ESA Scans SF Books For Ideas 230
cyberm writes: "The European Space Agency has started a project to scan science fiction books for new ideas and technologies. " I like this idea - and not just because I have a massive science fiction book collection. If you look at the past, science fiction authors have routinely come up with the inventions of tomorrow - Jules Verne is a great example of classical science fiction that did so, but today's hard science fiction authors, like Kim Stanley Robinson, or David Brin are building tomorrow, IMHO.
Re:Gibson? Don't make me laugh (Score:1)
I think thats the problem. Neuromancer seemd to use upp all his remaining ideas. Anything before that was short stories (many of which were very good, but naturaly a novel will use up a lot more ideas)
Re:I want a phaser. (Score:1)
Re:Power infrastructure wasn't either. (Score:1)
How about this: The equipment needed to recycle spent nuclear fuel for reuse in power plants can also be used for enriching Plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Keeping this equipment out of non-military hands is one of the reasons the NRC requires that highly radioactive spent fuel (after one fuel cycle) be expensively stored rather than enriched and reburned until less radioactive.
The point was the NRC regulation, not the military potential of the recycled fuel.
Re:What about SF TV? (Score:1)
The main objective of the ITSF Study is to review past and present SF literature, artwork and films
Re:And you know this how...? (Score:1)
(yes, yes, tubes rock and all that)
You're awfully late to this party (Score:1)
John W. Campbell: "Ted, ninety percent of the stuff that's called science fiction is crap."
Theodore Sturgeon: "John, ninety percent of everything is crap."
Thus we have Sturgeon's Law, "Ninety percent of everything is crap". (Theodore Sturgeon was a science fiction author of some note, and John W. Campbell was both an author and long-time editor of Amazing Stories, which is now Analog, the hardest of the hard-SF available in a monthly magazine. Ironically, JWC was one of the people taken in by the Dean Drive hoax.)
--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
Sturgeon's law (Score:1)
The commonly accepted ratio is stated by Sturgeon's law: "90% of all science-fiction is crap".
__
Re:A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters .. (Score:1)
Seriously, this is not something that warrants actual spending of tax dollars. God knows those poor bastards in europe pay enough already. Not that the 1% of science^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeculative fiction which is based on real science doesn't have merit; there are thousands upon thousands of good, feasable ideas IMAO. For example Jack Vance suggests selling human pelts. A completely untapped market. Akkad Pseudoman (EF Northrup -yes, that one) suggested electromagnetic launch in a 1937 book entitled "Zero to Eighty". Intel ads have maglev material handling systems. There is Heinlien's oft mentioned 'waldo' of "Waldo and Magic Inc.". And John Christopher suggests electrical 'caps' to bend human minds to your every whim. Tell me thats not a good idea! All good ideas. But not worth spending tax money on.
Isn't it amazing how many of my sentences begin with contractions?
Re:Corp more powerful than gov't not Robinson's id (Score:1)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Re:And you know this how...? (Score:1)
Also I thought the fictional society in which the law was "An Eye for an Eye" was pretty interesting. It was one of the later "nomadic refugee" books, probably either "Job" or "Number of the Beast". The specific example I remember was a guy being run over repeatedly by a truck because he crippled someone while DUI.
I think this was also the same society that killed all of the lawyers... a common Heinlein theme as well.
Rev Neh
Yes, so? (Score:1)
If you can run a research reactor, you can breed fissile U-233 from Thorium-232. You don't need more than a chemistry lab to separate the two. If you have gas centrifuges, you don't need to breed anything; you can separate bomb-grade U-235 from natural uranium. The ban on reprocessing may have been politically expedient (because it plays well to an ignorant public), but it has next to zero scientific foundation.
--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
What's next? Brave worlds and big brother? (Score:1)
books.
I wonder what might be next: 1984 has scared me
and many others for years, but i am surprised
how fast public video control takes over.
Then came 'Truman show' and today, whole
Germany seems addicted to a show called
'Big Brother' with an obvious concept.
Is this just me or a trend towards 1984?
-- dune73
Re:Gibson? Don't make me laugh (Score:1)
Prioritise, prioritise, prioritise (Score:3)
Step one - force them all to watch 'Barbarella' - a future filled with Fonderesque babes in revealing spacesuits is a time I want to live in. Ditto the Orgasmatron tech. from 'Sleeper'.
