Man: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name!
Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
Quite so! It really irritates me when eugenicists (even of the lassez-faire variety, as the OP seems to be) go on and on about "polluting the gene pool" and worry about the unfit surviving, when by definition, in evolutionary terms if the individual survives to procreate then they are fit. The more they procreate the fitter they are. No use complaining if you're a privileged WASP with a 6 figure salary and they are one of those unfortunate people from the underclass - in our current environment - as modified by our culture, obviously - if they have more children than you do, they are fitter. All such concerns are subjective and basically come down to "I don't like people who are different to me reproducing".
In short, by definition, the unfit can't pollute the gene pool. 'Nuff said.
Interestingly, it has been claimed that in fact the Wrights did not fly an aeroplane in 1903 - they were flying a glider that happened to have an engine in it (that is, it was too underpowered to be called an aeroplane). Yes, the claim is being made by a Brazilian who wishes to give priority to Santos-Dumont but speaking as a history grad who is involved in researching early aviation, the claims are not without merit. There were only 5 witnesses to the flight besides the Wrights themselves
and none of them were qualified to judge the difference between gliding and powered flight.
Moreover, it always struck me as odd that having acheived this momentous feat, they mothballed the Flyer for a couple of years and went back to Dayton to try and sell it, being incredibly secretive in the process - they wanted governments to buy it without letting their experts watch it in flight first! This could be the mark of con men; the alternative explanation is that they beleived they had such a head start on the rest of the world that the US, UK, etc would have to pay up. But if so they miscalculated - only in 1908 did they start publicly demonstrating their craft by which time they were no longer ahead of the game, and the French overtook them while the Wrights stagnated. They never really got the financial return they thought they'd earned.
Not really sure what to make of the idea yet, but the Wrights are not my area of interest as such.
PS I find it hard to believe that Langley's contraption could ever fly. See Hallion on this IIRC.
That was exactly my experience of Cryptonomicon - almost page for page! At the ca. p.500 mark, it seemed to change into a different book. I don't know if that means he didn't know where he was going with his story, but it meant the book I had been reading felt like it was replaced by some other book that I wasn't really into. But it makes me less likely to invest the time and effort into reading the new trilogy...
One of the reasons Potter books are so popular is that it is hard to find any other book for children that would deal with issues that exist in the real world but conviniently avoided by the mass literature, such as social injustice, poverty, bullies, racial tension, etc.
Really? When I was in high school we used to get books like that shoved down our throats... maybe that's why I have no interest in reading Harry Potter!
I had to support it for a while (about 5 years ago), under both Solaris and OS/2. From an admin point of view, it was both a POS and a PITAS:) I'm not surprised to find out that it's 30 years old, it's obviously very krufty.
OK, well, at least I'm satisfied that you're not some sort of fundamentalist who equated God-bashing with chemical warfare, which was my main concern.
I'm still not sure why you're picking on Twain though (and firstly admitting that I don't know a lot about Twain...) Of the three examples you cite, the second could easily be uttered by an unbeliever, and in the third, the use of the word "holy" could just as easily be secular. The first seems more clearly religious... but it's also a rather conventional reference to God, part of the natural way of writing in the 19th century. Even Huxley made references to God in this way, IIRC. And even IF this meant Twain was religious, his denigration of the jealous Old Testament God in your OP could merely mean that he was a liberal Christian and not a fundamentalist one.
WRT Churchill. I agree he had a measure of respect, admiration even, for Hitler - as he did for Mussolini. Which is telling, IMHO - Churchill was notably soft on the Fascist threat as compared with the Nazi threat, I believe, simply because Germany was a far stronger threat than Italy could conceivably be. So Churchill was less of the anti-fascist of hallowed memory and more of the Germanophobe (though obviously with good reason at this point in time). Having said all that, I still believe that Churchill was the right man for the job in 1940 (which he might not have been called upon to do if he had been listened to in the 1930s)... just not in 1921. (And having said that, I guess one has to remember that gas warfare had been employed by Europeans against other Europeans between 1915 and 1918, so using it against colonial freedom fighters is at least consisent with contemporary norms of barbarity.)
