<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_21_177221</id>
	<title>Has Sci-Fi Run Out of Steam?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258827600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Science fiction has long inspired real-world technology, but are the authors of sci-fi stories finally running out of steam? PC Pro has <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/353485/the-sci-fi-legends-who-shaped-todays-tech">traced the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology</a>, from Jules Verne to <em>Snow Crash</em>, but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow's products. 'Since <em>Snow Crash</em>, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,' PC Pro claims. Author Charles Stross tells the magazine that he began writing a sci-fi novel in 2005 and 'made some predictions, thinking that in ten years they'd either be laughable or they'd have come true. The weird bit? Most of them came true already, by 2009.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Science fiction has long inspired real-world technology , but are the authors of sci-fi stories finally running out of steam ?
PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi 's influence on real-world technology , from Jules Verne to Snow Crash , but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow 's products .
'Since Snow Crash , no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world , and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart, ' PC Pro claims .
Author Charles Stross tells the magazine that he began writing a sci-fi novel in 2005 and 'made some predictions , thinking that in ten years they 'd either be laughable or they 'd have come true .
The weird bit ?
Most of them came true already , by 2009 .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Science fiction has long inspired real-world technology, but are the authors of sci-fi stories finally running out of steam?
PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash, but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow's products.
'Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,' PC Pro claims.
Author Charles Stross tells the magazine that he began writing a sci-fi novel in 2005 and 'made some predictions, thinking that in ten years they'd either be laughable or they'd have come true.
The weird bit?
Most of them came true already, by 2009.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187536</id>
	<title>Sci-Fi hasn't run out of steam yet</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1258796340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the Sci-Fi role playing games like <a href="http://www.farfuture.net/" title="farfuture.net">Traveller</a> [farfuture.net] out there.</p><p>I wanted to write a book about my Traveller character Orion Blastar since 1985, but I haven't gotten permission from GDW/FarFuture etc to use their tech and ideas and background in my books. So I might have to invent my own tech, ideas, and a different background.</p><p>There is a lot of Sci Fi stuff that hasn't been touched yet. Rush "2112" has a story about a Red Star of the Solar Federation and the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx that own all of the music and take away freedoms and rights in a Communist type future government, until a man finds a guitar and creates his own music. But the Priests smash his guitar and eventually he commits suicide. But near the end of the song the Elder Race of Man come back to assume control of the planets and free the people from the oppressive Communist government of the Temples of Syrinx. Or that is at least one take on the story. But I am sure it would make a great SyFy series or TV movie, or Hollywood Movie or series of Sci Fi books.</p><p>But Sci Fi does not need new and different technology, it just needs better characters, better plots, better stories, better dialog without stealing or borrowing from other Sci Fi elements, unless it is done in the way I wanted to do it in that it is different enough to be interesting. All Traveller Sci Fi books did was choose your own adventures and stuff that was boring. The RPG version is a lot more interesting than the fiction novels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the Sci-Fi role playing games like Traveller [ farfuture.net ] out there.I wanted to write a book about my Traveller character Orion Blastar since 1985 , but I have n't gotten permission from GDW/FarFuture etc to use their tech and ideas and background in my books .
So I might have to invent my own tech , ideas , and a different background.There is a lot of Sci Fi stuff that has n't been touched yet .
Rush " 2112 " has a story about a Red Star of the Solar Federation and the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx that own all of the music and take away freedoms and rights in a Communist type future government , until a man finds a guitar and creates his own music .
But the Priests smash his guitar and eventually he commits suicide .
But near the end of the song the Elder Race of Man come back to assume control of the planets and free the people from the oppressive Communist government of the Temples of Syrinx .
Or that is at least one take on the story .
But I am sure it would make a great SyFy series or TV movie , or Hollywood Movie or series of Sci Fi books.But Sci Fi does not need new and different technology , it just needs better characters , better plots , better stories , better dialog without stealing or borrowing from other Sci Fi elements , unless it is done in the way I wanted to do it in that it is different enough to be interesting .
All Traveller Sci Fi books did was choose your own adventures and stuff that was boring .
The RPG version is a lot more interesting than the fiction novels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the Sci-Fi role playing games like Traveller [farfuture.net] out there.I wanted to write a book about my Traveller character Orion Blastar since 1985, but I haven't gotten permission from GDW/FarFuture etc to use their tech and ideas and background in my books.
So I might have to invent my own tech, ideas, and a different background.There is a lot of Sci Fi stuff that hasn't been touched yet.
Rush "2112" has a story about a Red Star of the Solar Federation and the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx that own all of the music and take away freedoms and rights in a Communist type future government, until a man finds a guitar and creates his own music.
But the Priests smash his guitar and eventually he commits suicide.
But near the end of the song the Elder Race of Man come back to assume control of the planets and free the people from the oppressive Communist government of the Temples of Syrinx.
Or that is at least one take on the story.
But I am sure it would make a great SyFy series or TV movie, or Hollywood Movie or series of Sci Fi books.But Sci Fi does not need new and different technology, it just needs better characters, better plots, better stories, better dialog without stealing or borrowing from other Sci Fi elements, unless it is done in the way I wanted to do it in that it is different enough to be interesting.
All Traveller Sci Fi books did was choose your own adventures and stuff that was boring.
The RPG version is a lot more interesting than the fiction novels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186680</id>
	<title>I agree!</title>
	<author>PlantPerson</author>
	<datestamp>1258833780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sci-fi has indeed run out of steam!
Luckily,  science fiction is still quite healthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-fi has indeed run out of steam !
Luckily , science fiction is still quite healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-fi has indeed run out of steam!
Luckily,  science fiction is still quite healthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192012</id>
	<title>Re:Beyond Imagination</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1258884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise.</p></div><p>Haha. You might be interested in this short science fiction story, then: <a href="http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416556028/1416556028\_\_\_4.htm" title="webscription.net">"Babel II" by Christopher Anvil</a> [webscription.net] </p><p>(If you enjoyed that, check out the <a href="http://www.webscription.net/" title="webscription.net">Webscriptions</a> [webscription.net] website -- loads of DRM-free science fiction and fantasy e-books)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise.Haha .
You might be interested in this short science fiction story , then : " Babel II " by Christopher Anvil [ webscription.net ] ( If you enjoyed that , check out the Webscriptions [ webscription.net ] website -- loads of DRM-free science fiction and fantasy e-books )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise.Haha.
You might be interested in this short science fiction story, then: "Babel II" by Christopher Anvil [webscription.net] (If you enjoyed that, check out the Webscriptions [webscription.net] website -- loads of DRM-free science fiction and fantasy e-books)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188738</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258804260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never having posted before, I have to respond to this utterly ignorant and pessimistic post.  If it was sarcasm, I'm sorry I missed it.  Please read the outstanding and only slightly dated factual treatise on inner solar system exploration - using chemical fuels - called "Mining the Sky", written by John S. Lewis.</p><p>And please find somewhere else to spout your completely unfounded pessimism, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. after all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never having posted before , I have to respond to this utterly ignorant and pessimistic post .
If it was sarcasm , I 'm sorry I missed it .
Please read the outstanding and only slightly dated factual treatise on inner solar system exploration - using chemical fuels - called " Mining the Sky " , written by John S. Lewis.And please find somewhere else to spout your completely unfounded pessimism , this is / .
after all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never having posted before, I have to respond to this utterly ignorant and pessimistic post.
If it was sarcasm, I'm sorry I missed it.
Please read the outstanding and only slightly dated factual treatise on inner solar system exploration - using chemical fuels - called "Mining the Sky", written by John S. Lewis.And please find somewhere else to spout your completely unfounded pessimism, this is /.
after all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186962</id>
	<title>Cold fusion is by definition no energy source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258835640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If cold fusion works it's either unusable(to few energy produced) or not so cold after all (aka hot fusion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If cold fusion works it 's either unusable ( to few energy produced ) or not so cold after all ( aka hot fusion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If cold fusion works it's either unusable(to few energy produced) or not so cold after all (aka hot fusion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816</id>
	<title>Re:Unfair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258834680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just disingenuous it's just just plain wrong. SF has never been about predicting the future. SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about it(this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know)... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow. What if we all had computers in our brains. What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy. What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move. They are all clich&#233;s in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes. SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years. And sometimes there are green slave girls involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just disingenuous it 's just just plain wrong .
SF has never been about predicting the future .
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a " what if " and writing a story about it ( this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know ) ... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow .
What if we all had computers in our brains .
What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy .
What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move .
They are all clich   s in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes .
SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years .
And sometimes there are green slave girls involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just disingenuous it's just just plain wrong.
SF has never been about predicting the future.
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about it(this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know)... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow.
What if we all had computers in our brains.
What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy.
What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move.
They are all clichés in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes.
SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years.
And sometimes there are green slave girls involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190016</id>
	<title>Err. no.</title>
	<author>lobotomir</author>
	<datestamp>1258814340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The masters of contemporary sci-fi (Iain M. Banks, Alastair Reynolds) are surpassed only by precious few from the celebrated "classics." Those would be Clarke and Herbert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The masters of contemporary sci-fi ( Iain M. Banks , Alastair Reynolds ) are surpassed only by precious few from the celebrated " classics .
" Those would be Clarke and Herbert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The masters of contemporary sci-fi (Iain M. Banks, Alastair Reynolds) are surpassed only by precious few from the celebrated "classics.
