Home
Beware of the Train [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
pozorvlak

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| My moblog Hypothetical, the place to be My (fairly feeble) website ]

Fine Structure: The Story So Far [May. 4th, 2008|06:49 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

There's a new Fine Structure story up, called The Story So Far. Go read it. Actually, there's another one that I never got round to posting about, called Failure Mode, which is... rather moving, actually. Great stuff.

Anyway, the missing story has now been revealed... )

I'm not going to write too much now, because I have a hangover. But I think there'd be some benefit to thinking harder about the fictional physics - I definitely should have spotted the "superlight" connection. I think there may be more insights to come from that source.

There's now a comments system on the Fine Structure pages themselves, which I suspect will largely replace the discussions here. Please continue to comment on my posts if you want, though! I'm hoping someone else will start blogging in depth about FS. Maybe we need a Fine Structure wiki? An E2 node?
link1 comment|post comment

Too Much Information [Mar. 9th, 2008|12:04 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

There's a new Fine Structure story out, called Too Much Information. In addition, the Crash stories have been incorporated into their own subdirectory, called 1970-. Some analysis of TMI and its implications has already started in the comments threads of my previous FS posts, and I'll have to revise my own thoughts in light of it, but for now:

Discussion, including spoilers )

By the way, if anyone else is planning on blogging about FS, please leave a link here, so we can all follow what each other are saying :-)
link47 comments|post comment

More Fine Structure badgery [Feb. 29th, 2008|02:40 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

It's become apparent to me that many of the mysteries in Fine Structure depend on the precise order in which the stories occur. Time to get systematic. Obviously, this whole post is full of spoilers.

Plot summaries )

Chronology )

I should probably put all this stuff into some sort of Hasse diagram, but right now I can't be bothered :-)
link22 comments|post comment

Thoughts on Sam Hughes' Fine Structure [Feb. 26th, 2008|02:10 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

I've been reading some science fiction written by a guy called Sam Hughes1, and posted on his website Things of Interest. Most recently, I've been reading his Ed stories, about Sam and his (fictional) genius flatmate Ed, who builds battlemechs in their basement and saves the world from annihilation on a regular basis, and to whom Sam plays a sort of bemused Watson. It starts out as a fun bit of wish-fulfilment à la early Sluggy Freelance, and turns into something rather more. Well worth a read.

But I don't want to talk about that: I want to talk about his novel-in-progress, Fine Structure, and where I think it's going. It's a collection of loosely-linked short stories whose connections only become apparent later on, somewhat like Trainspotting: I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but let's just say it has elements of Contact, Superman and Strata, in a refreshingly hard-sf style. And it's garnered positive reviews from no less a person than David Brin (search for "Power of Two"). It's probably best to read them in order, but I started with Power of Two and it didn't do me too much harm (and it's one of my favourites).

Edit: further posts on this topic can be found here.

MAJOR spoilers. Go and read the stories first! )

A word of warning: I have literally lost days to browsing Sam's website. Interesting days, mind :-)

1 Some of you might even know him: he was a maths student at Corpus, Cambridge a few years ago. Or you might have encountered him on some online community or other: he generally goes by the username "sam512".
link23 comments|post comment

Music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery [May. 5th, 2007|01:33 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Slashdot, the technical news site, has a mixed reputation. Mostly, it's known as the abode of armies of Microsoft-bashing trolls with too much time on their hands, a domain of vitriolic, fact-free arguments and tired "In Soviet Russia..." jokes. But every so often, it throws up something really insightful, like this comment. It's a great, thoughtful post, and I recommend you read it; but I'll try to summarize anyway. It's an attempt at explaining why America (and, increasingly, Europe) is passing such ridiculously restrictive Intellectual Property (patents, trademarks, copyright) laws, such as the much-hated Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and why they're trying to force such laws on other countries using, for instance, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The argument goes like this: in a fully globalized world, in which everything that can be outsourced has been outsourced, what remaining competitive advantage does the US still have? Well, there's lots of agricultural land, and plenty of natural resources, like coal and timber, but that won't finance American lifestyles, or anything close. Neal Stephenson hit this one on the head: the four things America's really good at are music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery.

