A Book of Blogs

Thanks to Alicia, I just found out about this project of Tvindy’s:

With all the phenomenal writing that has appeared on our various blogs over the past several months, wouldn’t it be cool for us to get together and publish a physical anthology of our greatest posts?

The way I envision it is that several of us agree to participate and have a couple of their entries published in the anthology. Since most people (myself included) find it hard to evaluate their own work, we can make suggestions as to what the best entries of our fellow bloggers are and urge them to choose those. That should make for some interesting debates.

The final product would be a paperback, containing hopefully as many as fifty entries in no particular order. Each entry would identify the name (or pseudonym) of the author and the URL of her/his blog. We’d make a nice cover using combined artwork from various blogs, and there would be an introduction at the beginning explaining what the book was.

He’s got more thoughts on how to approach the project in his next three posts (make that four).

I think this sounds really good, and would love to contribute, if anything I have is deemed worthy of inclusion.

Taking a quick look at my recent Four Years post where I pulled out a lot of highlights, I’m thinking that the following posts would be most likely to work well:

If anyone else has any other nominations, though, I’d be glad to see them. Your views on the “best” posts as readers might be quite different than mine as author.

Versus

What ever happened to concepts like tolerance and respect of others? Polite disagreement? Discussion as opposed to argument? Open minded acceptance of other people’s views, even if they differ from your own?

This may not be my most coherent or well-organized post, but a couple things popped up today that have been rumbling around in the back of my head, and I wanted to at least make a stab at getting some of them out.

Yesterday, I posted a link and excerpt from a story in the Seattle Times about a local Native American burial ground that has been uncovered due to construction on the Hood Canal bridge. The story caught my attention both for the archaeological significance of the find, and for the care and concern that the local tribes have for the spirituality of the site and their ancestors.

This morning, my post got a Trackback ping when Paul Myers of Pharyngula posted about the article. When I read his post, though, I was more than a little taken aback at what I felt to be the cavalier and rude tone he took in regard to the tribe’s religious beliefs.

There’s a fair bit of religious hokum in the article; goofy stuff such as the claim that pouring a concrete slab would trap the spirits forever (piling dirt and rocks on top of them doesn’t, apparently, nor does rotting into a smear), and spiritual advisors on site and ritual anointings to protect people from angry spirits. That’s all baloney….

The religious/spiritual crap cuts no ice with me….

It wasn’t that he didn’t agree with the spirituality of the tribe that bothered me (I don’t know Paul’s personal religious beliefs) — rather, it was the utter lack of respect in how he addressed it. It was the old stereotype of the scientist so convinced of the utter righteousness of the purely scientific world view that he’s utterly contemptuous of those fools who believe in any sort of higher power (see Ellie Arroway in Carl Sagan’s Contact, for example).

That bothered me, but I wasn’t quite sure how to start expressing it, so I just filed it away on the back burner to percolate for a little bit.

A couple of days ago, I’d posted a link on my linklog to a Gallup poll which showed that only one third of Americans believe that evidence supports Darwin’s theory of evolution, and had added the comment, “how depressing.” This morning, I got a comment on that post from Swami Prem that raised my eyebrows:

What’s depressing about this? There is no evidence that supports Darwin’s theories. No scientist has ever shown that there exists a link between humans and apes. Darwin’s theories are theories afterall.

Suddenly, I found myself coming dangerously close to stepping right into Paul’s shoes, and had to wait a while before responding to Prem’s comment. My first impulse was surprise and, quite honestly, a little bit of, “oh, here we go again…” — Prem and I have had strong disagreements in the past, and while I don’t believe that he’s at all unintelligent, his earlier espousal of viewpoints that are so diametrically opposed to my own strongly colored my initial reaction to this new comment.

After taking some time to let that roll around in my brain I did respond, and Prem’s responded to that. As yet, I haven’t taken it any further, both because I want to do my best to respond intelligently and because I’m somewhat stumped as to just how to start (I probably need to take some time to do a little research [this site looks like a good place to start] — as I’ve never progressed beyond attaining my high school diploma, and I was never that good in the sciences to begin with, I’m not entirely comfortable with trying to engage in a full-on creationism-vs.-Darwinism debate without a little brushing up [and actually, Paul would probably be far more qualified than I to tackle Prem’s question, judging by his obvious interest in both biology and evolution — just check out the links in his sidebar!]).

Anyway, both of these items have been bouncing around my head all day.

I think a lot of what’s been bothering me about the exchanges is that I try hard to be polite and respectful in my discussions with people, even when (and sometimes especially when) I disagree with them, and that seems to be a trait that has gone by the wayside far too often these days. Sure, I don’t always succeed — I’ll fly off the handle and rant and rave from time to time — but I do make an effort to keep those instances to a minimum.

