PDA

View Full Version : Why do they call it "science fiction"?



nebularain
2002-Jun-26, 05:17 PM
It seems like most of these tv shows and movies that lable themselves as "scince fiction" have a lot more fiction in them than science. More to the point, their "science" is fiction. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

CJSF
2002-Jun-26, 05:54 PM
I have always considered most Sci-Fi - especially the more "mass market" sci-fi to be more Science or Future Fantasy myself. This isn't meant as an insult either. It just seems to fit. There has always been a close tie between Sci-Fi and Fantasy anyway. I remember when I used to get Isaac Asimov's sci-fi magazine a number of years ago that many of the stories were more firmly rooted in the Fantasy genre than Sci-Fi.

CJSF

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jun-26, 07:51 PM
Same reason they call it "reality TV".

It's just a label, not a description.

Silas
2002-Jun-26, 08:47 PM
On 2002-06-26 13:54, Christopher Ferro wrote:
I have always considered most Sci-Fi - especially the more "mass market" sci-fi to be more Science or Future Fantasy myself. This isn't meant as an insult either. It just seems to fit. There has always been a close tie between Sci-Fi and Fantasy anyway. I remember when I used to get Isaac Asimov's sci-fi magazine a number of years ago that many of the stories were more firmly rooted in the Fantasy genre than Sci-Fi.

CJSF



Asimov's is a magazine dedicated to "imaginative fiction." If you want hard science in your sci fi, subscribe to Analog.

(You know how, when you get a magazine, you have to go through it and pull out all the blow-in cards? With Analog, you have to shake out a few nuts, bolts, and diodes.)

Silas

sadprince
2002-Jun-27, 01:57 PM
Who is/are "THEY"?


Anybody else wonder who these undefined people are that keep appearing in so many debates? Hmmm come to think of it "they" might not be people at all. I'm off to the Lunar Conspiracy section to see what "they" are plotting...

beskeptical
2002-Jun-27, 08:04 PM
On 2002-06-27 09:57, sadprince wrote:
Who is/are "THEY"?


Anybody else wonder who these undefined people are that keep appearing in so many debates? Hmmm come to think of it "they" might not be people at all. I'm off to the Lunar Conspiracy section to see what "they" are plotting...


Don't you know? According to Gary Larson, its a guy named Bernie Horowitz.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jul-17, 10:19 AM
On 2002-06-27 09:57, sadprince wrote:
Who is/are "THEY"?




Rip Torn as "MiB Chief Z (Zed)" in the original Men in Black (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119654)
You'll dress only in attire specially sanctioned by MiB special services. You'll conform to the identity we give you, eat where we tell you, live where we tell you. From now on you'll have no identifying marks of any kind. You'll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You're a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don't exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black.


I guess They are!

g99
2002-Jul-17, 05:37 PM
I've always thought that Sci-Fi stood for Science Fiction and if it was fantasy it was fantasy. Just look at Books-A-Million, it is not the Sci-Fi section, it is the Science fiction and fantasy section.

P.S. "They" are a group estremely mad chickens wanting to get us back for KFC and Wnedy's spicy chicken sandwich (mmmm..Wendys...I'm hungry now, now see what you have made me do, *******s.)

Azpod
2002-Jul-17, 07:27 PM
On 2002-07-17 13:37, g99 wrote:
I've always thought that Sci-Fi stood for Science Fiction and if it was fantasy it was fantasy. Just look at Books-A-Million, it is not the Sci-Fi section, it is the Science fiction and fantasy section.


/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif Like the "they" hypothesis. Actually, I have always seen sci-fi and fantasy as two sides of the same coin. With the number of sci-fi/fantasy novels that are blending the two (robotic dragons, hologram elves, et cetera), it's no surprise that the sci-fi and fantasy genres are lumped together.

The primary difference between sci-fi and fantasy is what it inspires people to do. Sci-fi inspires people to wonder if a warp drive is even possible, and when they do serious research, they may advance our real-life technology just a little bit. Fantasy inspires people to wonder if magic could be real, and when they do serious research, they either feel like a complete idiot, or make millions by marketing their "psychic network" over late night cable TV.

