Actually, I must say (and I have no connection with Jack Blandiver save that I admire all his postings here) that his comment early in the thread, concerning Carl Sagan,, his wisdom is a timeless inspiration, is an urgent corrective to those glib (and, to my mind, shallow and thoughtless) expressions here that suggest that we've "moved on" and that we are somehow the wiser because "we know a lot of things now that Sagan didn't know" (wouldn't it be just great if the people who adhere to that actually showed any wisdom at all!). Timeless is just that. Darwin's revelations are timeless. He didn't know what "we" know (he knew nothing of modern genetics or biochemistry), but there is not a single idea in Origin that is, in its essence, "dated" in any way. It's the opposite, in fact: it's astonishingly advanced, and could teach many a modern scientist how he should diligently apply himself to his trade. There is nothing whatsoever to be superseded. Carl Sagan, to me, was up there with Darwin: a great communicator ((I mean, how many bloody times have I told pete to read Origins, in which he would find the most clear and elegant - and simple - explanation of, well, something timeless...) whose thinking was as advanced and as modern as anyone else's today. And so clear-minded. You might as well tell me that Tom Finney wouldn't have made it today because football has become so advanced. Bollocks! Do not try to tell me that Cosmos needs "updating". Small-minded people here may concentrate on the clunky effects and the staid presentation. Well I don't need super-duper instant gratification, thanks, even if you do. If you give a shit about that you really don't get science at all. I've got Cosmos on DVD, I love it, and the only dated thing about it is that it don't go right to the edges of my 16:9 telly. Grow up, fer chrissake!