Step two - Two Words...BIG FUCKING SPACESHIPS. Feed them Iain M Banks, wid a quickness.
Step three - Any SF which has Immortality./life extension as a theme. Make sure they read some of the 'Monkey's Paw' type stuff as well to help them iron out the bugs.
Step four - Make Neal Stephenson head of their computing R&D department.
Step five - Stop them from reading/seeing any Robert Heinlein/Jerry Pournelle stuff. If I want o live in an extremist right-wing future populated by smug patriarchs I'll move to the US. (joke!)
Step six - Try to persuade them to set up a division reading Fantasy novels as well. Given that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, I may end up with that magic carpet I have been after for years, after all.
Just my 2 Zorkmids.
That's it... (Score:1)
Just another computer geek....
Re:Work through Authors alphabetically (Score:1)
Then again, waking up on the seafront at Southend could be a cool experience, just as long as the infinate monkeys stay away...
I've heard something like this before... (Score:1)
The protagonist worked for clandestine CIA branch and did nothing but read spy novels all day to either gather technique or uncover surreptitious intellegence hidden in the plot lines, I can't quite remember which, and I think it changed between the book and the movie. In the end something goes wrong and everyone but him in his office is murdered by another renegade agency branch (he happens to be out to lunch at the time.) He ends up running and hiding from the killers, using the techniques that he has picked up from reading the spy novels to fend them off.
Pretty good book, pretty good movie, wierd plot device. Truth may be stranger than fiction, but it appears in this case, fiction got a 20+ year jump on truth.
Re:Gibson? Don't make me laugh (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Depending on what exactly was being done with this, it might just be an imitation of reality. The point about virtual reality is to visualize completely abstract stuff (like a database) in a way so that you can interact with it "naturally".
In any case, I doubt Gibson came up with THAT either. Johnny Mnemonic is the only movie that I've preferred (as dumb as it was) to the story.
You really, really dont like Gibsons work, eh? Cant see why, though.
This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:2)
Most SF authors really do not have a good grasp
on science. Most however do have a firm grasp on authentic sounding technobabble,
which is different from science alltogether!
Yes. It is true that some technologies were predicted by SF authors, but they really do
not become practical until the required
technological infrastructure exists to support such ideas.
Using SF ideas to drive basic science research
is a silly idea, as most SF has no basis
in reality. Using SF to drive technology on the other hand may be feasable, but for any ``cool'' idea, it becomes realistically implementable only after there is enough infrastructure to support them.
(e.g. a single computer is a nice toy, (e.g. ENIAC) but multiple computers on a world wide network, now that kicks ass! Second example: The Chinese were probably the first to invent rockets. But it took until the 20th century to actually develop it into useful forms, such as the jet engine and orbit capable rockets. Both only became useful after there were enough support, such as lots OF airplanes and airports for the former, and the
substantial industrial capacity required to build and maintain such rockets.)
Giving credit to where credit is due is of course
a noble concept, but we also have to think of
the uncountable hours the actual engineers spent on designing/building the inventions and the supporting infrastructure to make them useful!!
So who deserves more credit? The real scientists
and engineers who actually DEVELOPED an idea
into a realistic form? or the person who
had an idea/dream and did nothing with it?
Re:Reason (Score:1)
New Ideas (Score:1)
Of-course scientists will not find anything in these books that they did not know already, however it maybe an interesting experiment to see whether we are missing something, maybe there are certain things that can be useful and implemented today and until now only seen in s.f.
Re:I'm truly amazed... (Score:1)
Re:Cyberspace is not Gibsons best idea (Score:1)
FDR thought up that one in the thirties, it's called TVA.
Although I dig Gibson's work, he really gets quite a lot of credit for ideas that predate his work. While he may have 'created' cyberpunk, the elements were already present in the works of Vernor Vinge (True Names), Sam Delany (Personally, I think Babble 17 is the first cyberpunk book), John Varley (most of his work), and many others.
Doesn't NASA have an advisory board that includes SF authors? I seem to remember Jerry Pournelle being an advisor to NASA.
Re:Read Distress by Greg Egan (Score:1)
once you've read all his books you'll have trouble beleiving you exist much less anything else.
He's the only author i've seen so far that has done good "what if's" with nanotech and gen. eng. from a point of view of bad things hapening.
Re:What about Niven? (Score:1)
episode, but they gave him either
"based on", "concept by", or
"original story by" credits, which means
they weren't
ripping him off,
and instead were paying him
for the use of the plot.
plus, it was one of the better episodes, IMHO.
