austenandrews

Re: Advanced energy sources: Some thoughts and implications. Antimatter is way too scary for me. I'd prefer to use it out in space, where an accident won't wipe out entire civilizations.

Re: Necrons Shades of John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness.

Re: Random SF Science Questions

Re: Necrons

Re: Why are robots always immortal? Since so much of biology is the massed effect of sub-molecular phenomena, I have no problem with the idea that quantum effects play a role in animal mentality. What that effect is, however, is open for debate. If it's just a randomization factor, there's no reason we can't simulate it on a computer. When you multiply quantum randomization over countless iterations, you get a relatively predictable statistical spread. So it may be just a matter of figuring out the equations. I confess I get a tad skeptical when AI arguments are based on determinism or the lack thereof. I know the raw math depends heavily on that condition, but in reality programmers can only dream of a truly deterministic system. I think they're a purely theoretical construct. Meanwhile I have a vague suspicion that quantum effects have become the new "soul," a magical mystery property used to arbitrarily separate humans and nonhumans.

Re: Maybe bat-cape flying isn't unrealistic.... Especially with the separate wings, I'd hate to think what would happen if several people flew in a loose formation and something went wrong. Human bodies aren't designed to withstand 100+ mph impacts.

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

Re: Just A Little Foolishness... Didn't the movie The Core list some properties of its Unobtainium?

Re: What kind of aliens? Depends on how you look at it. In terms of truly "high intelligence," we only have a single data point - ourselves - and as has been stated, we do have an inhibition against killing ourselves (sadly not enough of an inhibition, when speaking of populations; but that's a different matter). You can play with these generalizations all day, but ultimately they're angels on pinheads.

Re: What kind of aliens?

Re: Maybe bat-cape flying isn't unrealistic.... Cool! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389357&in_page_id=1770

Re: What kind of aliens? Exactly. I think vague notions like "intelligent" and "sentient" are essentially meaningless. We need better categories to describe the behavior that those terms dance around.

Re: What kind of aliens? Which was my other point. Much depends on how we define "intelligence." That's a goalpost too often moved specifically to exclude everything that's not human.

Re: What kind of aliens?

Re: What kind of aliens? "He comes from a planet of bounty hunters."

Re: SF worlds, what's possible, what isn't. By "transparent" and "clear" I assume you mean barring gases/vapors/particulates not found on Earth? You can have any color of sky you want with the right materials in the air.

Re: What kind of aliens?

Re: What kind of aliens? That's the most important and least agreed-upon element of the question - what constitutes "intelligence?"

Re: What kind of aliens? I don't particulary agree with either as a median condition, though I'd say the "average" is probably closer to Saberhagen's view than Clarke's. Assuming we're talking about planetbound organisms roughly akin to Earth's, generating and directing the energies necessary for space travel implies an advanced degree of safeguards and problem-solving ability. Sans any reason to anthropomorphize other organisms with human emotions, I believe it's reasonable to presume that such organisms would apply their safeguards and problem-solving to contact with alien intelligences. Which is to say, organism/species survival would be a top priority. Aliens would most likely be regarded as a potential problem to solve. To me, that leans more toward Saberhagen's view.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? It makes perfect sense to assume that the lifespan of any given machine will be different from the lifespan of a human being. Of course in almost all cases that lifespan is shorter than a human's, but then we haven't yet built machines with the capability of self-preservation. Many machines of the last century have, with proper TLC, remained quite functional using entirely non-rubber technology. If one posits a milieu in which robots have the will and resources to repair themselves for hundreds of years, I can't see a pressing reason to assume they won't do so. I grant you, though, that assuming a robot can lie dormant for thousands of years and then work fine is not a very reasonable default assumption. Then again robot longevity is generally used as a plot device, which is also not unreasonable, as it's simple enough to extrapolate current machine lifespans into future technologies. As for transferring the mind between hosts, I can readily imagine the technology for transplanting a living human brain into another body. With concerted effort, I expect we could develop the first steps of that technology within a decade. How much more straightforward, then, to imagine transplanting a machine's brain?

Re: Random SF Science Questions

Re: CHAR: Batman Cap could take him. You know, axiomatically.

Re: Most horrifying cross-genre picture ever? I dunno. Cthulhu dolls were funny several years ago. Cthulhu is getting played out as an instant punchline.

Here's a thread for random SF-related science questions, for the less scientifically challenged among us to hopefully answer. I'll start: Can a solar sail tack against solar winds? I just read that they can't, but I'm unsure if that's true and why.

Re: Spells for the Goddess of Love and Lust As I recall, an older supporting character looped the orgasm (for a whole weekend IIRC) and it changed his outlook on life. I believe he immediately retired from working, didn't he? My memory is spotty on the torture part. Wasn't the point that the victim died while his thoughts were being recorded?