Speaking as an athiest...
on
The Sparrow
·
· Score: 3
...I didn't expect to enjoy this book. I thought it'd be a proselytising tome, aimed at recruiting.
To Ms. Russell, I'd no like to apologise, and thank her for writing what I consider to be the finest book of 1997. If you're interested, its sequel, Children of God manages miraculously to be every bit as good.
In short: this is a book you have to read. If you have non-sf-reading friends, give them this book as an example of everything that good science fiction can be.
I'm still waiting for her third book, and I'll buy it the nanosecond it's available.
That's what I am. This horrible, senseless celebration of death shouldn't be allowed.
There. I've said it, so no-one else needs to. So let's get on with the business of laughing at morons.
My own personal favourite will always be actor Jon Erik Hexum (sp?), who shot himself in the head with a blank, cunningly forgetting that blanks are lethal up to a few metres. He was starring in some godawful series about models and spies at the time; the title escapes me but I still wake up screaming when the dialogue haunts my dreams.
However, as a way to go I reckon autoerotic asphyxiation has yet to be beaten (so to speak). What better way to be remembered than with your eyes bulging, and your tongue and your dick hanging out?
The whole film wasn't inspired by the Matrix, but Yuen Woo Ping's involvement was, or so he says. It's quite great, though I'm not sure I'd compare it to Drunken Master...
Fair enough. As I said, I haven't seen the film, so I'm not going to talk about influences. I did suspect that the similarity in style may have been the result of Yuen, rather than any hint of hommage[1]; hence my comment
As for Drunken Master: no comparison was intended. I just feel it my duty to mention how cool the film is on every conceivable occasion.
[1]Personally I consider saying hommage instead of homage to be wanky in the extreme, but I seem to be alone in this, and I'm too weak-willed to stand alone.
PS go watch Drunken Master. And Wing Chun. And Magnificent Butcher. &c.
PPS Am I the only one who can't figure out when BR tags are needed, and when they're not?
Well, at least the cyber cafe that I'm stuck in seems to be fine Stuck? Well, that's fucking nice. I try to show you a good night out; a shit-fast connection to the world and the possiblity of seeing the world crash and burn, and what do I get? 'Suck in a cyber cafe'.
In my mind, there's no doubt that this is the equivalent of a DoS. My question is this: is the site being brought down for a specific reason, or is it just vague paranoia? If the latter, then the bringer-down is responsible for any lost business. 'Something bad might happen, but I'm not sure what' would be an acceptable excuse for a mall owner to lock the front gates, and it shouldn't be acceptable for an ISnon-P.
Sod off!"; not as offensive as "Fuck off", but could be bad, depending on tone of voice, obviously.
Many years ago I was on national radio (rté 1 in Ireland, if anyone cares), talking about science fiction. Obviously, a fuck was out of the question so I said at one stage 'sod the lot of them' (or words to that effect). The host looked surprised, and for weeks people said 'I can't believe you said "sod" on the radio'. I'm still not convinced they weren't all taking the piss. The sodders.
...and you bleeding well better, then you should also try Colin Greenland (particularly Daybreak on a Different Mountain) and Geoff Ryman (particularly The Child Garden).
Disclaimer: I am no longer a bookseller. I have no idea whether these are still in print. If they're not, then there's no justice in the world.
Another disclaimer: there is no justice in the world. This does not automatically mean that the above are out of print.
We'll see. I have the nagging feeling that when the next Millenium rolls around they'll probably be jeering at us too.
Jingoism. That's what Jon's reduced to. These last few articles have all been full of sound and fury, but are ultimately hollow. Take the above line, for example. It's typical, in that at a first, superficial glance it looks like it might say something. But if you ponder for more than a nanosecond, you'll pause, and say to yourself 'hang on'.
How many years after the Wright brothers took off did Voyager photograph the gas giants? How many years after Galileo first saw Jupiter's moons did Hubble give us the Deep Field, possibly the most awe-inspiring photograph of the mil^H^N^H our time?
How many people are alive today, having been cured of -- or at least saved from death by -- illnesses that killed millions a scant fifty years ago?
The population of the earth is over six billion, not because we've suddenly started breeding like rabbits, but because technology has improved our overall standard of living. As Jon said, we still have poverty. But he implies that we lack the technology to deal with it. Not true. Political will and technological wherewithal are radically different things.
