Yep, humans (along with cows) cause greenhouse gas production, and probably global warming. What we need are fewer humans. Darl McBride might be the place to start.....Actually, we could probably get along without any CEO's.
"It's difficult, expensive and risky to move mass from the surface of the Earth into near orbit and prohibitively expensive to move it further than that. A Mars expedition looks more and more infeasable and the old space themes of colonizing the moon or Mars or mining the asteriods are proving to be just so much wishful thinking. "
Do you understand anything at all about the mechanics of planetary travel? The BIG part of the job is getting the mass from the surface of earth into space. Once you're in orbit, you are halfway to any place in the solar system, in terms of energy expenditure. That's why you don't need to put a Titan or Atlas or whatever booster into orbit to send your mass of robot payload to Mars.....
The only thing that would make it "prohibitively expensive" is to have NASA running the show.
"I have no doubt it could be made to work given enough time and materials. But you've advocated not sending a module but having the colonists rely on unproven technology to provide their living space. That is just unsound engineering."
No, I did not, since I didn't sketch out any complete plan for the implementation of living quarters. By saying that you can cut weight by not sending pre-fabbed living quarter modules, one would tend to assume that I was not referring to the construction phase of operations.
But if you want to split hairs, most of this stuff- the testing as well as construction of living quarters on the lunar surface (more likely underneath the surface) could be handled by robots tele-operated from earth or lunar orbit. As for "materials," well, water, lunar surface material, and some polymer plus the construction machines could make it all possible. We can build a tunnel on earth and line it with concrete- I don't see why it would be that much harder to do on the moon.
"...with it in low-G and hard vacuum is more than enough to give anyone pause."
My gosh...Christopher Columbus and crew could have sailed right off the edge of the world if the world had been flat! It takes a little initiative and some experimentation to do important things....
Of course standard concrete is porous. that's why you put additives in or paint it. Additives like certain polymers. Some talk in the world about concrete submarines- reported briefly on in PS Mag. Now, given that a concrete submarine can be made to be waterproof while withstanding the pressure of water at several thousand feet depth, don't you think it's possible that concrete can be made to work in the lunar environment?
This reminds me of the discussion I had a few months ago on sci.space and a few of its sister newsgroups. I suggested that the shuttle astronauts could have been rescued. And was promptly flamed by all sorts of fellows waving their so-called Shuttle FAQ. Well, look at the recent headlines- the shuttle astronauts could indeed have been rescued. If only the will had existed.
Of course it is. Ask anyone who has watched M$ over the years and they'll tell you the same thing (there are websites out there for M$ watchers- look at what they have to say).
Simply, only one entity is benefitting from all of this nonsense- MickeySoft. SCO certainly is not- the company will cease to exist in a year or so, maybe sooner. So why is the FUD being spread? Because M$ is worried, and losing market share and cash. Only, the situation is a little more complex than that- this is an example of M$ not only fighting Linux, but the rest of the computer industry as well. And M$ is going to lose. They are losing both at home and overseas.
One "Evil Empire" fell quickly in the 1980s- the USSR. One day they were threatening the world, next day they couldn't feed their troops and their nuclear submarines were rusting in port. We're seeing the start of that happening to another Evil Empire- MickeySoft, Inc. Nobody is buying XP, nobody is buying.Net, and (despite the goofy tv ads) nobody is buying Windows Server 2003. Good riddance.
"McBride speaks about things which he knows little about. He has no way of knowing that ESR hasn't informed the proper authorities. Rather, McBride is simply resorting to speculation because ESR didn't inform him. "
Nobody gets it yet, do they? If there even WAS a DOS attack on SCO, the entire affair was engineered by someone at SCO (or Friends, Inc., in the state of WA). The dirty tricksters knew a little about Eric Raymond, and felt he would be a great target to set up- and Raymond took the bait.
2 ways this will go from here, depending how this trick was planned- either we will never see the alleged attacker's identity revealed, or it will be revealed and he will do further damage to the open source community. If his identity is revealed, he'll be a "starving coder," probably in college, and will run his mouth and make open source people look like nitwits. But, check his financials- somewhere, there will be recently acquired money.
