Is that supposed to be a challenge or a real question? Well, I'll opt for the second.
You could try Hyperion, and then tell me later what you do think about the Shrike and the Techno Core. There are also some Avimov short tales where the characters are not humanlike (in shape and mind).
They key is that we must be able to understand the story, not necesarily the characters. And it must still be a great story.
In the end, the story is writen for us humans so it will be full of humanity even though filling the story with humans is not a requirement.
Hahaha, hilarius, is that phrase actually on one of the books? I read up to the Restaurant, and gave up there. The first one was a masterpiece, but he obvious couldn't keep the God like quality no wonder, but still good read (maybe it's because it's hard for a non native english reader).
Yes, i think that's correct. The roman empire did not collapse in one day, it took centuries (from "low" middle age (1000 AC) to renaissance). I can't put a date, yes, you could mark it with fall of cities or regions, but that's not very helpfull.
By the way, I think the first two books were mostly in this setup. Remember he wrote the books in "chapters" over the course of more than a decade.
And if all of us had better ideas than you, we'd be making millions selling books instead of posting of/., eh?
Nope, making millions has to do with selling at a good price, winiing the masses, doing good marketing. Good sci fi has nothing to do with it. Porno movies sell a lot, but they don't make good movies. Likewise, good sci fi doesn't sell a lot, because most people don't really like good sci-fi. I know why, and it's because most people are looking for something else when they read, and not Insight or What Ifs.
Chances are that if you like philosophy, you will like sci fi. You MUST have hunger for knoledge, you must like to risk hypotesis on almost everything, and have an opinion not be a mere spectator.
Even if 10000000 humans watched Star Trek, that would not make it good sci-fi. Asimov said that, I agree with him.
The problem is sci-fi's definition because there's no point arguing about sci-fi or sandwichs: basically, we (you, me, etc) are calling Science Finction to very different beasts. It's _not_ a matter of taste, it's amtter of what is sci-fi, and if you'd like to reserve the word sci-fi to Start Trek alikes (as Asimov suggests) then I fully agree. Let's call science fiction just Science Fiction, and that's it.
I never discussed with anyone about tastes. There's no point in discussing about that. But discussing what makes a good healthy meal does make sense, and is the right analogy in this context.
One thing that makes great sci fi is when the story and setting can not only withstand the implications of the science, but grow naturally from it.
I freaking last, I finally found a good sentence to explain why I don't like most sci-fi. I'll copy past that phrase! I got tired of trying to explain to Trekkies that the technology in Star Trek it completely inconsistent with how it could be best used or abused and that ruins the hole series, amen that they make tehnology appear and disappear at will. If you can materialize people, you can materialize everything as in Diamond Age, and that changes the entire universe. They can't do a materializer and use it just as a "space elevator" for CRIST SAKE!
But yes, the story must b good, and science must play an important role. If it's a story in an erth like world were trees are violet and grass red, well, it can't be called science fiction.
Actually, that's what most sci-fi stories are all about, including Star Trek which adds to the flavour ridiculous situations that will not resolve as the resolve them, and where the combined probablity of everything that happens in StarTrek is... uh zero (I wish there could be negative probabilities just for the last sentence reinforcement).
You can have one or two highly improbable things ocurring, that may be what's being narrated, what you CAN'T have is 60 chained highly improbable evens. Haven't they read about normal or chi distribution or what?
He probably likes Start Trek, so people thinking as 20th century humans and doing everything we'd do now, in a "space" dressed scenary is what he likes. In fact, that's what most people like AND what Asimov calls Sci-fi (crappy Science Fiction)...
Asimov clearly stated he based the storyline along the middle age and renaissance. That's not novel, but many of the ideas in the book are, and cleary set it appart from "historical" setups.
The fact that a small group is attempting to change power is in fact a universal constant that doesn't even need the human race arround to be a certain truth.
... one may actually have more questions after finishing the book than he had in the beginning.
Yes, but the story must be finished, and the plot should work towards it. NOT like the Diamond Age, that has brilliant subparts but as a story completely lacks. All the mess in the book just for that stupid ending? It left me a bad taste, I was hoping for a story, not a great insight into nanotech and how it will shape or lives.
Oh well, I know this is going to cost me...but I am being honest. Disclaimer: I do read a lot of science fiction. And the ones I liked the most are the ones where the books is going somewhere.
Real people, what do you mean? Good sf doesn't even need people as in humanoids or talking beigns. Even if people are involved, they don't need to be REAL people as we know today, they may well be incomprehensible for the most part.
But the STORY and the SCIENCE must be believable (yeah, still two limiting factor, we have to be able to understand both the sotry and the science or rules).