I've read my last Katz article until he decides he's got enough for his book, and gets back to writing stuff that's worth reading.
a night launch from the Cape is a beautiful sight.
I'm not sure how common it is -- it's probably been published everywhere -- but the picture on the ESA's site is probably the best shuttle picture I've seen. Ever.
Does anyone know if the sort of problems the Hubble is having are "routine" Yeah; they're routine. The telescope was designed to be upgradable and reparable, and the gyroscopes -- the main problem -- have lasted longer than was originally anticipated. It was never a question of if the gyroscopes would fail, but when.
As for beset by problems: okay, the focus thing when it first went up was unfortunate and expensive, but since then, its problems were those of any satellite with a shitload of different technologies aboard. Its original aim -- to spot extra solor planets -- has never been achieved, but it's been a stunning success in every other regard.
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's hippies have conveyed to every car with the potential to fuck in the dog industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Dell, Compaq, McDonald's, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense asteroids to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's throbbing products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such socks and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and fax machines that exhibit the potential to hurl Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly emote consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not dangle with Microsoft's alludium q36 explosive space modulator.
The NASDAQ plunged 98% today after new figures released by the government revealed that Americans spent a total of $6.24 online last year. Government sources are baffled by this lack of enthusiasm, but suggest that possible reasons include the boycotting of everyone who owns a patent and an increasing reluctance to log onto an IIS machine.
The 'trespassing' thing is the most interesting; it implies that anyone who accesses the data on the eBay sever is guilty. And supposing it's there for people who are thing of buying; does that mean that browsers (people that browse, I mean) are also guilty?
As for 'false advertising'; that's just bullshit (probably; the Globe doesn't really elucidate).
Okay, perhaps 'luddism' isn't quite the correct word, but what I'm seeing here is a lot of generalisations that -- as others have noted -- doesn't actually say anything.
What's so bizarre about "Gattaca" is that it's not really even science fiction, but an early documentary of the 21st Century Bullshit. Sorry Jon, but you've no more of an idea than the rest of us as to how the next century will turn out. Certainly a few of the nasty things in Gattaca will make an appearance, but equally there'll be good things we can't forsee as well as bad things we can't.
his statement ought to have rocked the world, sending journalists, ethicists, scientists, lawmakers and politicians scurrying to figure out what that means for humanity, good and bad. I saw the reports on the BBC, and I noticed that they couldn't actually find anyone to give a reason why this was a Bad Thing. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I realised that I couldn't find anything bad about it either. Consider: we're talking about stringing together a few hundred genes and hoping they replicate. Maybe they will; if they do it will be a tremendous breakthrough, but as far as everyday life is concerned, it (in and of itself) won't have any impact. Venter's call for debate is timely inasmuch as we'll be able to consider now what will happen in the decades to come, but I don't think it was necessary to hold up the research.
So what? Is that the only major ethical issue? Well, I don't know, Jon; what do you think? This piece seems to be like everything else I've read or seen on the subject; 'this is wrong; but I can't put my finger on why'.
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion This bit's going to sound like religion bashing; it isn't intended as such. Religions are conservative by nature, and are very reluctant to endorse any new technology that diminishes the suzerainty of god. But 'gene splicign is bad... mmmmkay?' isn't a good argument, so religion has to come up with a solid reason to justify its stance. And it's very good at doing this. I say bring on the religious philosophers; they'll point out the problems with the ideas.
To sum up, then: new stuff is coming along. We don't know how it'll affect us, but we assume some bad stuff will be involved. Let's talk vaguely until something else comes along that we can dither about.
I sometimes have the feeling that we're all part of an alien sitcom, and this is just another twist of faith.
You're probably aware of this, but Robert Rankin's excellent and hilarious Armageddon trilogy covers that very point. Not read 'em? They're called Armageddon: The Musical, Armageddon II: They Came and Ate Us, and Armageddon III: The Suburban Book of the Dead
although the ethics of such an act are questionable THis sounds reasonable until you think about it. What ethical considerations are there for introducing life to a dead planet? To introduce water-breathing rabbits to the Europan system if life is extant would be a disastrous thing but, if you're sure the planet is devoid of life, I say go for it.