Of course, there is always the nutcase that decides that actually building a robotic dragon sounds like a good idea. I don't even want to speculate on what the outcome of someone seriously trying to do that would be...! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Jim
2002-Jul-17, 07:44 PM
From Isaac Asimov:
"Of all the branches of literature, science fiction is the most modern. It is the one literary response to the problems peculiar to our own day and no other... Science fiction is continually lumped under the heading of 'escape literature,' and usually as the most extreme kind, in fact. Yet it does not escape into the 'isn't' as most fiction does, of the 'never was' as fantasy does, but into the 'just possibly might be.' It is an odd form of escape literature that worried its readers with atom bombs, overpopulation, bacterial warfare, trips to the moon, and other such phenomena decades before the rest of the world had to take up the problems. (Would that the rest of the world had listened sooner!) No, no, if science fiction escapes, it is an escape into reality." (from his 1957 essay "Escape Into Reality")

BTW, the Big Three (Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein) along with their favorite editor and fellow author John Campbell never called it "sci-fi." To them it was "SF." "Sci-fi" was considered a derogatory term by them, reserved for fiction that purported to be scientific, but didn't mind ignoring the rules of science when they got in the way of the story. (Think "science fantasy." Think "Sci-Fi Channel.")

g99
2002-Jul-17, 09:55 PM
I think it should be a requirement that all world leaders must have read at least ten SF (or Sci-Fi, or Sci then Fi, or...Whatever) If that was true we would actually for the first time worry about our kids lives and our kids, kids lives instead of just our lives. Basically now all we care about is making our lives as comfortable as possible. If we just read some of the possibiblites and thought of the future and propose "what if's?" we might just start thinking..."Hmmm...Maybe making a SUV with the span of the Grand Canyon and the length of the Nile river with a highway gas mileage under perfect conditions of 3 MPG(or 5KPG [i think?]) And start thinking about making safer stuff. Who knows maybe the new motto would be "screw ourselves, save the future!!!"


Wouldn't that be cool, a new political party. The Sciene fiction party. I can just see it now...

Cnn reporter: "The new president of the united states Clark Heinlen Azimov from the Sci-Fi party has just won the national elections. As his first official order, he has banned all movie companies from making good books into VERY BAD MOVIES. He has now reached an unprecidented 100% popularity rating"

xriso
2002-Jul-17, 10:24 PM
fiction science /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-18, 10:03 AM
On 2002-07-17 17:55, g99 wrote:
If that was true we would actually for the first time worry about our kids lives and our kids, kids lives instead of just our lives. Basically now all we care about is making our lives as comfortable as possible. If we just read some of the possibiblites and thought of the future and propose "what if's?" we might just start thinking..."Hmmm...Maybe making a SUV with the span of the Grand Canyon and the length of the Nile river with a highway gas mileage under perfect conditions of 3 MPG(or 5KPG [i think?]) And start thinking about making safer stuff.

Don't go there g99, or we'll consume the entire extent of the BA's resources, and then some.

It is interesting that you take a shot at SUVs from within a paragraph advocating safety for our children. You do realize that SUVs are safer--if you're in them?

starrymom12
2002-Jul-18, 02:43 PM
Look at he Sci Fi channel...a LOT more fiction than reality there..almost all fantasy. Most of what they run is unusually bad Science..but I will admit there is plenty of fiction, just check out the daily program listing. I know, I know..it is on T.V. to entertain the masses, and I do know that most of the masses wouldn't recognize REAL science if it bit them on the nose. This from a mother who has desperately been trying to bring astronomy into the lives of children, only to hear last January at a talk to some 6th graders.."Are we in contact with people on the other planets in our solar system" (!!??) And "How many UFO's have you seen while outside at night with your telescope?" I hated to upset the poor things..but there are no other people in our solar system, and I haven't seen any UFO's, only two strange light...and I could not say that the lights were powered by intelligent life. Considering that the two reality type shows running on Sci Fi are Sightings, and Crossing Over with John Edwards, it's no wonder that kids grow up confused about reality in science. And of course, channels like Discovery and The Learning Channel, and even the History Channel run ghost, ufo, and alien shows with alarming frequency. I read Clarke, Asimov, Dick, and Bradbury while growing up. These authors wrote science fiction to inspire..or make us think. I haven't read much science fiction at all any more, most of the books at the local bookstores seem to feature scantily dressed females, and males who look like they do nothing in life but lift weights...maybe the future is home gyms and steroids..lol, and it's already here. Starrymom12

informant
2002-Jul-18, 04:30 PM
The SciFi Channel doesn't seem like a good standard for "science fiction" -- or even for quality -- right now. ("Crossing Over with John Edwards"? Say what?!)
But there are others.

g99
2002-Jul-18, 05:28 PM
On 2002-07-18 06:03, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Don't go there g99, or we'll consume the entire extent of the BA's resources, and then some.

