HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cej@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Anne Mc Caffrey and computer interfaces
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:20:01 CST
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <1992Dec23.082055.1@ttd.teradyne.com>, rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.094844.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, ngustas@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>> I've just been reading _Crystal Line_ by Anne Mc Caffrey (haven't finished
>> it; there will probably be another post when I do) and there's one thing I
>> noticed that drives me nuts about all her books.
>> Why is everyone on a DOS-type system?

Possibly because it will no doubt **BE*DOS*COMPATIBLE* !!!

INTEL Interworld will be advertising their O-80256986 optical CPU with:
   - real(XT), protected, virtual16, virtual32, virtual64, virtual128,
     virtual256, etc modes;
   - 4Tb on-chip cache;
   - 100T Neuron-Ops/sec on-chip neuron co-processor;
   - 10000TFLOPS/sec array(math) co-processor;
   - Inbuilt voice (univeral translator) and SVGAH Holo projection capabilities
   - etc

Microsoft Corporation will be bringing out DOS 70 (skipping DOS 69 for the
obvious reasons), and BNT-256-X23 (Brand New Technology).
People will be complaining about the 8192 Tb memory limit without having to
resort to DMPI-45 ! Microsoft will counter that increasing it will stop
people from being able to run their great-great-great-great-grandparent's
DOS2.11 programs, and that Bill Gates never would have approved!

* INTEL and MICROSOFT are trade marks (or whatever) of their respective
  corporations!
--
CJ

Disclaimer: The speculation expressed is purely personal and does NOT represent
            the official view of the organization.
From: agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Xenocide Sequel?
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:52:16 GMT
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England

In article <jvessey.726348031@husc.harvard.edu>, jvessey@husc11.harvard.edu (Jonathan Vessey) writes:
|> On a somewhat related note (and without wanting to spoil the plot for those
|> who haven't read it, so I won't go into details): was anyone else out there
|> somewhat disappointed by the ending of Xenocide? I really loved the first
|> two books in the series and was waiting with baited breath for the third
|> one. It was okay, but other than the fact that it concentrated too much
|> (in my opinion) on the story of the girl (argh-can't remember her name),
|> it seemed like a massive case of deus ex machina where OSC realized that
|> there was no way out of the situation he'd written everyone into and just
|> invented an easy way out. Admittedly, it was a really sticky situation,
|> but I still thought he kind of wimped out rather than actually developing
|> a logical or believable solution to the problems.

I must admit that the ending surprised me, but endings are supposed to
do that. They are certainly allowed to come from unexpected directions.
I see no deus ex machina, as all the necessary plot elements were
introduced a long time beforehand. Really, it was that which most
influenced my opinion about the conclusion. The first chapter of 
Enders Game is called Third, and it is the relationship between the
First and Second, and the Third that surpasses them that is so 
important at the end. I didn't see this straight off though; I felt 
rather cheated at first too, and it was only after thinking about it
for a while that I realised just what a good job Card had done, and
how well he had constructed the geometry and juxtaposition of all the 
elements in need of resolution. 

I do still think that it has been well enough done that any more would 
spoil it, but Patrick Nielsen Hayden

|> Tom Weinstein and Alan Carter can simply not buy it.  Let freedom ring.  <g>

notwithstanding I probably will, in the hope that I'm wrong. I fear I'll 
be right, and you can't unread a book. I was even enjoying the Richard Bach
stuff until One made me chuck the whole lot back up. Lets just hope Ender
isn't spoiled.

   Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. 

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:00:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.042013.16802@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.191415.9908@news.uiowa.edu>
>      williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
> 
>>I go to book stores.  I go to the library, and only rarely do I find anything
>>worth buying and reading.  What is all this crap that clogs the shelves???
> 
>    [ Lots more complaining deleted ]
> 
>    Personally, one of the things that "killed" SF is the simple
> proliferation of technology.  We've split the atom and looked within to
> find the quark.  The "science FICTION" of H. G. Wells is no longer so
> unfathomable; we know, _in theory_, how to make nanotech work, we just
> ain't got the hardware to do it yet.  We know, _in theory_, what
> cyberspace _could_ look like, we just ain't got the hardware to do it
> yet.  But we're working on it.
> 
>    One of the things that "killed" SF, then, is science itself; the
> ideas and innovations heralded by science fiction aren't the whizbang
> fantasies of geniuses and imbeciles anymore.  We *know* beyond a
> reasonable doubt what is science fiction and what is fantasy nowadays,
> and it's harder to write SF in that light.
> 
>          Elf !!!