And you know this how...? (Score:1)
1. read every SF book that comes out
2. know all technologies of the future.
Color me sceptic...
An actual case (Score:1)
In 1992, they started implementing it.
It [imdb.com] is currently running in full capacity. An estimated number of 6 billion people are involved.
__
Re:Gibson? Don't make me laugh (Score:1)
The logics of the story are connected to a global data bank. The story deals with issues of access to that information - what happens when someone wants to use that knowledge to, say, plan the perfect bank heist? It's quite relevent to issues of net censorship today.
Re:Absolutely true! (Score:1)
that's odd, I suggested this to ask slashdot about (Score:2)
It's about time the men and women who came up with the ideas got credit for them.
The Best Example (Score:2)
All the more impressive since he apparently had no clue of how computers actually work.
Along that line, it could be argued that "hard" science fiction is the wrong target for such a project: If someone has no idea if what can be done and what cant, they're much more likely to come up with an idea thats worth changing what can be done for.
Re:There's lots of prior art. (Score:2)
I'm surprised that True Names and Other Dangers is out of print. It also features Run, Bookworm, Run!, Long Shot, and a few other stories. Find it if you can.
According to Amazon.com, True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier
is coming soon to a bookstore near you. (Publication date is supposed to be April 2000, but it's not available yet.)I checked Amazon for info, but since they're patent abusing bastards who should be first against the wall when the revolution comes I'll probably buy from Fatbrain [fatbrain.com] or my local bookstore.
Re:Absolutely true! (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be Pierre Boulle's idea?
Don't forget your Dick. (Score:2)
more amazing that nobody's mentioned Rudy Rucker.. (Score:2)
Hey, they can fund their work with semiconscious sex toys
Your Working Boy,
Re:Why I don't like Gibson (Score:2)
Finally, it doesn't even remotely fit most of Gibson's short stories.
UPC SF contest (Score:2)
Languages are EN, FR, ES and CT.
Prizes are up to 1,000,000 ESP (~= 6,010 EUR) and publishing. (Gimme 1% if you win
You have until September.
__
Re:space travel (Score:2)
Re:What about Niven? (Score:2)
Bring on the PSYCHOHISTORY! (Score:2)
I'm kind of spooked that governments are paying attention to sf. Not that I think Asimovian psychohistorical prediction and control is possible - I am quite certain it is wholly impossible - but I think there are many ideas and tools in science fiction that governments might use inappropriately.
But, then, that's just an anti-government reflex, I suppose. I'm glad that people making decisions are recogizing science fiction as the hotbed of innovation and insight its fans have long recognized it as.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
True Names (Score:2)
--
Re:This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:2)
But this is not about credit, its about ideas to begin with!
In a way, a scientific background can be a limitation. It forces you to always do the logical next step. Someone without a scientific background on the other hand, might come up with an idea thats totally ridiculous at first to any scientist, but thats revolutionary enough to be worth trying to implement anyway.
Re:What books are you reading? (Score:2)
Now how in the world would this be physically possible with our current understanding of physics? Not meant as a flame, I actually agree with your post, but isn't the ring being physically possible pushing it a little?
Re:least predicted? Brunner didn't miss... (Score:2)
Re:And you know this how...? (Score:3)
That's what these people are doing. They are taking the non-predictive Sci-Fi and looking at it to find ideas about what they might want to try to work on. We don't have personal Anti-Grav, right? Well, damnit that's one hell of a great idea though! Why don't we start work to figure that out? We don't have matter replicators, but dmanit, that's one hell of a great idea though!
See? The whole point is not to say 'Sci-Fi writers predicted we would come up with this' but to say 'This Sci-Fi writer thought of this, let's see if we can make it happen.'
Kintanon
Re:Teleportation? Quantum type... (Score:2)
Search for "quantum teleportation" on your favorite search engine. (I found 2400 refs on Google.) Or search your local library for the past couple years of Scientific American, Nature, Science etc.
Re:True Names (Score:2)
thousand typewriters???? (Score:2)
It's now thousand monkeys on a thousuand word processing programs.
Remeber the voice activated typerwriter in one of the original Start Trek episodes?
The idea behind the review of the books is to get ideas. Sometimes when you work in an area, you see the logical progressions, but you don't take jumps.
