If John Hunter—a former physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—is successful, the International Space Station may start receiving their supplies from a cannon. No, it's no joke.

First postulated by Jules Verne in his novel From the Earth to the Moon, the idea of space cannons is not new. Many engineers have toyed with the concept, but nobody has came up with an actual project that may work. Hunter's idea is simple: Build a cannon near the equator, submerged in the ocean, hooked to a floating rig. At the cannon's bottom there is a combustion chamber, which uses natural gas to heat hydrogen up to 2,600ºF, increasing the pressure 500%. When released, the gas will launch a capsule with half a ton of material into space, at a swooshing 13,000mph.

The project itself would only cost $500 million, which is a really stupid amount considering the potential benefits: A system like this will cut launch costs from $5,000 per pound to only $250 per pound. It won't launch people into space because of the excessive acceleration, but those guys at the ISS can use it to order pizza and real ice cream. [Popsci]

If you haven't used already any of these online donation methods, Apple just made it even easier: Just click on this link and send your contribution—from $5 to $200—to help the American Red Cross in Haiti. [Donate]

I'm an infographic junkie. With about one minute of non-work, you're basically an expert on any topic, as if you've been beamed an expertise straight through the Matrix...with a few more fonts. Today's topic? Video games. [Online Education via Kotaku]

Unfortunately for you, Apple worshippers, this is not available for sale. Which kind of surprises me, considering that the original has been around forever:

Oh Steve, you mischievous handsome devil you. [Flickr via iPhone Savior]

Comcast's remote DVR scheduling is up and running, allowing users to manage DVR recordings online. Quick, you've still got time before One Life to Live!

The service seems to be available only to Comcast digital users with a Motorola set-top box, and will roll out across the entire subscription base over the next several months. It's part of a larger Comcast UI overhaul that also includes filters, folders, and clean-up functions. If you're eligible (and given the size of the initial roll-out, sad to say that you're probably not), you should be able to start recording shows from your computer here. [Comcast via ZatzNotFunny]

Here's a pretty simple idea that may save a lot of lives: A motorbike helmet that cools down the rider's head in case of impact. According to the manufacturer, their new ThermaHelm prevents overheating and swelling of the brain.

They also claim that there are head injuries in 80% of all motorbike accidents. When that happens, the brain usually starts swelling. Traditional helmets act as insulators, and the brain's temperature may increase to the point in which it can cause death or permanent damage. The ThermaHelm prevents this by firing a chemical reaction on impact, which activates a layer that cools down the biker's head. [ThermaHelm]

When it comes to 3D television, I don't see it. Literally. The technology that's supposed to convince me that a 3D image exists when I look at a 2D screen doesn't work for me.

Nor does it work for a small but significant percentage of the population—4 percent to 10 percent, depending on which expert you ask. Millions of people like me are being left behind by content and hardware companies as they move to 3D.

I don't mean to complain. It's not the end of the world. Flat-viewers, like me, can watch 2D versions of 3D content. I saw "Avatar" in the non-3D version. As a bonus, the theater was nearly empty—the 3D showing down the hall was more crowded. Plus, we didn't have to wear those dorky glasses.

Of course, we are social beings, and not being able to view 3D means that group or family outings to 3D showings are awkward for the flat viewers, who may have to sit through a showing that will cause headaches or just look bad to them. But the flat-viewer's experience with 3D imagery can vary. While I find viewing 3D imagery uncomfortable, Daniel Terdiman, another person at CNET who can't see 3D, saw the 3D version of Avatar and wore the 3D glasses. It looked fine to him, just not 3D.

Manufacturers are mute
At CES this year, the trend toward 3D in home television sets was unmissable, but there was no mention by the manufacturers of how this move would affect flat viewers. I was curious how the hardware companies, which fight for every point of market share jealously, could cavalierly ignore the large number of us who won't like this new direction. It's a lot of market. How are they planning to deal with losing it?

Oddly, none of the HDTV manufacturing companies I reached out to could provide a direct comment on this topic, but I did talk with people familiar with the industry and with an optometrist who has a vested interest in promoting the growth of 3D content viewing.

Bruce Berkoff of the LCDTV Association and formerly a marketing executive at LG, noted that for all the hype around 3D, the television manufacturers are not really investing much in putting products on store shelves, nor are they expecting consumers to pay for it yet. Adding the capability for televisions to display alternating images for stereoscopic viewing through electronic shutter glasses is not expensive. It's the glasses themselves that are, and only a few 3D-capable sets actually come bundled with them. So consumers will be able to soon buy televisions ready for 3D without spending much.