" Those would be Clarke and Herbert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187414</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is a false premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and here i am thinking Van Braun had something to do with rocketry... silly me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and here i am thinking Van Braun had something to do with rocketry... silly me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and here i am thinking Van Braun had something to do with rocketry... silly me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186804</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is a false premise</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258834620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes a popular sci-fi story makes ground on certain concept to help it being approved by the people that fund projects. Would satellites or so popular if ACClarke didnt wrote about them a lot of years ago? Submarines could had went from small test to the use we are giving them now without Nautilus? What about future space elevators?<br><br>Anyway, a good part of science fiction is more about us than about technology, how we will behave or think in a different environment, or take another point of view to our current one. That it could be possible by our current knowledge is a plus, a way to not just throw away all we know because anything could happens as is just fantasy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes a popular sci-fi story makes ground on certain concept to help it being approved by the people that fund projects .
Would satellites or so popular if ACClarke didnt wrote about them a lot of years ago ?
Submarines could had went from small test to the use we are giving them now without Nautilus ?
What about future space elevators ? Anyway , a good part of science fiction is more about us than about technology , how we will behave or think in a different environment , or take another point of view to our current one .
That it could be possible by our current knowledge is a plus , a way to not just throw away all we know because anything could happens as is just fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes a popular sci-fi story makes ground on certain concept to help it being approved by the people that fund projects.
Would satellites or so popular if ACClarke didnt wrote about them a lot of years ago?
Submarines could had went from small test to the use we are giving them now without Nautilus?
What about future space elevators?Anyway, a good part of science fiction is more about us than about technology, how we will behave or think in a different environment, or take another point of view to our current one.
That it could be possible by our current knowledge is a plus, a way to not just throw away all we know because anything could happens as is just fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186986</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1258835820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, what you mentioned are more of fantasy authors (or, 'new weird'), not really SF there.</p><p>You could, however, mention John Scalzi. True new blood, Old Man's War for example shows it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what you mentioned are more of fantasy authors ( or , 'new weird ' ) , not really SF there.You could , however , mention John Scalzi .
True new blood , Old Man 's War for example shows it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what you mentioned are more of fantasy authors (or, 'new weird'), not really SF there.You could, however, mention John Scalzi.
True new blood, Old Man's War for example shows it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191754</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1258921980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes? It's fun to watch</p><p>Are you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2?</p></div><p>I stopped watching after season 1, but season 1 was absolutely fantastic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes ?
It 's fun to watchAre you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2 ? I stopped watching after season 1 , but season 1 was absolutely fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes?
It's fun to watchAre you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2?I stopped watching after season 1, but season 1 was absolutely fantastic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310</id>
	<title>PC Pro just needs to read more Sci-Fi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They mentioned Vernor Vinge, but only referenced his earlier work.  One of his later stories, Rainbow's End, predicts a ubiquitous Augmented Reality, which we're only starting to see gimmick implementations of now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They mentioned Vernor Vinge , but only referenced his earlier work .
One of his later stories , Rainbow 's End , predicts a ubiquitous Augmented Reality , which we 're only starting to see gimmick implementations of now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They mentioned Vernor Vinge, but only referenced his earlier work.
One of his later stories, Rainbow's End, predicts a ubiquitous Augmented Reality, which we're only starting to see gimmick implementations of now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187806</id>
	<title>but... but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where's my flying car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where 's my flying car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where's my flying car?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108</id>
	<title>Short Answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258836600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.
<br> <br>
Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi. It's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently, especially in mainstream culture, these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired.
<br> <br>
Give me media that is challenging, that is new, that is alien, give me speculative fiction, good writing, things that make me go hmmmmmm. Or get off my fucking lawn and go make your garbage elsewhere.
<br> <br>*Disclaimer: I know science fiction was never as great as I'd like to think it was. But I've read things and seen movies that really were great for their time, and for ours. This is what should have driven the direction of Science Fiction. Call an action movie in space what it is, an action move in space (or the future, or an alternate reality, or any other tired setting.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi .
It 's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently , especially in mainstream culture , these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired .
Give me media that is challenging , that is new , that is alien , give me speculative fiction , good writing , things that make me go hmmmmmm .
Or get off my fucking lawn and go make your garbage elsewhere .
* Disclaimer : I know science fiction was never as great as I 'd like to think it was .
But I 've read things and seen movies that really were great for their time , and for ours .
This is what should have driven the direction of Science Fiction .
Call an action movie in space what it is , an action move in space ( or the future , or an alternate reality , or any other tired setting .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi.
It's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently, especially in mainstream culture, these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired.
Give me media that is challenging, that is new, that is alien, give me speculative fiction, good writing, things that make me go hmmmmmm.
Or get off my fucking lawn and go make your garbage elsewhere.
*Disclaimer: I know science fiction was never as great as I'd like to think it was.
But I've read things and seen movies that really were great for their time, and for ours.
This is what should have driven the direction of Science Fiction.
Call an action movie in space what it is, an action move in space (or the future, or an alternate reality, or any other tired setting.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188142</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258800240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>De ex machina. Don't they teach any Latin to kids these days? (Alternatives are d or di, but not deii. I've seen the first one a lot in compounds.)<br>Back to the subject: Science fiction has always been more fiction than science; it missed more often than it hit, judging from the vintigage scifi bundles I've been reading. And you know what? It's fine that way. A writer is free to create any backdrop he wants as long as he tells an interesting story. So, and now you're off my lawn I'll go watch some Makoto Shinkai.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>De ex machina .
Do n't they teach any Latin to kids these days ?
( Alternatives are d or di , but not deii .
I 've seen the first one a lot in compounds .
) Back to the subject : Science fiction has always been more fiction than science ; it missed more often than it hit , judging from the vintigage scifi bundles I 've been reading .
And you know what ?
It 's fine that way .
A writer is free to create any backdrop he wants as long as he tells an interesting story .
So , and now you 're off my lawn I 'll go watch some Makoto Shinkai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>De ex machina.
Don't they teach any Latin to kids these days?
(Alternatives are d or di, but not deii.
I've seen the first one a lot in compounds.
)Back to the subject: Science fiction has always been more fiction than science; it missed more often than it hit, judging from the vintigage scifi bundles I've been reading.
And you know what?
It's fine that way.
A writer is free to create any backdrop he wants as long as he tells an interesting story.
So, and now you're off my lawn I'll go watch some Makoto Shinkai.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189964</id>
	<title>Selling Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258813980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect there are great Science Fiction writers out there in the world right now--ready to tell great stories. Problem is that publishers have cut back on how many titles are released per year. With fewer slots for a new book sale, how does the unproven writer get in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect there are great Science Fiction writers out there in the world right now--ready to tell great stories .
Problem is that publishers have cut back on how many titles are released per year .
With fewer slots for a new book sale , how does the unproven writer get in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect there are great Science Fiction writers out there in the world right now--ready to tell great stories.
Problem is that publishers have cut back on how many titles are released per year.
With fewer slots for a new book sale, how does the unproven writer get in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191936</id>
	<title>Re:Unfair</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1258882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not just disingenuous it's just just plain wrong. SF has never been about predicting the future. SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about it(this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know)... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow. What if we all had computers in our brains. What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy. What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move. They are all clich&#233;s in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes. SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years. And sometimes there are green slave girls involved.</p></div><p>Exactly. Science fiction is <em>not</em> about science, or technology, or trying to predict the future. Science fiction is about <em>people</em>, and regularly points out that people are people no matter what technological toys you hand them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just disingenuous it 's just just plain wrong .
SF has never been about predicting the future .
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a " what if " and writing a story about it ( this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know ) ... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow .
What if we all had computers in our brains .
What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy .
What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move .
They are all clich   s in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes .
SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years .
And sometimes there are green slave girls involved.Exactly .
Science fiction is not about science , or technology , or trying to predict the future .
Science fiction is about people , and regularly points out that people are people no matter what technological toys you hand them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just disingenuous it's just just plain wrong.
SF has never been about predicting the future.
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about it(this leave out a bunch of SF subcategories I know)... what if advanced aliens showed up tomorrow.
What if we all had computers in our brains.
What if we could travel quickly across the galaxy.
What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move.
They are all clichés in SF... but the stories written around them are about how human beings react to the changes.
SF in a literacy genre that is an obvious reaction to the rapid changes in technology in the last several hundred years.
And sometimes there are green slave girls involved.Exactly.
Science fiction is not about science, or technology, or trying to predict the future.
Science fiction is about people, and regularly points out that people are people no matter what technological toys you hand them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186758</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1258834320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lastly, I'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy. I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?</p></div></blockquote><p>I read somewhere, many years ago, that sci-fi is popular in good times, when people in general are looking forward to the future, and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future.
</p><p>Considering that "fearing the future" has become the norm for most of even the "enlightened" societies, I'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lastly , I 'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy .
I do n't know why they 're doing it , perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership ; while fantasy has broader appeal ? I read somewhere , many years ago , that sci-fi is popular in good times , when people in general are looking forward to the future , and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future .
Considering that " fearing the future " has become the norm for most of even the " enlightened " societies , I 'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lastly, I'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy.
I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?I read somewhere, many years ago, that sci-fi is popular in good times, when people in general are looking forward to the future, and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future.