- It has to be FICTIONAL (somewhat obvious). - It still NEEDS a story, no amount of science will turn a bad story into a good sf novel or tale. - The "science part" needs to play a ROLE in the story. It doesn't mean it should be "techy" at all, it could be tech-lacking, but not science lacking (it doesn't even have to be scientific, but must have internal logic, be non contradictory, and even though you don't need to explain, you should be able to come up with a reson for everything, in a way that does not make other claims contradictory).
That's the basic ruleset...no wonder why I don't like most sf writers and specially, ST and the likes (yikes).
Blame factor. Who do you blame if you choose a OSS solution? People like to make the provider responsible EVEN when it's their fault. So they like the fact that Windows is very easy to blame.
It's playing on the safe side (blamewise). Of course, it's only blameablity, yo want get any money from Microsoft's next greatest bug:)
But at some point, the things will get inverted. "HEY WE USED LINUX. It's not our fault!!"
Sorry, here we use celcius, I never really got to understand Farenheit, both metrics are not even linear, you have to use a formula. All I know is to set ac to 74F or 76F in my fathers Volvo to be confortable.
Celcius: 0c degrees = freeze point 100c degrees = boiling point (at normal pressure, blah).
Yeah, so fair. If they want to make a punishment, why not make them donate the money to a charity institution? There are people out there diying the one true death because of famine, and certainly even a 3rd degree burn by drinking coffee does not seem all that bad at all.
I wonder how that happend, i tried really HOT stuff (remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees) and never got burn like that.
Not flamebait, but I think justice means justice, balance. You can't overcompensate a woman just because they you to send a signal. Justice as a signal WORKS, but it is UNFAIR.
Yeah, but I don't see how other won't embrace the new technology to kill the idiotic guy with the gun. I mean, of course I like the mixture, but it is not realistic. It's deliberately not realistic, so I can accept that. Maybe they could think of a reason why that works that way (military prohibition of advanced weapons, with areas scanned permanently would work for me). I still preffer gun to the i**otic weapons used in star trek (an "aimed" laser? Come on, aiming with what should be a super hi-tech, best of the herd gun? NO WAY.
My all time favourite: Blade Runner (but very close to some other great, not-so-popular movies, and some very popular ones).
They lost a lot of money on that, but hell, the problem is not being a bad movie, the problem is the fans of the real sci-fi genre are less than "common normal/weird lifestyle" or "stupid fantasy" stuff. So they don't profit much.
To be able to pull a profit in the genre you either have to:
a) Stupidify the rengre all together (would have said: "Start Trek???", but I won't for respect to the fans)
b) Do it with low budget (not minimal, but relatively small) and keep the intelectual level.
It's not hard to see why most serious sci-fi lives only in books. Yes, only a selected audience reads it, but the cost is "one man labour" and some paper. Much easier...
The only serious sci-fi movie that really did well (couldn't tell how well, was 1 years old or unborn at the time) was 2001. I really don't know why.
Open Source is a term mean to attract developers mostly, or corporate users (I can fix it, I won't be locked into that solution, no forced upgrades, free, etc.).
Casual Joe, as you say, does not care. That's why you don't see Linux much in the desktop. There's really no complelling reason to move to Linux. I never suggested to anyone to move to Linux unless: - They like computer per se (not some app) - It might be usefull for them if the admin servers, they have more choice
Trying to convert a Joe needs features and eyecandy, and nothing else (and nothing more). So, I think Linux has the easiest part ahead. The hard part has already been done (hardware support, developer support, some critical mass).
You could "easily" tap it by simply inserting your device into the line of sight and then retransmitting.
Yes, but wouldn't I notice that? The tapping device would have to be invisible to me and to the other end. I mean, i'd set up a line monitoring (a digitally monitored telescope that scans the LOS).
They NEED to bring the market share down a bit, but in a controled fashion. So they handle the issue with care. They don't want massive company conversions as they might well be their doomsday. They don't mind losing market share in the home user market (basically, most home users of windows are pirates, at least in the world market. They don't mind them pirating XP is they can't enforce payment yet without pissing a lot of people).
Slashdot Mirror
Some guy said the magic words. Read the thread if you have time, it's short, but in a sentence, we like sci-fi when:
"... the story and setting can not only withstand the implications of the science, but grow naturally from it".
The thread
Isn't THAT what Star Trek lacks?
Is that supposed to be a challenge or a real question? Well, I'll opt for the second.
You could try Hyperion, and then tell me later what you do think about the Shrike and the Techno Core. There are also some Avimov short tales where the characters are not humanlike (in shape and mind).
They key is that we must be able to understand the story, not necesarily the characters. And it must still be a great story.
In the end, the story is writen for us humans so it will be full of humanity even though filling the story with humans is not a requirement.