Back in 1983, I saw a 10mb r/w magneto/optical prototype written up in EE times. I told my boss about an idea of sticking one of these things in the trunk of a car. Put up all the local maps on the drive and have the car tell you where to turn. An idea that I got from Knight Rider.
Re:A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters .. (Score:3)
1: In the past, SF authors have been trying to predict what the rest of the world, running largely independently of them, will do. This involves some scientific extrapolation, but much more sociology, economics, politics, and so forth. The sheer number of disciplines involved makes it clear why the track record is pretty dismal. What a project like ITSF is doing is looking at SF for things the world might do and actively trying to implement them.
2: The flights of SF do not stop at technology. Science Fiction is largely about using technology to free stories from modern pragmatic constraints -- or about telling stories dealing with what may happen when those constraints are gone. The Diamond Age was not interesting because of its descriptions of nanotech per se, but because it showed us a society which had transformed itself for a nanotech age. Stephenson isn't going to teach the ESA how to pull diamond out of the air, but once we learn to do so he might be a good place to look to predict what people will value and how they'll live and think. Maybe we'll get free public compilers a decade early because he thought of it ahead of time.
Now that I've defended the general idea, I have to agree that I'm a bit discouraged by the ITSF project. Their introduction [spaceart.net] speaks of gleaning purely technological concepts, like rocket fins and orbital space stations. Details like this are historically not, and they need not be, the strength of SF. We should be looking to SF to figure out how to develop technology that's in the pipeline, to see how people currently understand it and how it might be used.
- Michael Cohn
Re:This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:3)
Our stories embody our human aspirations and fears. Mining stories for ideas is not about taking designs, so much as these aspirations and fears and seeing if they could feasibly be addressed.
To use your example, if nobody had ever dreamed of going to the moon or flying to touch the stars, it is unlikely that rocketry would have progressed beyond fireworks. The infrastructure for sattelite communications, GPS, and remote sensing didn't exist, until somebody tried to fulfill a dream.
Of course, the real question is whether you need a program to encourage people to do this. If you don't have people who like to imagine on their own, perhaps you need different people.
Another one they missed (Score:2)
AFAIK none of them came up with the idea of DNA before it was discovered either. The whole idea of genetic engineering was completely missed out upon by the early sci-fi writers.
you/they have it backwards (Score:2)
Re:I want a phaser. (Score:2)
Re:New Ideas (Score:2)
Agreed, but I think there's value in contemplating an impossible fantasy, wishing that it were possible and struggling to find if it is really impossible.
Motivation is very important to creativity. For example I think the desire for some form of immortality underlies the quest to understand what the universe will look like far into the future. One of the questions that people always seem to ask is, can life be supported in a universe where the stars have exhausted all the thermonuclear fuel? Why do people think about such things, and why does society pay them to? I believe it boils down to how you live with the fantasy of physical immortality you know will not become personally true. Some people might want to find a loophole, and others might feel more comfortable closing off the very possiblility of immortality.
FTL travel is another rubbish idea that nonetheless inspires people to understand more.
Oh sh*t here comes Palmer Eldritch (Score:2)
You know, there are lots of really, really bad ideas floating around in science fiction. Let's definitely keep them away from The Man in the High Castle, especially the Germans... Come to think of it, given their laws against Nazi literature in Germany, is Man in the High Castle (or Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream) even legal to publish there?
They also need to stay clear of David Bunch's Moderan, Barry Malzberg's Beyond Apollo, Larry Niven's Jigsaw Man, Gene Wolfe's Fifth Head of Cerberus, and Walter Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Not totally (Score:2)
Re:What about Niven? (Score:2)
This is a bummer you can't find the Ringworld books. Actually (ahem, okay, this will date me) I did all my early science fiction reading in ye olde publicke library, but I bought the first two RW books when they came out. Anyway, check the libraries if the UB stores are no good.
Re:What about Niven? (Score:2)
Where SF missed the boat (Score:2)
What really interests me are the inventions that Science Fiction didn't predict. I've never seen any evidence that any author foresaw the development of the personal computer, much less its implications. The computers of classic SF were usually planet-sized sentient ENIACs, bulky calculators (less power than out modern graphing calcs, but the size of a laptop), or "positronic brains" which had to be embodied in a humanoid robot. If anyone can point me to an SF story with a computer as powerful and as small as those in common use today, written before the invention of the Altair, I'd love to hear about it.
