Oh yeah, traditional fairy tales are like that.Sounds a bit violent.
Today I Learned #4: Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
- Thread starter Valka D'Ur
- Start date
-
- Tags
- til today i learned
- Status
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,441
I mean . . . it's gotta feel like a threat that your hero overcomes.
Some stories for kids don't have any such plot. For example those "Slovenly Peter" ones, where the kids are obliterated.
But in fairytales the standard seems to be that if you are not human, you will lose
It's why Dunsany isn't writing such fairytales; the Nuth story is excellent, and the humans don't win (one of them suffers rather terribly, the other is Nuth).
But in fairytales the standard seems to be that if you are not human, you will lose
It's why Dunsany isn't writing such fairytales; the Nuth story is excellent, and the humans don't win (one of them suffers rather terribly, the other is Nuth).
Some stories for kids don't have any such plot. For example those "Slovenly Peter" ones, where the kids are obliterated.
But in fairytales the standard seems to be that if you are not human, you will lose
It's why Dunsany isn't writing such fairytales; the Nuth story is excellent, and the humans don't win (one of them suffers rather terribly, the other is Nuth).
The kids in Hans Christian Andersen's stories usually starve or freeze or die in various neglectful ways, or they manage to pull off a miracle and escape.
The Grimm's Fairy Tales stories gave me nightmares at times, and my 6-year-old self became terrified of mud puddles as a result of one of them. I was absolutely convinced that I'd sink into them and drown like the girl in the story.
It took years to get over that, to the point that it was actually cathartic one year in the theatre when I had to make a prop umbrella (that I'd bought brand-new that afternoon) look as junky and grungy as possible (we were doing West Side Story that year). My assistant and I attacked it with the scissors to cut holes in it, tore out some of the ribs, and when I showed it to the assistant director, he bent it over his knee so it absolutely could not even be opened properly.
Then, to make it look filthy enough to have come out of the garbage, I took it out to the parking lot of the theatre, threw it in a mud puddle (it had rained earlier that day), and jumped up and down on it.
The assistant director's wife and the director were having a break, standing in the doorway, watching me do this. The assistant director's wife wondered, "What is she doing?" (it must have looked like I was throwing a spectacular temper tantrum)
The director said, "Oh, she's just getting the umbrella ready for the Krupke scene." (in other words, she may look like she's gone nuts, but it's all perfectly okay, nothing to worry about) My approach to prop-making was fine with her; I always believed that props should be as real-looking and functioning (for the purpose of the scene) as possible, whether they had to be elegant or look like they came from the landfill.
Mud puddles haven't bothered me since, unless they're deep due to poor drainage in the street or parking lot.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
So let's see if I get this: A geostationary orbit is an orbit at an altitude that allows the object to move slowly enough that it stays in place relative to the body's rotational period, without succumbing to the body's gravity and falling into it. On Earth, a geostationary orbit is a little over 35,000 km (22,000 mi) high, with a velocity of about 11,000 kph (7,000 mph). -ish. There are a lot of satellites up there. GPS satellites. Weather satellites.
You might think that things in higher orbits would have to travel faster than things in lower orbits, because the circumference of the circle is greater, but objects in Low Earth Orbit, such as space stations, actually have to travel a heckuva lot faster to avoid sliding down the gravity well and dragging into the atmosphere and dying a horrible, fiery death and exploding. The ISS moves at 28,000 kph / 17,500 mph at an altitude of only 250 miles. It orbits the Earth in 90 minutes. In geostationary orbit, you orbit the Earth in... drumroll... 24 hours. That's right, even though it's geostationary, you are technically orbiting. It's just that the Earth is spinning underneath you at exactly the same speed. The Moon moseys along at 3,683 kph / 2,288 mph at an altitude of 238,900 miles / 384,472 km.
The station on a space elevator would be in a geostationary orbit. The cable the station is attached to would extend a little farther out, and there'd be some kind of anchor weight on the end of it. So how long would it take to reach the station from the ground? At the speed of a TGV or "bullet train", it would take about 5 days. A space 'elevator' wouldn't really feel like an elevator or a 'lift' at all. It'd be more like riding on a train or a cruise ship, with the cars stacked on top of one another. There would be probably be regular elevators/lifts inside the space elevator, that you'd use to go from your cabin to the restaurant or the movie theater. While you're riding up it, being inside a space elevator would be like being inside a 20-story building. I assume the speed of a space elevator car would be a function of passenger comfort. I suppose an automated cargo pod could go up the cable faster than a passenger car. That's just me speculating, though.
You might think that things in higher orbits would have to travel faster than things in lower orbits, because the circumference of the circle is greater, but objects in Low Earth Orbit, such as space stations, actually have to travel a heckuva lot faster to avoid sliding down the gravity well and dragging into the atmosphere and dying a horrible, fiery death and exploding. The ISS moves at 28,000 kph / 17,500 mph at an altitude of only 250 miles. It orbits the Earth in 90 minutes. In geostationary orbit, you orbit the Earth in... drumroll... 24 hours. That's right, even though it's geostationary, you are technically orbiting. It's just that the Earth is spinning underneath you at exactly the same speed. The Moon moseys along at 3,683 kph / 2,288 mph at an altitude of 238,900 miles / 384,472 km.