Considering that "fearing the future" has become the norm for most of even the "enlightened" societies, I'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186482</id>
	<title>It's not fortune-telling.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1258832760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The purpose of SF isn't fortune-telling. As with any commercial, genre fiction, its main purpose is to entertain, and it may also have some secondary purposes like social commentary, examination of philosophical issues, etc.</p><p>
The huge change in SF since I first started reading it in the 70's is that these days, movie/TV SF is a gigantic, popular commercial enterprise, utterly dwarfing written SF. Also, a lot of the commercial activity in written SF these days revolves around stuff like Star Trek and Star Wars novels, novels written in the Dune universe, etc.; there didn't used to be such a clear division between highbrow and lowbrow SF. Among teenagers, there is much less of a focus nowadays on non-series written SF. If you look at the young adult section in a book store, you'll see very little real SF; you'll mainly see fantasy. I think part of what's going on is that girls seem to buy a lot more books than boys, and they seem (on the average) more interested in fantasy (e.g., the Twilight books) than in core SF.</p><p>Another change in the last couple of decades is that distribution channels have changed. You don't see SF magazines and paperbacks on wire-rack shelves in the drugstore any more. As in all of publishing, there has been a tendency for books to go out of print more quickly, so that it's even harder than before for novelists to make a living by writing. You'd be surprised how few of the SF authors whose books you see on the shelves at Barnes and Noble pay the rent by writing. The magazines are also much less influential than they used to be.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of SF is n't fortune-telling .
As with any commercial , genre fiction , its main purpose is to entertain , and it may also have some secondary purposes like social commentary , examination of philosophical issues , etc .
The huge change in SF since I first started reading it in the 70 's is that these days , movie/TV SF is a gigantic , popular commercial enterprise , utterly dwarfing written SF .
Also , a lot of the commercial activity in written SF these days revolves around stuff like Star Trek and Star Wars novels , novels written in the Dune universe , etc .
; there did n't used to be such a clear division between highbrow and lowbrow SF .
Among teenagers , there is much less of a focus nowadays on non-series written SF .
If you look at the young adult section in a book store , you 'll see very little real SF ; you 'll mainly see fantasy .
I think part of what 's going on is that girls seem to buy a lot more books than boys , and they seem ( on the average ) more interested in fantasy ( e.g. , the Twilight books ) than in core SF.Another change in the last couple of decades is that distribution channels have changed .
You do n't see SF magazines and paperbacks on wire-rack shelves in the drugstore any more .
As in all of publishing , there has been a tendency for books to go out of print more quickly , so that it 's even harder than before for novelists to make a living by writing .
You 'd be surprised how few of the SF authors whose books you see on the shelves at Barnes and Noble pay the rent by writing .
The magazines are also much less influential than they used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of SF isn't fortune-telling.
As with any commercial, genre fiction, its main purpose is to entertain, and it may also have some secondary purposes like social commentary, examination of philosophical issues, etc.
The huge change in SF since I first started reading it in the 70's is that these days, movie/TV SF is a gigantic, popular commercial enterprise, utterly dwarfing written SF.
Also, a lot of the commercial activity in written SF these days revolves around stuff like Star Trek and Star Wars novels, novels written in the Dune universe, etc.
; there didn't used to be such a clear division between highbrow and lowbrow SF.
Among teenagers, there is much less of a focus nowadays on non-series written SF.
If you look at the young adult section in a book store, you'll see very little real SF; you'll mainly see fantasy.
I think part of what's going on is that girls seem to buy a lot more books than boys, and they seem (on the average) more interested in fantasy (e.g., the Twilight books) than in core SF.Another change in the last couple of decades is that distribution channels have changed.
You don't see SF magazines and paperbacks on wire-rack shelves in the drugstore any more.
As in all of publishing, there has been a tendency for books to go out of print more quickly, so that it's even harder than before for novelists to make a living by writing.
You'd be surprised how few of the SF authors whose books you see on the shelves at Barnes and Noble pay the rent by writing.
The magazines are also much less influential than they used to be.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186892</id>
	<title>Today's sci-fi is not sci-fi</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1258835160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sci-fi was attacked from all sides by mega-movie plexes, formulamatic (committee) design headed by investors, and the cult of Scientology.</p><p>In short, sci-fi is NOT made for geeks anymore.. it's made for mainstream teenagers and stupid parents who couldn't tell you the difference between "fusion" and "fission".<br>They're the only ones who don't object to Will Smith being in what should be sci-fi classics, dumbed down to the Super-Size McDonald's drive through crowd.</p><p>Good sci-fi (movies anyway) tapered off in the late 80's.</p><p>If we're talking sci-fi games, Fallout (even the remake) have stayed true to their roots.</p><p>Books? I haven't come across any modern sci-fi I liked. I'm a stranger in a strange land...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-fi was attacked from all sides by mega-movie plexes , formulamatic ( committee ) design headed by investors , and the cult of Scientology.In short , sci-fi is NOT made for geeks anymore.. it 's made for mainstream teenagers and stupid parents who could n't tell you the difference between " fusion " and " fission " .They 're the only ones who do n't object to Will Smith being in what should be sci-fi classics , dumbed down to the Super-Size McDonald 's drive through crowd.Good sci-fi ( movies anyway ) tapered off in the late 80 's.If we 're talking sci-fi games , Fallout ( even the remake ) have stayed true to their roots.Books ?
I have n't come across any modern sci-fi I liked .
I 'm a stranger in a strange land.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-fi was attacked from all sides by mega-movie plexes, formulamatic (committee) design headed by investors, and the cult of Scientology.In short, sci-fi is NOT made for geeks anymore.. it's made for mainstream teenagers and stupid parents who couldn't tell you the difference between "fusion" and "fission".They're the only ones who don't object to Will Smith being in what should be sci-fi classics, dumbed down to the Super-Size McDonald's drive through crowd.Good sci-fi (movies anyway) tapered off in the late 80's.If we're talking sci-fi games, Fallout (even the remake) have stayed true to their roots.Books?
I haven't come across any modern sci-fi I liked.
I'm a stranger in a strange land...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187540</id>
	<title>Linux was not invented by Richard Stallman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258796400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman re-built clean-room versions of some utilities under the title GNU.</p><p>Linus Torvalds created Linux, despite harassment from Richard Stallman.</p><p>GNU/Linux does not exist, it is a pathetic attempt to steal credit for the work of others. If Richard Stallman were an academic, he could be sanctioned with the loss of his degrees for making a false, fraudulent claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman re-built clean-room versions of some utilities under the title GNU.Linus Torvalds created Linux , despite harassment from Richard Stallman.GNU/Linux does not exist , it is a pathetic attempt to steal credit for the work of others .
If Richard Stallman were an academic , he could be sanctioned with the loss of his degrees for making a false , fraudulent claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman re-built clean-room versions of some utilities under the title GNU.Linus Torvalds created Linux, despite harassment from Richard Stallman.GNU/Linux does not exist, it is a pathetic attempt to steal credit for the work of others.
If Richard Stallman were an academic, he could be sanctioned with the loss of his degrees for making a false, fraudulent claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191408</id>
	<title>Re:PC Pro just needs to read more Sci-Fi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258830840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved the vision of the future in that book and find myself thinking/talking about it frequently, but I thought the story itself failed to be even a little bit compelling and the writing was, to put it mildly, sub-par.</p><p>I guess it won all those awards for Vinge's creative ideas about technology and not for the writing?  Or were the other Hugo contenders that year actually <i>that</i> bad?</p><p>Incidentally, can anyone tell me whether I can expect more of the same mediocre work in <i>A Fire Upon the Deep</i>, or is it better?  I mean, I don't demand perfection (I read Neal Stephenson for god's sake, I love E.M. Forster <i>for</i> his flaws, and Jack London wrote some of my favorite low-calorie brain candy) but I have to maintain <i>some</i> standards or I'd be buried in a mountain of mostly-shit reading material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved the vision of the future in that book and find myself thinking/talking about it frequently , but I thought the story itself failed to be even a little bit compelling and the writing was , to put it mildly , sub-par.I guess it won all those awards for Vinge 's creative ideas about technology and not for the writing ?
Or were the other Hugo contenders that year actually that bad ? Incidentally , can anyone tell me whether I can expect more of the same mediocre work in A Fire Upon the Deep , or is it better ?
I mean , I do n't demand perfection ( I read Neal Stephenson for god 's sake , I love E.M. Forster for his flaws , and Jack London wrote some of my favorite low-calorie brain candy ) but I have to maintain some standards or I 'd be buried in a mountain of mostly-shit reading material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved the vision of the future in that book and find myself thinking/talking about it frequently, but I thought the story itself failed to be even a little bit compelling and the writing was, to put it mildly, sub-par.I guess it won all those awards for Vinge's creative ideas about technology and not for the writing?
Or were the other Hugo contenders that year actually that bad?Incidentally, can anyone tell me whether I can expect more of the same mediocre work in A Fire Upon the Deep, or is it better?
I mean, I don't demand perfection (I read Neal Stephenson for god's sake, I love E.M. Forster for his flaws, and Jack London wrote some of my favorite low-calorie brain candy) but I have to maintain some standards or I'd be buried in a mountain of mostly-shit reading material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187656</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258796880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ahem...</p><p>"etgay utoy FFoay ymay awnlay"</p><p>Someone wasn't paying attention in their pig latin class... I wonder if you can get swine flu from that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ahem... " etgay utoy FFoay ymay awnlay " Someone was n't paying attention in their pig latin class... I wonder if you can get swine flu from that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ahem..."etgay utoy FFoay ymay awnlay"Someone wasn't paying attention in their pig latin class... I wonder if you can get swine flu from that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186662</id>
	<title>Snow Crash?</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the author of that article's thinking of Neuromancer.  The metaverse is nothing more than a reskinned cyberspace, care of William Gibson's old typewriter.<p>On another note, if you're looking to science fiction as a predictive medium, look deeper than the shiny chrome and blinkenlichten. Technology is a sideline in good sci-fi: it's the cultural commentary that makes the work visionary. Or did people seriously think that Fahrenheit 451 was supposed to presage the development of six-legged robot dogs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the author of that article 's thinking of Neuromancer .
