Slashdot Mirror

Right, and that’s about as well as anyone can describe it... red is a colour just like blue and orange are colours; different from both of them, distinct. The emotion that he felt was an emotion, like happiness or sadness, but different from both of them, and like no emotion that anybody else has ever felt, as far as he could tell. Hence there was no word for it, just as before the discovery of the invisible spectrum nobody would have any concept of “infrared” light.

Have you ever heard of The Colors of Space by Marion Zimmer Bradley? I suspect you’d enjoy it.

That is why I DONT have a kindle! I do my shopping at various other places on the net that have decent prices or even eBooks for free! for decent prices try http://www.webscription.org/ and http://www.fictionwise.com/ there are many more out there if you just search for them! Lots of place for the free ones also besides http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page !

you wouldn't download a car

Not for lack of trying.

If it's in the public domain you can download it free from many internet sources. No need to visit a library at all, unlesss you want the dead tree version.

Internet Archive
Gutengerg Project
lots of universities post PD books on the internet, as well as a lot of books that are still under copyright. I was assigned Only Yesterday in a history class I took in the late 1970s at SIU (I still have the book), and now It's on the internet as well. It's a good read, I reccomend it.

Plus, there are Creative Commons books out there as well.

Rather than an iPad, an open-architecture Linux-based tablet PC might make more sense at $250. Also, this should be paired with the free and open textbooks movement.

Instead of paying millions for textbooks over and over again, California should just pay some junior academics $100,000 to compile (and edit and proofread) existing free materials to create science textbooks.

Science is the only subject you really need up-to-date books in. Don't say history because most history classes start from 1492 and are somewhere in the 19th century when the schoolyear runs out.

High school math hasn't changed since the traumatization of mathematicians in the Godel affair English? Use free books off of the Gutenberg project. For 21st century English, kids'll pick that up by themselves just fine sms'ing.

I don't know why teachers can't be expected to come up with lesson plans by googling for material on current events and using it in class the next day.

The robots eventually fall in love. Sorry for the spoiler:) English version ... http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/capek/karel/rur/ Czech one ... http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13083

There's nothing wrong with using an apostrophe on a pronoun to indicate possession.

That depends on how you define "right" and "wrong" with respect to changing language over time.

Modern English has shed most of the case system that was present in Old English, but a few old pronouns have held onto these vestiges.

"Thee," "thou," and "thine" have all but disappeared, and are often used incorrectly by people trying to sound archaic (eg. T'Pau in Star Trek TOS using "thee" as a subject pronoun).

The reason "me" in "Bob and me went to the store" is incorrect is because "me" is an object case pronoun, rather than a subject case pronoun. These pronoun cases are also found in "he" (subject) "him" (object) and "his" (possessive) and so on like that.

"Its" is a little more tricky. "Him's" appears to be unattested balderdash, but "it's" seems to have entered the language in that form in the late 16th century, as an alternative to using "his" for the neuter possessive pronoun. In that regard, you are correct in asserting that there's nothing wrong with using "it's" to show possession. No, there isn't, so long as you are not writing modern English.

However, you assert that anyone educated from the '80s onward has the world's shittiest grasp of grammar. Where do we draw the line in time between the 1500s and the 1900s in determining what constitutes correct grammar today in the 21st century? Considering that the language is evolving (some would say devolving), almost anything can be justified, including your current assertion. We are heading for a time when "me," "their," "there," and "your" are all legitimate subject pronouns, because usage eventually defines what the norms are.

Be that as it may, I don't think we've reached that point yet, and we certainly hadn't reached that point in the 1980s, the age of the shittiest grasp of grammar. Let's take a trip back in time then to an English grammar text from 1896, which is a little on the modern side of the middle, yet still somewhere in between. In 1896 they explained:

LESSON 125.

CASE FORMS—PRONOUNS.

The pronouns I, thou, he, she, and who are the only words in the language that have each three different case forms.

+Direction+.—Study the Declensions, and correct these errors:—

Our's, your's, hi's, her's, it's, their's, yourn, hisn, hern, theirn.