Anyway, thanks for the stimulating discussion. Sure beats working...
Are you serious? Twain is bad for saying something negative about God? Give me a break.
Fair call on Churchill though. 1937 was a bit late in the day for any sensible person to find anything admirable about Hitler - although Kristallnacht and Munich were still to come.
Yes. But the point is, they are not only about those things. Science fiction is not a mutually exclusive category with any other genre of fiction. As I said in my OP, 1984 is a political novel written in the form of science fiction. And I don't see why anyone would want to deny that...
IT'S AUTUMN of 2001, at WETA Workshop, in Wellington, New Zealand. Jackson is about to release "The Fellowship of the Ring,"
Southern hemisphere... seasons reversed... it would have been spring 2001 in NZ when FOTR was about to be released. At least the writer had the grace to say "autumn" and not "fall":)
Really? There was a war in 1948 between Oceania and Eurasia? I never knew.
Yes, Orwell was a political writer. Yes, 1984 was "about" the present. But the mode he chose to employ was that of science fiction - or more precisely perhaps, that peculiarly British mode of future-pondering that H.G. Wells, Olaf Stapledon and Aldous Huxley had worked in, that we have retrospectively assimiliated to what we now call science fiction. You don't need to be a proud, card-carrying member of the SFWA to write science fiction.
Well... no? I managed a lab full of 30 original iMacs and they definitely had USB (the bottle-green ones, 233 MHz). I have a keyboard and mouse from one of them in my office here - USB, not ADB.
Which raises the question of just what it is you've got in your close, coz it must be an imposter:)
I abhor lazy journalism that finds sensationalism in dressing up something as old as time (pornography, bullying, copying music) in Internet clothes, just because it's easier to scare people that way.
Agreed... on the copying music front, the other day I came across an article from the Manchester Guardian entitled "Music piracy in Liverpool" (or perhaps it was Leeds). The year was 1913, and the mode of piracy was unauthorised reprinting of sheet music!
You know, reading this thread I was tut-tutting as any good liberal would, then I remembered that my experiences in primary school were exactly the same! Got picked on for being the new kid, from the country, a nerd... the school bully picked fights with me. It was only after I had shown him that I gave as good as I got that he backed off.
I have the Booq PowerSleeve12 for my 12"... the AC adapter does fit in - just - but it's an ugly bulge and I find that the velcro tabs on the top flap doesn't quite stick when the adapter is
in the front flap pocket. In other words, the sleeve doesn't close up properly when the adapter is in the pocket. That's my only gripe about the PowerSleeve, otherwise it's really nice.
Oh, I don't carry a mouse with me but the back pocket
takes my iPod well enough! I suppose I could try putting the adapter in there, although the web page says the front pocket is where you are "supposed" to put the adapter, so it's kind of annoying they didn't design it well enough...
Slashdot Mirror
Man: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name!
Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
In short, by definition, the unfit can't pollute the gene pool. 'Nuff said.
Moreover, it always struck me as odd that having acheived this momentous feat, they mothballed the Flyer for a couple of years and went back to Dayton to try and sell it, being incredibly secretive in the process - they wanted governments to buy it without letting their experts watch it in flight first! This could be the mark of con men; the alternative explanation is that they beleived they had such a head start on the rest of the world that the US, UK, etc would have to pay up. But if so they miscalculated - only in 1908 did they start publicly demonstrating their craft by which time they were no longer ahead of the game, and the French overtook them while the Wrights stagnated. They never really got the financial return they thought they'd earned.
Not really sure what to make of the idea yet, but the Wrights are not my area of interest as such.
PS I find it hard to believe that Langley's contraption could ever fly. See Hallion on this IIRC.
That was exactly my experience of Cryptonomicon - almost page for page! At the ca. p.500 mark, it seemed to change into a different book. I don't know if that means he didn't know where he was going with his story, but it meant the book I had been reading felt like it was replaced by some other book that I wasn't really into. But it makes me less likely to invest the time and effort into reading the new trilogy ...
Fair enough! My objection to Harry Potter must come from other source then :)
Really? When I was in high school we used to get books like that shoved down our throats ... maybe that's why I have no interest in reading Harry Potter!
