Sci-Fi

Everyone seems to be divided over the issue of whether or not we should
discuss matters scientific via the IFIS Chat mailing list. Some say
it's directly related to sci-fi; others say it's totally irrelavant, and
we should concentrate purely on why the President of Earth put some big
guns in orbit (if that doesn't get me thrown out of IFIS by Luke,
nothing will!). I do agree that, of late, some scientific discussions
have bordered on the truly isoteric (that means only a small elite can
understand it, dummy!); but I ask the latter party this: if, say, B5 had
a helicopter working in space, would you notice, or would you say "oh,
it's sci-fi, it doesn't have to be accurate!"? Even Luke, the biggest
science hater I've ever met, noticed something was wrong with Q putting
a moon into a "perfectly circular orbit" in ST:TNG's episode "Deja Q"!!!

I admit, there's not much point just re-treading old ground with matters
which we can't possibly resolve as a world while still bickering over
pointless things like racial and religious differences (phew, I'm glad
us agnostics don't have an age-old conflict with anyone!); but hey, this
is sci-fi (and to a lesser extent, fantasy) - this is the stuff dreams
are made of! Don't berate people like me for wanting to know if we're
anywhere nearer FTL travel, or if it's still "impossible". And don't
just say "oh, read a scientific magazine and leave us to discuss how
many Sheridans it takes to save the galaxy!" - I want to hear it from
people who can actually talk at my level!

There, surely now I've united both the warring factions in, er, their
total hatred of me...! But I think things are fine as they are right
now. Not as they were last week, with Anthony the Ant going into the
Second Dimension and all that, but certainly with the scientific details
on things about which we humans currently know, and about which Star
Trek et al *should* know, to wit, the human body in a vacuum! (See my
last posting!)

That's all I shall say on the matter for now - except this: if you want
to discuss plots of books, movies, comics etc., go ahead - I'm all for
that. You want to discuss acting / script / directing of films, though,
and I suggest you join the Cinema-goers Society - then you'll be able to
criticise more than just science fiction-related films! (And Mary-Jane
calls us scientists narrow-minded! Well, she implied it...)

D.Chilard
Now of no-fixed-abode (as of whenever Luke reads this)

Q's putting the moon in a circular orbit was a joke that he did just to
irritate everyone, dummy!!!!!! It was supposed to be scientifically
inaccurate!

Luke

PS you are going to die for taking the piss out of your Chairman, I
promise

Luke is annoyed at me for pointing out how much he hates science, as
though it's not true or something! But who shouts "I don't care!" when
I try to explain the difference between quantum torpedoes and ordinary
photon torpedoes in some way deeper than "they make a bigger bang"?
Incidentally, I know that photon torpedoes do the bog-standard
matter/anti-matter thing to go "bang" - what are quantum torpedoes,
anyone?

And I wasn't, er, extracting the urine, master Dalli, I was merely
making a point about how you can't really remove the scientific aspect
from science fiction and still *call* it science fiction! In that case,
it would be pure fantasy, and we would simply be dealing with
make-believe characters like elves, pixies and eskimoes (as Homer
Simpson would put it). There's got to be *some* possibility involved
somewhere. In fact, some films, books etc. have tried to explain
fantasy elements in scientific terms - the Dr.Who novel "Vampire
Science", for example, or the film Flight of Dragons (which had dragons
eating limestone to produce hydrogen within them, and then expanding
their bodies to decrease the gas density and allow them to fly! Then
they breath it out to lose buoyancy, and it gets ignited by an
electricity generating thing in the roof of their mouth! Now *that's*
scientific!)

Oh, and where did the Enterprise crew say that Q putting that moon in a
"perfectly circular orbit" was obviously a joke? I must have missed
that line. Such an orbit couldn't last very long, though, could it...?
(Anyone?)

I am worried about what our dear chairman has said at the end of his
E-mail for one main reason: he wrote it today, while I've been here on
campus... well, what can I say, but "sorry if I offended you, but face
the facts already!"?

D.Chilard

P.S. If Luke gets done for murder - although, after O.J.Simpson, I have
sincere doubts about him getting so much as a fine - who would become
the new chairman...?