The station on a space elevator would be in a geostationary orbit. The cable the station is attached to would extend a little farther out, and there'd be some kind of anchor weight on the end of it. So how long would it take to reach the station from the ground? At the speed of a TGV or "bullet train", it would take about 5 days. A space 'elevator' wouldn't really feel like an elevator or a 'lift' at all. It'd be more like riding on a train or a cruise ship, with the cars stacked on top of one another. There would be probably be regular elevators/lifts inside the space elevator, that you'd use to go from your cabin to the restaurant or the movie theater. While you're riding up it, being inside a space elevator would be like being inside a 20-story building. I assume the speed of a space elevator car would be a function of passenger comfort. I suppose an automated cargo pod could go up the cable faster than a passenger car. That's just me speculating, though.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,494
The topic of personnel transport using space elevator is interesting. How would it look like in practice? We're assuming it has to be safe enough for tourists, unused to long periods of heavy G forces. So early on, it would have to accelerate slowly, probably at 0.5G at most, gradually increasing with altitude, so the passengers don't experience too much discomfort, and as the Earth's gravity becomes less an issue, the felt acceleration settles into comfortable, say 1.1G. Nobody wants to spend several days locked in a metal can at near 0G, so the train would probably accelerate over half of the journey, reaching several thousands kilometers per hour (I haven't done the math), until it's past the midway point and it's time to decelerate. And now what? It can't simply slam on the brakes, pinning everyone and everything not tied down on the ceiling. Even at 1G deceleration, it would still take hours to come to stop, and prolonged negative Gs, even if low, quickly get uncomfortable and then dangerous.
Probably the solution would be to encase every coupe in a spherical shell that could rotate 180 degrees. So the train would probably look, under outer casing, like a several stacks of metal balls, connected by outer elevator and life support system, with larger dining or facility "car" now and then.
This is where I recommend the SF novel Mercury, by Ben Bova. Ignore the fact that Bova is incapable of writing a convincing romance subplot if the couple in question isn't Lars and Amanda. Ignore the fact that this novel is actually partly an homage to The Count of Monte Cristo, with Mance Bracknell/Dante Alexios escaping his prison and exacting revenge on those who put him there, and focus on the science part of this: A geostationary space elevator.
In real-world, practical terms, it's a really cool idea. After all, space isn't really that far away... if you could drive straight up.
The novel deals with the aftermath of sabotage, and the millions of deaths that happened when the space elevator came crashing down to Earth. As it's falling, Earth's rotation continues, and so the death and destruction is spread out much further then it would have been if the elevator had just fallen straight down.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Same thing happens in Red Mars (1992). If sci-fi authors are to be believed, a space elevator is a terrible idea. They all crash.
I have that book in my personal library, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Is it like in Mercury, when the elevator is destroyed by terrorists who are anti-science religious fanatics who don't care how many innocent people die, as long as the elevator is destroyed?
I'm not really familiar with Kim Stanley Robinson's books, though I have half a dozen of them. It's a bit ironic to be discussing these authors. Robinson was a GoH at one of the SF conventions I attended way back when, but since I'd never read any of his books I didn't bother attending his panels. I later regretted that decision.
Bova was supposed to be a GoH at another convention I attended, but canceled. His place was taken by another author (Edward Bryant). Bryant co-wrote Phoenix Without Ashes (the other author was Harlan Ellison), the original tie-in novel for the lamentable TV series The Starlost. Bova was the science consultant for that show, and the producers ignored basically everything he told them was wrong with it.
I had an interesting conversation with Bryant, who told me some of the background of Bova's frustrating experiences with that show. So I got the novel autographed, and met an interesting author who likes cats (Bryant was wearing a tie with a gorgeous picture of a cat on it).
Is it like in Mercury, when the elevator is destroyed by terrorists who are anti-science religious fanatics who don't care how many innocent people die, as long as the elevator is destroyed?
I'm not really familiar with Kim Stanley Robinson's books, though I have half a dozen of them. It's a bit ironic to be discussing these authors. Robinson was a GoH at one of the SF conventions I attended way back when, but since I'd never read any of his books I didn't bother attending his panels. I later regretted that decision.
Bova was supposed to be a GoH at another convention I attended, but canceled. His place was taken by another author (Edward Bryant). Bryant co-wrote Phoenix Without Ashes (the other author was Harlan Ellison), the original tie-in novel for the lamentable TV series The Starlost. Bova was the science consultant for that show, and the producers ignored basically everything he told them was wrong with it.
I had an interesting conversation with Bryant, who told me some of the background of Bova's frustrating experiences with that show. So I got the novel autographed, and met an interesting author who likes cats (Bryant was wearing a tie with a gorgeous picture of a cat on it).
TIL about Form 696. From 2008 to 2017 music venues had to give full identity of everyone involved because live music promotes terrorism. I am surprised I did not hear about it before, I bet the state suppressed the media about it.
