I'm not trying to be mean. But you don't own a "3d tv"; you own a 2d, stereoscopic television that marketers *called* 3D, although it clearly isn't anything of the sort.
A 3d display will allow you to see behind the actors. If you move, your point of view will shift. If someone moves closer, it won't be the camera that has to re-focus to follow, it will be your eyes, because the objects in the display will actually be nearer or further away. You'll be able to look down on a tennis match on your display as if from the sky, from any side of the court, or up at it from (the player's) shoe-level. Your true 3d display will not take up a flat surface. It will take up an 3-d volume and within that volume, truly volumetric objects will seem to exist.
What you have right now is basically a ViewMaster that changes images really fast. It's not 3d.
When actual 3D displays become commercially available at consumer prices, you'll see 3D programming and support all across the spectrum, no pun intended. Stereovision is a cheap, headache-inducing hack, and one thing it isn't is "3-D."
That's a problem with mobile devices; not with Qt. Mobile phones are still pretty weak computing platforms; but give it time, and we'll be doing more and more serious things with them. We'll have higher resolution (and probably projected to holographic) displays, more compute power, more power supply available, better charging regimes, lots more memory of all kinds (working RAM and longer term storage), better input mechanisms (speech, for one) and so forth.
Mobile devices started out as pretty much weak platforms -- Palm, etc. Today, they're much more powerful, but they're not even *close* to a desktop, and pretending they are does no one any good. More to do; more to come. And that's a good thing, really.
it's not a bad thing, but it's not even accurate..NET isn't going to produce cross-plaform apps. Qt will (with some limitations, but it's like 98% there. I write some *big* apps in Qt, and have been fairly successful at the cross-platform thing, though I do all my development under OSX.)
I use Qt extensively, and while there are numerous reasons to sing its praises, the project has a severe problem in the form of not fixing bugs (like file open dialogs dumping huge amounts of console errors) or limitations (like a windows audio sample rate of 48 khz) before proceeding to new versions.
What that causes is applications that are unstable either because the existing bug hasn't been fixed, or unstable because they get moved to an arbitrary new version with many changes -- and very few applications are as extensively tested against the new version as compared to the old during the initial design and implementation phase.
On the one hand, Qt has enabled me to make apps that (mostly) work the same using the same code under Windows and OSX. But it also causes me a lot of angst trying to explain to my users why the OSX version works so much better than the Windows version. It's not that I want it to; the OSX version of Qt is simply better.
Qt isn't the only project or organization guilty of wanting to make new versions before fixing the existing version. The lure of new APIs and such is strong, and the urge to fix bugs apparently not so much, right across the software spectrum. Apple does it; bugs persist for many OS revisions while APIs come (and go... Apple is not shy about telling you to stop using something.) Microsoft does it: I remember the glyph rotation bug (CW on some platforms, CCW on others) and the how-many-files-you-can-multi-select bugs managing to survive over not only OS revisions, but different OS platforms when the MIPS and Alpha versions were being offered. In the interim, Microsoft changed a great deal about window metrics across various OS levels, affecting all manner of interface issues, while OSX inflicts such obnoxious "favors" as not supporting new cameras except with a new OS level (while still happily selling you a version of their image editing that will work on your older OS), and breaking such *NIX components as cron. UDP sockets still don't work correctly under OSX (broadcast reception sockets where only one can exist on a machine... yeah, that's a good idea... not.)
Basically what I'm bitching about and advocating is that if you produce software, you shouldn't somehow magically get to ignore the fact that it doesn't do what you told the end user it would do just because you've released a new version you want them to buy, or even just use. I have NO problem with charging for new features. I don't even have a problem with adding new features to the current version while also fixing bugs, as long as you take care to not break pre-existing functionality. I have a HUGE problem with charging to fix something that was supposed to be working in the first place, or even, as is the case with Qt, not charging, but simply abandoning in place software that is significantly less than it was purported to be. I find adding new features to be insufficient cause to excuse leaving known bugs in place.