Chilard D said:
Hmm... Sounds interesting. Could I request this for a future video
evening? Or otherwise, could anyone lend it to me?
Depends how accurate you want to be when you say "PERFECTLY"
circular. There are plenty of satellites in a "perfectly" circular
geosynchronous orbit around the earth, for instance, and they're
perfect enough for most of our planet's telecommunications to rely on,
but they ARE affected by things like the gravitational effects of the
moon, and suchlike, and some of them need occasional correction, so
they're measurably imperfect...

Is that a boring enough answer?
I believe the secretary becomes acting chairman until such time as we
call an emergency general meeting, which should be done as soon as
practically possible.

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
Responsibility always exceeds authority. -- Kinkler's First Law

On Monday, January 26, 1998 10:47 AM, Nick Waterman
[SMTP:nick@] wrote:
It is a very good film (well, I think so), and it would probably be a
good on to see as an IFIS presentation. Unfortunately, I haven't got
a copy...

Gordan

Previously, Dalli L wrote....
Why is it scientifically inaccurate - put an object at a set distance away
from a planet, give the correct velocities and voila' - a perfectly circular
orbit.

Chris

---

chris@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

At 23:41 23/01/98 -0000, D. Chilard wrote:
<snips>
Absoluteley. Science Fiction at it's best explores how technology affects
our lives. It also explores where technology is going in the future and
it's affects. Science is integral to the subject and the reason why many
scientists are also SF lovers. So a discussion on the reality of the
invented science in a plot is, to me, acceptable. Let's be honest, a film
or book based on totally unrealistic science would never make it. That
being said, you can write a good book using bad science but it would be
Fantasy, not SF. This probably says more about my tastes in reading than
anything else. Hands up those of you who actually enjoyed Asteroid last year?

<a lot of other stuff snipped>

I suspect if we kept this list dedicated to SF reviews and critique it will
rapidly die. Anything said for or against a piece of SF will be purely a
personal comment, some one will disagree and trouble starts there. It is
far better that all aspects of the subject are open to discussion and
dissection. Who knows, something new may be learned by some one, some where.

This is not to say that a full blown analysis of Quantum Mechanics or
Genetics should be allowed, there are plenty of forums on the net for that.
But I for one would like to hear from a micro-biologist, chip designer, AI
specialist how close we are to creating nano-technology, self-replicating
micro-chips or real AI systems.

My vote is thatanyhting about Science or reviews/critique/analysis of SF is
valid or this list.

Rant over!

Dave "asking for trouble" Barlow


Bring me my Broadsword, | http://www.sartar.demon.co.uk
And clear understanding | BBb Bass player extraordinaire.

Dave Barlow said:
[blah]
Now we've got our own ifis.org.uk domain, it WOULD be possible to have
not just chat@ and announce@, but we could also have
films@, books@, comics@, science@, flames@,
directing@, specialeffects@, and all sorts of other daft
possibilities.

I'm definitely not reccommending it, and I'd probably vote against it
myself, but it is a possibility that people may want to consider and
put to a vote if it sounded worthwhile.

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
Nostalgia: The good old days multiplied by a bad memory...

That sounds a very bad idea to me. We all have an organisational
thingummy arranged to avoid emails we don't wish to read. It is called the delete button.

...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Nick Waterman
Sent: 27 January 1998 10:17
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: Re: Sci-Fi

Nostalgia: The good old days multiplied by a bad memory...

Please, no more mailing lists! the 2 we have already are more than
sufficiant.

Luke

The word is esoteric not isoteric. Does this mean only a small elite can spell it?...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dave Barlow
Sent: 26 January 1998 22:21
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: RE: Sci-Fi

At 23:41 23/01/98 -0000, D. Chilard wrote:
<snips>
Absoluteley. Science Fiction at it's best explores how technology affects
our lives. It also explores where technology is going in the future and
it's affects. Science is integral to the subject and the reason why many
scientists are also SF lovers. So a discussion on the reality of the
invented science in a plot is, to me, acceptable. Let's be honest, a film
or book based on totally unrealistic science would never make it. That
being said, you can write a good book using bad science but it would be
Fantasy, not SF. This probably says more about my tastes in reading than
anything else. Hands up those of you who actually enjoyed Asteroid last year?

<a lot of other stuff snipped>

I suspect if we kept this list dedicated to SF reviews and critique it will
rapidly die. Anything said for or against a piece of SF will be purely a
personal comment, some one will disagree and trouble starts there. It is
far better that all aspects of the subject are open to discussion and
dissection. Who knows, something new may be learned by some one, some where.