"Unfortunately Mr. SCO, some of the other things you've said are slanderous and border on libel. Unless you can prove that the person who performed a DDoS on you was an Open Source supporter that was a representative of the Open Source community - then I suggest you offer an apology to the Linux community for accusing them of something you cannot prove. "
I think that entire episode was a setup. I think someone in the opposition's "dirty tricks dept." thought up the whole scheme to discredit open source. Raymond was duped. Better hope I am wrong, because if I am right and they planned this very well, some starving (well, not any more since he played the game) "open source coder" (aka starving college student) will be "discovered" and used to cause more damage to the open source movement. These people are playing dirty ball.
"You rant at chemical propulsion, but it's the only way we have to get stuff off of the surface of the Earth. We've used other technologies in solar orbit but they can't push around the kind of masses we're talking about."
Chemicals are the only current way to put stuff in orbit- but there has been research done on laser launch systems that suggests that they may be very viable. The rockets in use now are cash cows for the aerospace companies- better, more cost effective boosters can be designed. NASA might even try dusting off some of Phil Bono's old plans and studying them for cost effectiveness.
There is alot of room for improvement in propulsion systems designed for use in deep space. Systems which are tremendously more effective than chemical propulsion are available, and many of them have been studied in depth.
No one has ever made "lunar concrete" so no one knows if it's reliable enough to build a habitat out of.
No, someone has made lunar concrete- a research outfit in Cleveland OH working with some of the returned Apollo soil samples. They found it was very viable. Do I need to track down a reference to that?
Shame on all of you- there is indeed a cure, and it was handed to us almost 50 years ago in one of the best SF short stories written. That story is "The Marching Morons," and it tells us EXACTLY how to rid ourselves of these nitwits .
That's part of it too . I remember in the early 80s a couple of us were on a road trip during a semester break, and the v-belt in my friend's Dodge Omega broke. All of us being mechanically minded, we popped the hood and....stopped in our tracks. Replacing the v-belt meant yanking the A/C, etc. etc. Fine if you were in your garage, but not on the side of the Jersey Turnpike.....
"If speculative fiction needs to be saved from anything, it's the Spider Robinsons, Mercedes Lackeys and Piers Anthonys of the world. If they're complaining, that's probably a good sign -- hopefully that people are starting to spend their money on books by authors with actual talent rather than the 2,387th entry in the Callahan's Cross-Time Dragonquest for Telepathic Cats series."
Okay, I haven't read anything by Spider Robinson or Mercedes Lackey, so I can't judge. But I have read some of the ghastliness produced by Piers Anthony, and think it's unbelievable that he has published so much trash.
However, in this entire discussion, I haven't seen mentions of some of the better SF writers out there. Writers like Norman Spinrad (The Iron Dream and The Void captain's Tale are excellent), JG Ballard, newcomers like Russo (Ship of Fools) and Landis (Mars Crossing). The names that I have heard bandied about are second-rate. But they are the names that I see most prominently displayed in the SF sections of my local bookstores. Hard to find a copy of Russo's Ship of Fools, or of anything by Ballard. And I haven't seen the 2 titles I mentioned written by Spinrad on the shelves for years.
D. Alexander Smith wrote a trilogy back in the 80s that was fairly good and it was hard to find also. I question the taste of the publishers as well as the readers. It's hard for newcomers to break in, because "name" is so important. Like Hollywood- you'll have better luck funding production of 'Terminator 5' than a superbly written script by an unknown author. "We've made money on this before" seems to be the thought-pattern in use.
"Also, the hat he wears all the time is ridiculous."
Dude, I wear a fedora sometimes. And I like it. Seriously, why personally attack Spider Robinson. Give him some credit for actually coming to Slashdot and speaking his mind.
I didn't see much point to Brin's work, Iain Banks has entertained me, but I couldn't finish wading through Robinson's stuff. There is just so much better out there- I haven't seen anyone mention JG Ballard or Norman Spinrad (Void Captain's Tale has merit) although these are older writers, or newer writers like Russo (Ship of Fools) or Geoffrey Landis. Landis' Mars Crossing was one of the best SF novel's I've read recently. A. Reynolds is entertaining too, and I enjoy his "future history," but IMHO he is only a mediocre writer.
Forget the Hugos and Nebulas- 90% of those winners are crap. 90% of the old Star Trek episodes were crap, and 100% of TNG episodes were crap. I am amazed that there is such a market in ST books- I've browsed a few and they were slop.