I had to support it for a while (about 5 years ago), under both Solaris and OS/2. From an admin point of view, it was both a POS and a PITAS :) I'm not surprised to find out that it's 30 years old, it's obviously very krufty.
I'm still not sure why you're picking on Twain though (and firstly admitting that I don't know a lot about Twain ...) Of the three examples you cite, the second could easily be uttered by an unbeliever, and in the third, the use of the word "holy" could just as easily be secular. The first seems more clearly religious ... but it's also a rather conventional reference to God, part of the natural way of writing in the 19th century. Even Huxley made references to God in this way, IIRC. And even IF this meant Twain was religious, his denigration of the jealous Old Testament God in your OP could merely mean that he was a liberal Christian and not a fundamentalist one.
WRT Churchill. I agree he had a measure of respect, admiration even, for Hitler - as he did for Mussolini. Which is telling, IMHO - Churchill was notably soft on the Fascist threat as compared with the Nazi threat, I believe, simply because Germany was a far stronger threat than Italy could conceivably be. So Churchill was less of the anti-fascist of hallowed memory and more of the Germanophobe (though obviously with good reason at this point in time). Having said all that, I still believe that Churchill was the right man for the job in 1940 (which he might not have been called upon to do if he had been listened to in the 1930s) ... just not in 1921. (And having said that, I guess one has to remember that gas warfare had been employed by Europeans against other Europeans between 1915 and 1918, so using it against colonial freedom fighters is at least consisent with contemporary norms of barbarity.)
Anyway, thanks for the stimulating discussion. Sure beats working ...
Fair call on Churchill though. 1937 was a bit late in the day for any sensible person to find anything admirable about Hitler - although Kristallnacht and Munich were still to come.
Thorin Oakenshield, not Durin. My god, what is the world coming to?
That's quite funny, actually, because at one point I was sure you were a troll :) No harm done.
Yes. But the point is, they are not only about those things. Science fiction is not a mutually exclusive category with any other genre of fiction. As I said in my OP, 1984 is a political novel written in the form of science fiction. And I don't see why anyone would want to deny that ...
Sorry! I just sort of assumed you were capable of rationally responding to my comments. My mistake.
IT'S AUTUMN of 2001, at WETA Workshop, in Wellington, New Zealand. Jackson is about to release "The Fellowship of the Ring,"
Southern hemisphere ... seasons reversed ... it would have been spring 2001 in NZ when FOTR was about to be released. At least the writer had the grace to say "autumn" and not "fall" :)
Can you refresh my memory please - did Oceania or Eurasia win that? I'd look it up myself but I can't stand Newspeak.
Maybe you can re-read the part of my post you didn't respond to, I don't think you get my point.
Yes, Orwell was a political writer. Yes, 1984 was "about" the present. But the mode he chose to employ was that of science fiction - or more precisely perhaps, that peculiarly British mode of future-pondering that H.G. Wells, Olaf Stapledon and Aldous Huxley had worked in, that we have retrospectively assimiliated to what we now call science fiction. You don't need to be a proud, card-carrying member of the SFWA to write science fiction.
Which raises the question of just what it is you've got in your close, coz it must be an imposter :)
Agreed ... on the copying music front, the other day I came across an article from the Manchester Guardian entitled "Music piracy in Liverpool" (or perhaps it was Leeds). The year was 1913, and the mode of piracy was unauthorised reprinting of sheet music!
I hear you, brother. The amount of AD&D rules I've forgotten just goes to show how much better my life has gotten since high school :)
Heh. I guess I'm going to get beaten up after work today ...
So perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to judge.
Oh, I don't carry a mouse with me but the back pocket takes my iPod well enough! I suppose I could try putting the adapter in there, although the web page says the front pocket is where you are "supposed" to put the adapter, so it's kind of annoying they didn't design it well enough ...
Galaxy Quest? It even played it "straight" with well-done FX and production values.
Melon farmers, heh.
Some more details here. Supposedly 555-0100 to 555-0199 are now reserved for movies, although that article is about 10 years old.