It is interesting that you take a shot at SUVs from within a paragraph advocating safety for our children. You do realize that SUVs are safer--if you're in them?



Ahh. But just think of the posibilities...A president that cares about the future and not just their pocketbook.

P.S. What about the kid in the other car?

Imagine this, a SUV sv. a VW Bug Who would survive? Any one...Any one...Buler...Buler...(i do get off topic sometimes, my mind is very random)

But going back on topic...(i like the elypse, very gramatically incorrect) I agree with starrymom12, she is absolutle right. I love reading the idealized visions of the future of the 60's and even 70's. What happened to those ideas. Many of them are very feasible. Whta happened to people so interested in space. I was born in 81 and i remember when i was a kids everyone wantingf to be an asronaught when they grew up and everyone reading about how cool space is. But now kids probobly cant even name all 9 (10?) planets , nor care at all about going into space.

I miss all of the heinlens and haldemans', and clarks in novels today. There are very few authors today that still write in that type of fashion. Did anyone else here read those novels as a kid and still wish now to bo an astornaut? (i know i am writing to a biased audience, but it still counts) How many of your friends think is it geeky and stupid to think about space? I actually applaud anything that gets people interested in space. Even if it is a absolutly horrible movie. Who knows, maybe we will one day loose this ertocentric attitude and start looking to the srats again instead of looking solely at the ground under our feet. We need a new frontier. We are getting lazy, stagnant, and bored in our lives. We need adventure and action. Who knows maybe some new writer will write some good SF and get peopel intertested in the future. Or best of all, maybe a SF junky will become the predident (or pirme minister) or your country and get more money to space programs.

nebularain
2002-Jul-18, 08:04 PM
On 2002-07-18 13:28, g99 wrote:
Whta happened to people so interested in space. I was born in 81 and i remember when i was a kids everyone wantingf to be an asronaught when they grew up and everyone reading about how cool space is. But now kids probobly cant even name all 9 (10?) planets , nor care at all about going into space.


This is just a guess, but a lot of it might have had to do with the "hype" of the time (that might be the wrong word, but I couldn't think of a better term). The "Space Race" began in the '60's and that thrill carried on for many years after lunar landings. Then in the early '80's the space shuttles were developed and running. There was more exitement generated from that which likewise carried over for years. For a while, teacher's would sacrifice class time so we could all watch the shuttles launching! But since then, there hasn't been anything so "thrilling" develop that's stirred the interest of the general public.

g99
2002-Jul-18, 08:19 PM
So why no make it thrilling again? A shuttle launch is still cool. A landing is still a spectacle. Why not nationally telivize it? Why not go to the moon again or mars? Yes it will cost alot, but it will help in the long run. Add advertising on the ships. Have the Coke shuttle and the Pepsi lander. Who cares what stickers are on it, as long as they get there and people are watching and are interested in it. We can have the Taco bell mission to mars. Why not?

Azpod
2002-Jul-18, 10:58 PM
On 2002-07-18 16:19, g99 wrote:
So why no make it thrilling again? A shuttle launch is still cool. A landing is still a spectacle. Why not nationally telivize it? Why not go to the moon again or mars? Yes it will cost alot, but it will help in the long run. Add advertising on the ships. Have the Coke shuttle and the Pepsi lander. Who cares what stickers are on it, as long as they get there and people are watching and are interested in it. We can have the Taco bell mission to mars. Why not?



We have that dude from NSync heading to the ISS. Well... er... the Russians do. Hmm... and the Chinese are talking about a Moon shot. Last I heard, some senator or another was talking about pulling the plug on U.S. manned spaceflight altogether. I guess we'll just have to settle for watching on TV when someone from another nation becomes the first human on Mars, because the U.S. doesn't seem to care anymore.

Here's to hoping that doesn't stay true for long.

David Hall
2002-Jul-19, 03:08 AM
On 2002-07-18 16:19, g99 wrote:

We can have the Taco bell mission to mars. Why not?


Aargh. Now why'd you have to go mentioning Taco Bell. Mexican food is one of the things that's very difficult to come by over here. I never appreciated the ubiquity of TB until it wasn't there any more. (Can't get good ol' down home southern cooking either. Oh, the sacrifices I make.) <font size="-1">Can you tell I'm hungry now? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif</font>

Anyway, back *off*-topic. How about this SUV?