Unfortunately, it seems that we’re living in a world where differences are all anybody sees anymore: us vs. them, me vs. you, religion vs. science, liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican, urban vs. rural, red vs. blue, etc. Nobody’s actually listening to what anyone else has to say — we’re all so sure that we’re right and everyone else is wrong, too busy banging our shoes on the table to really listen to anyone else.

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs, all told.

Bouncing back a bit, but touching on both of the incidents that started all this rambling, I think the thing that frustrates me the most about the science vs. religion debate — and creationism vs. Darwinism in particular — is that in my mind, there is absolutely nothing that says that the two theories are incompatible. It’s never seemed to me as if it was an either/or equation — coming back to Carl Sagan’s book, and most pointedly the end of it (and if you haven’t read or don’t want to read the book, feel free to watch the movie — it’s one of the single most intelligent science-fiction films I’ve seen in my lifetime), why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around the concept that it’s entirely possible that both Ellie Arroway and Palmer Joss are “right”?

I’ve always found it interesting that the most commonly known of the two creation stories in Genesis fairly accurately parallels the scientific view of the formation of the universe, our planet, and the life upon it. First space, then stars, then the earth, then oceans, then plants, then fish, then animals, then man. Two different ways of telling the same story — one measured in days and one measured in millennia, but the same story. Of course, this does hinge on the ability to accept the Bible without taking it literally (which is probably another subject for another time, but it’s probably fairly obvious that I don’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible), which trips up a lot of people.

Meh. I don’t know…and I think I’m starting to run out of steam. As I warned at the beginning of this, probably not the most coherent or well-organized post I’ve ever made here.

Had to get some of this out of my head, though.

Questions? Comments? Words of wisdom? Bring ’em on….

Lunar Eclipse tonight

John reminded me that there’s a lunar eclipse tonight. If the skies stay as clear as they are right now, I may climb up to the roof of my apartment building and see if I can get any decent pictures.

In the meantime, I present this handy-dandy guide to eclipse terminology.

An eclipse of the moon occurs when the sun passes between the earth and the moon.

An eclipse of the sun occurs when the shadow of the earth falls on the sun.

An eclipse of the earth occurs when you put your hands over your eyes.

(Images from Tom Weller‘s seminal 1985 technical opus, Science Made Stupid)

iTunesFascination Street (Extended)” by Cure, The from the album Mixed Up (1990, 8:48).