--Higher Lessons in English, Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg, 1896

Take note that "it's" is pulled out as an error to be corrected in this context.

This is good supporting evidence that while the "its vs. it's" convention has changed since its entry into the language, the rules as they are currently enforced by grammar Nazis have been in place in the current form for more than 100 years.

(Anybody else read The Colors of Space?)

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20796

If they're inserting ads into the freely available public domain books? No thanks, I'll keep looking for a service that doesn't want to bombard me with ads.

Then you want Project Gutenberg.

No ads, free content from the public domain. Compatible with damned near every e-book reader. Hell, I download Gutenberg titles directly through iTunes.

You won't get the latest author, or anything published recently unless the author made it free. But, there's a 30,000+ titles available.

If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

You don't "have" to infringe.

You can do without - or make something better. That is what drives things forward.

The fan has been obsessed with recreating Star Trek: TOS. But the technology is there for the him to make on original space opera, action adventure, or whatever he chooses.

If he needs a starting point, there are classics in the genre that haven't been dramatized in the last half century or so and are accessible to anyone: Science Fiction (Bookshelf)

I love H. Beam Piper's stuff but yeah, having people setting signs in front of their video phone saying 'Back in 3 hours' is rather jarring.

I'm surprised. According to Project Gutenberg, there were 2.8 million books downloaded from their site in the past 30 days. Maybe this chart gives us a clue - only about 5% of those downloads were in Kindle format.

I'm surprised. According to Project Gutenberg, there were 2.8 million books downloaded from their site in the past 30 days. Maybe this chart gives us a clue - only about 5% of those downloads were in Kindle format.

The only bright side to all this is that Irish babies are, in fact, delicious.

I hate to explain a good joke, but I know someone's gonna ask you what the hell you mean by that.

If you do not like it, please develop your own platform and release it to us with the restrictions you don't like removed. We'll be waiting.

"If you don't like it, leave and found your own nation. Otherwise put up with it." Grow up.

Oh, what, you don't have the expertise, time and money to donate to this project so it will be out soon? That's right, time and expertise are not free!

Bawwww, I worked so hard on my software and now someone wants to use it without me being able to force them to watch adverts. It's my right to express myself through software, and it's also my right to stop you from listening except on my terms. There was no progress in science and the useful arts before modern IP law.

You've heard, I suppose, the story of George, who played with a Dangerous Toy, and suffered a Catastrophe of considerable Dimensions?

Interestingly, there are four copies on Google books, and every one of them has pages omitted as they're from recent editions. What the hell, Google? Thankfully, Project Gutenberg has a few versions, e.g. this one.

Some data (using the text version of http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/32985):

wav -- espeak -f ~/story.txt --stdout > story.wav
        time: 59.790s
        size: 1597698914 = 1.5G

ogg -- espeak -f ~/story.txt --stdout | oggenc - -o story.ogg
        time: 3m 51.7s = 231.7s
        size: 205256352 = 196M

mp3 -- espeak -f ~/story.txt --stdout | lame -b 112 - story.mp3
        time: 6m 11.291s = 371.291s
        size: 507207679 = 484M

Relative Speed: wav = 1 ; ogg = 3.875 ; mp3 = 6.210
Relative Size: wav = 1 ; ogg = 0.12847 ; mp3 = 0.31746

So vorbis takes up less space for an equivalent bitrate than mp3 and the encoder is significantly faster. Plus, vorbis has some decent portable media player support through manufacturers like Cowon (e.g. the S9 with around a 45hr battery life playing vorbis files).

The other is that they like to jack up the price once they're on the job, even if they quoted you a flat rate. Having just bought a house I've been getting a lot of that lately.

I've been reading a lot of Mark Twain recently (he's on Project Gutenberg, and stopped writing before 1923 so we can access all of his works).

Most recently I read a Gutenberg-produced list of his quotes, it says this is from "The Mysterious Stranger"; I really enjoyed it, and it applies directly to your recent experience:

"When we were finishing our house, we found we had a little cash left over, on account of the plumber not knowing it."

