1997 Newton still better than your average Palm Device
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: The System Administrator song
Topic: Simple Things

Okay, I'm a general geek and not a big fan of Windows. I'm not hard core, but I've always appreciated the sleek, easy workability of a Mac and the adoption of BSD as their system base was an excellent move.

 One of the long forgotten warriors in good ideas left to die is the Apple Newton, which kicks all kinds of butt (of course in its day it was very expensive. In fact, if memory serves it was generally more expensive than the average computer). 

 Today I was reminded of the immense coolness of the Newton by this article http://digitalliving.cnet.co.uk/specials/0,39030785,49282099,00.htm

In which a 1997 Newton goes up against a brand new for 2007 Q1 from Intel and Samsung. Well, while lacking some very modern coolness, the Newton still kicks the Q1 in the nards and laughs all the way home. It should be noted that one of the selling points with the Newton is that it is only about £50 on ebay, which isn't an endorsement; it is merely a fact.

Take a minute and revel in the forward thinking brilliance of Apple computers and how many hand held devices still fail to equal the Newton (of course they don't cost $2000 each either).

  

Meeza here
Mood:  not sure
Now Playing: Nothing
Topic: Simple Things

Okay, I'm bored, and I have things I need to be doing. Coming down off of Lexapro -- without help from the doctor I ran across the meez site:

 

http://www.meez.com/home.dm

 

Here's meez minus the fat since they have no fat body types to put up. Add about 200 lbs to this 85 lb dude and you'll see the real meez.

 

Not much else to say, just wanted to post a meez image. 

Final Rant on Story Vesus Stuff
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: Not a thing
Topic: Simple Things
I hate beating animals to death (and beyond) and so, I will not cover this subject here again. Let us say that I disagree with J.G. te Molder and him with me. To argue further is pointless, particularly in such a public forum where other, more interesting ideas can be discussed. I find Serenity to be consistent, he doesn’t. I don’t actually think of it as Science Fiction – on which I believe we agree-- but more as Science Fantasy. However I find it less-so Sci-Fan than Battlestar Galactica’s current incarnation, but more-so than Babylon 5. Even more, I don’t care if someone wants to label it Science Fiction. If that is their perception and they enjoy it, more power to them. The distinctions are dubious at best.

I do want to repeat some of my questions without answering them, for all to ponder:

When did the definition of science fiction narrow to that which is speculatively possible in light of current given facts about the universe?

"Why does it matter what you call it as long as it is good entertainment?"

An effort to move the discussion away from Firefly into a general trend was made, but we seem to always come back to Firefly and as a result I always come back to story, at which this series excelled. J.G. te Molder seems to come back to cattle and slug throwing weaponry. Each to his own area of interest I say.

No matter which genre you write in, you are making Myth in some form or another: if it is a disaffected youth prowling through New York City looking for a little truth in his life, a god seeking his place on a strange, new world, or a boy and his dog traveling in an apocalyptic waste, in all cases, they must remain internally consistent and tell us something about our humanity. If it does these two things, regardless of what you or anyone else wants to call it, I will call it good fiction. In addition, rather than use arbitrary genre labels to describe it, I will use the simple rules of “internally consistent” and “tells me something about humanity” as my measuring rod.

I'm adding links to the related articles at SciFi Weekly:

"Don't Dismiss "Science" Fiction",
"Science Fiction Is Not Science",
"Genre Infighting Is Pointless",
"Remember the Real Sci-Fi",
"Everyone Defines SF Differently",
"Science Fiction Should Feel Real"
"Science Matters Most of All"

I believe that's most of them. My own you can read here.

Still beating that horse
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Silence
Topic: Simple Things
Okay, I'm still arguing with the SF purists that SF must be about people, because the wayward path of science is pretty much unreliable. As a hobbyist I realize that the constancy of scientific theory is oddly unreliable in terms of creating lasting work. I suppose it is possible that "John Carter Warlord of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs can prove me wrong when something passes from theoretical science into fantasy, but that not withstanding, fiction has to hold on to humans, who have proven remarkably more reliable in being unchanging creatures of lust, greed, hope, joy, and persistence than science will be a land of persistent truth.