Sure, once they had been introduced to the idea of small, commonly available computers, SF authors ran with it, forseeing many of the enhancements that we now take for granted. But somehow, no one appears to have made the initial speculative breakthrough.
--
Re:What about Niven? (Score:2)
There's lots of prior art. (Score:2)
1 part Dystopian society
1 part utopian technology (good fast AND cheap)
1 part glamorous writing style
I've read plenty of VR-type stories, including the "if you die in VR, you die in the real world" cliche, dating from the 50's and 60's.
I'd classify William F. Nolan's LOGAN'S RUN books as cyberpunk, and they came out long before Gibson or Vinge.
To give credit where it's due, Gibson did a great deal to POPULARISE cyberpunk. I'd also like to add Walter Jon Williams as a writer who did cyberpunk really well.
I'd comment more about Vinge, but I haven't found a copy of True Names yet.
Jon
Re:This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:2)
The Clarke Orbit, invented by Arthur C. Clarke back in his military servitude, IIRC - also known as geosync. Can you say Comsats, boys and girls? Is Hughes or Intelsat paying to use these orbits? (Note - a couple of years back, TRW PATENTED [ibm.com] one of the proposed Medium Earth Orbit comsat constellations and orbits - and you thought software patents were bad!)
The waterbed, by Robert A. Heinlein - has his estate seen a penny from Water Bedroom Land?
There are plenty more. Remember, there are quite a few actual scientists writing science fiction. Shouldn't they get some credit for writing down something so far ahead of its time that everyone considers it "sci-fi?"
Re:Some great ideas... - Greg Egan is Ideas (Score:2)
Permutation city, Distress and Diaspora are all worth reading along with his short stories.
Yeah, I've read them all, and enjoyed all of them. Some really out there ideas in all of his books. If you like Greg Egan, read Vacuum Diagrams by Stephen Baxter. It's a series of short stories set in his Xeelee sequence universe, and has some great science ideas and concepts, including a story about a life form make from mathematical postulates!
Re:Work through Authors alphabetically (Score:2)
Maybe the potential for things like grouchiness, dissatisfaction and paranoia are somehow linked to intelligence itsef. Even more so given the limited scope we would want our robots to use their intelligence (like the intelligent elevators that took an impertinent interest in which floor you wanted to go to).
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke asked a similar question in 2001 -- is intelligence somewhow linked to violence. This was more than the usual killer robot thing, because they applied that question to humanity as well. The first thing the ape-man did when he got souped up intelligence was to brain the other ape-men at the water hole.
Re:This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:2)
Yeah, but he might hastily dismiss a really good idea as unfeasible just because his knowledge of what is feasible isnt really all that complete. Since today most scientists are extremely specialized, thats not that unlikely a scenario.
No, the whole idea of specialisation is that a scientist only has to concentrate on a single narrow area within which he can be up to date on pretty much the whole field. If an idea isn't within his field then he'll get someone else whose field it is to examine the idea. Of course no one scientists is going to be able to judge every single idea presented to them.
You mean like the "Real World Interface" of (Score:2)
Jack me in...
Actually, I DO beleive that a lot of cheesy SciFi (like "Tom Corbet! Space Cadet!", Buck Rogers, etc) of the 50's were very instrumental in growing the public momentum towards the US space program in the 60's, altho it was a combination of many things incl. the cold war/sputnik/space race, Werner Von Braun [nasa.gov] (also SciFi influenced), commitment by President and congress, etc, etc...
least predicted meteoric technologies? (Score:2)
computing. Look at the kinds of computers
in 2001:Space Odessey. Asimov has a story about
a society dependent on PDAs.
The quick rise of InterNet was also missed.
Arthur C Clarke (Score:2)
I'm truly amazed... (Score:4)
On the other hand, the first thing they should do is find out the skill of SF writers' forecasts. You need to weight Clarke's or Robinson's or Brin's (well maybe not Brin's but definitely Clarke's) ideas higher than, well, I won't name names. You get the idea.
Co$ (Score:3)
> Stanley Robinson, or David Brin are
> building tomorrow, IMHO.
As long as it's not a certain L. Ron. H....
how about Nasa taking this from Star Wars... (Score:2)
Seth
Re:And you know this how...? (Score:2)
Given the plot, I don't know if you can say that Heinlein considered it a good idea...