(I also like the ability to search for "plumb" in my ebook reader and immediately find the quote I'm looking for. :)

Your arguments are a lot of unlikely 'what ifs'. Yes, they are possible, but quite unlikely if the copyright is owned by any normal minded business person.

Sure it's "unlikely". After all, I start with the preposterous claim that someone has copyright on Shakespeare.

A good example of why your claims are unlikely, look at the works of Tolkien. His estate still owns the rights to all of his works, and his writing are in many top 100 lists of the 20th century. And yet, his works are widely available at a cost that is the same as novels.

Shakespeare is available for free. And just because Tolkien's works happen to be managed well (in your view) doesn't mean every copyrighted work is well managed (in your view). Shakespeare is in the unusual position of being the most important English author in existence. For example, that means a more inelastic demand for Shakespeare than for Tolkien in English-speaking school systems. Monopolies thrive on inelastic demand.

http://www.gutenberg.org/

It also doesn't help that we don't have a lot of hard science going on in business right now. Our current business environment emphasizes short-term growth over long-term growth, so scientific developments that don't lead to real gains within a few years are being somewhat ignored

Has business ever been involved in hard science?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't but it seems to me that throughout history the hard science has been researched by interested individuals or by publicly supported organizations with the goal of attaining and sharing knowledge and understanding not a profit.

Business has been very good at converting hard science into hugely profitable enterprises with the objective of profit and thwarting the sharing of knowledge and understanding.

I suspect that if the United States does end up going through a scientific and technological dark age it will be concluded that a contributing factor was the rabidly religious devotion to privatized capitalist free markets in everything. The problem being that privatized capitalist free market competition is not going to produce On the Nature of the Universe, Opticae Thesaurus, Principia Mathematica, Experimental Researches In Electricity, A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, etc.

The profit motive is only bringing us the ubiquitous technological gadget tied to a media outlet designed to keep the consumer titillated and enthralled. The masses have an illusion of being technologically advanced because they know which buttons to push. And sadly this same technology is being used in some cases to turn the masses against science.

I always find the discussion on the mechanics of laughter fascinating. I have come to the personal belief that laughter flourishes when we are released from the bonds of empathy. It is the delight of release. This is why villains and the devil have a tradition of being portrayed as smiling or laughing. A distaste at what one views as inappropriate laughter may have at its source a fear of the absence of empathy. These are just my feelings on the nature of laughter. I like hearing the difference of opinions. I found this essay fascinating read when I was studying dramatic criticism in grad-school. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4352/4352-h/4352-h.htm

And I'm going to assume that you aren't American by your fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of government and the natural rights of citizens. I'd suggest you read some Thomas Paine before looking down your nose at us and inferring that we don't understand others.

I'd suggest starting with Common Sense, and then reading The Rights of Man. The Gutenburg Project has them. To sum up, The rights we enjoy (including the right to view what we please) are natural, they are part of our being. They are not conferred upon us by government, and therefore cannot be withdrawn at the government's whim. Rather, government is erected by the people to secure these rights, not the other way around..

Tell that to your local library, or better yet have you seen this website? http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

For another good look at Twain's world view regarding mankind and religion, I'd say read What is Man? .

If you think that's bad, consider what it would be like living on a Lone Star Planet, AKA A Planet For Texans.

Greener Than You Think by Ward Moore. Sure Bermuda Grass instead of weed, super-fertilizer instead of super-herbicide.

And that would be relevant if they had equivalent sales. As things stand, it actually argues against your point: ebook sales in the US last year come to about $13 million dollars out of a (roughly) $23 billion dollar a year industry, according to the AAP. If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.

The low numbers are partially because the baseline cost is free - go to the library (or Project Gutenberg for pre-1923 works, the last year to probably ever be public domain). The truth is, the product you buy is not a product, it's a one-platform non-transferable DRM encrusted unresaleable bunch of words that will be disabled when the dot.com at the other end of the wire decides it's profitable to abandon or goes out of business, sold for the same price as a tangible product. Ebooks are massively crippled so they are worth even less than a sherlockholmes.txt ASCII file, and yet have still been priced uncompetitively, almost so they won't make a dent in the centuries-old paper codex business.