To that end, another letter to SciFi Weekly is printed below:

“We take a science, or create a new one but still linked to present-day science, then project it forward. The world we create in such follows certain rules of logic, partially created by science.”
~J.G. te Molder~

Here is the basis for my problem with hard core Science Fiction purists. Science is, very generally, our best educated guess at any given point in time. The number of theories that have been wrestled with for 80 or more years, only to be discarded and replaced as our ability to make better educated guesses on the nature of things, is staggering. I revere science. You may not think so, but I believe that scientific study is probably our single most important endeavor as beings. I believe our ability to improve ourselves can only come through scientific study. I don’t, however, believe science is capable of giving us final answers, because it is a living thing, constantly open to new ideas, understandings, and revisions and also, it is limited by our capacity to understand and express it. To take a current Scientific theory and extrapolate it out to a logical conclusion is good and well for creating an internal logic for any fiction--in this same way fantasy writers must maintain rules about their worlds or they too degenerate into much babble--but to dismiss something because you feel the science in it is unprovable is not only arrogant, it is quite foolish.
How many hard core SF folks have laughed off intelligent, easily mistaken for human, robots? How about zipping across the galaxy in a large ship in a matter of days or weeks? Perhaps you’ve read about time travel and found the underlying science a joke? None of these can be pulled from science as we understand it today and projected as a real possibility in the centuries ahead, but still stories, fine stories, with these basic assumptions exist. Imagine, superluminal (FTL) speeds were considered impossible until our study of quasars implied otherwise. In fact, the debate over quasars is an excellent example of the nature of science to peel away layers of a truth, and once finding it, discover we must begin peeling again.
So, we have two basic types of science: Theoretical Science and Practical Science. Basing a work on Practical Science will probably be reliable for some time to come–if not forever. However, it might creak of age, when viewed in 10-20 years as our ability to apply it improves. Anything based on the practical will be pretty safe. For example, there is no doubt about the nature of phosphorus. Its practical uses and behaviors have proven themselves time and time again.
Theoretical Science, on the other hand, hangs by a string. Take electrons for example: we know there are electrons, but can only know where they are at a given instant. We believe we know how they work, what their purpose is, and we can find them. We can’t, however, trace their travel routes or know their trajectory when moving between two given points. In short, as has been observed, “An electron must be assumed to be everywhere at once and yet nowhere.” (A very rough quote from “A Brief History of Everything”). Do you want to write a story that extrapolates on the behavior of an electron? Is it possible that we, too, can be everywhere and yet nowhere at the same time.
Theoretical Science asks questions, posits possibilities and names things, placing them in the stack of unknowns, waiting for a time in which it will, by investigation, be understood. At that point it may be renamed, it may be discarded, or it may create a larger problem. Remember we still haven’t found the elusive Unified Theory, though String Theory goes a long way toward taking us there. Practical Science on the other hand is science that is proven by replication. This is how science works: it sets up a sacred cow and begins throwing things at it until it falls down. If we fail to dislodge it, after a while, it becomes canon. Maybe someday it will fall, but until it does, we will accept it as known fact.
For all we know, the thing we are most certain of is, we know so little of what there is to know. In short, there is a great deal of Phlogiston still out there. Let’s not be so arrogant that we think otherwise. And please, let’s not dismiss good fiction on that basis alone.

Finally I'm going to recommend some books for those of you interested in the study of science and espescially scientific history:

Faster Than Light: Superluminal Loopholes in Physics By Nick Herbert
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
A Brief History of Everything By Ken Wilber
A Brief History of Time By Stephen Hawking

Science Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fantasy, and Speculative Fiction
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Little Fugue in G minor, JS Bach
Topic: Simple Things
I’ve noticed a curious phenomena lately. There is a great cry about what is Science Fiction and what isn’t. For example, Star Wars and Star Trek have been referred to widely as Science Fiction. Firefly/Serenity and Cowboy Bebop have been decried as “NOT!” Science Fiction. Some people call “John Carter Warlord of Mars” Science Fiction, but I don’t think anyone can make a serious case for that. So, where does this leave us in the world of SF, Fantasy, and Speculative Fiction in general?

I guess my first question is, “When did the definition of Science Fiction narrow to that which is speculatively possible in light of current given facts about the universe?” “We can’t include ESP in a Science Fiction work – that’s not SF!” goes the cry. But then that eliminates Asimov’s wonderful and groundbreaking Foundation Trilogy--which has at it’s heart a pseudo-math that can predict future developments and a mind controlling mutant--from our works of classic Science Fiction. So, is it SF or is it Speculative Fiction? More accurately, is it Science Fantasy?

