No issues with your opinion. I expressed mine too. This is how the system works.
"Cryptonomicon" is crap." You obviously were trolling here. I (intentionally) fed the troll. You have your opinion. That's fine. You think that going against the trend has value. That's fine too.
I think that going against the trend, and going with the trend, are really the same thing. Saying "Well, lots of people liked it, so it must be good!" and saying "Well, lots of people liked it, so it must be crap!" are really artifacts of the same sloppy thinking.
So. Post a comment like "X is crap." on/. is likely to a) get you modded to flamebait (which happened) and b) get somebody to reply to you and disagree. I didn't flame you. I expressed my (valid) opinion.
If you took my comment about big books personally, that's fine. You're entitled. You thought Stephenson's exposition wasn't very good. Since it was very thorough, I assume (yes, there's a dangerous word) that you thought it was too long. Maybe I was right, maybe not; but in either case it was a tongue in cheek comment.
If I wanted it to be an ad hominem attack, I'd have included the words "you ignorant buttpipe." Since I didn't, you may safely conclude that I was not attacking you.
Lighten up. Have a nice day.
Re:For the love of God, don't start the Wheel of T
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 1
You've read his novels, right?
Neverwhere Stardust American Gods Coraline (kids' book)
I've been reading this discussion and setting my library hold queue to "pillage". Trying to fill up my free time between not getting replies on my resume.
Don't bother with Red Rabbit. It doesn't get better. : ) Clancy was wonderful for five books, then he needed an editor. Without Remorse and Debt of Honor were the beginning of the end, although Rainbow Six was enjoyable.
Goodkind got a big yellow card from me when he turned into an objectivist twit in Faith of the Fallen. He got another one when he did the most recent book without mentioning the main characters until the last 30 pages.
I don't know about this guy. He's pulling a Jordan on me.
Martin, on the other hand, is looking good. Liked the ending of the last one.
Yeah. That and the fact that the "plot" comes to a COMPLETE SCREECHING HALT one page before the end of the book.
I actually threw that book across the room. ZERO resolution at the end. Totally unfulfilling. Dan Simmons is not my friend. i didn't really enjoy the short stories bits, and then when they didn't resolve, I was really mad.
Come on. The Spider Queen works for Catholics, why not a Worm King?
: )
Re:For the love of God, don't start the Wheel of T
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oooh! Oooh! Yeah! how did I forget Gaiman?
Everything that's come out of Neil Gaiman's pen is freakin' awesome. I haven't read all of Sandman, but his novels are really imaginative and evocative. I loved his children's book, Coraline.
I found GRRM to be like Goodkind, only not a wacko objectivist. And grittier. Kills characters left right and center. I'm eager for his next book, but Goodkind has fallen off my "must buy!" list. When he fell, he hit Robert Jordan and broke the guy's leg. So if the next book is even later and less focused, sorry fanboys, it's my fault.
Oooh! Harry Harrison's Hammer and Cross series was fun, too.
His characters have been marking time for close to 2000 pages. I love epic fantasy...but only if it GOES SOMEWHERE.
Only thing that annoys me more, is that his success is making Terry Goodkind do the same thing.
More productively, I just read Down & Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow, which was fun and short. The previous night I read Mil Millington's Things my Girlfriend and I Have Argued About, which was also short and fun.
Now I'm reading Interface, by Stephen Bury, which is a Neal Stephenson pen name. Interesting political sci-fi joint. I'm only 50 pages into it, and it's great stuff.
Other staples of my library: David Weber's Honor Harrington books are just fun bubble-gum reading. Nothing profound, just good space opera.
Anything by Orson Scott Card. Highlights: Pastwatch; The Redemption of Christopher Columbus and the Alvin Maker books. Ender: Duh. Of course. : )
Anything by Sheri S. Tepper. She won't be to everyone's taste, but she's always very imaginative. And very feminist. Be warned.
Signal to Noise and Signal Shattered by Eric S. Nylund. Imaginative and dark.
Deepness in the Sky and Fire upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge.
Uplift War series (9 books?) by David Brin.
If you haven't read it, turn into a thirteen year old again and read The Belgariad and The Malloreon by David Eddings. The rest of his books get a bit tiresome but the first ten have legs. Also, while in the same mindset, the first three Dragonlance books by Weis and Hickman (Dragons of Autumn Twilight &c) are worthwhile and not too masturbatory.
Hmmm....what else? OOOH!
Rudy Rucker. His 'ware series (Software, Wetware, Freeware, Realware) is funny cyberpunk. Saucer Wisdom is...indescribable and bizarre.
That should keep you busy. Let me know when you're done with these.
I have a real hard time buying this. Not to say it wasn't considered: In the 50's, they considered all kinds of wacky things (like launching ICBMs from cargo planes with open nose and tail hatches).