The only sheeple customers who can't say no to DRM seem to be those who respond to marketing that tells them they need to buy the latest gadgets to be cool and fashionable. Why do you think iPhone buyers were so upset when the price of the phone dropped from $600 to $400? Because more people could afford to join the fashionista club.

And that would be relevant if they had equivalent sales. As things stand, it actually argues against your point: ebook sales in the US last year come to about $13 million dollars out of a (roughly) $23 billion dollar a year industry, according to the AAP. If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.

The low numbers are partially because the baseline cost is free - go to the library (or Project Gutenberg for pre-1923 works, the last year to probably ever be public domain). The truth is, the product you buy is not a product, it's a one-platform non-transferable DRM encrusted unresaleable bunch of words that will be disabled when the dot.com at the other end of the wire decides it's profitable to abandon or goes out of business, sold for the same price as a tangible product. Ebooks are massively crippled so they are worth even less than a sherlockholmes.txt ASCII file, and yet have still been priced uncompetitively, almost so they won't make a dent in the centuries-old paper codex business.

The only sheeple customers who can't say no to DRM seem to be those who respond to marketing that tells them they need to buy the latest gadgets to be cool and fashionable. Why do you think iPhone buyers were so upset when the price of the phone dropped from $600 to $400? Because more people could afford to join the fashionista club.

Note: What was that SciFi story about humans being 'paired' with cats in order to have both high intelligence and inhumanly fast reaction times?

Sorry to undo the moderation of my AC friend, but The Game of Rat and Dragon is available from Project Gutenberg!

Short stories I'd like to see made in to movies:

The Return, Omnilingual and Keeper by H. Beam Piper.

Short stories I'd like to see made in to movies:

The Return, Omnilingual and Keeper by H. Beam Piper.

Short stories I'd like to see made in to movies:

The Return, Omnilingual and Keeper by H. Beam Piper.

His adventures are available from Project Gutenberg, so I would assume they are safely in the Public Domain by now.

Considering that old franchises like The Lord of the Rings and even Sherlock Holmes are still making money for their rights holders thanks to copyright extensions, that would be a slow ticking clock.

J.R.R.Tolkien died in 1973 so thats just over halfway into the post-death years of life+70, but Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930 and his works are available at Project Gutenberg now. Philip K Dick died 28 years ago (1982) and he was never as popular as either of them, and is unlikely to get more popular as time goes by. Even 'Blade Runner' is rarely known as anything but a Ridley Scott or Harrison Ford film and that is probably the most well known derivation.

How about free?
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a33399

Morality is the only practical framework which can make life in a community work. People claim that law shouldn't deal with morality; if it doesn't then there's nothing left for law to deal with. Every law- even the requirement to drive on one side of the road rather than the other- is motivated by the morals and values of some segment of society-- in this case the judgment of society that if most people drive on the right it is morally wrong for me to choose to drive on the left and that it's worth restricting my freedoms if I choose to use them that way. If most citizens' moral feelings do not help motivate them to assent to and follow a law, then the only way to even attempt to maintain the law is by becoming -- at least in the relevant respects-- a police state.

The only question is that how we choose, as a society, what kind of society we want to be- the question of what segment of society gets their conception of how life in a community should work (i.e. of what is a good society, of what is good, and of morality) enshrined in law. As others have noted, your statement is itself a moral one; the point was best put by G.K. Chesterton back in 1905:

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about "liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "education"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

To say that your conception of what society should be like should override that of the majority just because it's more permissive is to advocate the overthrow of democracy. I don't intend to defend democracy here; if you really think we should get rid of representative government and instead have Gavin Newsom, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer make the decisions about what kind of society we will live in, I don't intend to press the issue. But I think you should be upfront about what you're advocating.

"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." -- The Maid of Orleans, Frederich Schiller.

