Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Story summary ... (Score 1) 1023

Well, some of us prefer hard science fiction to the squishy stuff.

I honestly rue the day the all-inclusive crowd decided to re-designate SF as "speculative fiction." All fiction is speculative as it is all an exercise in what-if. The difference between hard science fiction and the rest, as I see it, is that based upon the objective reality currently understood at the time of authorship, the hard stuff is actually within the realm of known possibilities, because, you know, science. I find that to be a significant enough distinction to distinguish these works from those containing gods, elves, magicians, macro teleportation, ESP and so on.

That is in no way to imply that the squishy stuff cannot be fine work -- it most certainly can, and often is. But the bottom line for me is that it is different on a fundamental level, providing a different kind of experience from, say, "The Martian" or the technically flawed, but scientifically sound, "Red Mars."

Doesn't matter to me personally who, or what, gets a Hugo, or why. I'm sitting about ten feet from three of them, and the shine has worn off after decades of observing the process. All I'm saying is that if hard science fiction is of such consequence to these people that they feel awards should be proffered in that specific category, there are doors that are open, or could be opened. Assuming the story is at all accurate, which, from the other comments here... it very well may not be.

Comment Re:Story summary ... (Score 2) 1023

Summary aside, if there really is an objection to the range of science fiction stories that the Hugos are currently addressing these days, then I can see two reasonable solutions, either or both of which may already exist:

1) hugos specific to the category being awarded: e.g. "hard science fiction"

2) another award entirely -- which means publicity, fan gathering, etc. Lots of work.

It seems like a tempest in a teakettle to me.

Comment Refining and transport costs? (Score 1) 61

From TFI:

The transportation and extraction costs are sufficiently high

This may be half-true if the vision is mankind going out there and mining and refining, but if it's done the sane way, the way it of course will ultimately be done -- which is by solar-powered robotics with self-repair capabilities along or incorporated -- the initial (and total) cost will be irrelevant due to the profits maintenance-free, zero ongoing-costs, self-repairing operations will continuously produce.

As for "transport costs", really, WTF? What about gravity? Inertia? Orbital mechanics? Ion drives? Sunlight? Did he forget his fundamental physics?

Mine it, refine it, and kick it - not very hard, either - (using an Ion tug/pusher that just starts it on its journey-to-wherever and then returns to the operation) towards where you want it to go, past whatever you want to use to give it more or less oomph, and it'll (eventually) get there. And once the first such package arrives after the initial latency caused by transport time, the others will follow at reasonably similar intervals to the kick-out intervals, assuming only that where they are being sent to isn't moving under its own power, in which case, every "kick" would have to be towards somewhere else (and you'd have to know where the target was going to be on receipt, too, or there wouldn't be any receipt.) Still, that's not going to be the critical use-case -- this is going to be almost entirely about sending materials mined from nearly zero-g environments to planetary and moon orbit, to the surface of the moon, to earth, to mars, etc.

If we're talking about delivery through an atmosphere, then a re-entry container, perhaps even a lifting body, will be required from some things. So an operation has to be set up to build those as required and send them to the mining sites in that case. Unless we just want meteoric delivery, which might actually be practical for some things, particularly high-temperature-tolerant things. Aim them towards a sufficiently deep part of the ocean or man-made body of water built for the purpose, rake them up at set intervals (during which none would be incoming, obviously) and there you have it. Any such containers or lifting bodies should (again, obviously) be built out of something we can re-purpose, as they are also nothing but materials mined for free in space, albeit not exactly raw materials. Heck, you could probably just make hydrogen balloons that come in slowly and let them float down to a reasonable altitude and then puncture themselves when they drift over a designated receiving area -- no massive influx of reentry heat there. Have to be some damn strong balloons to tolerate being inflated in a vacuum, but our materials science is working on that already. Not to mention other mechanisms that may be possible. :) We'd probably end up with too much hydrogen, lol. Still.

Sure, the initial startup will be much harder if they push into it as a manned operation that needs constant support and staffing. But the endgame here, indubitably based entirely on zero-ongoing cost-robotics, is almost unimaginably profitable in terms of both money and materials gleaned from these operations.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 134

Most of that, very good.