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg (http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html)
http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg
http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

While you're at it check out the SUV safety myth and other problems with them from the same site:
http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons1.html
http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html
http://poseur.4x4.org/ (main page)

Ok, now on to *on*-topic stuff. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

The public unfortunately has a very short attention span. They don't keep interest in anything for very long. That's why Apollo vanished from TV so quickly. That's why the Shuttle launches vanished so quickly. And combine it with the fact that most people just don't understand space science and just aren't interested in science in general, and you have something that's just tailor-made to die out fast.

They might be able to light a spark with something truly new and exciting, but unless they can keep it fresh, it's just going to go away again. Remember the Simpson's episode with Homer and the shuttle? That's what I'm talking about.

But there is one nice thing about modern media that wasn't true back in the 60's or the early 80's. Now we have cable and satellite tv, and the internet. Anyone who is interested has all the access the want. At least now we don't have to bow to the will of the masses just because they aren't interested. Minority interests have more freedom now than ever before, and I think that's great! Maybe it will eventually lead to greater things. One can hope, can't he?
_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(messed up the tags again!)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-07-18 23:13 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Jul-19, 12:45 PM
On 2002-07-18 16:19, g99 wrote:
So why no make it thrilling again? A shuttle launch is still cool. A landing is still a spectacle. Why not nationally telivize it? Why not go to the moon again or mars? Yes it will cost alot, but it will help in the long run. Add advertising on the ships. Have the Coke shuttle and the Pepsi lander. Who cares what stickers are on it, as long as they get there and people are watching and are interested in it. We can have the Taco bell mission to mars. Why not?


All joking aside about Lance Bass of NSYNC going up to the ISS , this article (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/17/tourist.bass/index.html) form Space.com discusses how MTV will be one of the sponsors of his flight. If his flight sparks some interest in those people who yawn every time NASA is mentioned, it’s a good thing, IMO.

CJSF
2002-Jul-19, 01:44 PM
On 2002-07-18 23:08, David Hall wrote:
...the fact that most people just don't understand space science and just aren't interested in science in general...


You know, I hear this and similar statements all the time. In the U.S. "we" spend so much time focusing on getting kids interested in math and science. We hammer it into parents' brains that "we" are so far behind in math and science. And "we" are, to some extent, compared to many other countries.

But the problem is that "we" aren't just math and science illiterate. We are generally illiterate. I think the state of education in fundamental disciplines like history and geography are FAR worse than math and science. Lack of historical and geographic perspectives on our society and lives is a major contributor to the state of affairs in this country. Those perspectives tell us who we are, why we are here, and what it all means. They are essential to individual and group identity. They are essential to cultural diversity in any society. We are even further behind other countries in our "non" science education, in my opinion.

And don't get me started on arts education! These are much more neglected than math and science.

CJSF

g99
2002-Jul-19, 05:47 PM
Here is aletter to the editor of our local compus newspaper that iw rote a while ago about the education problem in florida:

Face it, our education system sucks. Many Americans do not know anything about other nations, or the world in general. Let me cite A personal example: I was watching the morning talk show "The other Half" this morning. During the show, the guest star asked the audience of intelligent men and women if they knew the capital of canada. "Quebec? Ontario?" NO!! How can 200 (estimate) not know the capital of one of the largest countries in the world, and not to mention our next door neighbor (the answer is Ottawa by the way). We can't blame it on the teachers (some are bad, but many are very good) because they barely make enough to support themselves, and a family. The average pay for a teacher in florida is (according to FEA [www.feaweb.org]) was $38,719 in 2001, while the national average was $44,004. The florida salary has seen a $300 decrease since 1998. While the national average has seen a $500 increase! This is not the only problem plaguing American schools. The Florida education system report card given by the FEA gives Florida 4 F's, 3 D's, and a C. The only thing to make a C was the overall spending as a % of the budget. This was 19.4% in 2001 while the national average was 22.6%. The kids are not getting dumber, just we are having to teach less and spend more time on one subject so we can teach all 26 kids in the average class. With the new standardized testing measures, (i'm not going to even get into the troubles that will get us into) teachers are going to have to teach to the test and not the essential material all kids should know. The graduation rate for kids in high school has been consistently dropping from 57% average in 1998 to an abysmal 51.4% in 2001, for Florida. Finally the worst of all. Florida ranks 49th in the nation in per capita state expenditures for all education. While I know that just pending more on schools will not fix the problem. But how is it going to get better when the average school has no library book younger then 1985, several schools have no computers, and some have to make their kids share textbooks? Buy lottery tickets, donate to your schools, do something, anything to give them more money. Most important of all write to the governor and ask them to do something to pull florida out of the gutter!! If you want to check this out for yourself go to: http://www.feaweb.org or http://www.nea.org and see for yourself.