This is not to say that a full blown analysis of Quantum Mechanics or
Genetics should be allowed, there are plenty of forums on the net for that.
But I for one would like to hear from a micro-biologist, chip designer, AI
specialist how close we are to creating nano-technology, self-replicating
micro-chips or real AI systems.

My vote is thatanyhting about Science or reviews/critique/analysis of SF is
valid or this list.

Rant over!

Dave "asking for trouble" Barlow


Bring me my Broadsword, | http://www.sartar.demon.co.uk
And clear understanding | BBb Bass player extraordinaire.

Maybe he meant isotopic?

I'm sorry.
That joke was degrading.

Dominic.

"A psychiatrist is a fellow who asks you a lot of expensive questions
your wife asks for nothing." [Joey Adams]

It would literally mean, equal understanding if I recall my latin
correctly. Ie something that everyone understands.

Which is nice.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

I understood that the bottom rather fell out of the AI market. The promise of
the early 80s didn't really amount to that much, and by the early 90s all those
companies writing "Expert Systems" were folding.

My knowledge of real AI is a bit out of date though. I studied it in 1989,
which is pretty much a decade ago, although I did read a recent article which
implied we hadn't made much progress since then.

We got any current 3rd year Computer Scientists out there?

Dominic.

"If you don't know what you're doing, do it neatly."

[AI snipped]
Well depends really what you mean by progress. If by AI you mean
an intellegent, articulate and witty machine - then no we haven't
made an enormous progress. There is a lot of talk, but very little
real knowledge.

There is a maths professor at Cambridge (can't remember his name Roger
something I think) who has stated emphatically that it's not possible
because we need some extra physics to bridge the gap between quantum
and Newtonian Mechanics. It's a bit of a lame argument really. All
that you can say is that we don't currently have the know how and
it's going to take us quite a while to figure it out.

On the other hand we have made enormous steps towards the lower end
of things. Over in the states they have a virtual pet dog, that
acts fairly similarly to the real thing. Well as long as by dog
you mean one of those really annoying yapping lap dog things.

Neural nets are doing quite well, and are being used in all sorts
of situations. One of the most interesting (to my mind) is the
rather cunning use of a neural net to maintain a magnetic "bucket"
around plasma in order to get yourself a nuclear fusion reactor.
Kevin can probably go into more details if anyones interested.

Neural Nets are also used to spot trafic offenders number plates and
automatically send off the bill. Last I heard they were also planning
to put in a system to check the plates of cars going past inner city
survailance cameras against lists of stolen cars.

BMW has a car that drives itself, (at 90 mph down the autobahn). It
even indicates before overtaking other cars. It'll recognize road
signs and take the relevant action. Admittdly it's not quite in
the price range of the average road user, but it will get there.

So yeah, there is definite progress being made. However, it'll be
a while before you get your computer to contribute meaningfully
to this discusion. If I had to guess, I'd put it at about 20 years off.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

In article <3.0.5.16.19980126222106.3377b522@>, Dave Barlow <thed@> wrote:
Of course the list is about fantasy as well as "hard" SF - so we should
accept that scientific accuracy is not mandatory. But obviously some people
will have a preference for "hard" SF, and will therefore take an interest in
labelling material as "hard" or "soft". Me, I don't care, as long as I can
agree with the author which it is. One dressed as the other irritates me -
if I encounter a pixie in a hard-SF novel, I expect the story to imply
surgery, or genetic engineering, or virtual reality, or something.

What I would say is important is for the writers of these technical tracts
to remember that not everyone is a scientist, and to write for the
intelligent layman. I would say that means avoiding three things: jargon;
assuming that your reader already knows scientific theories; and maths.

One of the things that made Isaac Asimov so popular in the SF field was his
non-fiction writing. The man wrote many pieces describing advances in
science in a way that non-scientists can understand. That skill -
explaining your field of expertise to someone outside it - is worth
cultivating in all disciplines, not just science. To return to an earlier
question on this list - how many people here enjoyed "The Making of Star
Wars" - or whatever the film was called? It's a film, for us laymen, about
applying the film-maker's art to SF. How many people would call that film
F&SF-relevent?

