That's part of the viewing differences between the UK and the US. The A-Team was always televised in the 8pm time slot back on NBC, not 5pm or 6pm as in the UK.

As others have stated, plenty of us US fans grew up watching Doctor Who on PBS stations that generally televised it beginning at 10pm on Saturdays. That's how I remember it. And since for the most part they focused on the Tom Baker era, it was rather dark and creepy enough to give the impression that it was a show for adults. One of the first episodes I saw - when I was 10 - was "State of Decay" and that was creepy. Hell, "The Keeper of Traken" was creepy too.

I find it "amusing" that BBC America is scheduling the show in the 9pm time slot which Julie Gardner - the previous producer of the show - complained about when SyFy scheduled it in the same time slot on Fridays right before Battlestar Galactica. That was a kick a$$ night of scifi for me and plenty of other fans...

It would be nice to see it legally in HD here in the U.S. but unfortunately, stupid BBC America HD is pretty much only available on Time Warner Cable and not Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Dish, or DirecTV. Had the show remained on SyFy where it belonged, many more fans could be watching it in HD courtesy of SyFy HD being a basic HD channel in most markets...

Perhaps they won't gouge the PBS stations in a year and it may air on some of them in HD.

My own personal theory is the TARDIS belonged to The Doctor's father and after he went missing and the Time Lords covered it up, The Doctor stole it...

BBC Worldwide should also be looking into posting Classic Doctor Who on Hulu and/or YouTube. The same goes for the 1996 TV Movie - which has never been released on DVD here in the U.S. - and S1-S4... Of course, these ideas would require brain power that seems to be lacking within that organization...

Screw BBC America. The show should be back on SyFy where it belongs here in the States.

SyFy is usually part of the basic cable package of most providers and the HD channel is usually part of the basic HD packages. BBC America is not part of most basic packages and BBC America HD is hardly available with any of the cable/fiber/satellite providers.

Sure, BBC America promotes the series more than SyFy did but that really does not matter since BBC America cannot even equal the ratings SyFy got - with hardly any promotion - even when BBC America combines 3 different airings as a single rating statistic.

And it is totally ridiculous that BBC America, a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of BBC Worldwide, cannot televise the show on the same day as it does in the UK. They were only a day or so behind the BBC proper with the inferior Torchwood - Children of Earth miniseries a year ago.

I really do not like the fact that the BBC is allowing BBC America to use the show as a means to build a following for the entire channel at the expense of growing the show's own fan base. It certainly didn't work well for UPN a decade ago when they did the same with Star Trek Voyager...

The Doctor was over 950 years old when the Classic Series ended in 1989. He's been a liar about his age ever since.

Considering the set probably would've been destroyed had it not been stolen, that's probably a good thing.

The Console itself is presently in California. See here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q98nJsXLCY&feature=channel

As for it being a shame that there were no further 8th Doctor adventures on-screen, blame the cheap-o's at the BBC who wouldn't bring the show back on its own after Fox and Universal opted not to participate. Add to that the BBC and RTD not bringing Paul McGann back once the show did return to screens in 2005.

I'm assuming you meant the TARDIS Console Room that was used all throughout the time RTD was the producer. That Console Room was a joke compared to the incredible Gothic/Steampunk Console Room shown in the 1996 TV Movie, thank you very much.

I will agree with you on the typewriter. I'm much prefer it to be an Atari ST or an Amiga, although I am sure there would be many that would say it should be a BBC Micro instead.

I wouldn't say the founding of the United States was all that radical. We almost ended up with King George III's son as the new nation's king. The motion only lost by one vote. Noah Webster - founder of Webster's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an "independent" American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France. This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation's history.

The "President" as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate*. That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.

The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage. For examples of this, see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair's so-called "reforms" via New Labour.

The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons. Granted, the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.

Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts. Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism, then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system. We'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed, like the proto-communism of the Diggers (not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com).

*The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform.

I thought I'd chime in and ask the undying question of whether Microsoft had come to their senses and finally decided to give free upgrades to Windows Se7en for all legit consumer Vista users.

They could really win some good will back from their users if they did this...kinda like the free Zune* firmware updates for the original players...

*No, I am not a Microsoft apologist, Vista user, or Zune owner. I am typing this from my MacBook while taking a break from my PS3. I just think it would be a good idea for MS to do this for its users. It certainly would be more pro-active than their lame laptop commercials.

If you are going to advocate BeOS then I am going to mention AmigaOS 4.1. Both operating systems have open source alternatives but AmigaOS is still being developed commercially...and I make that recommendation as an old-school Atari ST enthusiast.

Imagine what kind of buzz AmigaOS would get if the Dalai Lama used it...

But back to reality...While I'd have to agree that Linux would be more secure than Windows, the fact that the Chinese government has invested quite a few resources into it might be a good enough reason not to use it.

Why isn't anyone suggesting Open Solaris?