Book Meme

Hardback or Paperback?
Generally paperback — cheaper, smaller, and more convenient to schlep around with me. However, when I can afford it, there’s something quite satisfying about the heft of a good hardback edition. I’ve been picking up Neal Stephenson‘s latest books in hardback — something about a work of that length almost demands the hardback edition. Something of a measure of respect.
Highlight or Underline?
Neither, most of the time — I tend to be picky to the point of being anal about taking care of my books — but I have been known to scribble in the margins of a select few. My dad’s horrid about marking up his books, and there have been times when I’ve borrowed a book from him and then had to get my own copy just to be able to get through it.
Lewis or Tolkien?
Tolkien, though it’s close. Dad turned me on to C.S. LewisSpace Trilogy series when I was much younger, and I tend to pick it up and re-read it about as often as I re-read The Lord of the Rings.
E.B. White or A.A. Milne?
In other words, Charlotte or Pooh? I’d definitely have to go with Pooh.
T.S. Eliot or e.e. cummings?
e.e. cummings, definitely — no offense to T.S. Eliot at all (as a long-time lover of musicals and having been in a professional children’s choir for ten years when I was younger, I do have all of Cats permanently embedded in my head, after all), but cummings has long been the only poetry I’ve ever really been able to get into.
Stephen King or Dean Koontz?
In the past, I definitely preferred Koontz — I felt that King tended to over-describe, while Koontz left more to the imagination, which always ends up scarier for me, as it let my brain choose things that would really get under my skin. However, the more I read of Koontz, the more apparent it became that he often just wrote the same story over and over and over again, and he lost some of his luster. Lately, Prairie’s been tossing a ton of King at me, and I’ve been enjoying it more than I initially thought I would. Call it a draw for the moment, leaning towards King.
Barnes & Noble or Borders?
Both are within easy walking distance of me, but B&N is just a touch closer than Borders (right across the street from where I work, in fact). Other than that, no real preference.
Waldenbooks or B. Dalton?
I haven’t seen either in years — no preference here.
Fantasy or Science Fiction?
Science Fiction, definitely, and then I go more for “hard” Sci-Fi rather than “pulp” Sci-Fi. Asimov is a long-time favorite, for instance, and I just turned Prairie on to Orson Scott Card‘s Ender’s Game. Fantasy often seems too restrictive of a genre to me — no matter how good the author is, there are always the same basic elements (swords and sorcery, wizards, trolls, goblins, etc.) (and yes, that’s a gross oversimplification, but in my view, not an entirely untrue one). Science Fiction by its very nature has the entire universe (or universes) to play with, and is limited only by the imagination of the author — and at times can even incorporate fantastic elements into it (such as Tad WilliamsOtherland series, or Anne McCafferey‘s Pern books), giving you the best of both worlds.
Horror or Suspense?
When well written, both can be a lot of fun (and they’re not really all that seperate, are they?). No real preference here.
Bookmark or Dogear?
Bookmark, definitely — as I said above, I’m anal about the condition of my books.
Hemingway or Faulkner?
And here I start showing my ignorance of many of the “classics” of literature — I haven’t really read enough of either to have a preference.
Fitzgerald or Steinbeck?
Again, I haven’t really read enough of either to have a preference.
John Irving or John Updike?
Once more, I haven’t really read enough of either to have a preference.
Homer or Plato?
This is just starting to look bad now (I haven’t really read enough of either to have a preference).
Geoffrey Chaucer or Edmund Spenser?\
Whan that Aprille, with its shures sotes… (spelling mangled, I’m sure). I actually don’t know that I’ve read any Spenser, so it’d be Chaucer (after having to memorize the opening few stanzas of The Canterbury Tales in High School) by default.
Pen or Pencil?
On the off chance I do mark up a book…probably pen, for no reason other than that it’s what’s most likely to be close at hand. I’m honestly not sure if I even have a pencil in my apartment.
Looseleaf or Notebook?
Notebook, definitely. Helps keep things contained — I’m bad enough at cluttering things up without more loose sheets of paper fluttering around my apartment.
Alphabetize: By Author or By Title?
By author, of course. Last name, then first name. Multi-author collected works sorted by the primary editor’s name. I’ve occasionally toyed with the idea of sorting by genre also, but never got around to it. Heck, right now, I’d be happy to find a way to put up bookshelves just to get my books out of the boxes in my closet!
Dustjacket: On or Off?
Off, and and in the trash. They rarely do much good except as advertising while in the bookstore — once bought, they just slip around, make it slightly more difficult to hold on to the book, and are generally annoying. Besides, some hardbound books have some very nice binding, and it’s a shame to hide that.
Novella or Epic?
Either. I do have a fondness for big books, and often epics will catch my eye as I’m browsing bookshelves, but as long as the story’s good, I’m happy.
John Grisham or Scott Turow?
Does not having read either of these modern popular authors make up at all for all the classic authors listed above that I haven’t read?
J.K. Rowling or Lemony Snicket?
Not having read Snicket, Rowling gets this one by default (and I do really enjoy the Harry Potter series).
Fiction or Non-fiction?
Generally fiction, but I’m not averse to non-fiction — in fact, one of my favorite Asimov collections is a mix of short fiction and non-fiction scientific essays.
Historical Biography or Historical Romance?
Biography, of the two. Historical Fiction is a very fun genre, though, and can incorporate elements of both.
A Few Pages per Sitting or Finish at Least a Chapter?
Usually depends on how much time I have. If I’m settling down for an evening with a book, it’s not uncommon for me to finish the entire thing off. If I’m on the bus or on my lunch break, I’ll just get through as much as I can (though I do try to aim for chapter or section breaks).
Short Story or Creative Non-fiction Essay?
Short story. I’m a sucker for short story collections.
“It was a dark and stormy night” or “Once upon a time”?
Once upon a time (especially if the Brothers Grimm are involved).
Buy or borrow?
Buy. I love the concept of libraries, and they have their uses for research, but when it comes to reading for pleasure…well, they have this silly idea that they want their books back, which I have issues with. Reading a book once is rarely enough.
Book Reviews or Word of Mouth?
Of the two, word of mouth, though I often stumble upon stuff just by browsing (the old adage about judging a book by its cover notwithstanding, that’s often how I go about finding new things). Lately it’s definitely been word of mouth, as Prairie and I have been trading books back and forth.

(via Mike)

iTunesSinister Exaggerator” by Primus from the album Miscellaneous Debris (1992, 3:37).

Disney turning Bloom County 3-D

You know, much as I’d like to get excited about the prospect of a Bloom County feature film, given Disney‘s track record over the past few years (nearly anything without Pixar‘s involvement is a waste of time — Pirates of the Caribbean and Lilo and Stitch are the only exceptions I can think of, and even Lilo, while enjoyable, isn’t quite up to the standards Disney used to have), the news that their first foray into 3-D animation without Pixar’s involvement will be a Bloom County film doesn’t thrill me.

Miramax Films will co-finance and distribute computer-animated family films starting with “Opus,” adapted from the popular “Bloom County” comic strip, the company said Thursday.

Miramax will release some of the films under its Dimension banner and produce them in conjunction with Wild Brain Inc., a San Francisco-based animated film company perhaps best known for creating the nasty toe fungus in commercials for the prescription drug Lamisil.