Yes the american eduaction system sucks. We give money to rich schools and take money away from poor schools. Does that make any sense?

g99
2002-Jul-19, 05:54 PM
Anther thing: What do we have to do to get people interested in space again? Hold contests like jeopardy and send the winner into space? Maybe make a hotel in space. I think another reason noone cares about space is the fact that when you hear space, the average person thinks "Geek". Space is the real of science, it is experimanets and the governemnt. If we allow the common person to go into space, maybe that will change things. Make another shuttle, this time converted to only hold people and no cargo. Send as many people up as possible and into space. Dont go to ISS, because that is stupid to send joe schmoe to there and disrupt work. Make a hotel otut of the used extra fuel tanks (the big red thing) that are dropped from the shuttle ( i saw a plan in Popular Mecuanics for this, i dont remember what issue). Hell take them to the moon for a couple of days and back, make for a hell of an anaversary present.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-19, 06:20 PM
On 2002-07-19 13:47, g99 wrote:
Let me cite A personal example: I was watching the morning talk show "The other Half" this morning. During the show, the guest star asked the audience of intelligent men and women if they knew the capital of canada. "Quebec? Ontario?" NO!! How can 200 (estimate) not know the capital of one of the largest countries in the world, and not to mention our next door neighbor (the answer is Ottawa by the way).

There is a problem with fact-based analysis of educational systems, of course. Canada may be one of the largest countries (I think it is fourth now, after the Euro /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ), but it is way down the list when it comes to population, maybe 35th.

Hey, the USA president has been making overtures to Poland, which has more people than Canada? Do you all know the capital of Poland?

SeanF
2002-Jul-19, 06:45 PM
On 2002-07-19 14:20, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Do you all know the capital of Poland?


About a buck ninety-eight? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

(What's the BBcode for a rim-shot?)

g99
2002-Jul-19, 07:30 PM
Here is another matter, How many girls out there (including ones reading this board) read SF? Is it like 70/30 Male/Female or worse? No offense to the female population here, but traditionally Females do not read SF or are good at science or math (just for your info, my mother is a biologists and my girlfriend is a wiz at math, but they both hate SF). Could this be the reason why our society has gone away from those subjects. Think back, in the early 70's and 60's almost everything was geared towards males, thus major leaning towards maths and sciences. But nowadays women are a very large part of everything, so to compensate, maybe in our schools and society overall we have put less emphasis on science and math, and more on unisex studies. Does this make any sense?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-19, 07:45 PM
Calling Podkayne, Podkayne of Mars...

g99
2002-Jul-19, 08:35 PM
I know is housd be getting this, i am going to feel really stupid after, but who is Podkayne?

g99
2002-Jul-19, 08:37 PM
Should, not housed

Silas
2002-Jul-19, 08:51 PM
On 2002-07-19 16:35, g99 wrote:
I know is housd be getting this, i am going to feel really stupid after, but who is Podkayne?



"Podkayne of Mars" was one of Robert Heinlein's "juvenile" science fiction novels. It's pretty good, actually.

(My favorite of them, though, is "Tunnel in the Sky.")

(Another good one is "Rite of Passage" by Alexei Panshin: this is sometimes described as "The best Heinlein juvenile that Heinlein didn't actually write.")

Silas

g99
2002-Jul-19, 09:34 PM
I liked tunnel in the sky. But Red planet was the best.

Wiley
2002-Jul-19, 10:08 PM
I wanna know how can you can pick a "best" Heinlein "juvie" novel. "Tunnel in the Sky" or "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" or "Red Planet"; I like 'em all.

g99
2002-Jul-19, 10:48 PM
True, very ture...How about starship toopers (the original version)? Some of heinlens got very weird. The one about the kids and mutants on a giant colony ship( i can't remmeber the name) was very weird. Another wierd but one of my favorites was "the Sixth column" about a couple of physicists and army people trying to fight against a bunch of asian invaders who have tqken over the country.

David Hall
2002-Jul-20, 07:32 AM
Now the subject was Heinlein's juveniles, so Starship Troopers doesn't count. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

The colony ship with mutants was Orphans of the Sky, and I know because that was the book that introduced me to SF way back in JHS. I'd love to re-read it someday if I can get my hands on it.

Let's see. 'Tunnel' is one of my favorites. So was 'Farmer in the Sky' after I got over the silly title. 'The Rolling Stones' was good for showing you planetary mechanics. One of my favorites was 'Citizen of the Galaxy'.

