Load up your Matrix rip and watch that scene again. There's one line that they use to justify the whole system. it's when Morpheus is talking about the human batteries:
"...that plus a form of fusion, and they had all the power that they would ever need."
My question is, given the potential of fusion, why do they need the humans at all? And why use humans and not elephants or whales?
oh, right, it's just a movie. Can't wait for the sequels and more of the Animatrix, tho.
Protiens are probably required to have life in any circumstances; their utility comes not from their specific chemical composition but from their shape. Since we've discovered amino acids in meteors from deep space I think it's reasonable to assume that any life in the universe that is physical in nature will have protiens. Will they be just like ours? Of course not; they don't have to be. But they'll probably be shaped a lot like terrestrial protiens.
Clearly you don't know how the McDonalds coffee action actually went down.
Coffee only needs to be at about 120-130 degrees (F) to remain fresh. At that temp it takes about 30 seconds of exposure to skin to get any kind of burn. McDonalds was in the habit of keeping their coffee at about 180-200 degrees. At that temp, exposure (such as by spilling) gives you third degree burns in about 2 seconds.
The part that the judge and jury found the most actionable was that this issue had come up before; McDonalds knew their coffee was burning people and did nothing about it.
It's reasonable to assume that people will occasionally spill coffee on themselves. That wasn't the point of the suit. It isn't, however, reasonable to assume that coffee should give you third degree burns on your genitals.
Just so you know.
Sexuality in Niven's Work
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
In most of your stories you posit societies with significantly relaxed sexual mores - polyamorism, cross-species sex, etc. - to the point where it seems like a particular fascination of yours. (Not that everyone isn't fascinated by sex, of course.)
How would you describe the relationship between sexuality as presented in your work and your own personal views on the subject? (What does your wife think about it?:)
P.S. Great fan, so is my girlfriend - question not meant to offend.
I won't try to convince you Cryptonomicon was good. I liked it, myself, but it does start out slow.
All I ask is that you not throw out an author simply because you didn't like the one book that's not really his "style". If it's fast-paced story you're after, Snow Crash is what you want to read. Again, I'm not saying it's The Great Gatsby (for an instance of great literature), but it's a lot of fun. It's also a fast read. (400 pages, maybe.)
Give it a shot. I think you'l be glad you did. Of course, it's no skin off my nose either way. Just curious which book you had thrown away... happy reading. I'll keep an eye out for Vachss books.
(Did you mean "emptor"? As in "caveat emptor",:let the buyer beware"? I don't know any latin but I do know that "caveat" means beware, more or less...)
Which Stephenson book did you even read? Snow Crash is fun (I don't think it's groundbreaking or possessed of great literary merit), short, and basically aSF adrenaline rush. Diamond Age is much slower-paced, maybe that was the one you were reading. Crypnonomicon, I would think, is more or less tailored to the Slashdot crowd. I'd be surprised if you didn't like it, but it is his longest, so maybe that's what you were reading.
The last thing most people would say about Stephenson's truncated, fast-paced style is that he uses "too many words". But without actually knowing which one you read, who is able to respond to you?
Pick up Snow Crash. It takes 2 hours to read. Do yourself a favor, it's a lot of fun.
I'm really enjoying George R. R. Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" series, which starts with "A Game of Thrones". It's some pretty expansive fantasy with the special effects turned down, much like the fantasy series of Tad Williams.
For those who complain of SF's immature gender roles, I suggest you read something besides Niven and Heinlein, the two most chauvinistic writers in the genre. For a major gender theorist, try Sheri S Tepper ("The Gate to Women's Country", "Gibbon's Decline and Fall", "Grass"). You might even learn something about women. I sure did.
Harry Turtledove does some fun things in the area of Alternate History stories. For a brief introduction to the genre, pick up "Guns of the South" for a look at how the Civil War would have ended had time travellers gifted the Confederacy with AK-47's. The premise is hokey but the book is genuinely informing about the Civil War.