Now, while I don’t know anything about Wild Brain (or their nasty toe fungus), the fact that the movie will be under the Disney subsidiary Miramax does give some hope that the end result won’t be as Disney-fied as might otherwise be the case (after all, Miramax does distribute a lot of movies I enjoy, including many of Kevin Smith‘s works). So maybe it won’t be all bad, right? But then the article goes on…

The deal envisions lower budget feature films consistent with Miramax’s independent studio status. Films will cost about half of the bigger budget movies produced by Pixar Animation Studios or DreamWorks SKG.

“What you spend doesn’t necessarily reflect on how good the movie is,” said Jim Miller, Wild Brain chairman.

Well, sure Jim, that’s quite true — there are many, many examples of low-budget films whose quality far outshines the big-budget extravaganzas foisted upon us by the movie studios each summer. However, that said, “low-budget” isn’t really a term I tend to associate with CGI. Still, I will easily admit that I know jack squat about the costs involved in CGI. Maybe it is possible to create a quality feature length CGI film on 1/2 the budget of a Pixar film (though given how good Pixar’s films are, and how successful, I’d hesitate to consider calling their work too expensive).

I’m also having a little difficulty trying to envision the Bloom County universe as a fully three-dimensional rendered world. I keep trying to picture Opus, Bill, and the rest of the critters as 3-D models, and stumbling. On top of that, there are the human characters — Milo, Binkley, Steve, Cutter John, Oliver — and human animation is getting better, but will it be good enough to actually realize the characters I’ve grown up with?

But beyond the quality of the animation and the talent of the animators, there’s this little thing called the script that someone’s got to worry about, and when dealing with a property as well-known and loved as Bloom County, that’s got to be very important consideration.

The choice of subject for the first film reflects Miramax’s eclectic tastes and could prove to be a hard sell, especially to younger audiences.

The character of Opus is a rotund penguin with a cynical world view – far from the heartwarming characters at the center of such films as “Finding Nemo.”

“We agree that it’s a challenge,” Miller said. “How do you take the essence of those characters, who are a little cynical, and move them into a story that can reach adults at the ‘Bloom County’ level and children at their level? We think we have a terrific story.”

The challenge has been given to screenwriter Craig Mazin, whose credits include “Scary Movie 3.” “Bloom County” is written by Berkeley Breathed.

And therein lies my real fear.

So far, I’ve only ever seen two properties that I ever felt could really bridge the gap between children’s entertainment and adult entertainment in a way that successfully appealed to both age groups without pandering to either: The Muppets (with the original television show and the first movie being the high points) and Animaniacs. All too often, either something ends up being watered down too much in order to aim at the children, and the adults have to sit through mind-numbingly asinine shows to appease their children, or the humor is aimed so much at the adult level that parents aren’t comfortable allowing younger children to watch.

Combining the two is a very tricky business, often requiring a level of subtlety that I just don’t see much these days. Rather than going for obvious “adult” or “juvenile” humor (which, admittedly, these days seems all too similar, usually revolving around toilet humor, with the only real difference being whether or not there’s a sexual overtone), it seems to require more thought to the humor — more intelligent jokes, more puns, veiled references…done well (as both the Muppets and Animaniacs did), it can be incredibly enjoyable for both age groups. Done poorly, and nobody enjoys it as much as they should.

Of course, as with all things, there will be no real way to know until it comes out, which should be sometime in 2006. Until then, though…well, I won’t be holding my breath. And if all else fails, there is a lot of Bloom County in print that is just as funny to me now as it was when it came out (sometimes funnier, as I’ve grown older and more able to understand some of the humor).

iTunesAttached” by Orbital from the album Snivilisation (1994, 12:25).

Ten Tech Items Inspired by Science Fiction

(Originally posted on Google Answers, I’ve taken the liberty of reformatting this fascinating look at past visions of the future that influenced the technology of today. Note that I am not the author of this piece.)

Question:

I WAS going to ask you to research whether or not there have been any women in Sci-Fi but I have answered that myself, having found Flash Gordon’s moll.

However it is a Sci-Fi question.

Can you list 10 real technological ‘things’ that have reputedly come out of Sci-Fi stuff written in the 20th Century?

Here’s an example, computer viruses were reputedly inspired by ‘When Harlie Was One’ by David Gerrold.

Answer:

I have chosen ten outstanding technological concepts which had their
popular origins in the world of sci-fi. It is debatable, in some
cases, whether the science fiction source was the actual originator,
but it’s certainly true that each of these ideas was given a boost
into reality by an SF writer.

THE GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE: Arthur C. Clarke

Although this concept was not described in a work of fiction, it was popularized by a man primarily known for his flights of fancy, Arthur C. Clarke:

A geostationary orbit (abbreviated GSO) is a circular orbit in the Earth’s equatorial plane, any point on which revolves about the Earth in the same direction and with the same period as the Earth’s rotation. It is a special case of the geosynchronous orbit, and the one which is of most interest to artificial satellite operators.