One thing, though: the only way vinyl records are "better" than a well recorded CD is if there is no well recorded CD of the material, or you love the cover/liner art in that particular format (Cheech and Chong's "Big Bambu", for instance.) Vinyl itself is a terrible format, it has no inherent audio benefits whatsoever. I own a very high end turntable for those few platters that I can't find well-recorded (or any!) CDs of. They sound terrible -- because they're vinyl. Hugely worse signal to noise, for the stereo ones lower stereo separation, more THD, clicks, pops, uneven-vinyl induced rumble... I don't suffer from wow or flutter (that's a cheap turntable problem, not a vinyl problem): just about every wart and shortcoming vinyl has sticks in my ear like a sharpened spike. And that's after going to what almost anyone would consider "ridiculous extremes" to reach for the highest quality vinyl playback I could put together, with cost not being an issue. (I'm an EE, a musician and a recording engineer. "Picky" doesn't even begin to cover my outlook on this. :)

The making of *new* vinyl is just a way to purchase low-fidelity audio. I keep a weather eye out WRT new vinyl productions for a great cover or some kind of creative awesomeness like Big Bambu, but so far, nothing has caught my eye.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 134

Are ebooks convenient yes. Are they a replacement to my physical books? a resounding no.

As you say, you're speaking for yourself. They're just fine for me, and many others. None of the things you perceive as problems manifest as problems for me.

Outside? Text-to-speech, with the added benefit of I can still watch where I'm walking.

Arbitrary deletion: Amazon deleted one version of one title, once, for which they were roundly and publicly criticized. Hardly a cause for "worry" Loaning... pfft.

Loaning: others can buy their own copy. If they want to read it, they can provide the asked compensation just like I did.

Highlighting and annotation -- I enjoy both capabilities, no problem at all. Along with many other benefits such as getting to see what others have marked as interesting or notable, page notes, more or less infinite bookmarks kept across all books at once, font changes, color changes, etc.

Reading in sunlight: zero problem with the LCD reader I keep handy.

Reselling: Don't care. At all.

Unsupported formats: This problem has not presented itself, nor does it in any way seem likely, so I'm not concerned about it in the least.

Cheaper second hand books. I try -- hard -- not to buy second hand IP. When I use IP, it is my aim to compensate for it. For a very practical reason indeed: I want there to be more of it out there. I want it to be a great field -- I want people to think, "hey, I'll produce IP for a living and I'll do great!" And then I want it to actually happen. Because the more we know, the better off we are. The more we limit the value of producing IP, the less attractive it is as a means of earning a living, and so the less of it we will have in the long run.

Donating books to the library: have you even looked at the ebook accessibility at libraries these days? Look into "Library-to-go" programs. Why should they pay for space when they don't have to? All you're doing there is making libraries more expensive than they need to be.

Inheritance of a physical book: Future generations... ebooks or deadtree books? I think likely it'll be ebooks, and such an inheritance will be used to light the fireplace or shredded for packing material or simply landfill.

So as you see -- there's more than one way to look at all this.

Comment Re: In other news (Score 2) 134

My basement is climate-controlled -- humidity and temperature -- so no worries there. If I run into anyone who wants the textbooks here, I'll gladly hand them over. Might be a long wait, though. Small rural town. Football trumps engineering by quite a bit here. :)

The SF collection is a business asset, so it stays. But it stays in boxes for now.

Comment In other news (Score 2) 134

In other news, you can still buy buggy whips, dial-style telephones, and vinyl records, too.

Nostalgia and straight-up Luddite-like behavior are enough to keep almost anything going at some level -- no matter how low its actual utility as compared to more recent replacement tech may be.

Hell, I own a vacuum tube stereo system made by Scott in the 1950's -- my father bought it when it was new, it's been with the family ever since, and now it is mine. I'm really quite fond of it in the "I actually use it" sense, though considered in the light of my home theater system, it's neither particularly functional or particularly high quality (though in its day, it absolutely was The Shite.) Still, it glows in the dark in a most pleasing manner. :)

I keep it in my office and enjoy listening to it regularly. My physical book collection, however... several thousand volumes... in boxes in the basement. I am a total convert to e-books. Textbooks, fiction, reference material... all right in my pocket, 100% accessible 100% of the time in 100% of the places I go (unless I'm diving or swimming, but hey. And I could get a waterproof, good to X-depth case for my phone, and then... :)

Comment Smart... not what you think it is. (Score 1) 686

What you're missing is that "smart" in one area in no way implies "smart" in another.

Just one example: A Phd in California actually sent money to one of the "Nigerian Princes"; search it up.