The metaverse is nothing more than a reskinned cyberspace , care of William Gibson 's old typewriter.On another note , if you 're looking to science fiction as a predictive medium , look deeper than the shiny chrome and blinkenlichten .
Technology is a sideline in good sci-fi : it 's the cultural commentary that makes the work visionary .
Or did people seriously think that Fahrenheit 451 was supposed to presage the development of six-legged robot dogs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the author of that article's thinking of Neuromancer.
The metaverse is nothing more than a reskinned cyberspace, care of William Gibson's old typewriter.On another note, if you're looking to science fiction as a predictive medium, look deeper than the shiny chrome and blinkenlichten.
Technology is a sideline in good sci-fi: it's the cultural commentary that makes the work visionary.
Or did people seriously think that Fahrenheit 451 was supposed to presage the development of six-legged robot dogs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192324</id>
	<title>The end?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1258891080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps; I personally think scifi's big problem is that there no longer are great themes to play with concerning the future. For most of the last century we have sort of assumed that mankind could/would overcome all nature could throw at us, so we could on one hand have the optimistic scifi where everything was great and exciting, and we could have the pessimistic sort, that we could comfortably dismiss as "thought provoking". In recent years we have come to realize that this is not a realistic scenario.</p><p>Another thing is that science too doesn't seem to make any dramatic and inspiring progress; and how exciting is it to contemplate travel times of hundreds to thousands of years? We have simply run out of science, in a sense.</p><p>Finally, I think it has become too predictable with all these aliens that look suspiciously either like dressed up humans or some sort of mindless predator.</p><p>The way forward, I think, is to change some of these parameters. Like, explore life that is seriously different; explore physics in a universe where the laws of physics are not what we are used to, but still realistic in the sense that the mechanisms and the logic of the story has been applied thoughtfully and with great consequence.</p><p>Or how about exploring the schism between quantum mechanics and general relativity from the other side, in a setting where QM didn't have the "political upper hand", and where physical theories had been pursued more from the perspective of GR - eg. if Niels Bohr hadn't won the discussions with Einstein, and Einstein had been successful in finding a unified theory. Just my thoughts, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps ; I personally think scifi 's big problem is that there no longer are great themes to play with concerning the future .
For most of the last century we have sort of assumed that mankind could/would overcome all nature could throw at us , so we could on one hand have the optimistic scifi where everything was great and exciting , and we could have the pessimistic sort , that we could comfortably dismiss as " thought provoking " .
In recent years we have come to realize that this is not a realistic scenario.Another thing is that science too does n't seem to make any dramatic and inspiring progress ; and how exciting is it to contemplate travel times of hundreds to thousands of years ?
We have simply run out of science , in a sense.Finally , I think it has become too predictable with all these aliens that look suspiciously either like dressed up humans or some sort of mindless predator.The way forward , I think , is to change some of these parameters .
Like , explore life that is seriously different ; explore physics in a universe where the laws of physics are not what we are used to , but still realistic in the sense that the mechanisms and the logic of the story has been applied thoughtfully and with great consequence.Or how about exploring the schism between quantum mechanics and general relativity from the other side , in a setting where QM did n't have the " political upper hand " , and where physical theories had been pursued more from the perspective of GR - eg .
if Niels Bohr had n't won the discussions with Einstein , and Einstein had been successful in finding a unified theory .
Just my thoughts , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps; I personally think scifi's big problem is that there no longer are great themes to play with concerning the future.
For most of the last century we have sort of assumed that mankind could/would overcome all nature could throw at us, so we could on one hand have the optimistic scifi where everything was great and exciting, and we could have the pessimistic sort, that we could comfortably dismiss as "thought provoking".
In recent years we have come to realize that this is not a realistic scenario.Another thing is that science too doesn't seem to make any dramatic and inspiring progress; and how exciting is it to contemplate travel times of hundreds to thousands of years?
We have simply run out of science, in a sense.Finally, I think it has become too predictable with all these aliens that look suspiciously either like dressed up humans or some sort of mindless predator.The way forward, I think, is to change some of these parameters.
Like, explore life that is seriously different; explore physics in a universe where the laws of physics are not what we are used to, but still realistic in the sense that the mechanisms and the logic of the story has been applied thoughtfully and with great consequence.Or how about exploring the schism between quantum mechanics and general relativity from the other side, in a setting where QM didn't have the "political upper hand", and where physical theories had been pursued more from the perspective of GR - eg.
if Niels Bohr hadn't won the discussions with Einstein, and Einstein had been successful in finding a unified theory.
Just my thoughts, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192722</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1258898880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I read somewhere, many years ago, that sci-fi is popular in good times, when people in general are looking forward to the future, and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future.</p><p>Considering that "fearing the future" has become the norm for most of even the "enlightened" societies, I'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation.</p></div><p>I've always loved both SF and fantasy. Somewhere in the late '80s or early '90s, I wondered why there were so many great SF movies, and so very few great fantasy movies. Nowadays it seems to be the other way around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read somewhere , many years ago , that sci-fi is popular in good times , when people in general are looking forward to the future , and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future.Considering that " fearing the future " has become the norm for most of even the " enlightened " societies , I 'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation.I 've always loved both SF and fantasy .
Somewhere in the late '80s or early '90s , I wondered why there were so many great SF movies , and so very few great fantasy movies .
Nowadays it seems to be the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read somewhere, many years ago, that sci-fi is popular in good times, when people in general are looking forward to the future, and fantasy is popular in bad times when people are afraid of the future.Considering that "fearing the future" has become the norm for most of even the "enlightened" societies, I'd expect that sci-fi would be sinking into obsurity for at least the next generation.I've always loved both SF and fantasy.
Somewhere in the late '80s or early '90s, I wondered why there were so many great SF movies, and so very few great fantasy movies.
Nowadays it seems to be the other way around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188308</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1258801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Romanes eunt domus"? "People called Romanes they go the house"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Romanes eunt domus " ?
" People called Romanes they go the house " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Romanes eunt domus"?
"People called Romanes they go the house"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188114</id>
	<title>Anime</title>
	<author>Aokisensei</author>
	<datestamp>1258800000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a particular medium that shows alot of innovation when it comes to science fiction is anime.</p><p>Neon Genesis Evangelion, Serial Experiments Lain,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hack, the Macross series....there's alot of good sci-fi anime.  (And no, not all of it is giant-robot based.)</p><p>I, in particular, recommend Makoto Shinkai's "Voices of a Distant Star".  It's a short film but it's very futuristic and spacey, and the science is actually pretty accurate.  It's main premise is the effect that long-distance (interstellar) communication in space has on human relationships.  In that effect it's a bit romance-y too, but with a science fiction setting.  Might be a little too mushy for some people but it does have a profound effect on most people who watch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a particular medium that shows alot of innovation when it comes to science fiction is anime.Neon Genesis Evangelion , Serial Experiments Lain , .hack , the Macross series....there 's alot of good sci-fi anime .
( And no , not all of it is giant-robot based .
) I , in particular , recommend Makoto Shinkai 's " Voices of a Distant Star " .
It 's a short film but it 's very futuristic and spacey , and the science is actually pretty accurate .
It 's main premise is the effect that long-distance ( interstellar ) communication in space has on human relationships .
In that effect it 's a bit romance-y too , but with a science fiction setting .
Might be a little too mushy for some people but it does have a profound effect on most people who watch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a particular medium that shows alot of innovation when it comes to science fiction is anime.Neon Genesis Evangelion, Serial Experiments Lain, .hack, the Macross series....there's alot of good sci-fi anime.
(And no, not all of it is giant-robot based.
)I, in particular, recommend Makoto Shinkai's "Voices of a Distant Star".
It's a short film but it's very futuristic and spacey, and the science is actually pretty accurate.
It's main premise is the effect that long-distance (interstellar) communication in space has on human relationships.
In that effect it's a bit romance-y too, but with a science fiction setting.
Might be a little too mushy for some people but it does have a profound effect on most people who watch it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186672</id>
	<title>Dr. Who</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been going since 1963, and I'm still entertained.  You don't have to be a nerd, it's not overly sentimental, and I can enjoy with my gal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been going since 1963 , and I 'm still entertained .
You do n't have to be a nerd , it 's not overly sentimental , and I can enjoy with my gal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been going since 1963, and I'm still entertained.
You don't have to be a nerd, it's not overly sentimental, and I can enjoy with my gal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30199060</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1258907700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See? This is why I still come to Slashdot. Not only do we have a joke about Latin getting a +5 but there are currently THREE +5 replies to it--another joke and (deus help us) TWO Latin grammar Nazis. (Nazii? Nazae?) LOVE IT! Keep it up Slashdotters! You're what make this place great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See ?
This is why I still come to Slashdot .
Not only do we have a joke about Latin getting a + 5 but there are currently THREE + 5 replies to it--another joke and ( deus help us ) TWO Latin grammar Nazis .
( Nazii ? Nazae ?
) LOVE IT !
Keep it up Slashdotters !
You 're what make this place great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See?
This is why I still come to Slashdot.