But anyway, the really interesting predictions are in an article in the Expanded Universe collection, written in the fifties, then updated in the sixties and 1980, that attempts to predict what the year 2000 will be like. (With interesting commentary on the real predictive value of SF.) Fascinating stuff. My favorite part was the way he predicts the fall of communism in 1950 and then retracts the prediction in 1965!
A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters ... (Score:3)
Dave
P.S.: I am an avid sci-fi reader. The number of Sci-Fi books I have is more than most people have in any genre.
Re:Work through Authors alphabetically (Score:2)
widespread as the ideas that lemmings drown themselves and Craig Shergold wants you to send him a get-well
card. Brutalization is useful in certain contexts for control and status. I doubt we're the only ones doing it.
The perspective you take is an interesting one. However I don't think it likely that your cat is depraved. Predators enjoy killing for the same reason they enjoy sex -- enjoyment of these activities is necessary.
Struggles for dominance are the common stuff of TV nature shows. Usually they are quite restrained in the animal world, but there are exceptions, such as when small animals in the litter crowd out the weaker ones. For that matter the American coot normally has more offspring than it can manage and routinely drives them off or kills them.
However, as cruel as these acts are, they are not depraved. I don't think killing for status, or sport, or survival are necessarily depraved.
The capacity for depravity is purely a function of intelligence, because it requires an ability to grasp the the state of mind of the victim. This is a capacity only humans and possibly the higher apes do. This capacity to understand suffering, to envision both oneself and one's victim as an ongoing entity, means that violence among humans and possibly some apes is qualitatively different.
Humans, uniquely as far as I know, perform violence to induce mental states in their victims.
My point is the view of the relationship between intelligence and violence, or malice if you will, is probably naive; however intelligence adds qualitative dimensions to violence
Re:Work through Authors alphabetically (Score:2)
Whereas bonobos, our nearest genetic relatives, don't do this kind of thing. In fact, various forms of sex acts seem to take the place of violence we see in chimp communities.
As you point out, it's pretty clear that violence can exist without intelligence, but can intelligence exist without violence? That's an important human problem. Does our intelligence give us the tools to rise above the Holocausts, the Lockerbies, the Kosovos and the Columbines? Kubrick suggests not only that the answer is no, but that intelligence itself may be bound up with the urge to kill, and that our technological society is based on the urge to kill. Not only does ape-man kill his water hole rivals as soon as he gets some brains, but HAL kills his colleagues. Clarke's view, as expressed in later books, is yes, it does give us tools to transcend primitive violence. It is not intelligence that kills, it is a kind of logical malfunction that comes from living a falsehood.
Nature is not all tranquil pastoral settings. Behind the scenes and around the bend often lurks incredible violence. Intelligence has nothing to do with it (although it can lead to more refined forms of violence). Violence is a part of life.
Your position seems to be in between Kubrick and Clarke; intelligence is not in any particular way bound up with violence, nor is violence something that can be overcome. This seems pretty reasonable to me, except that in my view intelligence and self-awareness adds a potential new dimension to violence: depravity. Animals (or plants for that matter) that kill do so purely functionally. Even cats play with mice to teach their young hunting skills. It is humans that humiliate and torture each other and seek to inflict emotional pain on victims and their families.
Power infrastructure wasn't either. (Score:3)
Recycling spent fuel from PWR's, with their typical burnup of 40,000 to 50,000 megawatt-days per ton, yields a fair amount of plutonium. Problem for the weapons business is, all Pu is not created equal. The isotope of interest is Pu-239, which is both fissile and has a reasonably low rate of spontaneous fissions. (Too high a rate of SF's, and you can't assemble a supercritical mass before it disassembles itself; once it's expanded past the point where it is prompt-supercritical it stops yielding energy, even if it's only given you the equivalent of a few kg of TNT. To get that supercritical mass, you have to delay the onset of the chain reaction until the fissile material is sufficiently compressed to give a good yield. ONE spontaneous fission in the mean time....)
Bomb-grade material is not made in power reactors. It is (was, in the USA; we're not making any more) made in special reactors from depleted uranium (DU) rods, which are irradiated for a very short time and then processed to remove the plutonium. A short period of irradiation creates some Pu-239, but doesn't allow very much of the Pu-239 to be transmuted to the problematic (very high SF rate) isotopes of Pu-240 and Pu-241. In a power reactor you just plain don't care about the spontaneous fission rate, but for a bomb it is crucial. The spontaneous fission rate of the plutonium from power reactors is way beyond anything that a bomb designer would even think of using. And that's why commercial nuclear power is not a bomb-proliferation risk even with reprocessing (the political posturing over plutonium notwithstanding), and why story lines based on this are technically deficient. AAMOF, any story which treats this falsehood as a given should probably not be called science fiction.