It's true, though. Just because it has a robot or a dragon on the cover, doesn't mean you'll like it. Try to seek the more literary SF/Fantasy, I assure you it exists.
Nearly forgot: Robert Silverberg put out an anthology a few years back called "Legends", where popular fantasy authors wrote new short stories set in the worlds of their fantasy epics. Authors include Tad Williams, Stephen King, Ursula K. LeGuin, and Silverberg himself, I believe. It's a great way to get a kind of "sampler" of epic fantasy.
So SmarCard players are clearly out, because the media isn't smart enough. CompactFlash might work because the controller is on the card. What other media formats common to players might work? MultiMediaCard has the controller on the card, I think. Could an IDE laptop drive be retrofitted?
What's your obession with "proof"? If it's proof you're after, I think neither science nor religion can offer it to you. What science excels at is constructing accurate, predictive models, of which evolution is only one (others include relativity and quantum physics, for instance).
In the case of quantum theory, there's no "proof" that photons or electrons really exist. These are just convinient labels we use to describe our observations. The reason these models are so accepted is because they go a great job explaining observations we had, as well as predicting observations we would make later (in the case of relativity, the bending of light around massive objects, etc).
There's a great deal of work involving the e. coli bacterium. Basically, with an understanding of its metabolic processes, scientists are able to predict which environments it will be able to adapt to and which it can't.
Also, we're learning to predict (as a result of eolutionary theory) which systems are likely to have the balance of simplicity and complexity needed to become emergent.
Maybe those aren't the kind of predictions you were looking for, but those are examples of predictive work being done in evolutionary theory.
Get a degree in vertebrate zoology, and maybe you'll have a place to start.
Evolution isn't such a simple process that it can be explained to you in 20 minutes. Neither can the history of one particular species be isolated and explained except in the context of the development of all life.
If it's simple answers you want, well, the creationists have them in spades. If, rather, you're looking for an accurate and predictive model of how the diversity of life on this planet came to be, well, go back to school. It's a complicated theory, like any theory that's useful.
My fiance was smart enough to see through the diamond scam... she was adamant from the beginning that she preferred sapphires. (She dropped a few hints.)
On the other hand, it's all about making her happy. I was lucky enough to find a girl that hadn't pegged her happiness on an engagement stone, no matter what type. So it was easy to make her happy.
I don't think there is the implicit contact to deliver the ending you're expecting anyway - the surprise twist is a standard literary device. There is only the contract to delivery the ending a story demands, and this ending was quite fitting.
I didn't mean to rule out surpirse endings, but I think we find that in a proper suprise ending, the reader expects to be suprised. I.e., "it all seems too perfect", and while the reader may not know how it's going to end, the reader knows that it's going to be a suprise.
Anyway, I disagree that it's the logical ending, which is why I don't like it. To me, the ending seems arbitrary (fifth-act character introduction is almost a deux ex machina, only in this case the angel -the garuda woman - puts things wrong instead of right) and needlessly negative. It seems to me like Mielville is saying "well, you expected a happy ending, but I'm not going to give you one" just because it's so hip to leave the reader unsatisfied.
Hadn't thought about that. That makes some sense but I still don't like it. I don't think it's such a great thing to avoid the happy ending. When an author writes a work, part of what he's doing is creating a contract with the reader - a contract that says "if you finish this book I'll deliver the ending you're expecting."
His ending fails that contract, since Yagharek's quest for flight is the thing that moves the plot. We as readers expect that to come to fruition, and it doesn't.
In some genres, you can get away with not giving the reader what they want. But this is fantasy, not The New York Times. His denial of what we want serves no useful literary purpose in this work. He would have been better served to have a happier ending. There's enough sad endings in real life, after all.
I thought it was a good book and very immersive. Meilville fleshes out his city most vividly. The rest of the world he leaves rather sketchy, but the book is about the city so I think that's ok.