Not only do we have a joke about Latin getting a +5 but there are currently THREE +5 replies to it--another joke and (deus help us) TWO Latin grammar Nazis.
(Nazii? Nazae?
) LOVE IT!
Keep it up Slashdotters!
You're what make this place great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190986</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>tweek</author>
	<datestamp>1258825440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had to put it down. Maybe I went in with a different expectation but it was SUCH a hard slog the first part of the book. I'll probably restart it over the holidays and get through it. It's good to know that it gets better.</p><p>I love his work in general. Snow Crash is one of my all time favorite books. I had no problem absolutely devouring the System of the World series yet Anathem just felt "hard" to get in to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to put it down .
Maybe I went in with a different expectation but it was SUCH a hard slog the first part of the book .
I 'll probably restart it over the holidays and get through it .
It 's good to know that it gets better.I love his work in general .
Snow Crash is one of my all time favorite books .
I had no problem absolutely devouring the System of the World series yet Anathem just felt " hard " to get in to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to put it down.
Maybe I went in with a different expectation but it was SUCH a hard slog the first part of the book.
I'll probably restart it over the holidays and get through it.
It's good to know that it gets better.I love his work in general.
Snow Crash is one of my all time favorite books.
I had no problem absolutely devouring the System of the World series yet Anathem just felt "hard" to get in to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191812</id>
	<title>It's run out of patience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It" is intangible, "it" can be anything and everything we please. Perhaps what inspires writers these days is less the material world and more the artificial intelligence and realms of pure imagination, cyberspace and beyond. Or perhaps you just don't read enough sci-fi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It " is intangible , " it " can be anything and everything we please .
Perhaps what inspires writers these days is less the material world and more the artificial intelligence and realms of pure imagination , cyberspace and beyond .
Or perhaps you just do n't read enough sci-fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It" is intangible, "it" can be anything and everything we please.
Perhaps what inspires writers these days is less the material world and more the artificial intelligence and realms of pure imagination, cyberspace and beyond.
Or perhaps you just don't read enough sci-fi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186440</id>
	<title>Be More Productive At Creative Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For anyone that has a need to do creative thinking - on demand, try this:</p><p>Creator Studio (tm) software which stimulates creative thinking on demand, radically transforming how individuals and businesses can quickly bring to bear the power of new thinking to achieve the most challenging goals.</p><p>Creator Studio employs powerful creative thinking methods based on modern scientific discoveries into the creative thinking processes of the human mind. The interactive creativity tools of Creator Studio let users apply creative thinking methods systematically and deliberately, on demand, to stimulate new thinking, new ideas, solutions and innovations.</p><p>Visit http://www.compxpressinc.com to learn more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone that has a need to do creative thinking - on demand , try this : Creator Studio ( tm ) software which stimulates creative thinking on demand , radically transforming how individuals and businesses can quickly bring to bear the power of new thinking to achieve the most challenging goals.Creator Studio employs powerful creative thinking methods based on modern scientific discoveries into the creative thinking processes of the human mind .
The interactive creativity tools of Creator Studio let users apply creative thinking methods systematically and deliberately , on demand , to stimulate new thinking , new ideas , solutions and innovations.Visit http : //www.compxpressinc.com to learn more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone that has a need to do creative thinking - on demand, try this:Creator Studio (tm) software which stimulates creative thinking on demand, radically transforming how individuals and businesses can quickly bring to bear the power of new thinking to achieve the most challenging goals.Creator Studio employs powerful creative thinking methods based on modern scientific discoveries into the creative thinking processes of the human mind.
The interactive creativity tools of Creator Studio let users apply creative thinking methods systematically and deliberately, on demand, to stimulate new thinking, new ideas, solutions and innovations.Visit http://www.compxpressinc.com to learn more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</id>
	<title>We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To use the Neal Stephenson example, what about "The Diamond Age"?  It predicts a very different world in the future, based on the widespread adoption of nanotech.  I think it's one of those situations where we can't see the forest for the trees...yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To use the Neal Stephenson example , what about " The Diamond Age " ?
It predicts a very different world in the future , based on the widespread adoption of nanotech .
I think it 's one of those situations where we ca n't see the forest for the trees...yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use the Neal Stephenson example, what about "The Diamond Age"?
It predicts a very different world in the future, based on the widespread adoption of nanotech.
I think it's one of those situations where we can't see the forest for the trees...yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30193100</id>
	<title>Re:Short Answer</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1258903200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The media tycoons do not want stuff that makes people think. The average Joe has been trained to accept shit like the latest Star Trek movie as wonderful pieces of SF. Real SF has no chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The media tycoons do not want stuff that makes people think .
The average Joe has been trained to accept shit like the latest Star Trek movie as wonderful pieces of SF .
Real SF has no chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media tycoons do not want stuff that makes people think.
The average Joe has been trained to accept shit like the latest Star Trek movie as wonderful pieces of SF.
Real SF has no chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186888</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258835160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But my cock will never run out of cum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my cock will never run out of cum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my cock will never run out of cum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187522</id>
	<title>Oh no vampires again?</title>
	<author>nanospook</author>
	<datestamp>1258796280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like the sci fi section at the book store has been taken over by endless vampire novels for the past 5 years. The problem isn't the writers, its the industry..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the sci fi section at the book store has been taken over by endless vampire novels for the past 5 years .
The problem is n't the writers , its the industry. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the sci fi section at the book store has been taken over by endless vampire novels for the past 5 years.
The problem isn't the writers, its the industry..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188292</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1258801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of a positronic brain was <i>not</i> inspired by science, it was inspired by picking a word from physics then doing whatever Asimov wanted with it. In reality, the brains of Asimov's robots would probably emit enough high energy gamma radiation to make people around them get sick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of a positronic brain was not inspired by science , it was inspired by picking a word from physics then doing whatever Asimov wanted with it .
In reality , the brains of Asimov 's robots would probably emit enough high energy gamma radiation to make people around them get sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of a positronic brain was not inspired by science, it was inspired by picking a word from physics then doing whatever Asimov wanted with it.
In reality, the brains of Asimov's robots would probably emit enough high energy gamma radiation to make people around them get sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the TV show Heroes?  It's fun to watch but certainly not realistic.  For example:  How can Sylar pick-up a person and throw him against a wall?  Newton's Law dictates that Sylar should be pushed backward with an equal force (recoil).  Also where is the energy coming from?  Sylar must eat 50,000 calories a day* to maintain that level of "toss people against walls" energy output.</p><p>I'd rather stick with SCIENCE fiction, with emphasis on the science and making it not violate known universal laws/theories.</p><p>*<br>* Trivia: Homo neanderthalis ate 10,000 calories a day to maintain his huge bulky body.  Then Homo sapiens arrived and effectively starved neanderthal man out of food.  That's how you control Sylar.  Deprive him of food, and he'll not have enough energy to do his tricks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the TV show Heroes ?
It 's fun to watch but certainly not realistic .
For example : How can Sylar pick-up a person and throw him against a wall ?
Newton 's Law dictates that Sylar should be pushed backward with an equal force ( recoil ) .
Also where is the energy coming from ?
Sylar must eat 50,000 calories a day * to maintain that level of " toss people against walls " energy output.I 'd rather stick with SCIENCE fiction , with emphasis on the science and making it not violate known universal laws/theories .
* * Trivia : Homo neanderthalis ate 10,000 calories a day to maintain his huge bulky body .
Then Homo sapiens arrived and effectively starved neanderthal man out of food .
That 's how you control Sylar .
Deprive him of food , and he 'll not have enough energy to do his tricks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the TV show Heroes?
It's fun to watch but certainly not realistic.
For example:  How can Sylar pick-up a person and throw him against a wall?
Newton's Law dictates that Sylar should be pushed backward with an equal force (recoil).
Also where is the energy coming from?
Sylar must eat 50,000 calories a day* to maintain that level of "toss people against walls" energy output.I'd rather stick with SCIENCE fiction, with emphasis on the science and making it not violate known universal laws/theories.
** Trivia: Homo neanderthalis ate 10,000 calories a day to maintain his huge bulky body.
Then Homo sapiens arrived and effectively starved neanderthal man out of food.
That's how you control Sylar.
Deprive him of food, and he'll not have enough energy to do his tricks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188392</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>agrif</author>
	<datestamp>1258801740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the <em>exact reason</em> I love Alastair Reynolds books. He's said before that if he thinks that something is not possible according to science as we know it today, he won't write it in to the books unless it is absolutely necessary.</p><p>In his major trilogy, he only does this twice: inertia suppression machinery and hypometric weapons, both of which were needed to progress the story at an interesting pace. Additionaly, he made it clear that what these devices were doing to space was abhorrently wrong: hypometric weapons gave everyone that looked at them the willies, and inertia suppressors could edit a man out of history entirely, not only killing him but removing any proof he ever existed at all. Both of these were stolen from cultures after many <em>millions</em> of years of space flight. Even his impossibilities begin to seem reasonable.</p><p>Also, I put forth Reynolds as the example of Sci-Fi that continues to amaze. His characters are well built, and his plot is beautiful and approachable, even as it accelerates into deep time. It certainly helps that this man clearly knows some physics, and knows what needs to be said to make technologies seem plausible. I mean, when someone detects a spacecraft based on it's specific flavor of neutrino emissions, that's a credit to the author. Even more so when the antagonists begin to use that specific signature to hunt people down <em>one whole book later</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the exact reason I love Alastair Reynolds books .
