that there's more than just one galaxy class ship in the fleet. 

 

No, I bet the reason why is because the creators of first contact wanted a cool new looking ship.    

On 25/02/2023 at 10:48, George P said:

No, I bet the reason why is because the creators of first contact wanted a cool new looking ship.

It’s because it looked better on a cinema screen. So arguably “a ship looking better” is canonically valid.

As for the A registration. Potentially the first Titan wasn’t relevant enough for a legacy registration. You often get new ships observing older names without a legacy. But then the 2nd Titan was - hence the next ship carries that legacy.

On 25/02/2023 at 06:39, FloatingFatMan said:

If your favourite franchise was Fast and Furious, and they decided to swap out all the cool cars for bright pink Prius' because the director liked them, wouldn't that annoy you?

I was mildly annoyed when Michael Bay changed Optimus Prime but I realised that the design was old, this was a new imagining and got over it. Then they revealed the lips…

On 24/02/2023 at 16:07, Som said:

I wish they'd turn on the lights

Ah right, I think I can address this. In established cannon (which I couldn’t give a damn about cos it’s fiction) it’s said that they dim the lights for certain shifts to maintain the illusion of night and day.

We know we have seen the interior of the Titan ad dinner time, and evening by what Vadek says… so there’s that. But yeah, it does feel a bit “constantly dark”, which (to me) feels more warship than exploratory science vessel.

On 25/02/2023 at 10:48, George P said:

At this point in Trek we should be used to getting new ships in new shows unless they are like SNW and restricted by story setting.  

I mean what was the in-canon reason for the enterprise-e changing class?  And don't tell me it's because the D crashed because we both know that there's more than just one galaxy class ship in the fleet. 

 

No, I bet the reason why is because the creators of first contact wanted a cool new looking ship.    

Because the Enterprise is long established as the fleet flagship...  Why would the flagship be an older design if a new one is available?

On 25/02/2023 at 10:53, Dick Montage said:

I was mildly annoyed when Michael Bay changed Optimus Prime but I realised that the design was old, this was a new imagining and got over it. Then they revealed the lips…

Now imagine those lips are the saucer section of a Trek starship, and the ships computer core has a really bad Jamaican accent...

But anyway, if you guys like it, fine. I don't. I think it looks stupid and ugly and I'm perfectly within my rights to feel that way.

As for the show.  So far it's... oookaaay.... I guess.... But I have a few issues with what I'm sure you guys would call "irrelevant details".... They're not BIG issues, but they exist and they're enough to notice and to consider either lazy writing, or lacking of care for the existing world.  I also feel they're being too big on the action.  That's a fault of modern TV shows so it's not just Trek, but it's a damn shame as it's not really what Trek should be...  Can't we just have an intriguing mystery for a change instead of having to ALWAYS resort to the pew pew?

On 25/02/2023 at 15:13, FloatingFatMan said:

Selective quoting huh? Figures.

Only selecting that same "old man, not my Trek" stuff you always post.  And don't get me wrong... I get it, it's NOT "your Trek"...  You clearly love the more cerebral old-Trek, and sometimes so do I.  But let's not kid ourselves that it threw cannon straight out the airlock at times.  Heck, there have been more than 4 QUADRANTS at certain times.  Ship names were used, re-used with wild abandon.  Designs have been constantly changed to suit what works either in-production or on-screen (how many variants of the Enterprise D have we seen, I can count 3 - with no in-story narrative to support this).

Is Trek now a bit of a mish-mash of fan-service, left-leaning politics, unlinked story telling, hero-focused sci-fi?  Yes, absolutely it is.  But here's a thing - it always was.

It just feels like you watch a show that you already know won't tick your specific boxes, and then have issue with it - shocking!  It's like you want to watch something you'll dislike just to come across as an old-timer who doesn't like the new stuff.  And I do it too, I genuinely hate what has happened to Transformers, for example.  Now I'm in no-way comparing an 80's cartoon to a 60s TV show, but it holds its place in my heart - as shoddy as it was.  And then Michael Bay (the most annoying director I can name right now) totally changed everything - and released a whole bunch of films that ignored each other, told hyperbole stories that contradicted established idea, and just made a mess.  So I stopped watching them because I knew I'd not enjoy them.  Arguably, I'm now talking about films I've not seen - but I've seen more than 50% of 7(?) films which is sufficient for me to have made my opinion.  And has it crapped all over my childhood?  Has it removed anything?  Nope - I can still re-watch the older stuff if I want, with no reference to the new.

And fair play, I know (for example) that you like Dune, and from previous conversations, you've got me to go and re-watch the 80s movie with Sting.  And yeah, I get the kind of sci-fi you like - I like some of that too.  So why do you seemingly torture yourself with shows you seem to dislike?  I couldn't get into The Expanse, American Horror Story, The Sopranos and possibly others - I gave them a go, I actually REALLY wanted to like them - but just didn't.  So I left them alone.  I may revisit in a few years, cos I know my tastes seem to evolve and change, but why waste my own time watching shows I'm not enjoying?

  • Like 3
On 26/02/2023 at 12:31, Dick Montage said:

And fair play, I know (for example) that you like Dune, and from previous conversations, you've got me to go and re-watch the 80s movie with Sting.  And yeah, I get the kind of sci-fi you like - I like some of that too.  So why do you seemingly torture yourself with shows you seem to dislike?  I couldn't get into The Expanse, American Horror Story, The Sopranos and possibly others - I gave them a go, I actually REALLY wanted to like them - but just didn't.  So I left them alone.  I may revisit in a few years, cos I know my tastes seem to evolve and change, but why waste my own time watching shows I'm not enjoying?

Why do I continue to watch it?  Because I still have hope.  Just a little, and it's getting smaller.  I don't hate Picard... Some of the stuff is interesting, but a lot of it is just... It's Michael Bay is what it is! I want to see some adventure.. not constant hyped up battles with overpowered enemies that only a Mary Sue can win.  They're cool in the right place, but it's seems to be 90% that, and 10% the rest, and I'm just... tired.. and sad... and I miss my friend.  I want to see Optimus Prime roll out on another adventure to thwart Megatron, not get wrapped up in a confusing fight with 6 dozen new enemies we've never seen before until he winds up in a giant space head playing bad 80's rock music... :p

Strange New Worlds has taken some strong positive steps in that direction, and Picard could do it too! It's just that... Well, I mean.. Come on man... it's PICARD and he's not meant to act like Ben Sisko!

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

It's Michael Bay is what it is!

That's a bit strong.  I'd love to post all the ways in which Bay is a horrendous director who doesn't actually understand storytelling, character focus, narrative, emotional connections and many more aspects of film-making, but it would be easier to just conjure up an image of a monkey with a camera, that's high on cocaine and furiously masturbating over Tony Scott's Top Gun.

 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

Because I still have hope.

So out of interest, tell me your favourite Star Trek storylines?  Maybe a conversation over message would be better for that...
 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

They're cool in the right place, but it's seems to be 90% that, and 10% the rest

Oh come on, that's really not fair.  We have had two episodes of Picard so far, and there's been essentially one skirmish.  Look at season 2, it was bookended with skirmishes, but beyond that?
 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

and I miss my friend

Mate, I feel that - that got me right in the chest.  But your friend has changed and become something you like less and less, and that happens.
 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

I want to see Optimus Prime roll out on another adventure to thwart Megatron, not get wrapped up in a confusing fight with 6 dozen new enemies we've never seen before until he winds up in a giant space head playing bad 80's rock music..

You and me both, but I guess like you - I've lost the desire for that.  Sure, if a competent director were to say "Here's a War For Cybertron movie, and it's gonna be war, the dark grimness of war, but with 80's style bots", I'd give them my time and money - but I know that I'm not gonna get it - I'm not the demographic they have targeted and I know that Hollyweird currently isn't in a place to even understand such things.
 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

Strange New Worlds has taken some strong positive steps in that direction

MASSIVE steps.  I am loving this show, and I really am keen to see more exploration stories, more stories of encountering new situations that don't involve firing phasers.  Pike is in a unique place to understand the future and it's implications - he has VERY quickly become a loved Captain in my eyes.
 

On 26/02/2023 at 14:56, FloatingFatMan said:

and Picard could do it too! It's just that... Well, I mean.. Come on man... it's PICARD and he's not meant to act like Ben Sisko!

And HE isn't.  I kinda feel like your issue with the show is not him, he's being Picard as far as I can tell.  He forgave his past in season 2 and we're seeing bits of the guy who fought Naussicans and so on.   But the show, a limited series on Prime... It's not for syndication, it's for subscribers - and they need something really marketable and in your face.

My only issue with Season 2 was they retcon'd some of his established past...

Also, he's not acting like Sisko... I don't see prophets or visions ... or "mad man" eques tendencies.   I see him Picarding, doing the right thing just as he's always done.  He's older, and wiser (hopefully), we don't know everything that went on in the 20+ year gap since Nemesis, especially since they technically reset the book universe to align back with the show, would have loved to see them at least bring some of that universe into the show.

Regarding the ship sets, we're not in the '60s-'90s anymore, they have to make them look more futuristic than what was in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY, which were limited by the present technology of our time.  Hell Star Trek Enterprise had more modern panels than TOS-era ships.  I'm somewhat looking forward to when they get to the star ship museum, hopefully, they actually go to the interior of one of the past ships and it does look like a past bridge.

 

One thing I did notice in Episode 1 was there was a slight nod to Scotty about notifying engineering about going to warp 9.99 lol

  • Like 2

Episode 2s little "twist" didn't surprise anyone, not that they were trying to hide it.  Overall a good episode, characters acting like they should.

Spoiler

People hating on the Titan-a captain because of his attitude but honestly he's doing what he should be doing when you're by the book as it sounds like he is.  Thinking about the safty of his ship and crew over the life of one criminal is reasonable.  Until he finds out it's Picards son and then he goes with it and doesn't object.  Only thing he's a little meh is how he teats 7 at this point.

I'm interested to see how the two plot lines tie in together going forward.  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Glow 26.10 by Razvan Serea Glow provides detailed reporting on every hardware component in your computer, saving you valuable time typically spent searching for CPU, motherboard, RAM, graphics card, and other stats. With Glow, all the information is conveniently presented in one clean interface, allowing you to easily access and review the comprehensive hardware details of your system. Glow provides detailed information on various system aspects, including OS, motherboard, processor, memory, graphics card, storage, network, battery, drivers, and services. The well-organized format ensures easy access to the required information. You can export all the gathered data to a plain text file, facilitating sharing with others for troubleshooting purposes. No installation needed. Just decompress the archive, launch the executable, and access computer-related information. Glow runs on Windows 11 and Windows 10 64-bit versions. Glow 26.10 changelog: New Features The bootstrapping algorithm has been completely redesigned. The software can now launch directly without requiring TS Preloader. As part of this change, the startup splash screen displayed during initialization has been removed. In addition, spikes in CPU usage have been eliminated, resulting in a more stable architecture with significantly lower memory consumption. The Microsoft Office detection infrastructure within the Operating System section has been enhanced. Additional detection support has been added for Office C2R (Click-to-Run) installations. Furthermore, the license status evaluation system has been improved, and the priority order has been revised as follows: Licensed > Grace Period > Other (NOTIFICATIONS, EVALUATION, etc.). Glow now includes preliminary support for Wi-Fi 8 technology, allowing more detailed information to be displayed for Wi-Fi 8-compatible network adapters. Glow now provides full support for Bluetooth 6.2. Adapters supporting Bluetooth 6.2 can be analyzed in greater detail and with improved accuracy. The disk distribution view in the Disk section has been modernized, replacing the traditional table layout with a new 2×2 card-based design. The TS Custom Controls module has been updated to v26.7. Thanks to the new custom controls, all Türkaysoft applications now offer a more modern and consistent user interface aligned with Windows 11 design standards. Bug Fixes Potential line-ending handling issues in the Office detection code within the Operating System section have been resolved. Additionally, the output format has been standardized to UTF-8 to prevent character encoding issues and ensure consistent data processing. Several stability and file management issues within the Debugging infrastructure have been addressed. Problems that prevented new log files from being created after Debugging was disabled, as well as issues causing debug records to be lost, have been fixed. File deletion and reaccess issues that occurred after file locks were released have also been resolved. In addition, a bug that caused newly recreated log files to remain locked after deletion has been eliminated. Unnecessary blank lines within debug logs and the extra empty line that could appear at the end of log files have also been corrected. A shortcut key conflict caused by assigning identical hotkeys to both the DNS Test Tool and the Donation page has been fixed. The DNS Test Tool can now be accessed using CTRL + Shift + D, while the Donation page is available via CTRL + Alt + D. Changes The service responsible for providing the Public IP Address and Internet Service Provider information in the Network section has been updated to use the ipinfo.io infrastructure. This change improves the accuracy and consistency of the displayed data. (No external requests are made while Hiding Mode is enabled.) Some terms in the Dutch and Korean language files have been updated to make them clearer and more user-friendly. [TS Updater] Before the update process begins, users are now prompted to choose whether they would like to view the release notes. Note: Always unzip the program before using it. Otherwise you may get an error. Download: Glow 26.10 | 1.8 MB (Open Source) Links: Glow Homepage | Screenshot | Github Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!