Let pizza delivery stand for all the service sector stuff that can't be outsourced, and expand "microcode" to include pharmaceuticals (which, by the way, dwarf the three M's as a source of revenue). Aside from the pizza delivery, these things are all IP-based. So it makes a naive kind of sense to force everyone to buy in to strong IP laws so that you can continue to sell them the only things you still seem able to make. To quote the linked article, "if you're a politician, grabbing onto intellectual property as the salvation of high-cost Western society probably isn't the stupidest thing you'll do all day."

[There are many problems with this approach, and even more with the details of the laws they've enacted. But the basic one is that all creativity comes from standing on the shoulders of giants, and strong IP law makes it much harder to do this. Far from protecting the goose that's laying the golden eggs, these laws are slowly asphyxiating it.]

Then it hit me: the way industries develop is by import replacement. You start by importing bikes, then you develop the expertise to make some of your own spares, then you start to make more and more spares yourself. Eventually you know enough to make a whole bike, and a few decades down the line you have the Japanese car industry (this actually happened). Currently, pharmaceutical companies in India, Sri Lanka and so on are reverse-engineering the drugs they need to control the AIDS epidemic: this has been a major bone of contention with WIPO and the US. I'd assumed this was because the US was concerned about Big Pharma's revenue streams now (hard to think anyone would shed a tear for some of the richest entities in the world, but apparently they would). Here's another interpretation: what the Indian pharmaceuticals industry is doing now is import replacement. This is stage 2 in the template above: give it a few decades like this, and India won't need to reverse-engineer US drugs, they'll be developing their own. Given that more movies are made in Mumbai than in Hollywood and that Western companies are increasingly outsourcing their coding to India, and I think you see where this is going: unless the third world can be stopped from developing their IP industries now, the US will be left with nothing but pizza delivery. The strong IP laws are not just a short-sighted, short-term extortion racket, they're a strategic move aimed at safeguarding long-term economic power. They're still doomed and short-sighted, mind, but they're doomed and short-sighted on a higher and more strategic level.

Then I remembered Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity :-)
link10 comments|post comment

Stopping cows [Mar. 20th, 2007|05:35 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

There's a scene in John Wyndham's marvellous Chocky where the main character asks his father "Why does a cow stop?"

What he means by this is why does a cow's intelligence stop: why are cows smart enough to escape out of an open gate, but not smart enough to see that they could lift up the latch with their noses and escape whenever they want? Why do cows hit a point where their problem-solving ability just stops dead?

I was reminded of this as I read Matthew Huntbach's essay What's Wrong with Ruby this morning. He points out that "Ruby, and the whole scripting language phenomenon is a slap in the face" for the academic language-design community of which he is apparently a part.
We have been used to complaining that the programming languages we had developed were so much better than the mainstream programming languages, the only reasons they hadn’t taken off were that they weren’t developed and promoted by big companies, and that the inherent conservatism of industry restricted commercial programming to tried and trusted languages.

Yet a whole stream of new languages: Perl, PHP, Python and now Ruby, each initiated by one person as back-room projects, have been adopted for serious use and achieved many thousands of users. Unlike academically-derived languages, they have given the impression of being thrown together to meet a need without any strong underlying theoretical basis.
That's right. Your languages weren't unsuccessful for the reasons you thought they were, and languages that don't meet your standards of elegance have flourished in actual use. Something you thought was necessary for a language to succeed (corporate backing) turns out not to be necessary after all. Now, let's apply your insights to the rest of your essay (which, by the way, is a perfect example of the kind of thing I was talking about in my post Tightrope Walking). Ruby et al don't have static typing, formal semantics, standards documents, or the guarantee that each object will have a class that determines its behaviour - in short, they're not academic languages - and yet thousands of bright users use them and like them. Could it be that perhaps the lack of these things isn't such a problem as you think? Might they, in fact, have advantages that you're too blind to see?