What about the potential for molecular biology?  What about 
superconductivity?  What about tachyon theory? What about fusion power 
sources? . . . 

These are all rich veins for sf that have not been mined out and were 
not even imagined by Wells or Burroughs.  And just because we 
"understand" more science does not mean that what was the realm of the 
imagination is no longer the realm of the imagination.  Imagination 
just moved farther out.  Far from "killing" science fiction, 
scientific advances of the last five decades has greatly enriched the 
genre, IMHO.

I think there are plenty of geniuses and imbeciles having lots of 
whizbang fantasies "nowadays".  Perhaps more than in the "good old 
days".

Hey, Elf, since you "*know* beyond a reasonable doubt what is science 
fiction and what is fantasy" would you care to enlighten the rest of 
us?  For starters, will ambient temperature superconductivity ever be 
achieved?  Why or why not?  How about beyond nanotech, like molecular 
computing:  memory and processing sites only one *molecule* in size?  
Why or why not?


--Electric Monk            (Bruce Gaede); 
                            e-mail: bjgaed@ccmail.monsanto.com

"...and then time started seriously to pass."
--Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:41:09 GMT

A couple points:

Haldeman's "Forever War" had a coed infantry.  I recall hearing that
Heinlein liked the book, and a remark to the effect that "if Starship
Troopers were written today (1970's) the MI would be coed", but I don't 
recall who made the remark (don't think it was RAH).

An interesting alternate SF perspective on human gender roles shows up
as an aside in Anderson's "The Avatar".  There the humans discover a new
sentient race, which decides that what it wants from us is guidance in
gender roles.  Seems they have strong sexual dimorphism (with larger and
dominant females) and they have recently, with technology, discovered that
their sexes are equal in mental ability, and have an entire culture based
on inequality.  We have the benefit of several centuries of gender equality,
which they can learn from.

Typical Anderson -- for him having two different genders of equal mental
ability is not an axiomatic truth but an unusual feature of our biology
to be celebrated.  Like Heinlein, he claimed to believe that women were
superior in most respects, though whether their writing reflects this is
open to discussion.

Dave MB
From: A10JBE8@niu.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: The Illuminatus trilogy
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:39:00 GMT

I was recently strongly urged by a friend of mine to read "The
Illuminatus Trilogy" by Robert Shea and Robert Wilson.  After
traveling all the way to Chicago to find it, I bought it.  I am
only half way through with the first book in the trilogy and I
am not only completely enthralled, but I am questioning just how
fictional the story really is.
Much of what is cited as agents of the Illuminati are real things
and that makes me wonder.  Has anybody out there read this book?
If so, did it make you a little paranoid?  The authors must have
put  an incredible amount of thought and research into the writing
of this book, and what I am wondering is... how much of this is
based on fact?
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:51:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <76360@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Crow's Friend Timmy) writes:
>seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	Schools don't make those kind of choices for you. Their influence
>>on the choices of readers is going to be minimal.

>Not true at all. The school is where the skills are learned and the tastes
>are cultivated. You either run into a teach that turns you on to books, or
>you go through life without them. I got lucky. Too few do.

	That's where I take issue with you. School had no influence on ME
as far as reading went, nor on most of the people I encountered (except
insofar as choosing some abysmal things to assign in Shakespeare, so
that it took me ten years or so to get up the courage to try ol' Will
again -- at which point I discovered I liked him).

	Even if school DOES have an influence on choices, its curriculum
and approach is fostered and directed by boards influenced strongly by
PARENTS. It was not the school, but my parents, who taught me to read. 
They were the ones who gave me that power. 

	It is the PARENTS who have the true influence. Not only can 
they, and do they in many cases, guide their children on the path or
either education or vegetation, but they also determine by either 
apathy or activism the course that the schools follow. A school and its
teachers are limited by what they are permitted and expected to do.
As long as parents use the schools as a legally-required babysitter
service, they will be getting precisely the results one would expect.
The schools can't be blamed when they are controlled for the most part
by the people whose children are IN them.

	But a school can't really TEACH enjoyment of reading unless the
atmosphere to PROMOTE it exists at home and in the society. If your
parents (or guardians, whatever) read a lot, and give you a positive 
impression of reading, you'll read for pleasure eventually, no matter
what your school teaches. If they treat reading with trepidation, subtle
or not-subtle fear or contempt, or simply ignore it, you probably WON'T
read.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:19:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.080028.1@bb1t.monsanto.com>
     bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.042013.16802@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>>    Personally, one of the things that "killed" SF is the simple
>> proliferation of technology.

>What about the potential for molecular biology?  What about 
>superconductivity?  What about tachyon theory? What about fusion power 
>sources? . . . 