The fact that you post this anonymously only makes me laugh louder.

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/ which the kindle can access from anywhere. It's the actual, factual, hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy in every way except for the name and the missing words, "Don't Panic."

Project Gutenberg also has it: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/201

PS. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the first of your alleged quotes of Jefferson is pseudepigraphical proves that you're only interested in scoring "talking points" and not in actually having a reasoned discussion.

I'm not sure how proving the author of the quote wrong proves your point, but you're still wrong anyway. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0600.htm

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Memorial Edition Volume 3 Page 320

I hope that's cleared that up. I would have a reasoned discussion but your claim that each state is not a republic, and your insistence that any proof I provide is inadequate somehow is just ridiculous. And you're hung up on a Jefferson quote, which it turns out you're wrong about, again. All you really need to do is put it in google with quotes around it and look around a little, and not come back and tell me the quote was something I made up.

I'm not sure how you can read Tocqueville and then became a defender of FDR. I said Kant's critique of pure reason creates a lot of the theories that we use in litigation today, "a priori" being one of them, not that Kant created the system of government. Then you blast me for showing you some books, only to then... show me some books, all of which I've read, and sadly came away with something different than you. I suppose you believe then that the constitution is living and breathing? I can't say anything to convince you, but here's James Madison's take:

"...I entirely concur with the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its power. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of the law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption."
-James Madison

From: Writings of James Madison Oh ya, read the federalist papers!

But you have one misquoted reference from Wikipedia, so obviously I'm a fool.

No, actually you're a fool because you're wrong. State law trumps all federal law unless the state law is unconstitutional. In fact, any law that is found unconstitutional by the courts is null. That's why it's legal to smoke pot in some states, and is not federally. You obviously lack the basic understanding of what a constitutional republic is.

Are you denying that the states are subordinate in authority to the federal government in the ways outlined in the Constitution?

I did not say that and it is not some misquoted Wikipedia reference, all states have the same branches of government the federal government has, each state has its own constitution, that's what makes it a republic. But I don't have all day to give you a lesson. Just chalk it up to being ignorant, read about what constitutes a republic, and call yourself richer for the experience.

all of my other unrelated arguments are therefore invalidated for some inadequately explored reason.

Like I said before, I was going to rebut them, one at a time, like I do with most comments, but once I read that, I quit taking anything you said seriously. Look, you seem like a nice enough guy, you're obviously just uninformed, everyone has been like that at one time in their life. But the good news is, they hide knowledge in books. Here are two books that make up the basis of our legal system. It's really fun to read about how this stuff all got formed. These two books introduce/expand upon the ideas of "natural law" and "a priori knowledge". If you don't know what that is, you really should! Anyhow, good reads if you plan on learning about constitutional republics. They're also really short. Most smart phones have book reader programs you can grab, these books can be downloaded in plain text, my favorite format, and you can stand on the shoulders of giants while you take a shit.

Here's a good place to get started
The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Common Sense by Thomas Paine

But you have one misquoted reference from Wikipedia, so obviously I'm a fool.

No, actually you're a fool because you're wrong. State law trumps all federal law unless the state law is unconstitutional. In fact, any law that is found unconstitutional by the courts is null. That's why it's legal to smoke pot in some states, and is not federally. You obviously lack the basic understanding of what a constitutional republic is.

Are you denying that the states are subordinate in authority to the federal government in the ways outlined in the Constitution?

I did not say that and it is not some misquoted Wikipedia reference, all states have the same branches of government the federal government has, each state has its own constitution, that's what makes it a republic. But I don't have all day to give you a lesson. Just chalk it up to being ignorant, read about what constitutes a republic, and call yourself richer for the experience.

all of my other unrelated arguments are therefore invalidated for some inadequately explored reason.