"It's difficult, expensive and risky to move mass from the surface of the Earth into near orbit and prohibitively expensive to move it further than that. A Mars expedition looks more and more infeasable and the old space themes of colonizing the moon or Mars or mining the asteriods are proving to be just so much wishful thinking."
Wrong on all counts. We're just using the wrong technologies to do these things. You bet sending men to Mars with chemical rockets is silly and risky, but just remember that we could have built a technology that might have sent a manned mission to Saturn by the year 1970.
Two things need to be done- get off of our reliance on chemical propulsion and develop better propulsion technologies, and plan on "living off the land" as much as possible wherever we go.
Water has been found on the moon- that water can be used to support a manned outpost as well as manufacturing as well as propulsion systems (steam rockets, for one). Build a base on the moon, then go to the asteroids. It's do-able. Just probably not do-able by our currrent NASA. And not do-able so long as the space program is nothing more than a cash cow for large aerospace companies with great incentive to continue using 30+ year old chemical rockets.
And water has been found on Mars. Water is the key to any sort of settlement- if it exists where you are going, it's feasable to go there and build. If it isn't it might well be too expensive. When you go to the moon, build with lunar concrete- don't take a prefabbed "living quarters module."
"well sure, but that's a different problem. a technocracy, while it would allow me to be top dog, would probably not be a good thing in general."
No, it probably would not. one big problem with technologists/scientists is that, outside of their own narrow fields, they are all to often woefully ignorant.
The successful technologists of this century are going to be those who can bring about the synthesis of several fields. This is the way true knowledge can be attained.
"The real problem is, you readers are buying so much CRAP you've given publishers the impression that the LAST THING YOU WANT is thoughtful character-driven science fiction. "
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Most of the people I know who are "SF Fans" have never read, for example, JG Ballard. They have never read "A Clockwork Orange." Some have read Bester, which is good. Some even watch the old Star Trek, which had some excellent stories. But most "Star Trek" fans of today grew up on the rot that was ST:TNG," and loved it. I don't think I have seen a single thought-provoking episode of TNG. If the 24th century is that boring, I don't think I want it....
Anyways, to be good science fiction, I am not convinced the story has to be character-driven. Most is, but I can't conclude that it HAS to be. Take for example, "The Garden of Time." The characters aren't deeply developed- they stand for ideals, and are almost stereotypical in their shallowness. Character is not developed here, ideas are- and it's a good science fiction story.
Anyways, for a couple of SF writers that I found interesting- D. Alexander Smith and Richard Paul Russo. Russo's "Ship of Fools" is an excellent book, except the ending wasn't done all that well. Not bad- just could have been better. What are your opinions of these writers, Slashdot peoples?
"Let's look at the greats:"
I think all of those greats you have listed are American writers. There is at least one other writer that needs to be added to this list- JG Ballard, who is British. He wrote what was probably the best short story of the last century, and even successfully crossed the bounds of genre into popular fiction, with "Empire of the Sun."
Some of the "new guard" were easily the equal of their predecessors.
"For most people today, even a toaster is way beyond their comprehension. That problem is getting worse, not better. There is an increasing lack of interest in or respect for learning in general, IMO. "
I have to agree with that. Look at how much of their own routine car maintenance many males used to do. Compare that to today- I once worked with a guy that had to call the garage because he couldn't replace the battery cable on his car! You would be surprised at how many electrical outlets I have replaced for people- and how amazed they were that I could save them 80 bucks or more with a few simple tools and 15 minutes of work.
"But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures. "
BTW, we haven't "been there, done that." We have never sent human beings into deep space, or even established a permanent human presence on the moon. We've been to LEO and done some work. That's it.
Sending a robot to Mars just isn't the same thing as sending a crew of humans to Mars and building a settlement there. If I applied enough delta-v to my garbage can, I could send it to Mars. Attach a radio and digital camera, and it could send back pictures.....
"But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures."
My opinion is much different- we have only scratched the surface of what is possible, and we gave up space travel because we didn't have the competence or the guts to do it right. There were challenges, but we failed to meet those challenges.
This country whined collectively back in the Nixon era when we found out how much it would have cost to build a REAL space shuttle. So we got the abortion we have now- the astronaut-killer. And we got another govt. agency in charge of space travel that doesn't do its job very well- and we asked for it.