What did it for me was the ending. He's far too preachy. Not to spoil it, but after Yagharek has played an instrumental role in saving the city and Issac is ready to give him wings, another garuda shows up and explains what his crime was in the first place. All very well and good, but doesn't saving a city of over a million inhabatants count for something? Surely saving a million lives outwieghs (spoiler!) the rape he committed years ago. Mielville seems to chicken out (no pun intended) at the end and refuse to allow that any rapist could ever be redeemed.
From a literary view, that's my beef with the book. In a post-Christian literary environment, rejecting redemption is like a throwback to Greek drama. His archaic moral, therefore, jives with the steampunk (a better phrase might be "gas-lamp fantasy"), technology-forward fantasy world he's created. A vivid read, but a let-down ending.
Plus, the monsters were rather unoriginal, I thought.
Seems like Gibson and his ilk missed the obvious midpoint between virtual reality and real reality - augmented reality systems using wearable computers. That sort of merging between the worlds of matter and data (pardon me as I wax eloquent) seems like it will be a big deal in the future. I certainly hope so, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Load up your Matrix rip and watch that scene again. There's one line that they use to justify the whole system. it's when Morpheus is talking about the human batteries:
"...that plus a form of fusion, and they had all the power that they would ever need."
My question is, given the potential of fusion, why do they need the humans at all? And why use humans and not elephants or whales?
oh, right, it's just a movie. Can't wait for the sequels and more of the Animatrix, tho.
Of course, I'm not a biochemist either.
Coffee only needs to be at about 120-130 degrees (F) to remain fresh. At that temp it takes about 30 seconds of exposure to skin to get any kind of burn. McDonalds was in the habit of keeping their coffee at about 180-200 degrees. At that temp, exposure (such as by spilling) gives you third degree burns in about 2 seconds.
The part that the judge and jury found the most actionable was that this issue had come up before; McDonalds knew their coffee was burning people and did nothing about it.
It's reasonable to assume that people will occasionally spill coffee on themselves. That wasn't the point of the suit. It isn't, however, reasonable to assume that coffee should give you third degree burns on your genitals.
Just so you know.
How would you describe the relationship between sexuality as presented in your work and your own personal views on the subject? (What does your wife think about it?
P.S. Great fan, so is my girlfriend - question not meant to offend.
All I ask is that you not throw out an author simply because you didn't like the one book that's not really his "style". If it's fast-paced story you're after, Snow Crash is what you want to read. Again, I'm not saying it's The Great Gatsby (for an instance of great literature), but it's a lot of fun. It's also a fast read. (400 pages, maybe.)
Give it a shot. I think you'l be glad you did. Of course, it's no skin off my nose either way. Just curious which book you had thrown away... happy reading. I'll keep an eye out for Vachss books.
(Did you mean "emptor"? As in "caveat emptor",
The last thing most people would say about Stephenson's truncated, fast-paced style is that he uses "too many words". But without actually knowing which one you read, who is able to respond to you?
Pick up Snow Crash. It takes 2 hours to read. Do yourself a favor, it's a lot of fun.
For those who complain of SF's immature gender roles, I suggest you read something besides Niven and Heinlein, the two most chauvinistic writers in the genre. For a major gender theorist, try Sheri S Tepper ("The Gate to Women's Country", "Gibbon's Decline and Fall", "Grass"). You might even learn something about women. I sure did.
Harry Turtledove does some fun things in the area of Alternate History stories. For a brief introduction to the genre, pick up "Guns of the South" for a look at how the Civil War would have ended had time travellers gifted the Confederacy with AK-47's. The premise is hokey but the book is genuinely informing about the Civil War.
It's true, though. Just because it has a robot or a dragon on the cover, doesn't mean you'll like it. Try to seek the more literary SF/Fantasy, I assure you it exists.