See that bit of metal attaching the gate to the fence? You might like to think about what you can do with that.
link31 comments|post comment

Calling sf types [Jan. 15th, 2007|03:19 pm]
[Tags|, ]

[info]steerpikelet can use your help! She's writing her special topic paper on the internet and the like in fiction (and especially science fiction, AFAICT), and needs booklisting. She describes it thusly:
Under the general bracket of 'fiction in English,' I'm doing an extended essay all about how 20th/21st century literature uses t'internet as a narrative hook, and I'm going to go on a bit about narratology and post-structuralism and probably end up talking about fanfiction. I intend to use the words 'semiotic' and 'schema' a great deal.
Knowing that a lot of you a) know loads about sf, b) don't read her journal, I thought I'd post the message here - her original cry for help can be found here. Thanks in advance!

When I was little, I always assumed that science fiction would be the default reading matter of the intelligentsia - after all, it's SCIENCE fiction. I had a bit of a shock when I went away to Big School and found that it was not only much less popular than I'd thought, it was actually looked down on by many intelligent-seeming people. It's good to have so many intelligent sf readers on my friends list, as it suggests my earlier belief might not be so much wrong as twenty years too early :-)
link8 comments|post comment

Space elevators [Jan. 5th, 2007|07:39 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Another Important Idea That Everyone Should Know About :-)

Capture a small asteroid. Stick it into geosynchronous orbit above a reasonably stable part of the Equator. Attach it to the ground with a big cable. It will need to be a very strong cable to support its own weight (to reach geosynchronous orbit, it would have to be nearly 36,000 km long), so you'd better make it out of carbon nanotubes. Run a railway line up the side. Ta-da! You've just reduced the cost of reaching geosynchronous orbit by a factor of more than 100.

What you have just built is called a Space Elevator.

This idea isn't actually as daft as I've just made it sound, and some very bright people (including NASA) are working on building one. In fact, if you want to go to Mars, it would probably be cheaper to build a space elevator first. These guys reckon they can do it by 2031. There's lots more information in the Wikipedia article linked; I'd also recommend Arthur C. Clarke's excellent novel The Fountains of Paradise, which is half about the construction of a space elevator and half about his beloved Sri Lanka.
link8 comments|post comment

Going to Edinburgh! [May. 10th, 2006|04:46 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

For the fourth year running, I will be appearing in Two Shades of Blue's Edinburgh Fringe Show. This year we're doing a serious piece about Man's fundamental loneliness and the emptiness of an uncaring Universe called Paradox: Set Phasers to Pun. The character is apparently 'your typical Manly "oh look it's an alien, I shall have to remove my shirt, have a fist fight with it and then sleep with its surprisingly beautiful wife" brand of starship captain', so I'm not being typecast in any way whatsoever. Oh no.

We'll be in Edinburgh from the 21st - 26th August, and there'll be a production in Cambridge a day or two before that. G'wan, you know you wanna.

Right, if I'm going to be taking my shirt off on-stage, I'd better go and become buff and ripped. Unless they're thinking Captain Kirk in his later years. /me -> gym.
link3 comments|post comment

Earworms and New Years [Jan. 11th, 2006|05:19 pm]
[Tags|, ]
[mood | annoyed]
[music |Prince - Party Like It's 1999, in my head on constant loop]

This afternoon I was sitting in the postgrad club trying to do some of this work thing that people are always going on about, when they started playing Prince's ghastly song "1999". "When will they stop playing that thing?" I thought, "It's 2005, for goodness' sake!"

Hang on....

I've never entirely got over the fact that 1997's been and gone. I think it's to do with reading too much SF set in that year. "You mean it's 1997 and we haven't got a manned Mars base, a world government/world-wide violent anarchy?"
link2 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]