Sorry, but it seems military adventurism, not the grand adventure of space travel, offers the payoffs that this country wants. For less than what it cost to impose our will on Afghanistan and Iraq (and please don't get me wrong- I think we should have imposed our will on Afghanistan but haven't made my mind up about Iraq)- we could have built a real space station, a new space plane and cargo booster (a real cargo booster, able to lift at least as much as the old Saturn V's), and launched manned missions to Venus and Mars. Probably wouldn't want to land on Venus, just an orbiter or flyby, but certainly Mars, and certainly a valid attempt at utilizing lunar resources.
We let ourselves down. "Space, the final frontier" became a big cash cow for our aerospace comapnies, and a comfortable career for NASA bureaucrats. There are some great people at NASA, but unfortunately they are not steering the boat. We didn't have vision, and were unwilling to plan for the long-term. Add to this the general stupidity of voters and politicians, and you have what we have now. And of course science fiction is quietly dying off- because we have proven that we are unwilling to forge our dreams into reality.
IMHO, had SCO pulled this stunt 15 years ago or so, they might have gotten away with it. Here is why- the internet in its present form did not exist. Large-scale dissemination of unfiltered information worldwide was simply not possible. We relied on our media filters- publications like ZD and ComputerWorld and newsletters from industry analysts like Gartner for our information. And our media filters were not very reliable- look at the current situation, where "respected analysts and journalists" from Dvorak to DiDiot are so far off base on their reporting of this matter. Not just off-base, plain incorrect.
Before the net, a savvy player could use these journalists and analysts to disseminate FUD, and have a real impact. But today, the net has given us unfiltered opinion from a variety of sources- and many of these sources know much more about the issues than the IT journalists.
Not only that, the net allows us to see how other countries are handling the matter. Take the LinuxTag suit against SCO, and its consequences- this was hardly reported in the US IT media.
What the net is doing is giving us much freer and more reliable access to information. Don't believe all that the journalists say when they start spouting off about the necessary job of filtering the news. These are the same people who have reported on the SCO lawsuit so dismally until very recently. They are the same people who gave us "news" made up by Jayson Blair. And most importantly, they are the same companies who depend on advertising dollars from the big players like M$ to keep themselves in business.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, humans (along with cows) cause greenhouse gas production, and probably global warming. What we need are fewer humans. Darl McBride might be the place to start.....Actually, we could probably get along without any CEO's.
"It's difficult, expensive and risky to move mass from the surface of the Earth into near orbit and prohibitively expensive to move it further than that. A Mars expedition looks more and more infeasable and the old space themes of colonizing the moon or Mars or mining the asteriods are proving to be just so much wishful thinking. "
Do you understand anything at all about the mechanics of planetary travel? The BIG part of the job is getting the mass from the surface of earth into space. Once you're in orbit, you are halfway to any place in the solar system, in terms of energy expenditure. That's why you don't need to put a Titan or Atlas or whatever booster into orbit to send your mass of robot payload to Mars.....
The only thing that would make it "prohibitively expensive" is to have NASA running the show.
"I have no doubt it could be made to work given enough time and materials. But you've advocated not sending a module but having the colonists rely on unproven technology to provide their living space. That is just unsound engineering."
No, I did not, since I didn't sketch out any complete plan for the implementation of living quarters. By saying that you can cut weight by not sending pre-fabbed living quarter modules, one would tend to assume that I was not referring to the construction phase of operations.
But if you want to split hairs, most of this stuff- the testing as well as construction of living quarters on the lunar surface (more likely underneath the surface) could be handled by robots tele-operated from earth or lunar orbit. As for "materials," well, water, lunar surface material, and some polymer plus the construction machines could make it all possible. We can build a tunnel on earth and line it with concrete- I don't see why it would be that much harder to do on the moon.
"...with it in low-G and hard vacuum is more than enough to give anyone pause."
My gosh...Christopher Columbus and crew could have sailed right off the edge of the world if the world had been flat! It takes a little initiative and some experimentation to do important things....
Of course standard concrete is porous. that's why you put additives in or paint it. Additives like certain polymers. Some talk in the world about concrete submarines- reported briefly on in PS Mag. Now, given that a concrete submarine can be made to be waterproof while withstanding the pressure of water at several thousand feet depth, don't you think it's possible that concrete can be made to work in the lunar environment?
This reminds me of the discussion I had a few months ago on sci.space and a few of its sister newsgroups. I suggested that the shuttle astronauts could have been rescued. And was promptly flamed by all sorts of fellows waving their so-called Shuttle FAQ. Well, look at the recent headlines- the shuttle astronauts could indeed have been rescued. If only the will had existed.