Form 696 was a risk assessment form used by the London Metropolitan Police from 2008 to 2017, which requested promoters and licensees of events to complete and submit 14 days in advance of an event in 21 London boroughs. Non-compliance with this could result in police opposition to event licences being granted.
This form became controversial due to its stipulation that names, stage names, private addresses, and phone numbers of all promoters, DJs and artists be listed. The form also asked for a description of the style of music to be performed and the target audience. The original form asked for details of ethnic groups likely to attend the performance, but that version was revised to omit those parameters in December 2008.
Feargal Sharkey, Head of UK Music and former lead singer of The Undertones, gave evidence to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in November 2008 stating that "We learned that the Metropolitan Police, in conjunction with an organization called London Councils - a representative body for all London borough - at the end of last year jointly wrote to all 33 local London boroughs recommending that they insert some particular wording into their local licensing policy statements." He added that the London Borough of Hillingdon in west London, "tries to make a direct connection not only between crime and disorder and live music, but most astonishingly - I'm still knocked over in disbelief - between live music and the prevention of terrorism." Sharkey stated that he would be seeking a Judicial Review on the use of the form and had complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the targeting of musical styles favoured by black and Asian teenagers. According to Sharkey an afternoon school charity concert in a public park had been cancelled because organisers could not supply the details of the young performers.
Form 696 was a risk assessment form used by the London Metropolitan Police from 2008 to 2017, which requested promoters and licensees of events to complete and submit 14 days in advance of an event in 21 London boroughs. Non-compliance with this could result in police opposition to event licences being granted.
This form became controversial due to its stipulation that names, stage names, private addresses, and phone numbers of all promoters, DJs and artists be listed. The form also asked for a description of the style of music to be performed and the target audience. The original form asked for details of ethnic groups likely to attend the performance, but that version was revised to omit those parameters in December 2008.
Feargal Sharkey, Head of UK Music and former lead singer of The Undertones, gave evidence to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in November 2008 stating that "We learned that the Metropolitan Police, in conjunction with an organization called London Councils - a representative body for all London borough - at the end of last year jointly wrote to all 33 local London boroughs recommending that they insert some particular wording into their local licensing policy statements." He added that the London Borough of Hillingdon in west London, "tries to make a direct connection not only between crime and disorder and live music, but most astonishingly - I'm still knocked over in disbelief - between live music and the prevention of terrorism." Sharkey stated that he would be seeking a Judicial Review on the use of the form and had complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the targeting of musical styles favoured by black and Asian teenagers. According to Sharkey an afternoon school charity concert in a public park had been cancelled because organisers could not supply the details of the young performers.
"If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"
From about 1933 onward AIUI.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Yeah, the idea of "winnable nuclear war" was very much a thing back then. Several years ago, I remember Dexter Filkins talking about how that idea was being revived by some in Pakistan. That was a little while ago now. I'm not sure where Indian or Pakistani doctrine stands today (or anybody else's, I guess).
I recall someone on the RPG forum I used to belong to over 15 years ago, stating that the U.S. should nuke Canada, since he was under the impression that we let the 9/11 hijackers into the U.S.
First of all, we didn't. They did not enter via Canada.
Second of all, we're not responsible for who gets into a foreign country or what they do there. We're only responsible for who gets into this country and what they do here. It's the American customs agents who are responsible for whom they let in. They had the option to keep them out.
Third of all, this was in 2004. Emotions were still unsettled, and at any rate, I've read too much about nuclear war - whether fiction or nonfiction - to ever consider it funny or acceptable even for gallows humor.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Thinking about this a little more, I guess I am a little surprised that one of the scientists was a nuclear/atomic weapons proponent. At least in my own head, I attribute the winnable or limited nuclear war guys as being military men, like Curtis LeMay. George Patton was also in favor of the Western Allies attacking the Soviets, but I don't know if atomic weapons factored into his thinking, or how. Google says the first Soviet atomic weapons test was in 1949, so Patton wouldn't have had to consider their retaliating in kind. LeMay would have been fully aware of what the Soviets had in their arsenal, as much as anyone did at the time.
EDIT: Pure coincidence, the radio program I'm listening to just played Oppenheimer's quote from the Baghavad Gita. They're talking about the letter sent to President Truman by the scientists at the Manhattan Project.
Last edited:
I was briefly watching an interview of Edward Teller (worked on the US hydrogen bomb, moreover termed as "the father of the hydrogen bomb"), where he stated that in his view it would be worth it if tens of millions of people in USSR and consequently the US died, if freedom was to be protected etc.
I also found it a bit strange, given the importance of those people, intellectually.
Last edited:
My point, that may not have been clear, was that when it was convenient for funding Von Neumann was well into the idea of aryan racial supremacy and "nuking" Russia to liberate lebensraum for Germany. In the process he actively used slaves to build his rockets on an industrial scale. I am not sure his stated support for the use of nuclear weapons in the 50s is that far for the expected moral position.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