He 's said before that if he thinks that something is not possible according to science as we know it today , he wo n't write it in to the books unless it is absolutely necessary.In his major trilogy , he only does this twice : inertia suppression machinery and hypometric weapons , both of which were needed to progress the story at an interesting pace .
Additionaly , he made it clear that what these devices were doing to space was abhorrently wrong : hypometric weapons gave everyone that looked at them the willies , and inertia suppressors could edit a man out of history entirely , not only killing him but removing any proof he ever existed at all .
Both of these were stolen from cultures after many millions of years of space flight .
Even his impossibilities begin to seem reasonable.Also , I put forth Reynolds as the example of Sci-Fi that continues to amaze .
His characters are well built , and his plot is beautiful and approachable , even as it accelerates into deep time .
It certainly helps that this man clearly knows some physics , and knows what needs to be said to make technologies seem plausible .
I mean , when someone detects a spacecraft based on it 's specific flavor of neutrino emissions , that 's a credit to the author .
Even more so when the antagonists begin to use that specific signature to hunt people down one whole book later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the exact reason I love Alastair Reynolds books.
He's said before that if he thinks that something is not possible according to science as we know it today, he won't write it in to the books unless it is absolutely necessary.In his major trilogy, he only does this twice: inertia suppression machinery and hypometric weapons, both of which were needed to progress the story at an interesting pace.
Additionaly, he made it clear that what these devices were doing to space was abhorrently wrong: hypometric weapons gave everyone that looked at them the willies, and inertia suppressors could edit a man out of history entirely, not only killing him but removing any proof he ever existed at all.
Both of these were stolen from cultures after many millions of years of space flight.
Even his impossibilities begin to seem reasonable.Also, I put forth Reynolds as the example of Sci-Fi that continues to amaze.
His characters are well built, and his plot is beautiful and approachable, even as it accelerates into deep time.
It certainly helps that this man clearly knows some physics, and knows what needs to be said to make technologies seem plausible.
I mean, when someone detects a spacecraft based on it's specific flavor of neutrino emissions, that's a credit to the author.
Even more so when the antagonists begin to use that specific signature to hunt people down one whole book later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189218</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1258807740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina, not deus ex machinas. OMG, they dont seem to teach <i> anything </i> in Latin classes these days.</p></div><p>They sure don't! The only Latin plurals that have <i>-ii</i> are the ones where there's already an <i>-i-</i> in the word, like <i>radius</i> =&gt; <i>radii</i>.</p><p> <i>Deus</i>, as it happens, is one of the very very few irregular nouns in Latin, and <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus\%3Atext\%3A1999.04.0059\%3Aentry\%3Ddeus" title="tufts.edu">the plural</a> [tufts.edu] can be either <i>di</i> or, less often, <i>dei</i>.</p><p>In answer to the sibling AC who asked if <i>di ex machina</i> wouldn't imply a whole bunch of gods hanging from a single crane: the answer is no. In Latin that kind of construction is distributive, i.e. the usual implication is that there's one <i>machina</i> for every <i>deus</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina , not deus ex machinas .
OMG , they dont seem to teach anything in Latin classes these days.They sure do n't !
The only Latin plurals that have -ii are the ones where there 's already an -i- in the word , like radius = &gt; radii .
Deus , as it happens , is one of the very very few irregular nouns in Latin , and the plural [ tufts.edu ] can be either di or , less often , dei.In answer to the sibling AC who asked if di ex machina would n't imply a whole bunch of gods hanging from a single crane : the answer is no .
In Latin that kind of construction is distributive , i.e .
the usual implication is that there 's one machina for every deus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina, not deus ex machinas.
OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes these days.They sure don't!
The only Latin plurals that have -ii are the ones where there's already an -i- in the word, like radius =&gt; radii.
Deus, as it happens, is one of the very very few irregular nouns in Latin, and the plural [tufts.edu] can be either di or, less often, dei.In answer to the sibling AC who asked if di ex machina wouldn't imply a whole bunch of gods hanging from a single crane: the answer is no.
In Latin that kind of construction is distributive, i.e.
the usual implication is that there's one machina for every deus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188050</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258799580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just love how people like you assume that no technological progress will be made and that the problems of today will be the same as the problems in 50 years, only worse.</p><p>We haven't "cracked the energy problem" because energy has been cheap and plentiful enough not to need to, for the most part.  Now that people are worried about it, it will happen, although it will take time.  (Also, I think it would be incorrect to say that no energy advances have been made since 1960.)</p><p>We'll have plenty of problems in 50 years, but it won't be the things that people are worrying about today (with a few exceptions).  I grew up in the cold war era -- how many people are worried every day about nuclear war now?  Do you still think we're all likely to 'splode any second?  No, now it's that we'll take our stupid lines and extrapolate out on the graph for 100 years without any regard for technological progress to X or Y horrible fate.</p><p>I will never convince you, but you'll convince yourself eventually.  Save your post for a few years and re-read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just love how people like you assume that no technological progress will be made and that the problems of today will be the same as the problems in 50 years , only worse.We have n't " cracked the energy problem " because energy has been cheap and plentiful enough not to need to , for the most part .
Now that people are worried about it , it will happen , although it will take time .
( Also , I think it would be incorrect to say that no energy advances have been made since 1960 .
) We 'll have plenty of problems in 50 years , but it wo n't be the things that people are worrying about today ( with a few exceptions ) .
I grew up in the cold war era -- how many people are worried every day about nuclear war now ?
Do you still think we 're all likely to 'splode any second ?
No , now it 's that we 'll take our stupid lines and extrapolate out on the graph for 100 years without any regard for technological progress to X or Y horrible fate.I will never convince you , but you 'll convince yourself eventually .
Save your post for a few years and re-read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just love how people like you assume that no technological progress will be made and that the problems of today will be the same as the problems in 50 years, only worse.We haven't "cracked the energy problem" because energy has been cheap and plentiful enough not to need to, for the most part.
Now that people are worried about it, it will happen, although it will take time.
(Also, I think it would be incorrect to say that no energy advances have been made since 1960.
)We'll have plenty of problems in 50 years, but it won't be the things that people are worrying about today (with a few exceptions).
I grew up in the cold war era -- how many people are worried every day about nuclear war now?
Do you still think we're all likely to 'splode any second?
No, now it's that we'll take our stupid lines and extrapolate out on the graph for 100 years without any regard for technological progress to X or Y horrible fate.I will never convince you, but you'll convince yourself eventually.
Save your post for a few years and re-read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186668</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is a false premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, said he was inspired by Jules Verne and other early scientifiction stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Robert Goddard , the father of rocketry , said he was inspired by Jules Verne and other early scientifiction stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, said he was inspired by Jules Verne and other early scientifiction stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187188</id>
	<title>The future isn't human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258837080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I look at the way technology is moving, I don't believe we will travel to the stars in these ugly bags of mostly water.  Building the equipment necessary to transport these fragile shells is an engineering problem best avoided by building better shells.  Once we build better bodies, or otherwise unlock the secret of immortality, everything changes.  Are we still human?</p><p>It's hard to connect with a mainstream audience when your protagonist is a metallic sphere, or a disembodied brain experiencing the the wonder of exploring interstellar space via telepresence.</p><p>Speculating on this post-human condition is interesting to some people, but for the general public, who are hot messes of irrational emotion, violent tendencies, and repressed sexual urges, how can you make a compelling film about this?  Space marines on LV-426 battling xenomorphs is easy to relate to.</p><p>captcha: lifeless</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I look at the way technology is moving , I do n't believe we will travel to the stars in these ugly bags of mostly water .
Building the equipment necessary to transport these fragile shells is an engineering problem best avoided by building better shells .
Once we build better bodies , or otherwise unlock the secret of immortality , everything changes .
Are we still human ? It 's hard to connect with a mainstream audience when your protagonist is a metallic sphere , or a disembodied brain experiencing the the wonder of exploring interstellar space via telepresence.Speculating on this post-human condition is interesting to some people , but for the general public , who are hot messes of irrational emotion , violent tendencies , and repressed sexual urges , how can you make a compelling film about this ?
Space marines on LV-426 battling xenomorphs is easy to relate to.captcha : lifeless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I look at the way technology is moving, I don't believe we will travel to the stars in these ugly bags of mostly water.
Building the equipment necessary to transport these fragile shells is an engineering problem best avoided by building better shells.
Once we build better bodies, or otherwise unlock the secret of immortality, everything changes.
Are we still human?It's hard to connect with a mainstream audience when your protagonist is a metallic sphere, or a disembodied brain experiencing the the wonder of exploring interstellar space via telepresence.Speculating on this post-human condition is interesting to some people, but for the general public, who are hot messes of irrational emotion, violent tendencies, and repressed sexual urges, how can you make a compelling film about this?
Space marines on LV-426 battling xenomorphs is easy to relate to.captcha: lifeless</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346</id>
	<title>Maybe it's the publishing side that's the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258801440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt science fiction has "run out of steam," in terms of authors or imagination any more than science or technology has run out of steam due to a lack of imagination. Rather, I wonder if the science fiction <i>publishing</i> business has either run out of steam or become an active roadblock between writers and readers. It seems that most publishers are trying a play-it-safe approach that demands giving out the same thing over and over again. <p>This is based partially on what I see in bookstores and partially on my own experience, which I discuss extensively in <a href="http://jseliger.com/2008/06/05/on-science-fiction/" title="jseliger.com">Science fiction, literature, and the haters</a> [jseliger.com]. It begins:</p><blockquote><div><p>Why does so little science fiction rise to the standards of literary fiction?