Like I said before, I was going to rebut them, one at a time, like I do with most comments, but once I read that, I quit taking anything you said seriously. Look, you seem like a nice enough guy, you're obviously just uninformed, everyone has been like that at one time in their life. But the good news is, they hide knowledge in books. Here are two books that make up the basis of our legal system. It's really fun to read about how this stuff all got formed. These two books introduce/expand upon the ideas of "natural law" and "a priori knowledge". If you don't know what that is, you really should! Anyhow, good reads if you plan on learning about constitutional republics. They're also really short. Most smart phones have book reader programs you can grab, these books can be downloaded in plain text, my favorite format, and you can stand on the shoulders of giants while you take a shit.

Here's a good place to get started
The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Common Sense by Thomas Paine

What's wrong with A Princess of Mars? I have it on my Newton, my Handspring Visor, my iPaq, my Blackberry and my iPhone.

Buy? Market? Who said anything about a market?

H. G. Wells, "The Star" (1911)

It was on the first day of the New Year that the announcement was made, almost simultaneously from three observatories, that the motion of the planet Neptune, the outermost of all the planets that wheel about the sun, had become very erratic....

Beyond the orbit of Neptune there is space, vacant so far as human observation has penetrated, without warmth or light or sound, blank emptiness, for twenty million times a million miles. That is the smallest estimate of the distance to be traversed before the very nearest of the stars is attained. And, saving a few comets more unsubstantial than the thinnest flame, no matter had ever to human knowledge crossed this gulf of space, until early in the twentieth century this strange wanderer appeared....

On the third day of the new year the newspaper readers of two hemispheres were made aware for the first time of the real importance of this unusual apparition in the heavens. "A Planetary Collision," one London paper headed the news, and proclaimed Duchaine's opinion that this strange new planet would probably collide with Neptune....

And when next it rose over Europe everywhere were crowds of watchers on hilly slopes, on house-roofs, in open spaces, staring eastward for the rising of the great new star. It rose with a white glow in front of it, like the glare of a white fire, and those who had seen it come into existence the night before cried out at the sight of it. "It is larger," they cried. "It is brighter!" And, indeed the moon a quarter full and sinking in the west was in its apparent size beyond comparison, but scarcely in all its breadth had it as much brightness now as the little circle of the strange new star.

"It is brighter!" cried the people clustering in the streets. But in the dim observatories the watchers held their
breath and peered at one another. "_It is nearer_," they said. "_Nearer!_"

[Most of the story tells of how star approaches close to Earth, creating considerable havoc...]

But the star had passed, and men, hunger-driven and gathering courage only slowly, might creep back to their ruined cities, buried granaries, and sodden fields. Such few ships as had escaped the storms of that time came stunned and shattered and sounding their way cautiously through the new marks and shoals of once familiar ports....

The Martian astronomers--for there are astronomers on Mars, although they are very different beings from men--were naturally profoundly interested by these things. They saw them from their own standpoint of course. "Considering the mass and temperature of the missile that was flung through our solar system into the sun," one wrote, "it is astonishing what a little damage the earth, which it missed so narrowly, has sustained. All the familiar continental markings and the masses of the seas remain intact, and indeed the only difference seems to be a shrinkage of the white discoloration (supposed to be frozen water) round either pole." Which only shows how small the vastest of human catastrophes may seem, at a distance of a few million miles.

As long as we're OT, I recently read Omnilingual on Project Gutenberg and I recommend it as a nice sci-fi short about learning the language of ancient Martians without any common translation to start from. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19445

I'll certain check it out -- H. Beam Piper hasn't disappointed me yet. Thanks for the link.

Wow. I've never read the original. Thanks for linking me. Although I'm excited that Wells thought of this, I think I was happier thinking it was handwaved. Being invisible except for the lens looks like a cop out. I guess it's better to handwave and remain accurate than handwave and break physics more than necessary. :)

As long as we're OT, I recently read Omnilingual on Project Gutenberg and I recommend it as a nice sci-fi short about learning the language of ancient Martians without any common translation to start from.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19445

The invisible man is blind. If light passes through a body without being affected, then it cannot be properly refracted

Wells was too smart for you: "I went and stared at nothing in my shaving-glass, at nothing save where an attenuated pigment still remained behind the retina of my eyes, fainter than mist."