Of course, how do you know the planet is truly empty? I suspect that this would be a non-trivial task, but a daunting one.
but I think it bears repeating, so I'll say it again.
The discovery of life on Europa would more or less confirm the ubiquity of life. If microbes were found on Mars, they could have originated on Earth and moved to Mars (or vice versa), but the chances are low indeed (although admittedly not zero) of Earth and Europan life having a common origin.
Having said that...
The Vostok life forms show only that life can exist in such environments; it says nothing about life forming there. It may well be possible for existing life to adapt to a shitty environment (from our POV), but it would, to my untrained eye, be far more difficult for life to start there.
Besides, parents can't just slap a program on there and expect it to do all the work for them - they should be there when the kid is on the net. That's not practical. In order to be sure that little johnny isn't downloading naughtiness, s/he would have to be sitting beside the sprog for every second of its time online. Monitoring software has its problems, but if used responsibly is still the best solution.
Will it happen? Probably not, but it has the advantages of being a solution that's effective and implementable. So it's likely to happen if politicians decide to do what's best for everyone. Improbable, but it does happen occasionally.
The Australian government has announced the composition of the board of NetAlert, a "community advisory" body responsible for researching filtering tools and educating parents about Internet access.
Ironically, this is (IMO) just what's needed. Imagine a world where informed parents used filtering software that they controlled. The EFA call this "another example of the paternalism exhibited by the current government", but if implemented correctly -- with the emphasis on education -- then this could very well be a Good Thing.
Will it pick up my computer cables off the floor and vacuum under them? Actually, looking at it I'd say it's perfect for those 'under the desk' jobs. It'd be able to get at the dust without eating the cable, and would obviate all that desk-and-box-moving that is such a pain in the arse.
Slashdot Mirror
...I didn't expect to enjoy this book. I thought it'd be a proselytising tome, aimed at recruiting.
To Ms. Russell, I'd no like to apologise, and thank her for writing what I consider to be the finest book of 1997.
If you're interested, its sequel, Children of God manages miraculously to be every bit as good.
In short: this is a book you have to read. If you have non-sf-reading friends, give them this book as an example of everything that good science fiction can be.
I'm still waiting for her third book, and I'll buy it the nanosecond it's available.
That's what I am. This horrible, senseless celebration of death shouldn't be allowed.
There. I've said it, so no-one else needs to. So let's get on with the business of laughing at morons.
My own personal favourite will always be actor Jon Erik Hexum (sp?), who shot himself in the head with a blank, cunningly forgetting that blanks are lethal up to a few metres. He was starring in some godawful series about models and spies at the time; the title escapes me but I still wake up screaming when the dialogue haunts my dreams.
However, as a way to go I reckon autoerotic asphyxiation has yet to be beaten (so to speak). What better way to be remembered than with your eyes bulging, and your tongue and your dick hanging out?
The whole film wasn't inspired by the Matrix, but Yuen Woo Ping's involvement was, or so he says. It's quite great, though I'm not sure I'd compare it to Drunken Master...
Fair enough. As I said, I haven't seen the film, so I'm not going to talk about influences. I did suspect that the similarity in style may have been the result of Yuen, rather than any hint of hommage[1]; hence my comment
As for Drunken Master: no comparison was intended. I just feel it my duty to mention how cool the film is on every conceivable occasion.
[1]Personally I consider saying hommage instead of homage to be wanky in the extreme, but I seem to be alone in this, and I'm too weak-willed to stand alone.
PS go watch Drunken Master. And Wing Chun. And Magnificent Butcher. &c.
PPS Am I the only one who can't figure out when BR tags are needed, and when they're not?
Well, at least the cyber cafe that I'm stuck in seems to be fine
Stuck? Well, that's fucking nice. I try to show you a good night out; a shit-fast connection to the world and the possiblity of seeing the world crash and burn, and what do I get? 'Suck in a cyber cafe'.
You pick the venue next fucking millennnium.
would be an acceptable excuse
wouldn't. wouldn't. Sorry. And to think I previewed twice.
In my mind, there's no doubt that this is the equivalent of a DoS. My question is this: is the site being brought down for a specific reason, or is it just vague paranoia? If the latter, then the bringer-down is responsible for any lost business. 'Something bad might happen, but I'm not sure what' would be an acceptable excuse for a mall owner to lock the front gates, and it shouldn't be acceptable for an ISnon-P.