A.C. Clarke had a good one (I forget the title) about a boy who wins a trip to anywhere in the world, and he chooses one of the communications relays in geosynchronous orbit (he gets away with it due to the fine print).

This was written before communications satellites were really developed, so Clarke was using the story to demonstrate his concept. He originally thought you'd need 3 manned relays in a triangular formation to handle all the communications traffic on Earth.

g99
2002-Jul-20, 04:39 PM
Clark thought of it, because he NVENTED the first communication satelite. Not only hwas he a good author, he was a genious. He also invented a new type of telescope, a radio telescope i think.

g99
2002-Jul-20, 04:41 PM
invented not nvented ( i really suck at spelling, excuse my bad grammar too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

David Hall
2002-Jul-20, 07:10 PM
On 2002-07-20 12:39, g99 wrote:
Clark thought of it, because he NVENTED the first communication satelite. Not only hwas he a good author, he was a genious. He also invented a new type of telescope, a radio telescope i think.

That's what I said. Clarke was using the story to illustrate his concept of geostationary communications satellites. You bet he was a genious! (Still is by the way) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

But I don't remember ever hearing that he had anything to do with radio (or any other kind of) telescopes. It wouldn't surprise me though. Anybody know anything about this?

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-20, 09:28 PM
Clarke may or may not be a genius (that depends on your definition of the word). But as someone who has met the man in person, I can testify that he is also a world-class egotist and self-promoter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

darkhunter
2002-Nov-08, 01:43 PM
How about the high school I went to--jocks had all new equipment, uniforms, weight room--the works....and there were several classes without books and even some classes required by the state not taught at all due to lack of funding!

The problem is that the priorities in the school system are wrong when it comes to putting a bunch of jock into new gear at the expense of real education

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-08, 01:52 PM
On 2002-11-08 08:43, darkhunter wrote:
The problem is that the priorities in the school system are wrong when it comes to putting a bunch of jock into new gear at the expense of real education
I've been a member of the high school athletic booster club, and they really get excited about fundraising for athletics--some of the money even overflows into academic programs. Most of the big ticket things weren't paid for by the school board. Even in a youth-oriented society, if you can get the parents excited about something, you can get the kids.

Somehow, I missed Sean's answer to my trivia question, earlier. I'll get you for it. When you least expect it, expect it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SeanF
2002-Nov-08, 03:32 PM
On 2002-11-08 08:52, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Somehow, I missed Sean's answer to my trivia question, earlier. I'll get you for it. When you least expect it, expect it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


That's okay, I'm used to being ignored. And I always expect the unexpected from you, Grapes, except when you expect me to. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

But when you do "get me," make it obvious, will you? I'm still trying to figure out what you meant here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2129&forum=6&start=4) . . .


_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2002-11-08 10:32 ]</font>

informant
2002-Nov-08, 05:42 PM
GrapesOfWrath wrote:

There is a problem with fact-based analysis of educational systems, of course. Canada may be one of the largest countries (I think it is fourth now, after the Euro ), but it is way down the list when it comes to population, maybe 35th.

I suppose you're referring to the European Union. It isn't a country. It's several countries.

informant
2002-Nov-08, 05:46 PM
'Podkayne of Mars' may be a fun novel (it is, for the most part), but it's also one of the most sexist stories I've ever read. Like much of Heinlein's works, as a matter of fact.

How's that for a reason why women don't like SF as much as men?

Jetmech0417
2002-Nov-08, 08:53 PM
We can have the Taco bell mission to mars. Why not?

First words on Mars: "Houston, the Chihuahua has landed."

Yo quiero Mars.

Jetmech0417
2002-Nov-08, 09:03 PM
On 2002-07-19 14:20, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Do you all know the capital of Poland?


Warsaw, if I'm not mistaken.

jokergirl
2002-Nov-10, 02:19 PM
On 2002-07-19 15:30, g99 wrote:
Here is another matter, How many girls out there (including ones reading this board) read SF? Is it like 70/30 Male/Female or worse?

*raises a hand*
(for the people who don't care to check nicks, I'll insist again on being female /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ).
I'm a girl, I'm a scifi freak, I study comp sci. But this is pretty rare, and from what I've seen and heard, it's even more rare here in Europe than in the US of A.



No offense to the female population here, but traditionally Females do not read SF or are good at science or math (just for your info, my mother is a biologists and my girlfriend is a wiz at math, but they both hate SF). Could this be the reason why our society has gone away from those subjects.