And frankly... if we would just seriously commit to fix the stuff we have before we move on, moving on would be a much better experience overall; the codebase would be more stable, the customers happier, and if we could couple that with a sense of responsibility that left existing APIs in place (once you tell someone to use an API, I think it's just awful to tell them they have to stop), I think we'd have a better process, a better end user experience, and a great deal less agonized tech support. When your "it's-our-fault" buglist hits zero, that's when you should start thinking about changes that might involve moving on from the previous version. I see it as an obligation to the end user. Unfortunately, at least thus far, Qt does not.
It would be ride share if his response was "Nah, I was going to Bruno's".
No, it wouldn't -- because YOU are going to Brunos, and so you wouldn't go with him, you'd get your paid service from someone willing to provide it. There are plenty of taxi situations where the driver will tell you "no, I don't go there."
The distinctive element here isn't what doesn't happen; it is what does happen. As I said, I'm not arguing for regulation (nor am I claiming any one way is better than another... that strikes me as highly situational); but in terms of the common element here, it's that (a) transport costs money, (b) you don't have transport, (c) you pay someone to provide it, (d) they do so.
No, the distinctive thing is that you're paying for a ride. That's a service.
Not saying that the city/state whatever needs to be involved, but I *am* saying that to pretend this isn't a paid service to the rider is disingenuous.
Suppose a taxi driver was thinking of going downtown to Bruno's for a good pizza slice. Turns around, heads down Broadway, there you are, waving your hand. You get in and tell him, Bruno's, please! Did that suddenly turn the taxi ride into not-a-taxi-ride? No, of course not.
If the Republicans can get total control, even by slim majorities
That's one heck of a big "if"; they've been awful, just awful. Democrats are no stars, but I can't see any way I could vote for a republican at this juncture. When it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils, the Democrats win every time. Republicans have to stop screwing up left and right on women's issues, they they have to stop dragging their feet in congress, they have to stop the outright fraud in their conventions, they have to stop the superstitious crazy, they have to start paying attention to the people who don't have their own business, they have to stop trampling the constitution at every step (dems too, but the republicans are much worse), they have to stop making laws designed to keep the poor from voting...
I just can't see it. It seems to me that every move the republicans have made since about 2001 has been designed to push me towards the democrats. My guess is we're looking at democrat control of both houses, and 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
When the choice is between "wish it was better" and "OMFG, PLAGUE!"... well, you know.
Ok, I'll give you an example. At one point characters climb into a large faux rock in an environment that is described as containing many similar rocks. They transit a large distance by making this rock mobile, according to the narrative, hiding from satellites, etc.
The problem: technology we've had for many decades would catch them the first day out. Simple image subtraction. Imagine an image of a scene of any particular complexity represented as a series of numbers (pixel values.) Move something in the scene overnight. A day later, take a new image. In the context of the whole scene, you, with your human eyes faced with significant complexity (many rocks in this case) might not be able to pick out the movement.
Now subtract each pixel from image one from the pixel in the same location in image two and take the absolute value of the result. In all places where image 1 is the same as image 2, the values are the same, so the result is zero (which generally we treat as black.) But in the location where the object moved, the pixel values are not the same, so the image resulting from all these subtractions shows a spot of brightness (values above zero) in two locations: One, where the object was, and two, where it is now. From the perspective of the Red Mars storyline: address both spots, characters trivially eliminated or captured, storyline demolished.
This is one of the most basic (and effective) types of satellite detection of movement and change, and believe me, it's no secret.
The consequence: No such travel would hide them; the storyline is therefore borked.
From my POV, while these kinds of flaws will get past a certain percentage of the audience, they're not forgivable WRT the author (or the agent, or an editor familiar with the genre); if you're going to write SF, particularly SF that uses technology to actually inform the storyline, you had better make sure that at *least* your postulated idea hasn't been obsolete for a quarter of a century. It takes research. You can't just sit down and write about this stuff, you should know it first, or if you don't, you need to fix that. Or your support team needs to catch it -- and that's still your responsibility. In this case, the premise was hiding from satellite surveillance; even a cursory check of the public subject matter would have found that the method described would not work.
Not to just beat up on KSR; Sometimes it's simple anachronism; for instance, in a future written about by Anne McCaffrey where we've been in space for a while, and the characters are at a new planet discovering dragons, mentioning the "floppy drives" in the spaceship simply shows a failure of the ability to think ahead -- it's just not reasonable. James Blish, in Welcome to Mars, had his character use a "power tube" to build a technical transport widget critical to the storyline; in a future far removed from vacuum tube technology. Said tube breaks on landing, and so the characters are stranded, and on this premise the majority of the adventure is based. This is slightly more forgivable, given that at the time, tubes actually were the tech at hand, but I still rather think it was some weak writing from an otherwise capable author. I had the chance to call him on it, and was rewarded with kind of a hangdog look and a nod.