</p><p>
This question arose from two overlapping events. The first came from reading Day of the Triffids (link goes to my post); although I don't remember how I came to the book, someone must've recommended it on a blog or newspaper in compelling enough terms for me to buy it. Its weaknesses, as discussed in the post, brought up science fiction and its relation to the larger book world.
</p><p>
The second event arose from a science fiction novel I wrote called Pearle Transit that I've been submitting to agents. It's based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness--think, on a superficial level, "Heart of Darkness in space." Two replies stand out: one came from an agent who said he found the idea intriguing but that science fiction novels must be at least 100,000 words long and have sequels already started. "Wow," I thought. How many great literary novels have enough narrative force and character drive for sequels? The answer that came immediately to mind was "zero," and after reflection and consultation with friends I still can't find any. Most novels expend all their ideas at once, and to keep going would be like wearing a shirt that fades from too many washes. Even in science fiction, very few if any series maintain their momentum over time; think of how awful the Dune books rapidly became, or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. A few novels can make it as multiple-part works, but most of those were conceived of and executed as a single work, like Dan Simmons' Hyperion or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (more on those later).
</p><p>
The minimum word count bothers me too. It's not possible for Pearle Transit to be stretched beyond its present size without destroying what makes it coherent and, I hope, good. By its nature it is supposed to be taunt, and much as a 120-pound person cannot be safely made into a 240-pound person, Pearle Transit can't be engorged without making it like the bloated star that sets its opening scene. If the market reality is that such books can't or won't sell, I begin to tie the quality of the science fiction I've read together with the system that produces it.</p></div></blockquote><p>

If the publishing system itself is broken and nothing yet has grown up to take its place (I have no interest in trolling through thousands of terrible novels uploaded to websites in search of a single potential gem, for those of you Internet utopians out there), maybe the source of the genre's troubles isn't where PC Pro places it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt science fiction has " run out of steam , " in terms of authors or imagination any more than science or technology has run out of steam due to a lack of imagination .
Rather , I wonder if the science fiction publishing business has either run out of steam or become an active roadblock between writers and readers .
It seems that most publishers are trying a play-it-safe approach that demands giving out the same thing over and over again .
This is based partially on what I see in bookstores and partially on my own experience , which I discuss extensively in Science fiction , literature , and the haters [ jseliger.com ] .
It begins : Why does so little science fiction rise to the standards of literary fiction ?
This question arose from two overlapping events .
The first came from reading Day of the Triffids ( link goes to my post ) ; although I do n't remember how I came to the book , someone must 've recommended it on a blog or newspaper in compelling enough terms for me to buy it .
Its weaknesses , as discussed in the post , brought up science fiction and its relation to the larger book world .
The second event arose from a science fiction novel I wrote called Pearle Transit that I 've been submitting to agents .
It 's based on Conrad 's Heart of Darkness--think , on a superficial level , " Heart of Darkness in space .
" Two replies stand out : one came from an agent who said he found the idea intriguing but that science fiction novels must be at least 100,000 words long and have sequels already started .
" Wow , " I thought .
How many great literary novels have enough narrative force and character drive for sequels ?
The answer that came immediately to mind was " zero , " and after reflection and consultation with friends I still ca n't find any .
Most novels expend all their ideas at once , and to keep going would be like wearing a shirt that fades from too many washes .
Even in science fiction , very few if any series maintain their momentum over time ; think of how awful the Dune books rapidly became , or Arthur C. Clarke 's Rama series .
A few novels can make it as multiple-part works , but most of those were conceived of and executed as a single work , like Dan Simmons ' Hyperion or Tolkien 's The Lord of the Rings ( more on those later ) .
The minimum word count bothers me too .
It 's not possible for Pearle Transit to be stretched beyond its present size without destroying what makes it coherent and , I hope , good .
By its nature it is supposed to be taunt , and much as a 120-pound person can not be safely made into a 240-pound person , Pearle Transit ca n't be engorged without making it like the bloated star that sets its opening scene .
If the market reality is that such books ca n't or wo n't sell , I begin to tie the quality of the science fiction I 've read together with the system that produces it .
If the publishing system itself is broken and nothing yet has grown up to take its place ( I have no interest in trolling through thousands of terrible novels uploaded to websites in search of a single potential gem , for those of you Internet utopians out there ) , maybe the source of the genre 's troubles is n't where PC Pro places it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt science fiction has "run out of steam," in terms of authors or imagination any more than science or technology has run out of steam due to a lack of imagination.
Rather, I wonder if the science fiction publishing business has either run out of steam or become an active roadblock between writers and readers.
It seems that most publishers are trying a play-it-safe approach that demands giving out the same thing over and over again.
This is based partially on what I see in bookstores and partially on my own experience, which I discuss extensively in Science fiction, literature, and the haters [jseliger.com].
It begins:Why does so little science fiction rise to the standards of literary fiction?
This question arose from two overlapping events.
The first came from reading Day of the Triffids (link goes to my post); although I don't remember how I came to the book, someone must've recommended it on a blog or newspaper in compelling enough terms for me to buy it.
Its weaknesses, as discussed in the post, brought up science fiction and its relation to the larger book world.
The second event arose from a science fiction novel I wrote called Pearle Transit that I've been submitting to agents.
It's based on Conrad's Heart of Darkness--think, on a superficial level, "Heart of Darkness in space.
" Two replies stand out: one came from an agent who said he found the idea intriguing but that science fiction novels must be at least 100,000 words long and have sequels already started.
"Wow," I thought.
How many great literary novels have enough narrative force and character drive for sequels?
The answer that came immediately to mind was "zero," and after reflection and consultation with friends I still can't find any.
Most novels expend all their ideas at once, and to keep going would be like wearing a shirt that fades from too many washes.
Even in science fiction, very few if any series maintain their momentum over time; think of how awful the Dune books rapidly became, or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series.
A few novels can make it as multiple-part works, but most of those were conceived of and executed as a single work, like Dan Simmons' Hyperion or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (more on those later).
The minimum word count bothers me too.
It's not possible for Pearle Transit to be stretched beyond its present size without destroying what makes it coherent and, I hope, good.
By its nature it is supposed to be taunt, and much as a 120-pound person cannot be safely made into a 240-pound person, Pearle Transit can't be engorged without making it like the bloated star that sets its opening scene.
If the market reality is that such books can't or won't sell, I begin to tie the quality of the science fiction I've read together with the system that produces it.
If the publishing system itself is broken and nothing yet has grown up to take its place (I have no interest in trolling through thousands of terrible novels uploaded to websites in search of a single potential gem, for those of you Internet utopians out there), maybe the source of the genre's troubles isn't where PC Pro places it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186824</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty mainstream TV shows</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1258834740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget 24 with it's magical triangulation, databases of everybody and all those other useful technological advances (that most of the audience believes are 100\% real).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget 24 with it 's magical triangulation , databases of everybody and all those other useful technological advances ( that most of the audience believes are 100 \ % real ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget 24 with it's magical triangulation, databases of everybody and all those other useful technological advances (that most of the audience believes are 100\% real).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187816</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>thoughtfulbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1258797960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, with nanotechnology the trees will be tiny, tiny trees. So we will be more likely to see the forest than the trees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , with nanotechnology the trees will be tiny , tiny trees .
So we will be more likely to see the forest than the trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, with nanotechnology the trees will be tiny, tiny trees.
So we will be more likely to see the forest than the trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187434</id>
	<title>Scifi is becoming mainstream</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1258795740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sci-fi is important for the mainstream, not just to geeks. SF must try to reach the masses.<br>Firefly was fantastic in that regard. My little sister, who hates space,<br>was glued to all episodes. Allthough the actual science and sci-fi in Firefly lacked detail.<br>Still, Firefly and later on BattlestarGalactica did wonders to make sci-fi more mainstream<br>without beeing bad. (Allthough BSG after season 3,5 was completly worthless)<br>Star Trek 2009 also tried to have it both ways. The result was that trekkies felt like barf<br>and women enjoyd it!<br>And now, Stargate Universe tries to be mainstream. Needless to say, there's a looong way<br>to go yet...</p><p>On the more scary aspect of where sci-fi actually IS dying. Fantasy that tries to look<br>like Sci-fi: StarWars Heroes X-Men Hitchhiker'sGuide Dollhouse X-Files and on and on...<br>This is extremly troublesome since better sci-fi lead to better science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-fi is important for the mainstream , not just to geeks .
SF must try to reach the masses.Firefly was fantastic in that regard .
My little sister , who hates space,was glued to all episodes .
Allthough the actual science and sci-fi in Firefly lacked detail.Still , Firefly and later on BattlestarGalactica did wonders to make sci-fi more mainstreamwithout beeing bad .
( Allthough BSG after season 3,5 was completly worthless ) Star Trek 2009 also tried to have it both ways .
The result was that trekkies felt like barfand women enjoyd it ! And now , Stargate Universe tries to be mainstream .
Needless to say , there 's a looong wayto go yet...On the more scary aspect of where sci-fi actually IS dying .
Fantasy that tries to looklike Sci-fi : StarWars Heroes X-Men Hitchhiker'sGuide Dollhouse X-Files and on and on...This is extremly troublesome since better sci-fi lead to better science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-fi is important for the mainstream, not just to geeks.
SF must try to reach the masses.Firefly was fantastic in that regard.
My little sister, who hates space,was glued to all episodes.
Allthough the actual science and sci-fi in Firefly lacked detail.Still, Firefly and later on BattlestarGalactica did wonders to make sci-fi more mainstreamwithout beeing bad.