--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
Re:Absolutely true! (Score:2)
How about:
There'd be more but I've got to go home now :)
James Blish's Spindizzy (Dirac's electron spin eq) (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
Cyberspace is not Gibsons best idea (Score:2)
Specifically what comes to mind is the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority. A Federally controlled electrical power infrastructure.
We've all seen nuclear power fail, when handled by private electrical companies; but the government has been making it work wonders in submarine and carrier applications for decades.
The reason there is radio-active waste is NRC regulation, since 'recycling' waste results in weapons-grade nuclear fuel.
The reason there is a bad reputation in the nuke industry is cost-cutting, pure and simple. Running equipment to the point of failure, minimal staffing, letting inspections slide... It's all been done to recoup some of the cost of building a plant, and to make a buck. The Fed thinks differently about these things, especially with a DoD presence involved.
Putting two and two together, giving the government control and responsibility for nuclear power accomplishes several things.
1. Spent fuel can be recycled and reburned until inert, since the DoD will be, in effect, in control of the weapons-grade producing technology.
2. It will be managed adequately. When was the last time the DoD/Fed cut corners on maintenance and beurocracy? Yeah, they screw the social programs and NASA, but they pay $400/USAF screw-driver.
3. A minimum level of power supply to the national grid will be guaranteed. Privatization of power can be relegated to conventional and 'natural' sources, with a set of nuclear anchors bolstering the grid in times of peak demand - and selling the power abroad in low demand.
So, Gibson seems to have seen that this is a viable idea. Yeah, there's issues. The government being in control of weapons manufacturing capability will cause international problems. But these can be mediated with observers, or the selling of power and goods, dropping of tariffs; economics speaks louder than bombs these days.
Cyberspace aside, there's all the bio-tech Gibson brought (arguably not the first to do so, remember Bester?) to the scene, the Kaibatsu (Is that right? It's been years) multi-national corporations, the Virtual Light goggles that are now in college R&D labs (Georgetown?), the Island nations serving as data havens (or at least top-level domain whores today)...
Maps pretty well.
Except: isn't 99% of everthing crap? (Score:3)
Flying cars and bridges which crossed the Atlantic are two of my favorite "visions" of the future which turned out to be bogus. Many other "futures" included inventions which are totally impractical in order to advance the plot line, or disregard the laws of physics in order to do something cool.
I suspect a full survey of all science fiction, rather than focusing on the stuff that was a "hit" in predicting the future, would show that science fiction writers got it right about as often as psychics in predicting the future.
Re:A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters .. (Score:2)
Not really. For instance, most writers from the 50's thought we'd have much more space travel by now. Or take videophones, they've never taken off, yet the technology is fairly trivial.
It's hard to predict what's going to work, because in addition to technical issues, there are also economic, societal and simple ease-of-use, "do I really WANT this?" issues which effect whether ideas become successful.
Jon
Oh Golly (Score:3)
James Halperin.... (Score:3)
One of his books is called "The Truth Machine", and it's essentially an infallible lie detector that becomes the basis of all legal proceedings. Privacy vanishes entirely as a result, which has the surprising effect of increasing the pace and daring of technological research and advancement (ie no need to worry about dangerous technologies when you can always trust the motives of those working on it).
I LOVE novel ideas (Score:3)
It reminds me of a medical biologist that was looking for new drugs. So, what did he do? He went into the Amazon and observed apes and chimps and noted what they used for medicines when they felt ill. He's discovered more than 10 new compounds from the plants the apes and chimps used.
Here's another neat solution to a common problem. Didn't you always hate how college campuses and other big complexes pour their sidewalks in 90 degree angles and such? Well, a University back in the 1900s [smile] decided to NOT pour concrete the first year after their campus' construction. Instead, they waited the first year, saw what paths the students had worn out, and paved those paths. Pretty cool, eh?
Re:What about Niven? (Score:2)
Heh. oh yeah. dyson.
I agree with LA too
Talk about selective memory... (Score:3)
On the upside, I guess "reversing the polarity of the neutron flow" will fix everything in the future, just like on most episodes of Star Trek / Dr. Who
Re:And you know this how...? (Score:2)
Gay Deceiver (and the gyro drive) are my favorite parts of NotB.