SF authors -- if they're serious -- need to find people who can do this kind of checking. It's important, particularly if you're going to be (or hope to be) hanging with the big dogs. Because eventually, someone will call you on your errors, and on such things reputations and careers can rise and fall. It's just that simple.
I recently had the distinct pleasure of working with an author, a new one, who not only did a good job out of the gate, but was amenable to having flaws such as the above pointed out, corrections made, references provided and checked, etc. I think the work is top notch; we're doing all we can to get it published, but alas, right now the term "new author" is another way to say "not getting published" by an
2 is 100% true. For instance; buy some furniture on time. Fail to pay. Court implements judgement against you. Creditor gets to take $$$ from your account. Scenario 2: Run a credit card up. Can't pay. Collection agency, etc., gets judgement. They can hit your bank account, they can even take your tax return.
I understand that those of us who don't live like this don't tend to run into these situations, but they're real, they do happen, and they are certainly motivation to keep one's money elsewhere.
Note that I am not justifying any particular behavior; just pointing out sequences of events that have certain results.
I don't understand why so many low-income people don't have bank accounts.
1, if they've written bad checks, the bank simply won't give them an account. 2, when your money is in the bank, it can be easily taken without your consent - various kinds of debt, credit agencies, lawyers, even the feds. Cash money in hand (or hidden wherever), much harder for third parties to access, hence, you can live easier when in trouble. 3, banks keep shitty hours: when you need your money in the evening and you can't get it, that can be a problem when the issue at hand is diapers, etc. 4, even when "free", make an error (common with low income types), and the bank will hose you with a huge fee (or fees... they can be pretty tricky about things like the order they cash/bounce when you overdraw. 5, location can be an issue if you're not mobile. There's probably more than this too; these were just off the top of my head.
Heck, I have to put my disbelief suspenders on when reading much more recent "best" SF titles. One example is Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars." Red Mars won the BSFA in 1992, the Nebula awards in 1993, and was nominated for the Hugo, Clarke, and Locus Awards in 1993. I read that book, and the lack of research and technical error that afflict the title make me want to cry. Could have been a great hard SF title. Instead, it's full of critical errors that significantly disrupt the plot. You have to either be ignorant yourself (not really a good bet with an SF audience, I'm afraid), or you have to squint so hard to blur out the details that the story risks being lost in the process.
My point is that the ability suspend disbelief is called on in all but the very greatest of SF titles, by the very greatest of SF authors (among whom I am afraid I cannot number KSR.) Also, in just about everything Hollywood ever touches.
Hey -- Hollywood -- funny interlude. Jim Carry, "The Majestic." In the film, he's a screenwriter. The scene is, he's in a meeting and they're talking about his screenplay. Some wanker paces around the table and says something to the effect of "We should add a dog." Which is both hilarious because that's exactly the kind of relentlessly revisionist pop culture shite that Hollywood inflicts on every title, and awesome, because it turns out, if you're paying attention, the movie they're talking about -- is The Majestic. First thing you see? They add a dog. Me, I was highly amused.
I seriously doubt that lady HaHa will be spoken of in the same reverent tones in 300 years
I'd just like to point something out. We have recordings now. She is more likely to be known because of that; you'll be able to hear her, see her (re-)judge her, perform her music yourself, whatever, in 300 (or 3,000) years. Of the classics, we have written scores, and to a lesser extent, a tradition that finds life through various orchestras, to the degree that the actual music managed to propagate in that manner (pretty limited, and even then, only for the masters.) The fact that we have these recordings, starting in the early 1900's, is likely to change the face of who is known, what for, and in what periods or trends of musical taste as they cascade through society over time.
Arghh. See, you're ALL arguing taste. Some taste derives from rhythm; some from melody; some from lyrics; some from technical expertise (either shared or recognized); some from a preference for a particular instrument; some from emotion; some because the goal is dance or other rhythmic engagement; probably an unending list of those examples, and then there are those who form their interest from a combination of these things.