You could in fact fire a rocket out the back of the aircraft, and you could in fact use the exhaust gases to give your aircraft a little "boost" for the infinitesimal fraction of a second when the rocket is burning inside the airframe. Problems, as I see them:
1) You have to fire the engine while inside the plane. Zero operational aircraft do this right now. Missiles are ejected from bomb bays and ignited below the aircraft. Some missiles fire their engines while still on underwing or under-fuselage rails, but never in internal weapon bays.
2) The missile would (from its own frame of reference) have a large negative velocity. Try throwing a dart backwards and you'll understand how this makes stability a big problem.
3) As referenced above, even if you do fire the engines inside the aircraft, most rocket-powered missiles accelerate pretty fast. You really are on the horns of a dilemma here: If the rocket motor is powerful enough to make venting its exhaust gases to enhance thrust a useful alternative, it's powerful enough to give the missile a huge acceleration out the back of the airplane, taking its motor with it. If it's a lower thrust motor (like a cruise missile) then the motor isn't big enough to make a difference to the mother aircraft.
Those are the problems as I see them. I'd be curious to know if there are any weapon systems that engineered around, or ignored, my percieved issues. : )
But they'd be seeing a (say) Mach 1.5 airstream right up the tailpipe, which would be far worse! The only way I can figure that would work is if there was a big, weighted fairing covering the tailpipe to change the CG of the missile such that it could be stable flying backwards.
Do you have any links on this practice? I couldn't find any on quick Google survey. Thanks. : )
It's always possible to have a mission-failure point in a design. Good engineers identify those points, and design redundancies and fail-safes. That's why we pay engineers lots of money.
Slashdot Mirror
No issues with your opinion. I expressed mine too. This is how the system works.
/. is likely to a) get you modded to flamebait (which happened) and b) get somebody to reply to you and disagree. I didn't flame you. I expressed my (valid) opinion.
"Cryptonomicon" is crap." You obviously were trolling here. I (intentionally) fed the troll. You have your opinion. That's fine. You think that going against the trend has value. That's fine too.
I think that going against the trend, and going with the trend, are really the same thing. Saying "Well, lots of people liked it, so it must be good!" and saying "Well, lots of people liked it, so it must be crap!" are really artifacts of the same sloppy thinking.
So. Post a comment like "X is crap." on
If you took my comment about big books personally, that's fine. You're entitled. You thought Stephenson's exposition wasn't very good. Since it was very thorough, I assume (yes, there's a dangerous word) that you thought it was too long. Maybe I was right, maybe not; but in either case it was a tongue in cheek comment.
If I wanted it to be an ad hominem attack, I'd have included the words "you ignorant buttpipe." Since I didn't, you may safely conclude that I was not attacking you.
Lighten up. Have a nice day.
You've read his novels, right?
Neverwhere
Stardust
American Gods
Coraline (kids' book)
If they don't carry those, slay your librarian.
So get on it. That's what Open Source is for, right?
Make my library have it!
Or hire me. Need an engineer?
I've been reading this discussion and setting my library hold queue to "pillage". Trying to fill up my free time between not getting replies on my resume.
Good luck with the book!
Night's Dawn...brilliant.
Don't bother with Red Rabbit. It doesn't get better. : ) Clancy was wonderful for five books, then he needed an editor. Without Remorse and Debt of Honor were the beginning of the end, although Rainbow Six was enjoyable.
Weird, and long, and worth it. Good stuff.
Goodkind got a big yellow card from me when he turned into an objectivist twit in Faith of the Fallen. He got another one when he did the most recent book without mentioning the main characters until the last 30 pages.
I don't know about this guy. He's pulling a Jordan on me.
Martin, on the other hand, is looking good. Liked the ending of the last one.
Please differentiate between "Neuromancer" and a work of "literature" without making reference to the age of the book, or using the word "classic".
Just because it's not taught at Oxford doesn't mean it's not worth your time.
Yeah. That and the fact that the "plot" comes to a COMPLETE SCREECHING HALT one page before the end of the book.
I actually threw that book across the room. ZERO resolution at the end. Totally unfulfilling. Dan Simmons is not my friend. i didn't really enjoy the short stories bits, and then when they didn't resolve, I was really mad.
Kind of like Canterbury Tales. Only boringer.
(yes, I said boringer. Deal.)
Come on. The Spider Queen works for Catholics, why not a Worm King?
: )
Oooh! Oooh! Yeah! how did I forget Gaiman?
Everything that's come out of Neil Gaiman's pen is freakin' awesome. I haven't read all of Sandman, but his novels are really imaginative and evocative. I loved his children's book, Coraline.