In other words, what I am inviting the non-scientists to do is to criticise
not for posting on science, but for writing in an impenetrable,
over-detailed or boring style. (It might be worth sending such criticisms
in E-mail, to avoid the "clash of the egos" effect.) Then we can get into
questions like "is the art of *writing* relevent to F&SF?" (As in "David
Eddings shows that writing skill is irrelevent to F&SF" - discuss.)


Now that's *really* asking for trouble.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

simon@ <simon@> on 27 January 1998 13:40 wrote a
lot of good stuff
Well said sir, well said. I used to read both Analog and F&SF magazines,
these both have very good science articles for the laymen once a month. They
are very informative and enjoyable to read. Given that most of us around
here work in specialist fields or are studying complex topics we could start
a "The Real Science in Science Fiction" type thing. It would have to better
than the Science of Star Trek type material. If some one feels up to writing
about a topic relevant to F&SF maybe it could be included on the web pages,
or I'll host them at a site somewhere. Analog even claimed to covered the
problems of using SDI type defenses back in the 60's. If we could pull a
stunt like predicting a major technological breakthrough we could be as
famous as A.C. Clarke, as if.

Just to clarify a point, badly made by me in my previous post Simon replied
to. I did not mean to imply that Fantasy should be banned from discussion.
Only that all aspects of F&SF should be open to discussion. They are all
valid.

Dave "coagulating on it" Barlow

True. With the exception of Independance Day which has the wonderful
premise that laptop computers plug neatly into alien technology.

Cwej

James mentions lap-top computers in Independence Day plugging into the
alien software. A-ha! That's something you have to watch for -
remember, the aliens were using our satellites to communicate, so
perhaps they adopted some of our computing languages as well! (They
could have set up their own web page, for instance...) At least, that's
what someone else I know suggested, so don't all look at me!

And please, no-one write in to revive the old joke of giving the aliens
Windows 95 to defeat them! It's about as funny now as "Knock knock,
who's there, O.J.Simpson, O.J.Simpson Who, right you're on the jury"!

I shall say nothing more for a while. (They can hear the cheering in
Aberdeen...)

D.Chilard

I was more concerned with the fact that they were able to
a) connect to the alien ship and
b) read / understand any of the data they might receive should they even
manage a)

They could easily access the aliens' computers - it's a two-way street,
as they'd been accessing ours (at least, I think they had!); however,
reading their information's a little harder - presumably, we just have
to accept that their language, programming etc. is as logical as ours!
In fact, if it's actually logical, it'll be easier to understand than
our own! But it is a bit unlikely, admitted.

I know James absolutely detests ID4, but I thought it was an idea long
overdue - a nice old-fashioned alien invasion disaster movie with CGI
graphics, and lots of citites getting totally blown to pieces! It's not
deep, it's not classy, it's not Shakespeare - but it's fun! (I don't go
to the cinema to have my horizons broadened, or watch an exquisite
masterpiece of interwoven plot threads which culminate in a battle of
wills or whatever - I go for a good time, and an enjoyable film, and I
like to know what's going on!)

D.Chilard

Whoops, I was supposed to have shut up, wasn't I? Tough tortillas!

I wouldn't say detest... more loathe I think

Cwej

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Chilard D wrote:
Right, I grew up with modem's and BBS's, so I know it can be a real
bastard connecting to any system if you get the communications wrong.

Ok, so how will smith et al figure out the bit, parity and other settings?
Do these aliens run their own BBS software for everyone to connect to and
download dodgy pics from? did they know what transfer protocol to use?
Did they have to be so pathetic as to use a mac to connect? And how comes
a virus written in an earth
programming language manages to run on their system? I mean, no one on
earth can learn to program in an alien language that quickly <cue
gordon>.

Oh right, so these are super intelligent aliens who can build vast saucer
ships and protective shields for their fighters, but forget to install
norton antivirus onto their systems. Duh!

I can't wait for the sequel, when the aliens return, armed with Windows NT
and a copy of McAfee antivirus. The world's hackers would have a field day
on their system...
yes, well enjoyable it was. However many plot holes there were and however
stupid the plot premise was, if you managed to turn your brain off for two
hours it was a fantastic film. Great special FX, lovely sound, but
unfortunately no gore and sod all sensible plot. At least Starship
troopers had people getting ripped apart and stuff.