That's a smart guy. And that's a stupid guy. Same guy.

Another: Bill Clinton is a very smart guy indeed. yet he dallied with Lewinsky. Massively stupid.

Really smart guy. Really stupid guy. Same guy.

Etc.

Comment Trumped-up charges (Score 1) 686

Dump Trump? Trump is single-handedly on the path to destroying any chance the republicans had (which wasn't much, after 8 full years of doing little positive, a great deal negative, wasting enormous amounts of time and energy repeatedly attacking the ACA with no chance whatsoever of accomplishing anything, and radically alienating every thinking woman in the country.)

Trump is a cast-iron idiot and is absolutely un-electable -- and he refuses to say he won't run as an independent. So we have three possibilities:

First possibility: If he follows through and does run as an independent, he'll siphon off a huge portion of the republican base; just look at the man's popularity with the low-functioners (the only people anywhere he is popular with, lol.) That will break the republican effort wholesale, as the faithful democrat/republican split is pretty evenly balanced, and the swing voters, who actually make the decision when things are balanced, actually vote on issues, which eliminates Trump handily with them. So he won't get swing voters, he won't get any dedicated dems, and he won't get any thinking Republicans, which leaves him losing mightily. For the actual republican candidate, they won't get any dems, we can postulate they might get a light majority of the swing voters (but I doubt it, based upon their behavior the last 8 years), but they'll lose that Trump-loving low-functioner portion of their base, and so again, a massively lopsided loss is the most likely outcome.

Second possibility: If the republicans select him as their actual candidate, thinking republicans won't vote for him -- his policies would destroy the economy while crippling trade, and they won't go for that. Swing voters won't vote for him either. Lopsided republican loss follows. This is unlikely; republicans almost certainly will not select him as their candidate, as the majority of republicans aren't cast-iron idiots, while Trump is, and obviously so if you have just a few working brain cells.

Third possibility: Trump drops out, and we're down to republicans going one way, about an equal amount of dems going the other way, and the swing voters, as per usual, making the decision. That will almost certainly result in a dem win also, simply based on the blatant malfeasance of the republicans over the last two terms. Shutting down the government, wasting taxpayer money tilting at windmills, blocking and poisoning important legislation... Seems like a dem shoo-in to me, but hey, it's only my personal assessment.

Bottom line -- Trump runs, independent or otherwise, and we are assured another dem president. Trump drops out, we'll probably have another dem president anyway.

It seems to me that the republicans are too far outside the mainstream right now, as well as WAY too far outside the mainstream during the last eight years, to secure the votes they need no matter what happens with Trump.

There is also a broad opportunity for sabotage by the dems: anything they do that manages to increase Trump's chances to play as a candidate in the final contest increases the potential for damage to republican chances.

The dems... if they're smart, they'll go for Clinton as P and Sanders as Vp; as long as Clinton doesn't seriously shit the bed between now and the election (and no, the email thing isn't that without them actually jailing or otherwise outright disqualifying her... very few people who would vote for her anyway think it's a big deal at all), she's going to be the dem candidate. Adding Sanders would rope in just about every democrat and swing voter out there. The only real question is if Sanders will go for the Vp position, which, historically speaking, is a sinecure with an outside chance of sliding into the presidency when a president cannot complete their term. Sort of a "booby-prize."

Unless... Clinton actually listened to the man. But that seems just as unlikely as Trump winning, at least to me it does. Clinton is a bought-and-paid for shill for big money just as much as any republican candidate is; Sanders isn't (and that's the basis for his popularity.) So his views... not going to be in line with hers. As Vp, it won't matter unless she wants it to matter. And she won't.

This is the most entertaining lead-up to an election I've ever experienced. And I'm ~60. :)

Comment Invasion trivia (Score 1) 686

Successfully invading Texas with actual intent -- or anywhere, for that matter -- is a matter of killing the people and leaving the infrastructure intact.

There are multiple ways to do that, if the willingness to do what is required is present. Short-lived radiation, chemicals, and biological agents are all possibilities.

The number of small arms in people's hands only means anything in the defensive capability sense if the "invasion" means to keep the citizens around. Otherwise, they're just small arms the invaders get to collect from the dead.

Conversely, armor has to be refueled, generally by some poor schlub standing out in the open, and the soldiers manning the armor have to come out sometime. Both circumstances are exploitable by the opposition without having to deal with the armor itself; protecting against such things is almost impossible.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...