Geosynchronous orbits and geostationary orbits were first popularised by science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945 as useful orbits for communications satellites. As a result they are sometimes referred to as Clarke orbits. Similarly, the ‘Clarke Belt’ is the part of space approximately 35,790 km above mean sea level in the plane of the equator where near-geostationary orbits may be achieved.

The Free Dictionary: Clarke Orbit

THE COMPUTER WORM: John Brunner

1975…John Shoch and Jon Hupp at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center discover the computer ‘worm,’ a short program that searches a network for idle processors. Initially designed to provide more efficient use of computers and for testing, the worm had the unintended effect of invading networked computers, creating a security threat.

Shoch took the term ‘worm’ from the book ‘The Shockwave Rider,’ by John Brunner, in which an omnipotent ‘tapeworm’ program runs loose through a network of computers. Brunner wrote: ‘No, Mr. Sullivan, we can’t stop it! There’s never been a worm with that tough a head or that long a tail! It’s building itself, don’t you understand? Already it’s passed a billion bits and it’s still growing. It’s the exact inverse of a phage – whatever it takes in, it adds to itself instead of wiping… Yes, sir! I’m quite aware that a worm of that type is theoretically impossible! But the fact stands, he’s done it, and now it’s so goddamn comprehensive that it can’t be killed. Not short of demolishing the net!’ (247, Ballantine Books, 1975).

Computer History Museum: Timeline

ORGANLEGGING: Larry Niven

A few organ transplants were being performed in the 1970s, but author Larry Niven was one of the first to write about some of the social problems that might accompany widespread use of this life-extending technology. Niven wrote several stories which involved huge “organ banks,” some of which were kept stocked by unwilling “donations” from prisoners who had committed petty crimes. A lucrative black market of human organ trafficking, which many believe exists today, was foreseen by Niven:

Organlegging is the removal of human organs by a means of theft for resale for profit. Larry [Niven] coined the phrase in his Gil the ARM Stories. The main character and detective of the future police force or ARM tracks down many of the ‘Organleggers’ and their crime syndicates and brings them to justice. Gil Hamilton’s most astonishing special ability is his telepathic psychic arm – but read the stories! The original Long ARM of Gil Hamilton collection was published in 1976.

Today the practice of selling organs for profit is becoming commonplace in the third world and increasingly these organs are being removed without the donor’s consent.

Nivenisms in the News

THE WALDO: Robert A. Heinlein

Robert A. Heinlein, one of science fiction’s greatest visionaries, is credited with creating the name (and popularizing the concept) of the Waldo, a device with which a human can manipulate objects by remote. In Heinlein’s tale, titled “Waldo,” a wealthy genius who is enfeebled by disease uses mechanical hands to interact with the world:

Afflicted with myasthenia gravis from earliest childhood, Waldo lacks the muscular strength to walk or lift things with his arms. By living in the weightlessness of space he is able to move freely. His primary invention is a system of remote-controlled mechanical hands which the world has nicknamed waldoes.

We Grok It: Waldo & Magic, Inc., 1942

Before their application in motion pictures and television, ‘Waldos’ primarily referred to the mechanical arms, telemetry, and other anthropomorphic gadgetry aboard the NASA spacefleet. NASA engineers in turn took the name from a 1940 Robert A. Heinlein novella about a disabled scientist named Waldo who built a robot to amplify his limited abilities.

Character Shop: What’s a Waldo, Anyway?

GYRO-STABILIZED PERSONAL CONVEYANCE: Robert A. Heinlein

Robert A. Heinlein again. In a 1940 short story, “The Roads Must Roll,” RAH described the “Tumblebug,” a one-person vehicle that is stabilized gyroscopically, much like the Segway Human Transporter (now available) or the Bombardier Embrio (which is still in development). The same story described a public transport system, the “rolling road,” that is similar to mass people-moving devices now in use at large airports.

A tumblebug does not give a man dignity, since it is about the size and shape of a kitchen stool, gyro-stabilized on a singe wheel…. It can go through an opening the width of a man’s shoulders, is easily controlled, and will stand patiently upright, waiting, should its rider dismount.

Danny’s Blog Cabin: Sci-fi authors predict the future (kind of)

THE WATERBED: Robert A. Heinlein

I’m not finished with Heinlein yet. ;-)

The modern waterbed was created by Charles Hall in 1968, while he was design student at San Francisco State University in California. Hall originally wanted to make an innovative chair. His first prototype was a vinyl bag with 300 pounds of cornstarch, but the result was uncomfortable. He next attempted to fill it with Jell-O, but this too was a failure. Ultimately, he abandoned working on a chair, and settled on perfecting a bed. He succeeded. His timing could not have been more perfect: the Sexual Revolution was under way, and Hall’s waterbed became enormously popular, making it one of the most notable icons of the 1970s. However, because a waterbed is described in the novel Stranger in a Strange Land… by Robert A. Heinlein, which was first published in 1961, Hall was unable to obtain a patent on his creation.