For instance, I despise most (not all) lyrics, because I typically find them repetitive, trite, and (lately) whiney. So when I say that I prefer a large subset of Joe Satriani's music, a fellow who is a technical virtuoso but rarely engages at the level of the lyric... that's just me. It doesn't mean that lyrics suck, it means that they don't reach me personally. It doesn't mean that guitar is the be-all and end-all of musical instruments, it's just one I know (I play) and that I really enjoy. I have other tastes based on other metrics (and other distastes as well.) Zeppelin kicks up my endorphins the most when they shut the hell up, except for quite a few tracks on the first two albums. But in the end, it's just me. It's not them; it's not you.
As long as we argue absolutes -- and I used to be guilty of this myself, so I am speaking from experience, not just in an accusatory manner -- we're arguing apples and oranges and a meeting of the minds is not possible except with those so like-minded, there's little to be gained by discussing anything with them.
But that doesn't keep most of it from being boring
That's still true today. The essence of being a skilled reader is to drop the crap within the first few pages, and move on. Try Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn. More recently (but not that recent), try the Skylark series by E.E. "doc" Smith. Try Journey to the Center of the Earth. There's plenty of great stuff out there of various flavors: per Sturgeon's law, as quoted above, your job as a reader is to find the 10%. If you can't do that, it's not the material. it's you.
when an executive engages in sexual acts with a subordinate within an organization, it constitutes sexual harassment.
Utter bullshit. Only if coercive elements are involved is it oppressive in any way, unless you're a weak minded, politically correct ninny. And in which case, I don't care what you think anyway.
Just for one example, my lady is the much loved daughter of a lawyer and his secretary, who he wooed and married and stayed with her entire life. Then, in turn, she was my student; I met her in that environment and we fell in love. Since then, we've been together 15 years and I guaren-fucking-tee you our relationship is mighty fine. Your direct insinuation that this process -- either example -- was in ANY way wrongheaded just shows you up as lacking the clues you need. What you're talking about is politically correct nonsense and bogus legislation.
Let me tell you the metric for "ok": It's informed consent. Nothing else. You can't have consent with pressure; what you have there is capitulation. But the idea that any intersection of differing levels of authority and personal relationships sans pressure are suspect, or worse, wrong, is just sick, a product of thinking that is grossly in error. If you had half a brain, you'd already have worked it out. How could a police officer or a judge or a politician ever find a mate? A martial arts instructor? By definition, the authority and/or power distribution is uneven. That's normal.
The fact is, it is ok, and one thing that is NOT ok, is some dweeb questioning someone else's choices absent any complaint from them. You are not your brother's (or sister's) mommy. Or, more concisely, fuck off.
If you can show that any remark I made about the new Mac Pro was ill-informed because *I* wasn't paying attention, as opposed to speculative based on Apple not releasing info, have at it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a troll, so what. All Apple has said so far about the unit is it will support 3 4k monitors, 6 thunderbolt, 2 firewire, and 4 USB(3), with one CPU socket and 4 ram sockets, no internal HD or card expansion. All of my remarks about it that I can recall, at least, have been in that context.
But as I say, if you can point to something different...
Impeachment basically has its parallels in "we find enough reason here to go to trial"; the second stage, where the person of high office is convicted of the charges brought in the impeachment, did not so find in the case of President Clinton.
It's as if you were arrested for X, but they failed to convict you of X.
Impeachment is meaningless under such circumstances. The more so as this wasn't anything to do with his job, this was a sexual matter they really had no business whatsoever asking him about in the first place.
Personally, I wish he'd said: "Are you really asking me questions about my sex life? Because you have no right to ask such questions, and I have no obligation to give you any answers. Those are private matters. Now, do you have any legitimate questions, or are we done here? Lying -- though I can't really say I blame him much -- was a poor way out, and gave the MORONS in congress an excuse to cobble up a dog and pony show out of it, in the process wasting many taxpayer dollars, their precious time (well, it'd be precious if they'd use it for the purposes for which we elected them, anyway), and interfering with the operation of the presidency.
Slashdot Mirror
No, your tv isn't 3d. It's stereo. You've been victim of deceptive marketing.