Re:What books are you reading? (Score:2)
Now how in the world would this be physically possible with our current understanding of physics?
It's just a big, spinning loop of cosmic string isn't it? Okay the scale of it is enormous, but that's an engineering problem rather than a physics one. And IIRC the Kerr metric for a rotating black hole does allow for a naked singularity given those kinds of extreme conditions.
Whether or not it produces a black hole/white hole kind of interface between universes is an open question, but the rest of it is plausible enough.
Re:What books are you reading? (Score:2)
P.s. try to avoid sounding like a rabid advocate.
Fair enough, but I think we're both guilty of sounding a bit over the top :) I don't think many things in Stephen Baxter's stories are theoretically impossible, even the Ring, but actually working out a way to do them is the challenge, and most of the technology in his books is definitely 500 years+ down the line at least...
Don't forget Clarke (Score:2)
Don't forget Adams either. I want an infinite improbability drive.... (Actually, there is a theory that describes the possibility of such a means of transportation.)
Teleportation? (Score:2)
!!
Can somebody elaborate on this?
__
Re:Sincerity /= truth (Score:2)
Of course, part of the point is that, once we have the ability to accurately censor, it most likely will be put into practice, because when it comes down to it, we, as a people, prefer security to freedom. If it can be guaranteed that you can catch all the criminals before they do their crime, people will give up their right to their private thoughts and submit to periodic examinations. That's what's scary, and it's probably what's coming.
What about Niven? (Score:3)
Aggg.
Re:This is not necessarily a good idea!! (Score:2)
Hah!
I was wondering when somebody would notice this.
The answer is no, and I'm a bona fide propeller-head to boot. The airbag syndrome you are referring to is what you get when you apply the geek mentality to non-technical subjects like literature. ESR is the prime example.
Re:Co$ (Score:2)
It would be almost like if he were to interview John Rocker and say, "This has nothing to do with anything that might of been said that might have offended anyone, we're just going to talk about baseball."
Needless to say, even with no connection made to Scientology, I failed to see any redeeming qualities in the movie clips that would make me buy a ticket to see this. Apparently this was Travolta's pet project, and it took him 20 years to get enough "clout" in hollywood to get it made. The fact that he had to mention three or four times that George Lucas liked it didn't help either. I'm pretty sure this will be the flop of the summer. With all the qualifying and shameless plugging, it was not one of Charlie's usually outstanding interviews.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
Some great ideas to be found in hard SF (Score:3)
This does sort of seem like a joke at first, but for anyone who's read a lot of hard science fiction it does have a point - a lot of it is written by people with physics and science degrees and a technical background, and they are carefully researched - often by asking scientists working in the relevant fields for their input.
Apart from the obvious example of satellites in geostationary orbit coming from Arthur C Clarke, the other main example I can think of is stable wormholes. They were considered to be impossible for a long time since there was no way to prevent the entrances from collapsing and sealing the wormhole off. But when Carl Sagan was writing Contact he got in touch with Kip Thorne to see if a theoretically plausible mechanism for FTL travel was possible, and after some calculation and research he showed that you could build stable wormholes given "exotic" matter. Now there is a significant body of research into this phenomenon, all of which stemmed from Carl Sagan's quest for realism in his book.
Since SF authors have to consider the whole of society in order to come up with a coherent setting for their stories their predictions, if based upon decent technological knowledge, are often more canny than most "futurologists". In the long term, a lot of the advances made will depend on how society adapts to them, and this is not always taken fully into account.
I'm currently in the middle of reading Distress by Greg Egan (an author worth reading), and it's got a lot of great ideas about how society might evolve in the next fifty years, and a lot of plausible technology. Other authors worth reading for great ideas are Stephen Baxter, Gregory Benford, Peter F Hamilton and Greg Bear, but I'm sure I've left many more off that I've read and enjoyed :)
Re:What books are you reading? (Score:2)
Absolutely true! (Score:3)
Other inventions we could use that come from recent SF:
Any other suggestions? These are just the first ones to pop into my head...
Re:I'm truly amazed... (Score:2)
ESA has no money to do anything other than a) develop probes with experiments in them and b) launch telecoms satellites to raise money to develop another probe. Whatever they discover, they aren't going to have the money to do anything else, ever.