Once again, I'll blame education for the effect, not the other way round!
I think most girls just never get in touch with/are overall not expected to show interest in scientific subjects. Actually, the sense of logic is at least equally distributed in both sexes, and I've seen many girls do quite well in subjects usually known as "male domains". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Another question which I guess fits this thread: What's the matter with the Final Fantasy movie? Shouldn't it rather be "Final SciFi"?


/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

g99
2002-Nov-10, 05:59 PM
On 2002-11-10 09:19, jokergirl wrote:
Once again, I'll blame education for the effect, not the other way round!
I think most girls just never get in touch with/are overall not expected to show interest in scientific subjects. Actually, the sense of logic is at least equally distributed in both sexes, and I've seen many girls do quite well in subjects usually known as "male domains". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

To defend my argument a little: I was not blaming biology, i was blaming upbringing. That is why i mentioned that my girlfreind and mother were into those fields. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I agree with you that it is mainly education also. People in america are getting worse and worse education each year. No pay for teachers and more money going to keeping Mr. or Ms. Moneybags drinking chambagne and keeping their 50,000 square foot home cool than goes to schools. We now teach more to keeping the kids passing the standardized tests every year than the subjects we are supposed to teach. While we are advancing technologically, we are getting dumber with each generation.


But it is also the way they are braught up. In the U.S.A. (at least), girls are still braught up to not really care about the physical science fields and more about the social science fields (like you said /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif). That is slowly changing (hopefully it will change faster /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif), but it still happens. If you don't believe me, go to your local university and look up the ratio's in engineering, education, and in psychology. Look at popular magazines. Girl mags still only talk about guys, makeup, clothes, and how to get thin. Guy mags talk about girls, how to get fit, and cool technology. Guys are bought legos and war toys. Teaching engineering and physics (you point this nerf gun just above the head of your freind who is 20 ft away and it will hit him right in the head). Girls are baught diaries and barbies. See a difference? Mentally we are equal in every way, but since we are young it is beat into us to be different.



I am glad that you are breaking steryotypes. More people should. Good luck in the Computer Science field!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif





Another question which I guess fits this thread: What's the matter with the Final Fantasy movie? Shouldn't it rather be "Final SciFi"?


/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



I only saw a part of the movie, but i thought that is was considreed fanatasy b/c of the spirits part. Otherwise i have no clue. But great graphics!!!!

jokergirl
2002-Nov-10, 06:48 PM
You're expressing my thoughts exactly.
Hm, science stuff for girl's christmas presents? I'd say that buying the boys some Barbie dolls would make a nice change, too... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



I only saw a part of the movie, but i thought that is was considreed fanatasy b/c of the spirits part. Otherwise i have no clue. But great graphics!!!!


&lt;SPOILER>
Yeah, but the spirits turned out to be actually aliens (or the ghosts of aliens, in that case), so this would still qualify as SF, IMO.
Though all that Gaia stuff was pretty esoteric to me, anyways...
&lt;/SPOILER>

Still, with all the futuristic setting, I guess the only reason it's still called Final Fantasy is that the FF team made the movie (and there probably will be a game about that, too...).
But yeah, the graphics were great to some extent. The "people"? Creepy, IMO. They may make great graphics, but their characters are lousy actors.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

David Hall
2002-Nov-10, 06:54 PM
I would call Final Fantasy a crossover series, combining SF and Fantasy aspects in one unit. People just seem to occasionally want to blend the two genres. The Shadowrun RPG was another example of this. Cyberpunk elves and such. Personally, I've never liked crossovers myself. They always seemed forced to me, like mixing oil and water.

nebularain
2002-Nov-10, 09:36 PM
My experience:
Men and women do have natural differences. For instance, women tend to "transport" a car when they are behind the wheel; men actually "drive" the car (you know, there is a difference between driving and driving!). I know my dad and my brother talk often of "becoming one with the car" - whatever that means, I can't do it. In the same way, men tend to be more into competition; women tend to be more into relating. Granted, there is cross-over, and there are men who are more into relationships than others, and there are women who get more into competition than others, but these are general, majority situations. Personally, I enjoy competition, but it doesn't drive me the way it tends to with guys. Winning makes me feel good, but it doesn't "puff me up" so to speak (I hope I'm making sense here). So, upbringing or not, men will be more inclined towards sci-fi (action, adventure, battles, techno toys, awesome aliens) than women (me, I don't care how "cool" the special effects are if story is lame on the character-relationships side of the story; of course, the show better have action and effects and what-not). But, I prefer sci-fi and fantasy to other types of genre.