3d is 3d. Holograms can be 3d. Etc. Stereo cannot.
I'm not trying to be mean. But you don't own a "3d tv"; you own a 2d, stereoscopic television that marketers *called* 3D, although it clearly isn't anything of the sort.
A 3d display will allow you to see behind the actors. If you move, your point of view will shift. If someone moves closer, it won't be the camera that has to re-focus to follow, it will be your eyes, because the objects in the display will actually be nearer or further away. You'll be able to look down on a tennis match on your display as if from the sky, from any side of the court, or up at it from (the player's) shoe-level. Your true 3d display will not take up a flat surface. It will take up an 3-d volume and within that volume, truly volumetric objects will seem to exist.
What you have right now is basically a ViewMaster that changes images really fast. It's not 3d.
When actual 3D displays become commercially available at consumer prices, you'll see 3D programming and support all across the spectrum, no pun intended. Stereovision is a cheap, headache-inducing hack, and one thing it isn't is "3-D."
That's a problem with mobile devices; not with Qt. Mobile phones are still pretty weak computing platforms; but give it time, and we'll be doing more and more serious things with them. We'll have higher resolution (and probably projected to holographic) displays, more compute power, more power supply available, better charging regimes, lots more memory of all kinds (working RAM and longer term storage), better input mechanisms (speech, for one) and so forth.
Mobile devices started out as pretty much weak platforms -- Palm, etc. Today, they're much more powerful, but they're not even *close* to a desktop, and pretending they are does no one any good. More to do; more to come. And that's a good thing, really.
it's not a bad thing, but it's not even accurate. .NET isn't going to produce cross-plaform apps. Qt will (with some limitations, but it's like 98% there. I write some *big* apps in Qt, and have been fairly successful at the cross-platform thing, though I do all my development under OSX.)
Mr. Troll is, to be blunt, bewildered.
I use Qt extensively, and while there are numerous reasons to sing its praises, the project has a severe problem in the form of not fixing bugs (like file open dialogs dumping huge amounts of console errors) or limitations (like a windows audio sample rate of 48 khz) before proceeding to new versions.
What that causes is applications that are unstable either because the existing bug hasn't been fixed, or unstable because they get moved to an arbitrary new version with many changes -- and very few applications are as extensively tested against the new version as compared to the old during the initial design and implementation phase.
On the one hand, Qt has enabled me to make apps that (mostly) work the same using the same code under Windows and OSX. But it also causes me a lot of angst trying to explain to my users why the OSX version works so much better than the Windows version. It's not that I want it to; the OSX version of Qt is simply better.
Qt isn't the only project or organization guilty of wanting to make new versions before fixing the existing version. The lure of new APIs and such is strong, and the urge to fix bugs apparently not so much, right across the software spectrum. Apple does it; bugs persist for many OS revisions while APIs come (and go... Apple is not shy about telling you to stop using something.) Microsoft does it: I remember the glyph rotation bug (CW on some platforms, CCW on others) and the how-many-files-you-can-multi-select bugs managing to survive over not only OS revisions, but different OS platforms when the MIPS and Alpha versions were being offered. In the interim, Microsoft changed a great deal about window metrics across various OS levels, affecting all manner of interface issues, while OSX inflicts such obnoxious "favors" as not supporting new cameras except with a new OS level (while still happily selling you a version of their image editing that will work on your older OS), and breaking such *NIX components as cron. UDP sockets still don't work correctly under OSX (broadcast reception sockets where only one can exist on a machine... yeah, that's a good idea... not.)
Basically what I'm bitching about and advocating is that if you produce software, you shouldn't somehow magically get to ignore the fact that it doesn't do what you told the end user it would do just because you've released a new version you want them to buy, or even just use. I have NO problem with charging for new features. I don't even have a problem with adding new features to the current version while also fixing bugs, as long as you take care to not break pre-existing functionality. I have a HUGE problem with charging to fix something that was supposed to be working in the first place, or even, as is the case with Qt, not charging, but simply abandoning in place software that is significantly less than it was purported to be. I find adding new features to be insufficient cause to excuse leaving known bugs in place.