<cue tens of thousands of e-mails from gordon and all going on about the
intimate details of modem communication etc etc>

====================================================
Asach Tu
elterwater@ <----- send mail here
http://www.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk/~asach <--- homepage here
0956 151 141 <------- mobile here
"Life is like a box of chocolates....
some bastard always nicks the nice ones"
====================================================

Chilard D wrote:
Also consider the fact that they had an alien ship that crashed. This
should have given them the idea of how to interface with their
computers. It's just a different networking protocol, really... ;)

Gordan

afaik (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's no such society at
this college. Incidentally, if there wasn't any script or acting, you
wouldn't have a piece of science fiction, you'd have an edition of
Horizon or Equinox, so discussion of these points is at least as valid
as complaints about inaccurate science etc. If you want to see a piece
of SF in which it's obvious that no-one really cared about the script or
acting, go and watch Starship Troopers.
Me? Imply such a thing? Never. It's just that I'd like to be able to
understand what you're all going on about. I am hugely tempted to post,
say, an academic analysis of flaws in the dramatic structure of various
B5 episodes so you can see what it's like when you don't have detailed
knowledge of the subject which is being discussed.
I'll post some points about acting etc in SF when I've had more sleep.
Some possible subjects for discussion, though :
worst piece of dialogue in SF
worst piece of acting in SF (there's so much to choose from - personally
my vote goes to that guy who played Captain Jack in B5)
directors who can do action sequences but can't get good performances
out of actors (and vice versa)
Mary-Jane

Hmmm worst dialogue would go to Professor Zarof in "Dr Who - The
Underwater Menace" but his "Nuzink in zee vorld can stop me now!"
unfortunately is too unoriginal.

Worst acting (apart from above)? Paul Darrow in the recent B7 springs to
mind but it doesn't count as it was enjoyably bad acting. I vote for
Mulder and Scully in the X-Files, surely they must catch Dutch Elm
disease soon....

Cwej

Previously, Roebuck M wrote....
Er IFIS holds more than enough video evenings for the budding film critic
and I don't see any reason why members can't use IFIS to organise trips to
go and see films at the cinema too.
I gave up in the end and just deleted any post that looked like it was full
of science stuff - meant I got through the mail very quickly too *8).

Chris

---

chris@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

Hmm. I'm tempted by "I am death incarnate. God sent me" which was B5's Ivanova
during her big battle last series. It must have looked like a cool line on
paper, but when it actually came down to her sitting in the, er, armchair of
command, and speaking into space, at no-one in particular, she did sound rather
silly.
Don't know whether it's the fault of the dialogue, or the acting.



Dominic.

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying." [Woody Allen]

Dominic Thomas said:
C'mon, you've got to admit that she made up for it with "what
accidents? our trading vessels never have any accidents", "I've got 4
laser cannons in cargo bay 2 that say you do" :-)

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them

In article <7163823F2EDACF1188610000C0F06ACF01883D3D@>, Roebuck M <M.Roebuck@> wrote:
[Cinema Goers Society; Starship Troopers]
Then I will critique your writing for being impenetrable, too. Glass houses
and all that.

If you wrote a layman's equivalent, I for one would be most interested.
Some of the dramatic techniques of, say, Babylon 5 have got to apply to
roleplaying games.

And yes, I can mention roleplaying games in an SF context - the roleplaying
game where I am experimenting with B5-style dramatic techniques is nominally
based on "The X Files". So it's SF, too. :-P
Superman 3(?): "Get this man a hard-hat. Oh Superman, it's you. Forget
the hard-hat." Or "That fire's spreading like wild fire." Or any one of
hundreds of others. The only trouble is, I suspect it's deliberate.
Without ... any doubt ... my vote goes to ... William Shatner, whose
performance ... as Captain ... James ... T ... Kirk is surrounded by ...
literally ... hundreds ... oh Christ, I can't go on with this. He's
*terrible*.

I'd also give a special award to whoever cast Brigitte Nielson alongside
Arnold Schwartzenegger in "Red Sonja". Never mind the plot or anything, it
could be re-titled "Battle of the Accents".
Now that's too subtle for me.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

But that was inspired!
A masterful piece of casting.
A classic of our time.
Make it the "Stupid casting idea that worked" award.
Like the choice of (urk!) That Psi-Cop in B5 (Bester?)
Once you get your head round "Hang on! That's Chekov", he's actually damn good.

Not that Brigitte Nielson was GOOD, just that she worked in that context.

Dominic.

"Mou mouri gen to" - A dead person is always wrong.
[Haitian Proverb]