io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:30 AM
Fri Nov 27
13 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
03/17/09
She also thought of using technology to grow parts of animals for meat in a "nice, clean vat" and explained how this fit into an ethical society, so I was surprised (I should know better, I know) at the uproar of, "Oh, yuk, creepy!" when PETA announced its contest to come up with a similar technology.
03/17/09
My reaction against the contest was just b/c "oh, yuk, creepy!" is my reaction to PETA.
03/17/09
I'm not barking creationism since it is considered to be fool speak, but scientist is so far up the buttocks of science fiction, it is the scifi authors who needs to take ideas from them (the theoretical scientist). These morons say to the masses, 'there is no creator and here's why', THEY SPEW: big bang, planck constant, cosmic chaotic principals (though the universe spews symmetry) and all other forms of random events. Yet the universe doesn't behave that way, light only goes 185,000 miles a second and so on and so forth. There is no way to accelerate the speed of light, except (say the stupid theoretical hypocrites) a few seconds after the big bang. Nonsense right? 'No' you say,'it must have happened.' Yet you can never prove that, just like for now, I can't prove that God exist beyond the obvious (Universal constant and the existence of human life) but, neither can those lying bastards prove the big bang, but yet they're given kudos and every one applauds them for a job well done, even though it is based on a lie that cannot be proven. the dune series was the best of the best, the prequels not so much, but the sequels were massively brilliant. All of dune's concepts make far more sense and is even more feasible than theoretical scientist, but of course you would say God doesn't exist and will never exist, but, they now (those lying bastards who perhaps watched too much SG1) say we live in an infinite universe and continual perpetual big bangs and other universes or 'branes' sodomizing ours and the energy released is converted by some mysterious force into: all that we know causing, another big bang. And they say God is nonsense. Black energy, Black matter, no way they could prove them and their excuse is, we can't prove it exist, but it must exist. And yet a creator is impossible?
It is a pity Dune never spoke of an actual point of creation, because then I'd use that as a more believable event than the absolutely philosophical nonsense these people follow. Physics is proven theories, Philosophy is an unprovable ideology, which requires more faith than proof. But according to most numb nuts, there is no God and we all came from our universe being sodomized by another one, philosopher kings indeed.
03/17/09
03/17/09
03/17/09
Is it because it's electric?
03/17/09
03/17/09
Ethics without science is religious superstition-- science without ethics is, well, damn scary.
Not because science itself is scary-- it's just science, it's just learning how the world works-- it's the *applied* science part that rightly worries folks.
Everyone needs to talk to each other, it's as simple as that.
03/17/09
A company is highering an engineer. They have three aplicants come in for interviews.
The first is a fresh from college kid. At the end of the interview they ask the kid "Whats 2+2?"
Kid says "4".
Next they interview a person with a masters. At the end of the interview "whats 2+2?"
The master replies "well I have heard as high as 5 and as low as 6"
At last they interview a PhD and at the end, the same question.
The PhD engineer leans forward and says "What would you like it to be?"
It was funny until I started to see just how true the last part was. I still have my fresh from college ethics and lets just say, they don't work in the modern work place.
03/17/09
Apollo 13 anyone? "Gentlemen, you 4 hours to connect this round filter to this square socket!"
03/17/09
As an engineer, I am very concerned that if I mess up something, some one could get hurt or die. I will not tell my boss "what ever you want it to be", I will find a way to MAKE it what ever he wants it to be.
03/17/09
The people who go around judging what "should" be done with science and putting up the laws of ethics.
Quis custodes, etc.
Also, morality is completely possible without religion -- indeed, we all know plenty of examples of immoral behavior that's sanctioned by religion.
11/19/08
Try going on Slashdot sometime and talk about that movie "Hackers" or even "Sneakers" (which is more realistic, but still...)
Thus - "real" scientists hate science fiction. "Real" advertising people hate "Mad Men." "Real" archeologist hate "The Bone Detectives" on Discovery. "Real" CSI's hate CSI. I suspect janitors and pig-shit cleaners hate "Dirty Jobs" and fishermen hate "The Deadliest Catch."
Most people take themselves FAR to seriously.
11/18/08
I would think that a lot of actual scientists became interested in science, at least partially, by reading Sci-Fi as a kid.
11/18/08
What surprises me are the negative comments.
I can't count the number of times some form of media (including novels, short stories, films, television programs, news media) have gotten something wrong about biology.
e got are Gattaca (film) and Brave New World (novel), and that's only because these dystopias were vague about the science.
11/18/08
Well there's a difference between the news getting something wrong and fiction getting something wrong. One has an obligation for information and truth. The other does not.
It's great when fiction does take itself seriously and implements actual science into its story, but it is not required. I can't understand what point these people are really trying to make. Is it every bit of sci-fi that neglects to get specific about its science, or a particular type?
11/18/08
This is such bullshit the page is turning brown. I get confronted with people who get their medical knowledge from ER and House all the time. It's all made up, but it's not SF. The people quoted here are basically saying that anything that is fiction is science fiction. CSI is not SF, it's just crap. Just because they make stuff up doesn't make it SF. The events in "Apocalypse Now" never actually happened and many of them are so outlandish they never would, that doesn't make it SF.
11/18/08
*applause*
11/18/08
Am I reading that if it aint something out of a scientific journal than it should have dragons flying around? I just don't get it. It's fiction. Is it CSI's fault that people don't know how our judicial system works? No. Is it sci-fi's fault that people don't care about the space program? Of course not. Once again people choose the "blame the media" card.
11/18/08
Film, television, and comicbook SF is a different story -- a story without much science in it.
I think it stems from the need to make it visual. The sad fact is this: scientific accuracy is hard to make visually interesting.
11/18/08
Also let's not forget a very basic fact. People watch tv for character development and story, not a science lesson.
11/18/08
11/18/08
Actually, Anathem got me thinking about ... thinking differently, Cryptonomicon had a poopload of math and was awesome, and Cthulhu f'thagn *burble*
11/18/08
But if, as Kim Hannula suggests, Science is not a cause, but an organized curiosity about the natural world, then shouldn't the merits of science fiction be evaluated with regards to how successful it pique's curiosity?
It's purely anecdotal for me, but reading about strange new sciences in books often gets me interested in understanding them.
That I never fail to be disappointed is a separate, though probably related, issue.
11/18/08
11/18/08
i'd echo the sentament on science fiction. reading sci-fi has repeaditly encouraged me to research topics i never would have considered before reading.
11/18/08
11/18/08