4. Star Trek did not have a straight man (except for a few crappy episodes). Luke barely qualified as one in Star Wars - he was not told that the Empire was evil, we were shown that by how the Empire acted against innocents.
Sure, straight men are used sometimes - but often they aren't.
3. Technology is magic - that's bulls**t. You can frame technology in terms of technology. Of course you can't explain how the holodeck works, but you can analyze it and deal with it as if it is technology. Tech that can be hacked, that can break, that can be modified, that has its own internal consistency. Where further advances can be extrapolated from the existing technology. Most people don't know how computers work - that does not make them magic.
2. All Sci-Fi Authors Are Reluctant Prophets - meh. Kind-of.
1. Science Fiction Loves the Emancipator - I don't even think this is a real thing. I think it was added just for laughs. Lincoln shows up sometimes - very rarely. In only certain types of fiction.
I kindof agree with the article about the magic technology point. To people that aren't insiders, computers aren't magic in themselves but everything that they can do mind as well be magic. A couple examples would be the "enhance that image" idea, or the ease of "hacking" some network to gleam some type of plot device.
I think futuristic technology is one step better than all-out fantasy magic, being as the technology is more tangible like you mentioned, but nothing stops a writer from turning the base components into a plot device too.
I don't think it's a big deal though, since the purpose of the plot device is just to further the story, so I don't think there's much stake in dissecting the realism of it. For instance, unobtainium from Avatar, or the Rabits Foot from Mission Impossible 3. If all it took to create a bona-fide artificial intelligence is to let the program "learn" (Doctor from Voyager) or simply the command to create an intelligent enemy (Moriarty from TNG)...if they were in the land of Wizards and Orcs casting a spell to do the same thing would be just as realistic to me.
No, I still disagree. The key difference between technology and magic is that tech can be studied, understood, disassembled, repaired, and modified.
Magic is inherently impossible to understand. With magic you either take it or leave it, without any comprehension of underlying forces - it can't be understood. It's inherently non-rational, so any attempt to understand it will fail.
That's why I am so against most fantasy, and the perception that science is magic. That encourages ignorance - it tells people that computers or electricity or TVs simply cannot be understood. So don't even try. Just use the technology blindly, on faith, without comprehending anything about it. IMHO that's a very bad attitude towards the world that should be discouraged at every turn - if you think about something, if you study, you will understand it.
Incidentally, the Doctor was not created by just letting a program "learn" - Professor Zimmerman spent years and a lot of effort working on creating the Doctor. As for Moriarty - he was a fluke of some sort that nobody really understood. To simulate living humans on the holodeck you need something pretty damned close to actual AI.
elimgarakFeb 11, 2012Buried
Meh. Bulls**t.
4. Star Trek did not have a straight man (except for a few crappy episodes). Luke barely qualified as one in Star Wars - he was not told that the Empire was evil, we were shown that by how the Empire acted against innocents.
Sure, straight men are used sometimes - but often they aren't.
3. Technology is magic - that's bulls**t. You can frame technology in terms of technology. Of course you can't explain how the holodeck works, but you can analyze it and deal with it as if it is technology. Tech that can be hacked, that can break, that can be modified, that has its own internal consistency. Where further advances can be extrapolated from the existing technology. Most people don't know how computers work - that does not make them magic.
2. All Sci-Fi Authors Are Reluctant Prophets - meh. Kind-of.
1. Science Fiction Loves the Emancipator - I don't even think this is a real thing. I think it was added just for laughs. Lincoln shows up sometimes - very rarely. In only certain types of fiction.
meccaydnaFeb 11, 2012Buried
I kindof agree with the article about the magic technology point. To people that aren't insiders, computers aren't magic in themselves but everything that they can do mind as well be magic. A couple examples would be the "enhance that image" idea, or the ease of "hacking" some network to gleam some type of plot device.
I think futuristic technology is one step better than all-out fantasy magic, being as the technology is more tangible like you mentioned, but nothing stops a writer from turning the base components into a plot device too.
I don't think it's a big deal though, since the purpose of the plot device is just to further the story, so I don't think there's much stake in dissecting the realism of it. For instance, unobtainium from Avatar, or the Rabits Foot from Mission Impossible 3. If all it took to create a bona-fide artificial intelligence is to let the program "learn" (Doctor from Voyager) or simply the command to create an intelligent enemy (Moriarty from TNG)...if they were in the land of Wizards and Orcs casting a spell to do the same thing would be just as realistic to me.
jumpyjmanFeb 11, 2012Buried
I guess you've never attended the Mage's College . They study understand and modify magic there.
elimgarakFeb 11, 2012Buried
No, I still disagree. The key difference between technology and magic is that tech can be studied, understood, disassembled, repaired, and modified.
Magic is inherently impossible to understand. With magic you either take it or leave it, without any comprehension of underlying forces - it can't be understood. It's inherently non-rational, so any attempt to understand it will fail.
That's why I am so against most fantasy, and the perception that science is magic. That encourages ignorance - it tells people that computers or electricity or TVs simply cannot be understood. So don't even try. Just use the technology blindly, on faith, without comprehending anything about it. IMHO that's a very bad attitude towards the world that should be discouraged at every turn - if you think about something, if you study, you will understand it.
Incidentally, the Doctor was not created by just letting a program "learn" - Professor Zimmerman spent years and a lot of effort working on creating the Doctor. As for Moriarty - he was a fluke of some sort that nobody really understood. To simulate living humans on the holodeck you need something pretty damned close to actual AI.
bauermdFeb 11, 2012Buried
This article did not ruin sci fi for me. How is this front page? More proof digg is dead.