Nearly forgot: Robert Silverberg put out an anthology a few years back called "Legends", where popular fantasy authors wrote new short stories set in the worlds of their fantasy epics. Authors include Tad Williams, Stephen King, Ursula K. LeGuin, and Silverberg himself, I believe. It's a great way to get a kind of "sampler" of epic fantasy.
What's your obession with "proof"? If it's proof you're after, I think neither science nor religion can offer it to you. What science excels at is constructing accurate, predictive models, of which evolution is only one (others include relativity and quantum physics, for instance).
In the case of quantum theory, there's no "proof" that photons or electrons really exist. These are just convinient labels we use to describe our observations. The reason these models are so accepted is because they go a great job explaining observations we had, as well as predicting observations we would make later (in the case of relativity, the bending of light around massive objects, etc).
There's a great deal of work involving the e. coli bacterium. Basically, with an understanding of its metabolic processes, scientists are able to predict which environments it will be able to adapt to and which it can't.
Also, we're learning to predict (as a result of eolutionary theory) which systems are likely to have the balance of simplicity and complexity needed to become emergent.
Maybe those aren't the kind of predictions you were looking for, but those are examples of predictive work being done in evolutionary theory.
Get a degree in vertebrate zoology, and maybe you'll have a place to start.
Evolution isn't such a simple process that it can be explained to you in 20 minutes. Neither can the history of one particular species be isolated and explained except in the context of the development of all life.
If it's simple answers you want, well, the creationists have them in spades. If, rather, you're looking for an accurate and predictive model of how the diversity of life on this planet came to be, well, go back to school. It's a complicated theory, like any theory that's useful.
My fiance was smart enough to see through the diamond scam... she was adamant from the beginning that she preferred sapphires. (She dropped a few hints.)
On the other hand, it's all about making her happy. I was lucky enough to find a girl that hadn't pegged her happiness on an engagement stone, no matter what type. So it was easy to make her happy.
I didn't mean to rule out surpirse endings, but I think we find that in a proper suprise ending, the reader expects to be suprised. I.e., "it all seems too perfect", and while the reader may not know how it's going to end, the reader knows that it's going to be a suprise.
Anyway, I disagree that it's the logical ending, which is why I don't like it. To me, the ending seems arbitrary (fifth-act character introduction is almost a deux ex machina, only in this case the angel -the garuda woman - puts things wrong instead of right) and needlessly negative. It seems to me like Mielville is saying "well, you expected a happy ending, but I'm not going to give you one" just because it's so hip to leave the reader unsatisfied.
His ending fails that contract, since Yagharek's quest for flight is the thing that moves the plot. We as readers expect that to come to fruition, and it doesn't.
In some genres, you can get away with not giving the reader what they want. But this is fantasy, not The New York Times. His denial of what we want serves no useful literary purpose in this work. He would have been better served to have a happier ending. There's enough sad endings in real life, after all.
What did it for me was the ending. He's far too preachy. Not to spoil it, but after Yagharek has played an instrumental role in saving the city and Issac is ready to give him wings, another garuda shows up and explains what his crime was in the first place. All very well and good, but doesn't saving a city of over a million inhabatants count for something? Surely saving a million lives outwieghs (spoiler!) the rape he committed years ago. Mielville seems to chicken out (no pun intended) at the end and refuse to allow that any rapist could ever be redeemed.
From a literary view, that's my beef with the book. In a post-Christian literary environment, rejecting redemption is like a throwback to Greek drama. His archaic moral, therefore, jives with the steampunk (a better phrase might be "gas-lamp fantasy"), technology-forward fantasy world he's created. A vivid read, but a let-down ending.
Plus, the monsters were rather unoriginal, I thought.
"Here's an idea- why don't we just stop thinking critically about art and stories?" I hate people who claim that any analysis is overanalysis.
Seems like Gibson and his ilk missed the obvious midpoint between virtual reality and real reality - augmented reality systems using wearable computers. That sort of merging between the worlds of matter and data (pardon me as I wax eloquent) seems like it will be a big deal in the future. I certainly hope so, anyway.