The Free Dictionary: Waterbed

Heinlein described the mechanical details of the waterbed in Stranger [in a Strange Land], which is where the rest of the world learned about it. But what’s more interesting, and less known, is why he came up with the idea: Heinlein, a man of chronically poor health, was trying to create the perfect hospital bed.

TSAT: Predicting the Future

HOME THEATER & WALL-MOUNTED TV: Ray Bradbury

Ray Bradbury is associated more with “soft” SF or fantasy than with “hard” science fiction. Nevertheless, there are several high-tech devices in Bradbury’s classic 1953 dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 (which is absolutely unrelated to Michael Moore’s recent filmic diatribe). Most notable is Bradbury’s description of huge, photorealistic flat-screen televisions with elaborate sound systems in home entertainment rooms called “parlours,” which provide an array of soap operas and other mind-numbing diversions in a future society which has banned most books.

This may sound unremarkable to younger readers, but those of us who remember the tiny, indistinct black-and-white TV sets of the early 1950s were (and are) duly impressed by Mr. Bradbury’s vision.

THE FLIP-PHONE: Gene Roddenberry et al.

I’ve got to get my “Star Trek” plug in here somehow. The original, ’60s Trek looks extremely dated today; although it’s set hundreds of
years in the future, technology has caught up with it (and in some
cases surpassed it in ways that the creators could not have
anticipated). One thing that I find quite striking is the resemblance,
both in appearance and function, between the flip-open communicator
devices used by the crew of the Starship Enterprise and today’s
wireless flip-phones.

Star Trek communicatorHere’s a photo of a communicator, circa 1967.

Samsung v200 Flip PhoneAnd here’s a Samsung flip-phone.

When “Star Trek: The Next Generation” replaced the flip-style communicators with a “com badge” in the late 1980s, the future was again prefigured. Today, wireless LAN-based lapel communicators are commonly used in hospitals.

THE TASER: “Victor Appleton”

Author Victor Appleton (the pseudonym of Howard Garis, also known for the “Uncle Wiggily” books) provided inspiration for the modern personal protection device, the taser (or “stun gun.”) The word “TASER” is an acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s Electrical Rifle,” so named because the inventor was an admirer of Tom Swift when he was a child. The book “Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle” was published in 1911. Tom Swift was the adolescent hero of a series of books aimed at juvenile readers. Tom was the Harry Potter of his day. The books typically told of Tom’s adventures involving high-tech equipment such as a “sky train” or an “electric runabout.” Monorails and hybrid cars, anyone?

The Taser was developed in the late 1960’s by Jack Cover, who came up with the idea as a result of hearing about a U.S. commission which was looking into non-lethal ways police could deal with violent offenders. Cover based the Taser on a kind of stun gun he had read about in the Tom Swift fantasy stories of his childhood, thus the acronym, ‘Thomas A. Swift Electrical Rifle’.

First used by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1976, the Taser is now used by hundreds of police departments in the U.S.

Smith Secretarial: High-Tech Non-Lethal Weapon New Option for Police!

MULTI-USER DOMAINS IN CYBERSPACE: Vernor Vinge

While many fans attribute numerous important details of cyberspace to author William Gibson, I’d like to look a bit farther back, to the seminal novella “True Names,” by Vernor Vinge. In this striking work of fiction (written in 1979 and published in 1981, long before personal computers and the Web became part of our daily lives), Vinge offers vividly imagined depictions of many concepts which are everyday Internet realities today. Vinge’s online communities presage chatrooms and multi-user domains in an uncannily accurate fashion (complete with a few disagreeable and destructive individuals who take pleasure in wreaking havoc). Vinge was, as far as I can tell, the first writer to use the term “avatar” to describe a digital image that represents an anonymous computer user. Vinge called the online access point a “portal.” As you read this 25-year-old story, it seems totally contemporary: much of what was fictional in 1979 is factual today.

True Names is about Roger Pollack, a well-to-do individual living in the early 21st century. In this wired world, Pollack is known on the ‘Other Plane’ of the computer net as Mr. Slippery, a top-flight warlock (hacker) and member of one of the foremost covens of such. Unfortunately, the government have figured out Mr. Slippery’s True Name, and captures him. But it’s not him they want: They want his assistance in finding and stopping another warlock, the Mailman, who they suspect of far worse plots than anything the garden-variety warlocks have concocted. With no choice, Pollack agrees.