And frankly... if we would just seriously commit to fix the stuff we have before we move on, moving on would be a much better experience overall; the codebase would be more stable, the customers happier, and if we could couple that with a sense of responsibility that left existing APIs in place (once you tell someone to use an API, I think it's just awful to tell them they have to stop), I think we'd have a better process, a better end user experience, and a great deal less agonized tech support. When your "it's-our-fault" buglist hits zero, that's when you should start thinking about changes that might involve moving on from the previous version. I see it as an obligation to the end user. Unfortunately, at least thus far, Qt does not.
No, it wouldn't -- because YOU are going to Brunos, and so you wouldn't go with him, you'd get your paid service from someone willing to provide it. There are plenty of taxi situations where the driver will tell you "no, I don't go there."
The distinctive element here isn't what doesn't happen; it is what does happen. As I said, I'm not arguing for regulation (nor am I claiming any one way is better than another... that strikes me as highly situational); but in terms of the common element here, it's that (a) transport costs money, (b) you don't have transport, (c) you pay someone to provide it, (d) they do so.
No, the distinctive thing is that you're paying for a ride. That's a service.
Not saying that the city/state whatever needs to be involved, but I *am* saying that to pretend this isn't a paid service to the rider is disingenuous.
Suppose a taxi driver was thinking of going downtown to Bruno's for a good pizza slice. Turns around, heads down Broadway, there you are, waving your hand. You get in and tell him, Bruno's, please! Did that suddenly turn the taxi ride into not-a-taxi-ride? No, of course not.
Tongue depressor? You mean like McDonald's food?
That's one heck of a big "if"; they've been awful, just awful. Democrats are no stars, but I can't see any way I could vote for a republican at this juncture. When it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils, the Democrats win every time. Republicans have to stop screwing up left and right on women's issues, they they have to stop dragging their feet in congress, they have to stop the outright fraud in their conventions, they have to stop the superstitious crazy, they have to start paying attention to the people who don't have their own business, they have to stop trampling the constitution at every step (dems too, but the republicans are much worse), they have to stop making laws designed to keep the poor from voting...
I just can't see it. It seems to me that every move the republicans have made since about 2001 has been designed to push me towards the democrats. My guess is we're looking at democrat control of both houses, and 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
When the choice is between "wish it was better" and "OMFG, PLAGUE!"... well, you know.
They threw him out when he accused the doughnuts of spying on anyone with more than a 30-day token.
...a series of chair throwing games. Rumor has it that Mad Catz is looking into the design of a special controller with new partner IKEA.
...and other dead-above-the-neck types?
Ok, I'll give you an example. At one point characters climb into a large faux rock in an environment that is described as containing many similar rocks. They transit a large distance by making this rock mobile, according to the narrative, hiding from satellites, etc.
The problem: technology we've had for many decades would catch them the first day out. Simple image subtraction. Imagine an image of a scene of any particular complexity represented as a series of numbers (pixel values.) Move something in the scene overnight. A day later, take a new image. In the context of the whole scene, you, with your human eyes faced with significant complexity (many rocks in this case) might not be able to pick out the movement.
Now subtract each pixel from image one from the pixel in the same location in image two and take the absolute value of the result. In all places where image 1 is the same as image 2, the values are the same, so the result is zero (which generally we treat as black.) But in the location where the object moved, the pixel values are not the same, so the image resulting from all these subtractions shows a spot of brightness (values above zero) in two locations: One, where the object was, and two, where it is now. From the perspective of the Red Mars storyline: address both spots, characters trivially eliminated or captured, storyline demolished.
This is one of the most basic (and effective) types of satellite detection of movement and change, and believe me, it's no secret.
The consequence: No such travel would hide them; the storyline is therefore borked.
From my POV, while these kinds of flaws will get past a certain percentage of the audience, they're not forgivable WRT the author (or the agent, or an editor familiar with the genre); if you're going to write SF, particularly SF that uses technology to actually inform the storyline, you had better make sure that at *least* your postulated idea hasn't been obsolete for a quarter of a century. It takes research. You can't just sit down and write about this stuff, you should know it first, or if you don't, you need to fix that. Or your support team needs to catch it -- and that's still your responsibility. In this case, the premise was hiding from satellite surveillance; even a cursory check of the public subject matter would have found that the method described would not work.