I found GRRM to be like Goodkind, only not a wacko objectivist. And grittier. Kills characters left right and center. I'm eager for his next book, but Goodkind has fallen off my "must buy!" list. When he fell, he hit Robert Jordan and broke the guy's leg. So if the next book is even later and less focused, sorry fanboys, it's my fault.
Oooh! Harry Harrison's Hammer and Cross series was fun, too.
Oooh, seconded. The humor-density in the Myth books is pretty darn impressive.
Discworld is cute, but not worth reading all of. And this is from somebody who thinks a 500 page book is two days' light reading. : )
I've totally lost patience with Jordan.
His characters have been marking time for close to 2000 pages. I love epic fantasy...but only if it GOES SOMEWHERE.
Only thing that annoys me more, is that his success is making Terry Goodkind do the same thing.
More productively, I just read Down & Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow, which was fun and short. The previous night I read Mil Millington's Things my Girlfriend and I Have Argued About, which was also short and fun.
Now I'm reading Interface, by Stephen Bury, which is a Neal Stephenson pen name. Interesting political sci-fi joint. I'm only 50 pages into it, and it's great stuff.
Other staples of my library: David Weber's Honor Harrington books are just fun bubble-gum reading. Nothing profound, just good space opera.
Anything by Orson Scott Card. Highlights: Pastwatch; The Redemption of Christopher Columbus and the Alvin Maker books. Ender: Duh. Of course. : )
Anything by Sheri S. Tepper. She won't be to everyone's taste, but she's always very imaginative. And very feminist. Be warned.
Signal to Noise and Signal Shattered by Eric S. Nylund. Imaginative and dark.
Deepness in the Sky and Fire upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge.
Uplift War series (9 books?) by David Brin.
If you haven't read it, turn into a thirteen year old again and read The Belgariad and The Malloreon by David Eddings. The rest of his books get a bit tiresome but the first ten have legs. Also, while in the same mindset, the first three Dragonlance books by Weis and Hickman (Dragons of Autumn Twilight &c) are worthwhile and not too masturbatory.
Hmmm....what else? OOOH!
Rudy Rucker. His 'ware series (Software, Wetware, Freeware, Realware) is funny cyberpunk. Saucer Wisdom is...indescribable and bizarre.
That should keep you busy. Let me know when you're done with these.
Wow. I disagree with you. Lots of people agree with me.
I found the characters fascinating and the story fun. Yes, it was long...but I've never been scared of big books.
And you're the only gamer whose opinion counts?
Ah. Right. Can I have your phone number so I can make sure I never design products that do not please thee?
uh, then all the people you know are either a) eight years old or b) really stupid.
wait, that's redundant.
Strong Bad is one step ahead of you.
I have a real hard time buying this. Not to say it wasn't considered: In the 50's, they considered all kinds of wacky things (like launching ICBMs from cargo planes with open nose and tail hatches).
You could in fact fire a rocket out the back of the aircraft, and you could in fact use the exhaust gases to give your aircraft a little "boost" for the infinitesimal fraction of a second when the rocket is burning inside the airframe. Problems, as I see them:
1) You have to fire the engine while inside the plane. Zero operational aircraft do this right now. Missiles are ejected from bomb bays and ignited below the aircraft. Some missiles fire their engines while still on underwing or under-fuselage rails, but never in internal weapon bays.
2) The missile would (from its own frame of reference) have a large negative velocity. Try throwing a dart backwards and you'll understand how this makes stability a big problem.
3) As referenced above, even if you do fire the engines inside the aircraft, most rocket-powered missiles accelerate pretty fast. You really are on the horns of a dilemma here: If the rocket motor is powerful enough to make venting its exhaust gases to enhance thrust a useful alternative, it's powerful enough to give the missile a huge acceleration out the back of the airplane, taking its motor with it. If it's a lower thrust motor (like a cruise missile) then the motor isn't big enough to make a difference to the mother aircraft.
Those are the problems as I see them. I'd be curious to know if there are any weapon systems that engineered around, or ignored, my percieved issues. : )
I know more about aviation and rocketry than any three people you know.
Try me.
But they'd be seeing a (say) Mach 1.5 airstream right up the tailpipe, which would be far worse! The only way I can figure that would work is if there was a big, weighted fairing covering the tailpipe to change the CG of the missile such that it could be stable flying backwards.
Do you have any links on this practice? I couldn't find any on quick Google survey. Thanks. : )
What happens if the wings break off?
It's always possible to have a mission-failure point in a design. Good engineers identify those points, and design redundancies and fail-safes. That's why we pay engineers lots of money.
I hope. Anybody want to hire me? : )
You and I are coming to the same conclusions from opposite sides.
Which probably means we're right. : )
Wow.
My post below contains most of the same content, but I posted without being a dick about it.
You might try that sometime.
No mod points, but that was really good. : )