Of course it is. Ask anyone who has watched M$ over the years and they'll tell you the same thing (there are websites out there for M$ watchers- look at what they have to say).
.Net, and (despite the goofy tv ads) nobody is buying Windows Server 2003. Good riddance.
Simply, only one entity is benefitting from all of this nonsense- MickeySoft. SCO certainly is not- the company will cease to exist in a year or so, maybe sooner. So why is the FUD being spread? Because M$ is worried, and losing market share and cash. Only, the situation is a little more complex than that- this is an example of M$ not only fighting Linux, but the rest of the computer industry as well. And M$ is going to lose. They are losing both at home and overseas.
One "Evil Empire" fell quickly in the 1980s- the USSR. One day they were threatening the world, next day they couldn't feed their troops and their nuclear submarines were rusting in port. We're seeing the start of that happening to another Evil Empire- MickeySoft, Inc. Nobody is buying XP, nobody is buying
"McBride speaks about things which he knows little about. He has no way of knowing that ESR hasn't informed the proper authorities. Rather, McBride is simply resorting to speculation because ESR didn't inform him. "
Nobody gets it yet, do they? If there even WAS a DOS attack on SCO, the entire affair was engineered by someone at SCO (or Friends, Inc., in the state of WA). The dirty tricksters knew a little about Eric Raymond, and felt he would be a great target to set up- and Raymond took the bait.
2 ways this will go from here, depending how this trick was planned- either we will never see the alleged attacker's identity revealed, or it will be revealed and he will do further damage to the open source community. If his identity is revealed, he'll be a "starving coder," probably in college, and will run his mouth and make open source people look like nitwits. But, check his financials- somewhere, there will be recently acquired money.
"Unfortunately Mr. SCO, some of the other things you've said are slanderous and border on libel. Unless you can prove that the person who performed a DDoS on you was an Open Source supporter that was a representative of the Open Source community - then I suggest you offer an apology to the Linux community for accusing them of something you cannot prove. "
I think that entire episode was a setup. I think someone in the opposition's "dirty tricks dept." thought up the whole scheme to discredit open source. Raymond was duped. Better hope I am wrong, because if I am right and they planned this very well, some starving (well, not any more since he played the game) "open source coder" (aka starving college student) will be "discovered" and used to cause more damage to the open source movement. These people are playing dirty ball.
"You rant at chemical propulsion, but it's the only way we have to get stuff off of the surface of the Earth. We've used other technologies in solar orbit but they can't push around the kind of masses we're talking about."
Chemicals are the only current way to put stuff in orbit- but there has been research done on laser launch systems that suggests that they may be very viable. The rockets in use now are cash cows for the aerospace companies- better, more cost effective boosters can be designed. NASA might even try dusting off some of Phil Bono's old plans and studying them for cost effectiveness.
There is alot of room for improvement in propulsion systems designed for use in deep space. Systems which are tremendously more effective than chemical propulsion are available, and many of them have been studied in depth.
No one has ever made "lunar concrete" so no one knows if it's reliable enough to build a habitat out of. No, someone has made lunar concrete- a research outfit in Cleveland OH working with some of the returned Apollo soil samples. They found it was very viable. Do I need to track down a reference to that?
Sorry ATrN- you were below my threshold, and I also brought up "The Marching Morons."
Shame on all of you- there is indeed a cure, and it was handed to us almost 50 years ago in one of the best SF short stories written. That story is "The Marching Morons," and it tells us EXACTLY how to rid ourselves of these nitwits .
That's part of it too . I remember in the early 80s a couple of us were on a road trip during a semester break, and the v-belt in my friend's Dodge Omega broke. All of us being mechanically minded, we popped the hood and....stopped in our tracks. Replacing the v-belt meant yanking the A/C, etc. etc. Fine if you were in your garage, but not on the side of the Jersey Turnpike.....
"If speculative fiction needs to be saved from anything, it's the Spider Robinsons, Mercedes Lackeys and Piers Anthonys of the world. If they're complaining, that's probably a good sign -- hopefully that people are starting to spend their money on books by authors with actual talent rather than the 2,387th entry in the Callahan's Cross-Time Dragonquest for Telepathic Cats series."