Pollack contacts the rest of his coven, which the Mailman – who only communicates through time delay – has recently joined. The Other Plane is perceived by most as a fantasy world, and the details of the network are mapped to concepts familiar to that milieu. Individuals on the Other Plane adopt new identities, but keep their true names secret, since – as Roger has found out – blackmail is all too easy when someone knows who you are in the real world…

True Names was prescient in its day, foreseeing cyberspace and virtual reality in all its glory several years before William Gibson’s Neuromancer, and building on 70s stories like John Brunner’s The Shockwave Rider. Vinge correctly understood the importance of secrecy and cryptography, the coming pervasiveness of computer networks, and how the personal computer would open up the world of computing to the everyman.

Pages of Michael Rawdon: Vernor Vinge

Read it! You’ll be entertained and amazed.

A personal note: I regard this novella so highly that, when choosing my Google Answers screen name in 2002, I very nearly went with the name “Erythrina,” a major character from “True Names.” I decided not to use this name after I told a friend about my plans, and she said “Erythrina??? Isn’t that a disease?”

Others…

A wonderful site called Technovelgy.com has a list of 652 science fiction devices and concepts, some of which have “come true.” I’ve selected a few of the most interesting items:

Thanks

Many thanks for a truly fascinating question. I shall sign off by borrowing a charming phrase from my friend and colleague Denco-ga:

Looking Forward,

Pink

Tattoo number two: Ouroboros

Some time ago, I got my first tattoo: a yin-yang made of smiley faces, a design I was taken with because of the symbolism of the yin-yang (light and dark intertwined and dependent upon each other) and the incorporation of the smiley face, which I interpreted as meaning that light or dark, good or bad, there’s some good in every situation.

For some time now, I’ve been pondering what to get as a second tattoo. I didn’t want to get something merely because it “looked cool” or struck my fancy for a passing moment. Rather, I wanted to get something to both complement and balance the tattoo I already had. As the smiley yin-yang is a roughly 3 inch diameter circle on my right upper arm/shoulder, I knew I something similar on my left upper arm, but I wanted to find something that matched thematically, as well as visually.

Nothing struck my fancy for quite a few years, but off and on for the past year or so, I’ve been thinking more and more seriously about one particular design that first caught my eye when I was around eleven or so.

At that time, movies often came to Anchorage months after they had wide release in the lower 48. I’d seen trailers on television for a new fantasy movie that looked incredibly cool: The Neverending Story. However, the movie just didn’t ever seem to come out, and I eventually went out and picked up the book by Michael Ende.

I completely and entirely fell in love with the book (and later was somewhat disappointed by the movie when it eventually hit Anchorage — it’s enjoyable and a lot of fun on its own, but it only covers the first half of the book, ignores roughly half of that, and scrambles what little is left), but the cover of that edition of the book featured stills from the movie, and had Atreyu’s amulet, the Auryn, featured prominently on the front cover.

The Neverending Story

The Auryn in the film was actually a stylized version of an Ouroboros: while the traditional Ouroboros is a single snake consuming its own tail, the Auryn was designed as two intertwined snakes, one light and one dark, each consuming the other’s tail.

The symbol has stuck with me ever since then, and more and more often as of late, it’s been popping into my head as what I’d like to get to complement the tattoo I already have. I spent a little time this morning trying to find good images and information on the symbol — something of a difficult task, unfortunately, as there are quite a few possible spellings of Ouroboros — but have found a bit of each. I’m not sure if I’ve found an image that’s clean enough for me to give to a tattoo artist yet, but I did confirm some of what I’d already believed of the symbolism of the Ouroboros:

The ouroboros has several meanings interwoven into it. Foremost is the symbolism of the serpent biting, devouring, eating its own tail. This symbolises the cyclic Nature of the Universe: creation out of destruction, Life out of Death. The ouroboros eats its own tail to sustain its life, in an eternal cycle of renewal. In the above drawing, from a book by an early Alchemist, Cleopatra, the black half symbolises the Night, Earth, and the destructive force of nature, yin. The light half represents Day, Heaven, the generative, creative force, yang.

So it looks to me like we’ve got a winner. Now, the search is on for a good, clean image that will work well as a black-and-white tattoo. Once that’s done, it’ll be time to get inked again!

iTunesBehind the Wheel” by Kirk from the album Trancemode Express 1.01: A Tribute to Depeche Mode (1996, 7:30).

Alan Moore interview

There’s a stunningly good interview on Salon with Alan Moore, creator of the extremely well-regarded graphic novels “From Hell” and “Watchmen” (unfortunately, I’ve yet to read any of his work, though I’ve heard many good things about them). A definite must-read.