And, yes, fantasy/sci-fi do tend to be put into the same catagory; just check the bookstores and video stores.

g99
2002-Nov-11, 12:02 AM
I think we all agree on our differences. we were trying to decide (or at least i was /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) why we have those differences.
Men and women are different. I will give you that, but everything you described is purely social. Some are biological. Men are more spacial, women more visual. This probobly helped in anciant times. Men needed to know how to get away and how to find their way home after hunting for days on end. And women neede better visual centers to find and differenciate the poisinous and healthy foods that they can gather. (and men did hunt and women did gather, stop being P.C. folks. It has been shown that way. And to make you feel better, the gathering of food was a significantly greater percentage of the diet than hunted food.) That way, it is bilogical. But men being competitive and women going more for romance and plotlines in stories is purely social differences.

And for movies, heck yah i love action and special effects. But if the movie has no plot, i don't enjoy it nearly as much. I come out of the movie "That sucked!". (A good example was Star Wars: Episode 2. A horrible movie weith great effects but really bad acting.)

jokergirl
2002-Nov-11, 01:20 AM
On 2002-11-10 19:02, g99 wrote:
Men are more spacial, women more visual. This probobly helped in anciant times. Men needed to know how to get away and how to find their way home after hunting for days on end. And women neede better visual centers to find and differenciate the poisinous and healthy foods that they can gather. (and men did hunt and women did gather, stop being P.C. folks. It has been shown that way. And to make you feel better, the gathering of food was a significantly greater percentage of the diet than hunted food.)

Ah, i've noticed this before (so THAT is why i have no orientation skills worth a euro-cent o.o). I give you that many of such clichés are actually true to some extent (or have reasonable explanations).
Still, i don't think that women would do worse in any technical matters, nor can i really believe the reason for less women liking SF is to be found there (except, maybe, that most SF is written by males - for males?)


And for movies, heck yah i love action and special effects. But if the movie has no plot, i don't enjoy it nearly as much. I come out of the movie "That sucked!". (A good example was Star Wars: Episode 2. A horrible movie weith great effects but really bad acting.)


The worst in Episode 2 was that it actually TRIED to have a plot /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif
IMHO, movies that actually have no plot (most of them pure shockers, but still) give me a better feeling coming out of the theatre than those who try and fail horribly. I blame Hollywood. Hey, most of the people down there are gonna die in 30 minutes anyway! What do we need to know their back-story for? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

PS: I think Shadowrun still rocks. Not because of the SF/Fantasy crossover, but because it's one of the few RPGames that actually have a more complicated setting than "A long time ago, in a [insert name of feudalistic system here] far far away..."
Hey, they even have Big Bad Companies! (Though they are called Renraku, not Microsoft)

g99
2002-Nov-11, 03:23 AM
On of the best games, while not sci fi, but had a amaziong plot was Max Paine. Really cool and vbery intriguing story.

Some of the best Sci Fi games i have played are Starcraft and AvP2. (yah i'm a geek, but darn am i proud of it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

For Sci Fi movies i loved: The Abyss, Aliens (o.k. plot, but great action), E.T., Spaceballs (no movie list is credable without that in it /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif), and some others i can;t think of right now (most 80's + 90's movies).

I have never gotten into fantasy in books, games, or movies (well hard core fantasy). But I did see harry potter and Lord of the Rings (because of all of the hype) and thought that they were both very good plotwise and acting.

I also agree with you that is is rare to get a good sci-fantasy movie. Heck it is rare to even find one. I just don't think there is a market for it. If you were a hollywood exec. would you make a movie that will be a guaranteed sell for atleast a couple of weeks but know it will be bad, or make a chancy movie that might be great but only be seen by die hard geeks?

nebularain
2002-Nov-11, 03:43 AM
On 2002-11-10 22:23, g99 wrote:
I also agree with you that is is rare to get a good sci-fantasy movie. Heck it is rare to even find one. I just don't think there is a market for it. If you were a hollywood exec. would you make a movie that will be a guaranteed sell for atleast a couple of weeks but know it will be bad, or make a chancy movie that might be great but only be seen by die hard geeks?

Well, the key word there is "good". If it's a good movie, everyone will go to see it no matter what the genre. I can think of some movies that could fit with the sci-fantasy theme that were really dumb (can we say Ice Pirates?)

I remember seeing a trailer for a new Prince Caspian movie that for some reason never hit the theaters. One day, many years later, I saw it on t.v., well, I caught the last 20 minutes of it, and then I could see why. It was so B-grade I could have choked! Definantly worthy Mystery Science Theater 3000 material. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif