It is difficult for any method of consuming content to remain popular if there is no content for it.

I think you're omitting the importance that advertisers play in this transition. One of the reasons RSS became less useful is that larger blogs, the ones that had enough of an audience to sell to advertisers (*cough* Gawker *cough*) started crippling the content that showed up in their RSS feed so that you couldn't…

Stephen Moffat's background was comedy. What about Jessica Hynes nee Stevenson?

Which ones? I gave up on the audios awhile ago, but I'd be willing to get back into them.

I liked Terror of the Vervoids pretty well, and it's not like Helen Raynor would do worse than anything Moffat writes himself these days.

That's still two more than I could think of!

Is Jane Baker still alive? She's the only other woman Who writer I can think of besides the aforementioned Helen Raynor.

+1

No one ever believes me when I say that old Doctor Who was better. I'm glad to know there are fellow curmudgeons out there!

Original!

If "group x" has their way, "policy y" will become science fiction. Therefore, all of politics can be correctly classified as science fiction!

It's not an issue that lends itself to compromise.

Don't even bother. This has come up before, but no one on this site is interested in hearing it: http://io9.com/5971542/?post=55620356

I did not notice until I read this comment.

So, AFAIK, genetically modifying an organism is still just a tool that can be used for any number of purposes, right? Presumably it is therefore value-neutral and can be used both for good and for ill? To both the benefit and detriment of the environment? Both carefully and recklessly?

Sure, but I think that's a somewhat broader definition of science than is understood to be normally used by io9. In the past this site has mostly stuck to technology and the natural sciences (to the extent they are related to science fiction.) Broadening the criteria into the social sciences raises the question of:…

How is knowing more precisely the effects of not having an abortion a "scientific breakthrough?"

Yeah, I get it. My point was that, for most people, it's not actually cyclical, it's just the slow process of adding more and more people to the "permanently discouraged" category of non-employed. This is the category that grows dramatically during each recession and then never really goes away even as the economy…

Stages 5, 6 and 7 are a pleasant fiction. It's true that a talented few will survive and prosper in the transition. But for most people, losing your robot-job means you are now qualified to work at Wal-Mart.

Didn't Kotaku post this yesterday? Do you guys not cross-post like the other Gawker blogs?