We invite [television] into our own home every night; I’m sure that some of us think of it as a friend. That might be a horrifying notion but I’m sure there are people who think of television as perhaps one of their most intimate friends. And if the TV tells them that things in the world are a certain way, even if the evidence of their senses asserts it is not true, they’ll probably believe the television set in the end. It’s an alarming thought but we brought it upon ourselves. I mean, I think that television is one of the most diabolical — in the very best sense of the word — inventions of the past century. It has probably done more to degrade the mind and intelligence of its audience, even if they happen to be drug addicts or alcoholics; I would think that watching television has done more to limit their horizons in the long run. And it has also distorted our culture.

TV and politics have always made inevitable bedfellows, but the results have been disastrous. Look at the situation we have now. Let’s say that tomorrow someone who is a political genius were to emerge — and I’m not expecting this to happen, but say that it did. Say that a politician emerged who seemed, for once, basically competent, who seemed to be able to do their job as well as the average cab driver, comic writer or journalist. If they were the most intelligent, visionary, humane political thinker in the history of mankind, but were also fat, had some sort of blemish or something that made them less than telegenic, we would not be able to elect them. All we’re able to elect are these telegenic, photogenic crypto-Nazis. As long as they look good.

(via Mike)

iTunes: “Gift, The” by Way Out West feat. Law, Miss Joanna from the album Deconstruction Presents (1996, 4:23).

Power corrupts…

I’m just starting to re-read a book I first read quite a few years ago after discovering it somewhere in Dad’s stack of books, James Morrow’s Only Begotten Daughter. I’ve since read a few more of Morrow’s books, and he has a definite knack for religious satire, but I’ve wanted to pick this one up again for a while now.

There’s one particular short conversation in the book that’s stuck with me since I read it the first time. At this stage in the book, seventeen year old Julie Katz — only begotten daughter of God, born of the virgin Murray Katz — is having a discussion with Andrew Wyvern — the Devil.

“No problems? No questions? Need a recommendation?” Wyvern closed his cigarette case. “I can tell you why the universe is made of matter and not anti-matter. I can tell you why the electron has its particular charge. I can tell you —”

“There is one thing.”

“Shoot.”

“My mother…”

Wyvern began retracting the wick. The flame grew translucent.

And so did he.

“It always comes down to her, doesn’t it?”

“Why doesn’t she care about people?” The spring air dried Julie’s tears. “Why all the diseases and earthquakes?”

With a final twist of the knob, Wyvern’s body became a gaseous haze. The dead lantern hit the beach, dug into the sand. “The Columbian mud flows?”

“Yeah. The Columbian mud flows.”

“Actually, the answer’s quite simple.” Two red eyes floated in the mist.

“Really? Tell me. Why does God allow evil?”

The red eyes vanished, leaving only the lantern and the night. “Because power corrupts,” said Wyvern’s disembodied voice. “And absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I got such a delicious chill down my spine when I read that the first time. Of course, I’d heard the phrase before, but never thought of applying it to God.

Now, the book does have quite a bit more to say than that, and it’s certainly not always that dismissive of God — this is fairly early on in the story, and consider the source of the accusation — it’s just a particularly favorite passage of mine.

iTunes: “Rex Caeli, Domine Maris (Musica Enchiriadis)” by Capella Antiqua Munchen from the album Gregorian Chant: Sequentiae (1992, 6:30).

Okay, okay, I’m awake, I get it

Weird night last night — no matter what, I just couldn’t sleep solidly. Tossed and turned all night long, until I finally gave up trying to get back to sleep a little while ago. It’s Saturday and I’ve been up since just before 8am. Ah, well — hopefully a nap later in the day will happen, and I’ll knock myself back onto my usual schedule before too long.

I do remember having a long, very involved dream revolving around discovering that Lloyd Alexander had written a series of companion novels to his Prydain Chronicles: two collections of short stories, and a full trilogy of three almost Harry Potter-length novels set about sixteen years or so after the end of the Prydain Chronicles. I was really excited about this, found some beautiful leather-bound editions, but the bookstore I was at was missing the first book of the trilogy, so after flipping through the ones that were there and admiring the maps of Prydain in the front leaf, I started going to another book store to find the first of the new books.

Then I woke up, realized that it was all just a dream, and was very disappointed.

I’ve had a couple people notice that I’ve just been reading the (real) Prydain Chronicles after seeing them pop up in the sidebar and ask about them. I’m planning on writing about them, but at the moment Prairie’s borrowing my copies, and I’m waiting to put up a full post until I have the books back in my hands to quote from. So no smackings and crackings of my poor tender head, please — I’m getting there!

I’m also just a few CDs short of finally having every CD I own imported into my computer. It’s almost frightening how much music I have. Almost, but not quite. ;) More details on that once I’m actually done.

And, as long as I’m up and (apparently) functioning early enough, I’ll be catching the 10:40 ferry over to Bainbridge Island for today’s blogger picnic. Should be fun!

And the day begins…

iTunes: “All I Really Need” by Machines of Loving Grace from the album Rite of Shiva (1991, 5:07).