Not to just beat up on KSR; Sometimes it's simple anachronism; for instance, in a future written about by Anne McCaffrey where we've been in space for a while, and the characters are at a new planet discovering dragons, mentioning the "floppy drives" in the spaceship simply shows a failure of the ability to think ahead -- it's just not reasonable. James Blish, in Welcome to Mars, had his character use a "power tube" to build a technical transport widget critical to the storyline; in a future far removed from vacuum tube technology. Said tube breaks on landing, and so the characters are stranded, and on this premise the majority of the adventure is based. This is slightly more forgivable, given that at the time, tubes actually were the tech at hand, but I still rather think it was some weak writing from an otherwise capable author. I had the chance to call him on it, and was rewarded with kind of a hangdog look and a nod.
SF authors -- if they're serious -- need to find people who can do this kind of checking. It's important, particularly if you're going to be (or hope to be) hanging with the big dogs. Because eventually, someone will call you on your errors, and on such things reputations and careers can rise and fall. It's just that simple.
I recently had the distinct pleasure of working with an author, a new one, who not only did a good job out of the gate, but was amenable to having flaws such as the above pointed out, corrections made, references provided and checked, etc. I think the work is top notch; we're doing all we can to get it published, but alas, right now the term "new author" is another way to say "not getting published" by an
2 is 100% true. For instance; buy some furniture on time. Fail to pay. Court implements judgement against you. Creditor gets to take $$$ from your account. Scenario 2: Run a credit card up. Can't pay. Collection agency, etc., gets judgement. They can hit your bank account, they can even take your tax return.
I understand that those of us who don't live like this don't tend to run into these situations, but they're real, they do happen, and they are certainly motivation to keep one's money elsewhere.
Note that I am not justifying any particular behavior; just pointing out sequences of events that have certain results.
1, if they've written bad checks, the bank simply won't give them an account. 2, when your money is in the bank, it can be easily taken without your consent - various kinds of debt, credit agencies, lawyers, even the feds. Cash money in hand (or hidden wherever), much harder for third parties to access, hence, you can live easier when in trouble. 3, banks keep shitty hours: when you need your money in the evening and you can't get it, that can be a problem when the issue at hand is diapers, etc. 4, even when "free", make an error (common with low income types), and the bank will hose you with a huge fee (or fees... they can be pretty tricky about things like the order they cash/bounce when you overdraw. 5, location can be an issue if you're not mobile. There's probably more than this too; these were just off the top of my head.
Heck, I have to put my disbelief suspenders on when reading much more recent "best" SF titles. One example is Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars." Red Mars won the BSFA in 1992, the Nebula awards in 1993, and was nominated for the Hugo, Clarke, and Locus Awards in 1993. I read that book, and the lack of research and technical error that afflict the title make me want to cry. Could have been a great hard SF title. Instead, it's full of critical errors that significantly disrupt the plot. You have to either be ignorant yourself (not really a good bet with an SF audience, I'm afraid), or you have to squint so hard to blur out the details that the story risks being lost in the process.
My point is that the ability suspend disbelief is called on in all but the very greatest of SF titles, by the very greatest of SF authors (among whom I am afraid I cannot number KSR.) Also, in just about everything Hollywood ever touches.
Hey -- Hollywood -- funny interlude. Jim Carry, "The Majestic." In the film, he's a screenwriter. The scene is, he's in a meeting and they're talking about his screenplay. Some wanker paces around the table and says something to the effect of "We should add a dog." Which is both hilarious because that's exactly the kind of relentlessly revisionist pop culture shite that Hollywood inflicts on every title, and awesome, because it turns out, if you're paying attention, the movie they're talking about -- is The Majestic. First thing you see? They add a dog. Me, I was highly amused.
I'd just like to point something out. We have recordings now. She is more likely to be known because of that; you'll be able to hear her, see her (re-)judge her, perform her music yourself, whatever, in 300 (or 3,000) years. Of the classics, we have written scores, and to a lesser extent, a tradition that finds life through various orchestras, to the degree that the actual music managed to propagate in that manner (pretty limited, and even then, only for the masters.) The fact that we have these recordings, starting in the early 1900's, is likely to change the face of who is known, what for, and in what periods or trends of musical taste as they cascade through society over time.