Hahaha, hilarius, is that phrase actually on one of the books? I read up to the Restaurant, and gave up there. The first one was a masterpiece, but he obvious couldn't keep the God like quality no wonder, but still good read (maybe it's because it's hard for a non native english reader).
Science Fantasy? hehe, that's a good name. Maybe trekkies should start adoping the new short version: Sci-Fa instead of polluting the Sci-Fi version :)
Yes, i think that's correct. The roman empire did not collapse in one day, it took centuries (from "low" middle age (1000 AC) to renaissance). I can't put a date, yes, you could mark it with fall of cities or regions, but that's not very helpfull.
By the way, I think the first two books were mostly in this setup. Remember he wrote the books in "chapters" over the course of more than a decade.
And if all of us had better ideas than you, we'd be making millions selling books instead of posting of /., eh?
Nope, making millions has to do with selling at a good price, winiing the masses, doing good marketing. Good sci fi has nothing to do with it. Porno movies sell a lot, but they don't make good movies. Likewise, good sci fi doesn't sell a lot, because most people don't really like good sci-fi. I know why, and it's because most people are looking for something else when they read, and not Insight or What Ifs.
Chances are that if you like philosophy, you will like sci fi. You MUST have hunger for knoledge, you must like to risk hypotesis on almost everything, and have an opinion not be a mere spectator.
Even if 10000000 humans watched Star Trek, that would not make it good sci-fi. Asimov said that, I agree with him.
The problem is sci-fi's definition because there's no point arguing about sci-fi or sandwichs: basically, we (you, me, etc) are calling Science Finction to very different beasts. It's _not_ a matter of taste, it's amtter of what is sci-fi, and if you'd like to reserve the word sci-fi to Start Trek alikes (as Asimov suggests) then I fully agree. Let's call science fiction just Science Fiction, and that's it.
I never discussed with anyone about tastes. There's no point in discussing about that. But discussing what makes a good healthy meal does make sense, and is the right analogy in this context.
One thing that makes great sci fi is when the story and setting can not only withstand the implications of the science, but grow naturally from it.
I freaking last, I finally found a good sentence to explain why I don't like most sci-fi. I'll copy past that phrase! I got tired of trying to explain to Trekkies that the technology in Star Trek it completely inconsistent with how it could be best used or abused and that ruins the hole series, amen that they make tehnology appear and disappear at will. If you can materialize people, you can materialize everything as in Diamond Age, and that changes the entire universe. They can't do a materializer and use it just as a "space elevator" for CRIST SAKE!
Oh, regarding my last post, I reread your post and you even state what I said. So, look at it as a side not, not a reply :)
If you've run out of good science fiction may I suggest Hyperion from Dan Simmons, if you haven't already read it!
Regards! (and I fully agree with your post!)
But yes, the story must b good, and science must play an important role. If it's a story in an erth like world were trees are violet and grass red, well, it can't be called science fiction.
... uh zero (I wish there could be negative probabilities just for the last sentence reinforcement).
Actually, that's what most sci-fi stories are all about, including Star Trek which adds to the flavour ridiculous situations that will not resolve as the resolve them, and where the combined probablity of everything that happens in StarTrek is
You can have one or two highly improbable things ocurring, that may be what's being narrated, what you CAN'T have is 60 chained highly improbable evens. Haven't they read about normal or chi distribution or what?
He probably likes Start Trek, so people thinking as 20th century humans and doing everything we'd do now, in a "space" dressed scenary is what he likes. In fact, that's what most people like AND what Asimov calls Sci-fi (crappy Science Fiction)...
Asimov clearly stated he based the storyline along the middle age and renaissance. That's not novel, but many of the ideas in the book are, and cleary set it appart from "historical" setups.
The fact that a small group is attempting to change power is in fact a universal constant that doesn't even need the human race arround to be a certain truth.
... one may actually have more questions after finishing the book than he had in the beginning.
Yes, but the story must be finished, and the plot should work towards it. NOT like the Diamond Age, that has brilliant subparts but as a story completely lacks. All the mess in the book just for that stupid ending? It left me a bad taste, I was hoping for a story, not a great insight into nanotech and how it will shape or lives.
Oh well, I know this is going to cost me...but I am being honest. Disclaimer: I do read a lot of science fiction. And the ones I liked the most are the ones where the books is going somewhere.
Real people, what do you mean? Good sf doesn't even need people as in humanoids or talking beigns. Even if people are involved, they don't need to be REAL people as we know today, they may well be incomprehensible for the most part.
But the STORY and the SCIENCE must be believable (yeah, still two limiting factor, we have to be able to understand both the sotry and the science or rules).
- It has to be FICTIONAL (somewhat obvious).