Okay, I haven't read anything by Spider Robinson or Mercedes Lackey, so I can't judge. But I have read some of the ghastliness produced by Piers Anthony, and think it's unbelievable that he has published so much trash.
However, in this entire discussion, I haven't seen mentions of some of the better SF writers out there. Writers like Norman Spinrad (The Iron Dream and The Void captain's Tale are excellent), JG Ballard, newcomers like Russo (Ship of Fools) and Landis (Mars Crossing). The names that I have heard bandied about are second-rate. But they are the names that I see most prominently displayed in the SF sections of my local bookstores. Hard to find a copy of Russo's Ship of Fools, or of anything by Ballard. And I haven't seen the 2 titles I mentioned written by Spinrad on the shelves for years.
D. Alexander Smith wrote a trilogy back in the 80s that was fairly good and it was hard to find also. I question the taste of the publishers as well as the readers. It's hard for newcomers to break in, because "name" is so important. Like Hollywood- you'll have better luck funding production of 'Terminator 5' than a superbly written script by an unknown author. "We've made money on this before" seems to be the thought-pattern in use.
"Also, the hat he wears all the time is ridiculous."
Dude, I wear a fedora sometimes. And I like it. Seriously, why personally attack Spider Robinson. Give him some credit for actually coming to Slashdot and speaking his mind.
"but I couldn't finish wading through Robinson's stuff."
Referring to Kim Stanley Robinson, not Spider.
"Iain Banks, or David Brin "
I didn't see much point to Brin's work, Iain Banks has entertained me, but I couldn't finish wading through Robinson's stuff. There is just so much better out there- I haven't seen anyone mention JG Ballard or Norman Spinrad (Void Captain's Tale has merit) although these are older writers, or newer writers like Russo (Ship of Fools) or Geoffrey Landis. Landis' Mars Crossing was one of the best SF novel's I've read recently. A. Reynolds is entertaining too, and I enjoy his "future history," but IMHO he is only a mediocre writer.
Forget the Hugos and Nebulas- 90% of those winners are crap. 90% of the old Star Trek episodes were crap, and 100% of TNG episodes were crap. I am amazed that there is such a market in ST books- I've browsed a few and they were slop.
"It's difficult, expensive and risky to move mass from the surface of the Earth into near orbit and prohibitively expensive to move it further than that. A Mars expedition looks more and more infeasable and the old space themes of colonizing the moon or Mars or mining the asteriods are proving to be just so much wishful thinking."
Wrong on all counts. We're just using the wrong technologies to do these things. You bet sending men to Mars with chemical rockets is silly and risky, but just remember that we could have built a technology that might have sent a manned mission to Saturn by the year 1970.
Two things need to be done- get off of our reliance on chemical propulsion and develop better propulsion technologies, and plan on "living off the land" as much as possible wherever we go.
Water has been found on the moon- that water can be used to support a manned outpost as well as manufacturing as well as propulsion systems (steam rockets, for one). Build a base on the moon, then go to the asteroids. It's do-able. Just probably not do-able by our currrent NASA. And not do-able so long as the space program is nothing more than a cash cow for large aerospace companies with great incentive to continue using 30+ year old chemical rockets.
And water has been found on Mars. Water is the key to any sort of settlement- if it exists where you are going, it's feasable to go there and build. If it isn't it might well be too expensive. When you go to the moon, build with lunar concrete- don't take a prefabbed "living quarters module."
"well sure, but that's a different problem. a technocracy, while it would allow me to be top dog, would probably not be a good thing in general."
No, it probably would not. one big problem with technologists/scientists is that, outside of their own narrow fields, they are all to often woefully ignorant.
The successful technologists of this century are going to be those who can bring about the synthesis of several fields. This is the way true knowledge can be attained.
"The real problem is, you readers are buying so much CRAP you've given publishers the impression that the LAST THING YOU WANT is thoughtful character-driven science fiction. "
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Most of the people I know who are "SF Fans" have never read, for example, JG Ballard. They have never read "A Clockwork Orange." Some have read Bester, which is good. Some even watch the old Star Trek, which had some excellent stories. But most "Star Trek" fans of today grew up on the rot that was ST:TNG," and loved it. I don't think I have seen a single thought-provoking episode of TNG. If the 24th century is that boring, I don't think I want it....