My second question is, “Why does it matter what you call it as long as it is good entertainment?” All entertainment begs you to suspend belief to some degree. You have to accept that everyone agrees it is a good idea to split up and explore the house wherein individuals are being picked off while alone. We accept that a creature can survive in normal earth atmosphere and lives off human flesh even though it has acidic blood. There are probably no end to scientific arguments that the latter is silly and the former is foolish, but each advances the plot and deepens mood, and helps tell a (hopefully) compelling story about the people in that situation.

If you don’t like something because it offends your highly discerning scientific knowledge base, and it disgusts you that others are too stupid to realize the inherent fallacies of the fiction’s premise, then please, don’t feel a need to educate us on how stupid we are for enjoying it anyway. Being bitten by a radioactive/genetically modified spider isn’t going to result in cool powers and the ability to do neat things like swing through the skyscrapers of New York on a thin web, but it doesn’t make the idea any less fun for a great number of us.

Recently a group of scientists managed to put a group of atoms into a "Cat State" the state of being two diametrically opposed things at one time–in this case spinning clockwise and counter-clockwise simultaneously. This is very cool, very edgy science that has gone from theory to fact. However, it is important to remember that not all theory goes on to become fact. In this way ERB’s Mars series (based on some scientific thinking at the time) was “Science Fiction” now it is Science Fantasy. Nearly every novel and movie depicting space travel has large spacious rooms with “Earth normal” gravity as they tool through space at speeds we can’t approach now (and have many differing theories on how that can or can’t be accomplished). This is the equivalent of a New York coffee house waiter living in a 3,000 sq. ft. loft. All of our current ideas on creating portable gravity fields are rooted in theory that requires impractical, at best, and likely impossibly scaled equipment to make it feasible. In short, it is fantasy to imagine a ship with normal gravity in which to walk. Does knowing this “ruin” the story? I somehow doubt it.

Ultimately Science Fiction can’t be about gadgets and hard core science, it must be about people. Fantasy can’t be about dragons and magic, it must be about people. We write fiction not about things, but about that which makes us human. I so often feel I’m beating this horse to death, but no matter how many times I say it, there’s always someone caught up in the stuff and not the people in a story. Sometimes examining things in an impossible venue can help us see more clearly that which is “real” and “human” and to some extent engage and enlighten us about ourselves as a culture and a people.

What is Science Fiction? What is Fantasy? What is Science Fantasy and Speculative Fiction? They are attempts to examine the human race from a unique and hopefully visionary perspective. They are NOT any attempt to create a world that might one day be possible to experience or where we might go technologically as a culture (though some are more probable and possible than others). They are about who we are as a culture and a as a people. They are about being human in extraordinary circumstances, (even if we are aliens, elves, or sentient robots).

Getting into the groove
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: Whatever is in the coffee shop
Topic: Simple Things
Okay, so I'm sitting in some coffee shop having downed a large chocolate/coffee (3 shots of espresso) drink and still kind of yawning. I am however finding time to write this and hopefully write even more than this. I am thinking about story possibilities and when I sit down to write, I will have a good deal of material at hand -- or at brain cell. My other project is also going well.

Spent last night with the SIW and we read the final chapter of part one of one of the member's work -- quite nice dialogue in that (I'm pretty good with dialogue having read and performed a good deal of it in my life). I think it is quite a marketable story. I also spend too much time at the Straight Dope Message Bords where a number of individuals doing Nanowrimo are also spending their time.

My other big productivity killer is City of Heroes which, to be honest, I should learn to live without. Ray Bradbury has an interesting quote, which I'm going to mangle, that goes something like: "Let them play video games. While they're doing that, I'll write another novel." There is much wisdom in that. I can't think of anything apart from pure pleasure that video games represent and unbalanced they are as bad as any other addiction you care to name. Part of the draw of COH is the community -- which is what always made RPG's so much fun. Hanging out, telling jokes, and, oh, yeah, trashing villains is a great way to pass the time.

Anyway, I'm curbing that for this month and hopefully can wean myself off of it entirely. It costs too much and wastes too much time (and is incidentally way too much fun!).

Anyway, time to close this, first post of actual story material goes up sometime Tuesday and the other project should be up Monday morning.

ddgryphon