- It still NEEDS a story, no amount of science will turn a bad story into a good sf novel or tale.
- The "science part" needs to play a ROLE in the story. It doesn't mean it should be "techy" at all, it could be tech-lacking, but not science lacking (it doesn't even have to be scientific, but must have internal logic, be non contradictory, and even though you don't need to explain, you should be able to come up with a reson for everything, in a way that does not make other claims contradictory).
That's the basic ruleset...no wonder why I don't like most sf writers and specially, ST and the likes (yikes).
Blame factor. Who do you blame if you choose a OSS solution? People like to make the provider responsible EVEN when it's their fault. So they like the fact that Windows is very easy to blame.
:)
It's playing on the safe side (blamewise). Of course, it's only blameablity, yo want get any money from Microsoft's next greatest bug
But at some point, the things will get inverted. "HEY WE USED LINUX. It's not our fault!!"
Sorry, here we use celcius, I never really got to understand Farenheit, both metrics are not even linear, you have to use a formula. All I know is to set ac to 74F or 76F in my fathers Volvo to be confortable.
Celcius:
0c degrees = freeze point
100c degrees = boiling point (at normal pressure, blah).
One word: Countries
The US can sell those movies many times over, and if screwing "The World" gets you more than screwing "Your Countrymen" then the bozos have a case.
Yeah, so fair. If they want to make a punishment, why not make them donate the money to a charity institution? There are people out there diying the one true death because of famine, and certainly even a 3rd degree burn by drinking coffee does not seem all that bad at all.
I wonder how that happend, i tried really HOT stuff (remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees) and never got burn like that.
Not flamebait, but I think justice means justice, balance. You can't overcompensate a woman just because they you to send a signal. Justice as a signal WORKS, but it is UNFAIR.
Usually they are usually optimized for i686, but they don't (again usually) drop i386 support. It's just not optimized for i386.
Yeah, but I don't see how other won't embrace the new technology to kill the idiotic guy with the gun. I mean, of course I like the mixture, but it is not realistic. It's deliberately not realistic, so I can accept that. Maybe they could think of a reason why that works that way (military prohibition of advanced weapons, with areas scanned permanently would work for me). I still preffer gun to the i**otic weapons used in star trek (an "aimed" laser? Come on, aiming with what should be a super hi-tech, best of the herd gun? NO WAY.
My all time favourite: Blade Runner (but very close to some other great, not-so-popular movies, and some very popular ones).
...
They lost a lot of money on that, but hell, the problem is not being a bad movie, the problem is the fans of the real sci-fi genre are less than "common normal/weird lifestyle" or "stupid fantasy" stuff. So they don't profit much.
To be able to pull a profit in the genre you either have to:
a) Stupidify the rengre all together (would have said: "Start Trek???", but I won't for respect to the fans)
b) Do it with low budget (not minimal, but relatively small) and keep the intelectual level.
It's not hard to see why most serious sci-fi lives only in books. Yes, only a selected audience reads it, but the cost is "one man labour" and some paper. Much easier
The only serious sci-fi movie that really did well (couldn't tell how well, was 1 years old or unborn at the time) was 2001. I really don't know why.
"Big bug in a program you paid thousands of dollars for? My experience is that enough screaming can get you a patch in very little time."
That's usually not the case. I'd rewrite it according to reality:
"Big bug in a program you are going to pay thousands of dollars for? My experience is that enough screaming can get you a patch in very little time."
Or in the normal case, the program you already paid, but are going to pay again in the near future.
Open Source is a term mean to attract developers mostly, or corporate users (I can fix it, I won't be locked into that solution, no forced upgrades, free, etc.).
Casual Joe, as you say, does not care. That's why you don't see Linux much in the desktop. There's really no complelling reason to move to Linux. I never suggested to anyone to move to Linux unless:
- They like computer per se (not some app)
- It might be usefull for them if the admin servers, they have more choice
Trying to convert a Joe needs features and eyecandy, and nothing else (and nothing more). So, I think Linux has the easiest part ahead. The hard part has already been done (hardware support, developer support, some critical mass).
You could "easily" tap it by simply inserting your device into the line of sight and then retransmitting.
Yes, but wouldn't I notice that? The tapping device would have to be invisible to me and to the other end. I mean, i'd set up a line monitoring (a digitally monitored telescope that scans the LOS).
I'm just thinking about it.
They NEED to bring the market share down a bit, but in a controled fashion. So they handle the issue with care. They don't want massive company conversions as they might well be their doomsday. They don't mind losing market share in the home user market (basically, most home users of windows are pirates, at least in the world market. They don't mind them pirating XP is they can't enforce payment yet without pissing a lot of people).