>These are all rich veins for sf that have not been mined out and were 
>not even imagined by Wells or Burroughs.  And just because we 
>"understand" more science does not mean that what was the realm of the 
>imagination is no longer the realm of the imagination.  Imagination 
>just moved farther out.  Far from "killing" science fiction, 
>scientific advances of the last five decades has greatly enriched the 
>genre, IMHO.

>For starters, will ambient temperature superconductivity ever be
>achieved?  Why or why not?  How about beyond nanotech, like molecular 
>computing:  memory and processing sites only one *molecule* in size?  
>Why or why not?

   *Gryn*  Good questions.  Perhaps I shouldn't have been so fast in my
assessment, but Arthur Clarke recently said that "One of the problems
with science fiction is that it's no longer mysterious to us.  A good
writer can present us with a fascinating escape from a black hole's
gravity well or solve a mystery hidden within a computer's memory, but
these stories are no different that an escape from a whirlpool or a
mystery around a safe.  Science fiction has, for the most part, ceased
to be about 'wonder' and has become merely another setting for
'adventure.'"

   I think there *are* good stories out that science fiction deals with
better than most other genres.  "Friday" (oh, shut up you people! :-)
can be seen as a wonderful analogy for either religious or sexual
preference tolerance... everybody thought 'they could identify each
other,' and some 'normals' could tell who they were 'just by lookin' at
em,' ect. ect.  It's hard for a white male (which Heinlein was) to
write about racial or other injustice in fiction, yet he managed to
pull it off, even if he didn't mean to (1/2 :-).  Science fiction's
"whizbang" for the moment reaches an entire realm of people who
wouldn't read anything else.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Tubb/Dumarest
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:41:50 GMT

as232@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Lerner):
>This series was recommended to me, but is it even in print?  Is it worth
>the trouble to track down Tubb's works?

I don't think they're still in print, but tracking them down won't be
much of a problem:  Go to a used book store -- it'll have some of these
books, and may easily have a dozen -- and pick one out at random.  Read
it.  It won't be bad, and it won't be anything special, and if you decide
that you want to read another, there are twenty more just like it.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   If you're going to write, don't pretend to write down.  It's going to be the
   best you can do, and it's the fact that it's the best you can do that kills
   you! -- Dorothy Parker
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: SF starter kit
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:33:47 EST

    If I had to choose ten books to give an overview (not necessarily the
books I like the most, but an overview), then I would choose the following:
 
   1) The Road to SF (edited by James Gunn) Vol. 1- 4
Since this is actually a set of four books, I'm cheating a bit, but it
has a good selection of short stories, historically (Vol.1 -3) as well as
"critically" (Vol.4), and it also has Gunn's overviews of SF as well as
discussion of individual authors.
        If this series is not available, then The SF Hall of Fame would serve
as somewhat of a substitute.
 
    2):  Foundation by Issac Asimov
       (or I Robot; hell why not both...but that would make it more than
ten...)
 
    3):  Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke
      (My personal favorite Clarke book is _Rendezvous with Rama_, and
I think his 70s work _Imperial Earth_, _Fountains of Paradise_ is better;
2001, of course, is the most famous, but IMO the theme of 2001 is based
on the theme of _Childhood's End_, and it's unadulterated by Kubrick's
visuals.)
 
    4):  The Space Merchants by Fredrik Pohl and CM Kornbluth
        (though I personally prefer Gateway)
 
    5):  The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester
         (Somehow, this sticks in my mind more than Stars My Destination)
 
    6): Dangerous Visions ed. by Harlan Ellison
          (Though personally, I think this book as a whole is overrated.
         I would much prefer reading one of Ellison's short story collections)
 
    7): Dune by Frank Herbert
 
    8): Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
          (Perhaps if the reader is really a total stranger to sf, perhaps
stranger in a strange land would be better *pun only accidentally intented*),
but _Moon_ is such a superior book...)
 
    9): Neuromancer by William Gibson
(Though personally, I prefer Count Zero)
 
    10):  I'm going to fudge here.  1970s are ignored in my list, as well as
British authors (except for Clarke), and "New-wave" type novels.
I would probably be forced to choose something like "Camp Concentration"
by Thomas M. Disch (Yes, he's not a Brit, but 334 and Camp Concentration
certainly felt like British New Wave type of things; other choices may be
Aldiss' Greybeard or such) but I can't pin a sample down as clearly here, since
I really don't like
this type of novels, and I read them only rarely.
 
   Now, if you ask me what          books I enjoyed, I'll give you a
substantially longer, biased, and in large part, different list.
 