Anyways, to be good science fiction, I am not convinced the story has to be character-driven. Most is, but I can't conclude that it HAS to be. Take for example, "The Garden of Time." The characters aren't deeply developed- they stand for ideals, and are almost stereotypical in their shallowness. Character is not developed here, ideas are- and it's a good science fiction story.
Anyways, for a couple of SF writers that I found interesting- D. Alexander Smith and Richard Paul Russo. Russo's "Ship of Fools" is an excellent book, except the ending wasn't done all that well. Not bad- just could have been better. What are your opinions of these writers, Slashdot peoples?
"Let's look at the greats:" I think all of those greats you have listed are American writers. There is at least one other writer that needs to be added to this list- JG Ballard, who is British. He wrote what was probably the best short story of the last century, and even successfully crossed the bounds of genre into popular fiction, with "Empire of the Sun." Some of the "new guard" were easily the equal of their predecessors.
"For most people today, even a toaster is way beyond their comprehension. That problem is getting worse, not better. There is an increasing lack of interest in or respect for learning in general, IMO. " I have to agree with that. Look at how much of their own routine car maintenance many males used to do. Compare that to today- I once worked with a guy that had to call the garage because he couldn't replace the battery cable on his car! You would be surprised at how many electrical outlets I have replaced for people- and how amazed they were that I could save them 80 bucks or more with a few simple tools and 15 minutes of work.
"But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures. " BTW, we haven't "been there, done that." We have never sent human beings into deep space, or even established a permanent human presence on the moon. We've been to LEO and done some work. That's it. Sending a robot to Mars just isn't the same thing as sending a crew of humans to Mars and building a settlement there. If I applied enough delta-v to my garbage can, I could send it to Mars. Attach a radio and digital camera, and it could send back pictures.....
"But in this century, what is beyond possible? Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures." My opinion is much different- we have only scratched the surface of what is possible, and we gave up space travel because we didn't have the competence or the guts to do it right. There were challenges, but we failed to meet those challenges. This country whined collectively back in the Nixon era when we found out how much it would have cost to build a REAL space shuttle. So we got the abortion we have now- the astronaut-killer. And we got another govt. agency in charge of space travel that doesn't do its job very well- and we asked for it. Sorry, but it seems military adventurism, not the grand adventure of space travel, offers the payoffs that this country wants. For less than what it cost to impose our will on Afghanistan and Iraq (and please don't get me wrong- I think we should have imposed our will on Afghanistan but haven't made my mind up about Iraq)- we could have built a real space station, a new space plane and cargo booster (a real cargo booster, able to lift at least as much as the old Saturn V's), and launched manned missions to Venus and Mars. Probably wouldn't want to land on Venus, just an orbiter or flyby, but certainly Mars, and certainly a valid attempt at utilizing lunar resources. We let ourselves down. "Space, the final frontier" became a big cash cow for our aerospace comapnies, and a comfortable career for NASA bureaucrats. There are some great people at NASA, but unfortunately they are not steering the boat. We didn't have vision, and were unwilling to plan for the long-term. Add to this the general stupidity of voters and politicians, and you have what we have now. And of course science fiction is quietly dying off- because we have proven that we are unwilling to forge our dreams into reality.
IMHO, had SCO pulled this stunt 15 years ago or so, they might have gotten away with it. Here is why- the internet in its present form did not exist. Large-scale dissemination of unfiltered information worldwide was simply not possible. We relied on our media filters- publications like ZD and ComputerWorld and newsletters from industry analysts like Gartner for our information. And our media filters were not very reliable- look at the current situation, where "respected analysts and journalists" from Dvorak to DiDiot are so far off base on their reporting of this matter. Not just off-base, plain incorrect. Before the net, a savvy player could use these journalists and analysts to disseminate FUD, and have a real impact. But today, the net has given us unfiltered opinion from a variety of sources- and many of these sources know much more about the issues than the IT journalists. Not only that, the net allows us to see how other countries are handling the matter. Take the LinuxTag suit against SCO, and its consequences- this was hardly reported in the US IT media. What the net is doing is giving us much freer and more reliable access to information. Don't believe all that the journalists say when they start spouting off about the necessary job of filtering the news. These are the same people who have reported on the SCO lawsuit so dismally until very recently. They are the same people who gave us "news" made up by Jayson Blair. And most importantly, they are the same companies who depend on advertising dollars from the big players like M$ to keep themselves in business.