Berkoff, and everyone else I talked to about 3D TV, reminded me that a good 3D TV is also a good 2D TV. You should be able to turn off the 3D display features and view content designed specifically for 3D but in 2D: You just show the view for only one eye. If the refresh rate of the program is high enough, you should not notice much of a difference in picture quality.

Get your eyes examined
From the optometrist's perspective, the inability to process stereoscopic imagery is, for many people, a treatable condition. Dr. Brad Habermehl, president of the College of Optometrists in Vision Development, told me, "You don't have to be a 3D refugee if you get to the root of the problem. The majority of stereo-blind people really can be helped."

Habermehl says that there are methods to teach people to see in 3D. Using graduated methods and physical aids (lenses) as "training wheels," he says, people can eventually learn how to "point both eyes to focus on the same space." It's like riding a bike. Once you learn, the training wheels come off and you can't imagine not doing it. "Vision is definitely learned," he says. "That's what vision training is."

The doctor sounded to me suspiciously like a spokesperson for the 3D television manufacturers, or at least a recipient of some marketing dollars from them. But he's not. "It would be nice if they would fund us," he said. But after reminding me that "Avatar" had already made $1 billion in box office receipts, he added, "I don't think the industry is worried about this."

Personally, I have no interest in undergoing medical treatment just so I can spend more money on consumer electronics. Although Dr. Oliver Sacks, in a compelling New Yorker article, Stereo Sue, did make me wonder what my kind is missing. (Related reading: Fixing My Gaze, by Sue Barry, a subject of Sacks' story.)

And regardless of whether you see in 3D or not, the technology is inexorably changing the visual language of movies and television shows. When directors create shows for 3D, they can't rely on cinematic methods viewers are used to in 2D for conveying action, depth, and movement. Hard cuts and swooping camera moves can disorient viewers new to 3D. The new standard of practice is to lock down the camera and move the action around it, instead of the reverse, which is the case in today's 2D movies. Good 3D movies today will appear subtly more stately and cinematic than 2D shows.

The future of the 3D feature
For all the hype at CES, 3D for the next few years is likely to be a "feature" in the new crop of TVs, according to Gary Merson of the HDGuru3D site. "It's not black-and-white to color," Merson says. "It's a feature, like Internet connectivity and stereo." He also points out that the content is not there yet, and that many consumers have only recently upgraded their tube televisions to HD flat screens.

For people like me, for whom the world is flat, this feature can not roll out slowly enough.

This story originally appeared on CNET

The freshest movies on Netflix Watch Instantly come via Starz Play, an arrangement where Starz resells Netflix their movie licenses. As predicted, studios are playing hardball with Netflix, and Disney movies could be the first to poof from instant streaming.

Disney's currently in negotiations with Starz for the rights to its movies over the next few years, and it wants a lot more money from people who watch Starz online—like through Netflix—and if things go badly, it could mean no more Disney or Dreamworks movies on Netflix streaming, according to Bloomberg. (Of trivial, probably inconsequential, note: Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder of Disney, owning 7 percent of the company, so there is a mild conflict of interest.)

It looks like a rough patch for Netflix and its ambitious plans for Watch Instantly, now obviously the focus of its business. (Why else would Netflix give up a whole month for new releases from Warner Bros. in exchange for better streaming rights? And notice the switched tab arrangement on the Netflix homepage, putting Watch Instantly first.) Expect these battles for streaming rights to repeat themselves with basically every major studio, and expect them to get bloodier. Nobody's conquered internet video, at least not the way iTunes wrapped its arms around digital music, but Netflix is, in many ways, damn near the closest, a fact not lost on the major studios. And they're not going to make it any easier for another company to wield that kind of power. [Bloomberg]

Kevin Schopfer, the same delusional, megalomaniac architect behind NOAH is back with the Boston Arcology (BoA) floating city concept for Boston Harbor. I'm not from Boston, but my guess is that their reaction would be: "this is wicked retahded."

But I digress. If constructed, the BoA would be LEED certified and be capable of housing 15,000 people distributed in hotels, offices, retail, museums, condominiums, and a new city hall. Of course, there would also be sky gardens and some sort of public, carbon neutral transportation system that would eliminate the need for cars.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Schopfer's progressive thought process on this design, but there has to be more emphasis put on feasibility. Even if all of the construction goals could be accomplished, how much do you think something like this would cost? [Schopfer via Yanko Design via Inhabitat]