Sod off!"; not as offensive as "Fuck off", but could be bad, depending on tone of voice, obviously.
Many years ago I was on national radio (rté 1 in Ireland, if anyone cares), talking about science fiction. Obviously, a fuck was out of the question so I said at one stage 'sod the lot of them' (or words to that effect). The host looked surprised, and for weeks people said 'I can't believe you said "sod" on the radio'. I'm still not convinced they weren't all taking the piss. The sodders.
...and you bleeding well better, then you should also try Colin Greenland (particularly Daybreak on a Different Mountain) and Geoff Ryman (particularly The Child Garden).
Disclaimer: I am no longer a bookseller. I have no idea whether these are still in print. If they're not, then there's no justice in the world.
Another disclaimer: there is no justice in the world. This does not automatically mean that the above are out of print.
We'll see. I have the nagging feeling that when the next Millenium rolls around they'll probably be jeering at us too.
Jingoism. That's what Jon's reduced to. These last few articles have all been full of sound and fury, but are ultimately hollow. Take the above line, for example. It's typical, in that at a first, superficial glance it looks like it might say something. But if you ponder for more than a nanosecond, you'll pause, and say to yourself 'hang on'.
How many years after the Wright brothers took off did Voyager photograph the gas giants? How many years after Galileo first saw Jupiter's moons did Hubble give us the Deep Field, possibly the most awe-inspiring photograph of the mil^H^N^H our time?
How many people are alive today, having been cured of -- or at least saved from death by -- illnesses that killed millions a scant fifty years ago?
The population of the earth is over six billion, not because we've suddenly started breeding like rabbits, but because technology has improved our overall standard of living. As Jon said, we still have poverty. But he implies that we lack the technology to deal with it. Not true. Political will and technological wherewithal are radically different things.
I've read my last Katz article until he decides he's got enough for his book, and gets back to writing stuff that's worth reading.
a night launch from the Cape is a beautiful sight.
I'm not sure how common it is -- it's probably been published everywhere -- but the picture on the ESA's site is probably the best shuttle picture I've seen. Ever.
Does anyone know if the sort of problems the Hubble is having are "routine"
Yeah; they're routine. The telescope was designed to be upgradable and reparable, and the gyroscopes -- the main problem -- have lasted longer than was originally anticipated.
It was never a question of if the gyroscopes would fail, but when.
As for beset by problems: okay, the focus thing when it first went up was unfortunate and expensive, but since then, its problems were those of any satellite with a shitload of different technologies aboard. Its original aim -- to spot extra solor planets -- has never been achieved, but it's been a stunning success in every other regard.
A few parsing problems, but funny nonetheless...
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's hippies have conveyed to every car with the potential to fuck in the dog industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Dell, Compaq, McDonald's, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense asteroids to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's throbbing products.
Microsoft's past success in hurting such socks and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and fax machines that exhibit the potential to hurl Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly emote consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not dangle with Microsoft's alludium q36 explosive space modulator.
So you calculate your own tax, eh?
I can see the headlines a year from now...
The NASDAQ plunged 98% today after new figures released by the government revealed that Americans spent a total of $6.24 online last year. Government sources are baffled by this lack of enthusiasm, but suggest that possible reasons include the boycotting of everyone who owns a patent and an increasing reluctance to log onto an IIS machine.
21% VAT here in Ireland.
The 'trespassing' thing is the most interesting; it implies that anyone who accesses the data on the eBay sever is guilty. And supposing it's there for people who are thing of buying; does that mean that browsers (people that browse, I mean) are also guilty?
As for 'false advertising'; that's just bullshit (probably; the Globe doesn't really elucidate).
Okay, perhaps 'luddism' isn't quite the correct word, but what I'm seeing here is a lot of generalisations that -- as others have noted -- doesn't actually say anything.
What's so bizarre about "Gattaca" is that it's not really even science fiction, but an early documentary of the 21st Century
Bullshit. Sorry Jon, but you've no more of an idea than the rest of us as to how the next century will turn out. Certainly a few of the nasty things in Gattaca will make an appearance, but equally there'll be good things we can't forsee as well as bad things we can't.
his statement ought to have rocked the world, sending journalists, ethicists, scientists, lawmakers and politicians scurrying to figure out what that means for humanity, good and bad.