Arghh. See, you're ALL arguing taste. Some taste derives from rhythm; some from melody; some from lyrics; some from technical expertise (either shared or recognized); some from a preference for a particular instrument; some from emotion; some because the goal is dance or other rhythmic engagement; probably an unending list of those examples, and then there are those who form their interest from a combination of these things.
For instance, I despise most (not all) lyrics, because I typically find them repetitive, trite, and (lately) whiney. So when I say that I prefer a large subset of Joe Satriani's music, a fellow who is a technical virtuoso but rarely engages at the level of the lyric... that's just me. It doesn't mean that lyrics suck, it means that they don't reach me personally. It doesn't mean that guitar is the be-all and end-all of musical instruments, it's just one I know (I play) and that I really enjoy. I have other tastes based on other metrics (and other distastes as well.) Zeppelin kicks up my endorphins the most when they shut the hell up, except for quite a few tracks on the first two albums. But in the end, it's just me. It's not them; it's not you.
As long as we argue absolutes -- and I used to be guilty of this myself, so I am speaking from experience, not just in an accusatory manner -- we're arguing apples and oranges and a meeting of the minds is not possible except with those so like-minded, there's little to be gained by discussing anything with them.
Lighten up.
Proctologist's law: EVERYTHING is crap.
That's still true today. The essence of being a skilled reader is to drop the crap within the first few pages, and move on. Try Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn. More recently (but not that recent), try the Skylark series by E.E. "doc" Smith. Try Journey to the Center of the Earth. There's plenty of great stuff out there of various flavors: per Sturgeon's law, as quoted above, your job as a reader is to find the 10%. If you can't do that, it's not the material. it's you.
Makes sense. Guess I'm still in favor of it being here, though. :)
Utter bullshit. Only if coercive elements are involved is it oppressive in any way, unless you're a weak minded, politically correct ninny. And in which case, I don't care what you think anyway.
Just for one example, my lady is the much loved daughter of a lawyer and his secretary, who he wooed and married and stayed with her entire life. Then, in turn, she was my student; I met her in that environment and we fell in love. Since then, we've been together 15 years and I guaren-fucking-tee you our relationship is mighty fine. Your direct insinuation that this process -- either example -- was in ANY way wrongheaded just shows you up as lacking the clues you need. What you're talking about is politically correct nonsense and bogus legislation.
Let me tell you the metric for "ok": It's informed consent. Nothing else. You can't have consent with pressure; what you have there is capitulation. But the idea that any intersection of differing levels of authority and personal relationships sans pressure are suspect, or worse, wrong, is just sick, a product of thinking that is grossly in error. If you had half a brain, you'd already have worked it out. How could a police officer or a judge or a politician ever find a mate? A martial arts instructor? By definition, the authority and/or power distribution is uneven. That's normal.
The fact is, it is ok, and one thing that is NOT ok, is some dweeb questioning someone else's choices absent any complaint from them. You are not your brother's (or sister's) mommy. Or, more concisely, fuck off.
If you can show that any remark I made about the new Mac Pro was ill-informed because *I* wasn't paying attention, as opposed to speculative based on Apple not releasing info, have at it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a troll, so what. All Apple has said so far about the unit is it will support 3 4k monitors, 6 thunderbolt, 2 firewire, and 4 USB(3), with one CPU socket and 4 ram sockets, no internal HD or card expansion. All of my remarks about it that I can recall, at least, have been in that context.
But as I say, if you can point to something different...
Impeachment basically has its parallels in "we find enough reason here to go to trial"; the second stage, where the person of high office is convicted of the charges brought in the impeachment, did not so find in the case of President Clinton.
It's as if you were arrested for X, but they failed to convict you of X.
Impeachment is meaningless under such circumstances. The more so as this wasn't anything to do with his job, this was a sexual matter they really had no business whatsoever asking him about in the first place.
Personally, I wish he'd said: "Are you really asking me questions about my sex life? Because you have no right to ask such questions, and I have no obligation to give you any answers. Those are private matters. Now, do you have any legitimate questions, or are we done here? Lying -- though I can't really say I blame him much -- was a poor way out, and gave the MORONS in congress an excuse to cobble up a dog and pony show out of it, in the process wasting many taxpayer dollars, their precious time (well, it'd be precious if they'd use it for the purposes for which we elected them, anyway), and interfering with the operation of the presidency.