      Junsok Yang
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: sts@mfltd.co.uk (Steve Sherwood)
Subject: Re: Xenocide Sequel?
Reply-To: sts@mfltd.co.uk
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd, Newbury, England
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:29:12 GMT

In article <TOMW.93Jan5214525@orac.asd.sgi.com>, tomw@orac.asd.sgi.com (Tom Weinstein) writes:
|> In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan5134817@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> 
|> > Does anyone know whether a sequel to Orson Scott Card's _Xenocide_ is
|> > planned, and if so, when it is expected to be published?
|> 
|> I certainly hope not.
|> 
|> --
|> Love is a conveyor belt of   |   Tom Weinstein  tomw@orac.esd.sgi.com
|> warmth  -- Jackie Chan       |                  tomw@bears.ucsb.edu

Why not ?

-- 
+-----------------------------------+------------------------+ Micro Focus
| Just like Pariah, I have no name, |    rm -rf *            | 26 West Street
| Living in a blaze of obscurity,   |      "rum ruff splat"  | Newbury
| Need courage to survive the day.  |                        | Berkshire
+-----------------------------------+------------------------+ England
      Extn 5543, sts@mfltd.co.uk, !uunet!mfocus!sts
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17456 rec.arts.sf.science:4064 sci.physics:22521 sci.skeptic:22321
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell)
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:27:08 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

> We have all (well almost all) agreed that the original question was
> silly because there is no such thing as an incompressible substance.
> But is that true?  When a star colapses and becomes a black hole, what
> is the density of the material?  Isn't this theorectically a mass of
> nuclei smushed up against ecah other?  If so, how would one compress
> this any further?  Of course, it is probably meaningless to think
> about applying a force to such an object...

Talking about the density of black holes is rather meaningless.  Neutron 
stars _do_ have the density of nuclear material, but can be comrpessed 
further (though not easily).  After all, during the neutron star's 
formation, the core collapse causes the core to be compressed to up to 
5 or so times the density of nuclear material, which is pretty durn high.


  ____  Erik Max Francis -- ..!apple!uuwest!max -- max@west.darkside.com   __
  \  /  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1  San Jose, CA  95117  37 20 N 121 53 W  ACGT  /  \
   \/   Like strategic interstellar conquest games?  Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
        Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.   All things that are, are lights.
From: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: THE GRIPPING HAND by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:48:08 GMT
Organization: U.S. Naval Academy

In article <1993Jan8.151824.2930@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>...characters spend a lot of time lecturing each other about their beliefs
>on sex and morality (which may or may not be the author's) while the
>story sort of stands around in the corner waiting for its turn to do
>something.  This is the equivalent of the scientist in many old pulp
>stories lecturing his companions on how his latest invention works.
>I no not think this is the optimal way to inform the reader of the
>science (in the later) or of the beliefs of the characters (in the
>latter).

These passages may have a purpose beyond informing the reader of the
characters' beliefs.  Some people actually enjoy reading discussions of
ideas.  Such discussions may be written well, or written poorly, but it's
no sin to have them there.


-- 
Els Withers                   email: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.mil
          phone: (410)267-3192 / fax: (410)267-4883
When orbiting particle-beam weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have
orbiting particle-beam weapons.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:35:31 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1993Jan5.095444.27411@math.ucla.edu> dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:
>In article <1k1xBw#9ZnLNX47mK9d9VRl0YB5Fjg2=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>>In <1993Jan2.135330.12000@math.ucla.edu> David Stein wrote:
>>>    Well, will you again refer to "good scholarship" or will you 
>>>    bother to support your statements with your own arguments?

>>In this one case, no.  I don't believe I can argue *this* matter better than
>>my sources, I don't believe I stand to learn anything significant from
>>debating it with you, and I have many more urgent claims on my attention.

>  As you wish.

>  Let it be clear though that in the post you quote I already explicitely
>decided to drop my challenge of your view of Campbell and instead to
>concentrate on the soundness of the specific definition of Campbellian SF 
>you gave.

This really isn't that complicated.  I'm not sure why you're
making it so.

Campbell, by his nurturing of new (and old) writers, raised the
general level of quality of the field.  Period.  Before him, 
most writers worte pulp crap.  After him, the standard was raised
to what Eric has defined as Campbellian SF.  What, exactly, is so
complicated about this?

It is, I suppose, possible that all the writers who have claimed 
that Campbell helped them raise their writing in this way are
wrong.  It should be noted that the best evidence for Campbell's
importance is their words, which Eric cannot reproduce without
references to those words.

-- 
Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 I feed on the flesh of the living, and I vote.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written