I saw the reports on the BBC, and I noticed that they couldn't actually find anyone to give a reason why this was a Bad Thing. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I realised that I couldn't find anything bad about it either.
Consider: we're talking about stringing together a few hundred genes and hoping they replicate. Maybe they will; if they do it will be a tremendous breakthrough, but as far as everyday life is concerned, it (in and of itself) won't have any impact. Venter's call for debate is timely inasmuch as we'll be able to consider now what will happen in the decades to come, but I don't think it was necessary to hold up the research.
So what? Is that the only major ethical issue?
Well, I don't know, Jon; what do you think? This piece seems to be like everything else I've read or seen on the subject; 'this is wrong; but I can't put my finger on why'.
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion
This bit's going to sound like religion bashing; it isn't intended as such.
Religions are conservative by nature, and are very reluctant to endorse any new technology that diminishes the suzerainty of god. But 'gene splicign is bad... mmmmkay?' isn't a good argument, so religion has to come up with a solid reason to justify its stance. And it's very good at doing this. I say bring on the religious philosophers; they'll point out the problems with the ideas.
To sum up, then: new stuff is coming along. We don't know how it'll affect us, but we assume some bad stuff will be involved. Let's talk vaguely until something else comes along that we can dither about.
I sometimes have the feeling that we're all part of an alien sitcom, and this is just another twist of faith.
You're probably aware of this, but Robert Rankin's excellent and hilarious Armageddon trilogy covers that very point.
Not read 'em? They're called Armageddon: The Musical, Armageddon II: They Came and Ate Us, and Armageddon III: The Suburban Book of the Dead
although the ethics of such an act are questionable
THis sounds reasonable until you think about it. What ethical considerations are there for introducing life to a dead planet? To introduce water-breathing rabbits to the Europan system if life is extant would be a disastrous thing but, if you're sure the planet is devoid of life, I say go for it.
Of course, how do you know the planet is truly empty? I suspect that this would be a non-trivial task, but a daunting one.
but I think it bears repeating, so I'll say it again.
The discovery of life on Europa would more or less confirm the ubiquity of life. If microbes were found on Mars, they could have originated on Earth and moved to Mars (or vice versa), but the chances are low indeed (although admittedly not zero) of Earth and Europan life having a common origin.
Having said that...
The Vostok life forms show only that life can exist in such environments; it says nothing about life forming there. It may well be possible for existing life to adapt to a shitty environment (from our POV), but it would, to my untrained eye, be far more difficult for life to start there.
Besides, parents can't just slap a program on there and expect it to do all the work for them - they should be there when the kid is on the net.
That's not practical. In order to be sure that little johnny isn't downloading naughtiness, s/he would have to be sitting beside the sprog for every second of its time online. Monitoring software has its problems, but if used responsibly is still the best solution.
Will it happen? Probably not, but it has the advantages of being a solution that's effective and implementable. So it's likely to happen if politicians decide to do what's best for everyone. Improbable, but it does happen occasionally.
The Australian government has announced the composition of the board of NetAlert, a "community advisory" body responsible for researching filtering tools and educating parents about Internet access.
Ironically, this is (IMO) just what's needed. Imagine a world where informed parents used filtering software that they controlled. The EFA call this "another example of the paternalism exhibited by the current government", but if implemented correctly -- with the emphasis on education -- then this could very well be a Good Thing.
Will it pick up my computer cables off the floor and vacuum under them?
Actually, looking at it I'd say it's perfect for those 'under the desk' jobs. It'd be able to get at the dust without eating the cable, and would obviate all that desk-and-box-moving that is such a pain in the arse.
Channukah? What about Saturnalia? Not everyone here is Jewish...
And don't you think 'holiday' discriminates against people who'll have to work at the end of December?
Yeah. It sucks.
That one had no mistakes.
Actually...
There was a space between the 3 and the the. Not an error per se but inconsistent with the two previous points
sentences should begin with a capital letter.
You used the word 'hardware' twice. Gramatically kosher it may be, but aestitically, it's not kosher.