(Allthough BSG after season 3,5 was completly worthless)Star Trek 2009 also tried to have it both ways.
The result was that trekkies felt like barfand women enjoyd it!And now, Stargate Universe tries to be mainstream.
Needless to say, there's a looong wayto go yet...On the more scary aspect of where sci-fi actually IS dying.
Fantasy that tries to looklike Sci-fi: StarWars Heroes X-Men Hitchhiker'sGuide Dollhouse X-Files and on and on...This is extremly troublesome since better sci-fi lead to better science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187184</id>
	<title>The end of Sci-Fi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258837080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If and when the Singularity occurs, then sci-fi will finally have finished predicting the future.  Afterward, only singular sci-fi will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If and when the Singularity occurs , then sci-fi will finally have finished predicting the future .
Afterward , only singular sci-fi will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If and when the Singularity occurs, then sci-fi will finally have finished predicting the future.
Afterward, only singular sci-fi will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>wembley fraggle</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it hasn't.</p><p>Science fiction isn't about "telling the future", it's about making commentary about the Human Condition, putting together entertaining yarns, looking at what-if scenarios in society. Do you think PKD really believed any of the futuristic technology he talked about (read Ubik for a nice example) was really possible? Who knows - it's just a necessary condition to set up the scenario in which we can see interesting ideas play ouy.</p><p>Any quick read of the New Masters of SF (china mieville, ian macdonald, iain m banks, ken mcleod, dan simmons) will show you that the genre is alive, kicking, and more literary than ever before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it has n't.Science fiction is n't about " telling the future " , it 's about making commentary about the Human Condition , putting together entertaining yarns , looking at what-if scenarios in society .
Do you think PKD really believed any of the futuristic technology he talked about ( read Ubik for a nice example ) was really possible ?
Who knows - it 's just a necessary condition to set up the scenario in which we can see interesting ideas play ouy.Any quick read of the New Masters of SF ( china mieville , ian macdonald , iain m banks , ken mcleod , dan simmons ) will show you that the genre is alive , kicking , and more literary than ever before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it hasn't.Science fiction isn't about "telling the future", it's about making commentary about the Human Condition, putting together entertaining yarns, looking at what-if scenarios in society.
Do you think PKD really believed any of the futuristic technology he talked about (read Ubik for a nice example) was really possible?
Who knows - it's just a necessary condition to set up the scenario in which we can see interesting ideas play ouy.Any quick read of the New Masters of SF (china mieville, ian macdonald, iain m banks, ken mcleod, dan simmons) will show you that the genre is alive, kicking, and more literary than ever before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191932</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it's the publishing side that's the probl</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1258882740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to check out <a href="http://www.webscription.net/" title="webscription.net">Baen Books</a> [webscription.net] -- they're a publisher that still publishes lots of excellent science fiction (as well as some pretty bad stuff too, admittedly) -- and all their books are available as DRM-free e-books.  In particular, the <a href="http://www.webscription.net//c-1-free-library.aspx" title="webscription.net">Free Library</a> [webscription.net] is great.</p><p>Some publishers do "get it". Unfortunately, the majority <em>don't</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to check out Baen Books [ webscription.net ] -- they 're a publisher that still publishes lots of excellent science fiction ( as well as some pretty bad stuff too , admittedly ) -- and all their books are available as DRM-free e-books .
In particular , the Free Library [ webscription.net ] is great.Some publishers do " get it " .
Unfortunately , the majority do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to check out Baen Books [webscription.net] -- they're a publisher that still publishes lots of excellent science fiction (as well as some pretty bad stuff too, admittedly) -- and all their books are available as DRM-free e-books.
In particular, the Free Library [webscription.net] is great.Some publishers do "get it".
Unfortunately, the majority don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186810</id>
	<title>I would also add  social issues</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1258834680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>contribute to the decline. SF (often) comes from a techno-utopian world view of unlimited resources and unlimited growth. Present conditions seem to contradict that, and there is a greater awareness of the downside of industrialism. As a consequence, SF of a techno-utopian variety has less credibility.
<p>
And before a bunch of techno-utopians get their knickers in a bunch, I'm pointing out DEGREES of things, not some idiotic blinkered 1/0 true/false Bullcrap. Perceptions, whether true or false, are perceptions, and if people are seeing things like flat oil production since 2005, it doesn't take Einstein to figure out we're in deep doo doo.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>contribute to the decline .
SF ( often ) comes from a techno-utopian world view of unlimited resources and unlimited growth .
Present conditions seem to contradict that , and there is a greater awareness of the downside of industrialism .
As a consequence , SF of a techno-utopian variety has less credibility .
And before a bunch of techno-utopians get their knickers in a bunch , I 'm pointing out DEGREES of things , not some idiotic blinkered 1/0 true/false Bullcrap .
Perceptions , whether true or false , are perceptions , and if people are seeing things like flat oil production since 2005 , it does n't take Einstein to figure out we 're in deep doo doo .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>contribute to the decline.
SF (often) comes from a techno-utopian world view of unlimited resources and unlimited growth.
Present conditions seem to contradict that, and there is a greater awareness of the downside of industrialism.
As a consequence, SF of a techno-utopian variety has less credibility.
And before a bunch of techno-utopians get their knickers in a bunch, I'm pointing out DEGREES of things, not some idiotic blinkered 1/0 true/false Bullcrap.
Perceptions, whether true or false, are perceptions, and if people are seeing things like flat oil production since 2005, it doesn't take Einstein to figure out we're in deep doo doo.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189640</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1258811100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you know that robots are going to destroy most of humanity?  None of the things you describe are going to stop the development of the AI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you know that robots are going to destroy most of humanity ?
None of the things you describe are going to stop the development of the AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you know that robots are going to destroy most of humanity?
None of the things you describe are going to stop the development of the AI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186570</id>
	<title>Peter Watts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258833240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the rifter trilogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the rifter trilogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the rifter trilogy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340</id>
	<title>Unfair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a bit disingenuous to say SciFi has run out of steam because it isn't predicting what will happen in ten years time. And thankfully there's plenty of great SciFi that, I am pleased to say, has not predicted what will happen in ten years time. Admittedly, the genre could use a bit of a refresh but I'm sure even Shakespeare had his more reflective periods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a bit disingenuous to say SciFi has run out of steam because it is n't predicting what will happen in ten years time .
And thankfully there 's plenty of great SciFi that , I am pleased to say , has not predicted what will happen in ten years time .
Admittedly , the genre could use a bit of a refresh but I 'm sure even Shakespeare had his more reflective periods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a bit disingenuous to say SciFi has run out of steam because it isn't predicting what will happen in ten years time.
And thankfully there's plenty of great SciFi that, I am pleased to say, has not predicted what will happen in ten years time.
Admittedly, the genre could use a bit of a refresh but I'm sure even Shakespeare had his more reflective periods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198714</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>doom</author>
	<datestamp>1258904700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Animats (122034) wrote:</p><blockquote><div><p>The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF
require vast amounts of energy. And that's not happening. There
hasn't been a new source of energy in fifty years, just marginal
improvements in the old ones. This matters.
<br> <br>
That's why space travel is a bust. With chemical fuels, it will
never be more than an overly expensive, marginal enterprise. The
better '50s SF writers all knew this; read Heinlein's "The Man
Who Sold the Moon". They just assumed that, somehow, the energy
problem would be cracked. Didn't happen. So space travel remains
an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Nope, you're pretty much completely wrong here.  My understanding
is that the energy required to get into low-earth orbit is
roughly the same required by a transcontinental plane flight.
And further, once you are in LEO, energetically you're around
half-way to anywhere else in the solar system.
</p><p>
A "free energy scenario" wouldn't hurt, but really
if you're wondering why we don't rule the solar system at this
point, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
</p><blockquote><div><p>During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme. We
don't hear that phrase used much any more. The number by which
one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median
real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973. (Median
income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth
concentration to rich people.) Back then, a guy without a high
school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a
house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids. That's
over. (You don't see that number mentioned much any more. It was
heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard
of living in the world".)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

One suspects that the powers that be didn't much like the
political unrest generated in the affluent 60s.  Best to keep
people feeling a bit desperate and hungry, eh?
</p><p>
But you know, just for argument's sake... why would anyone in
their right minds care about that crap?  A two-car house in the
burbs?  Please, give me a bicycle in a real city any day.
</p><blockquote><div><p> Now we're starting to run out of energy and raw
materials. Nobody serious thinks there's enough left to sustain
current output for another century, let alone bring China and
India up to US levels of consumption.</p></div>  </blockquote><p>

Methinks you've been listening too much to the "peakies".  The
people who really believe in the peak oil scenario are people who
want to believe that it's true (why exactly do they keep ignoring
the Caspian sea area?  What do they think we're doing in
Afghanistan, anyway?).  The oil companies aren't arguing with
them too much, I suspect because this general belief is a great
excuse for price gouging... Exxon has been doing great with "the
energy crisis" part II.  </p><blockquote><div><p>It's hard to write good SF about "the great winding down". It's
been done, but it's not read much. The glory days of SF coincide
with the period during which "progress" was a win for the little
guy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

A couple of things here:
</p><ol>
<li>
As I just mentioned to someone else: you're whining about how
nothing cool ever happens anymore on a medium that didn't exist
15 years ago.  Hell, 15 years ago, people were still having
trouble with the idea of email.</li>

<li> The idea that Science Fiction is a literature of optimism is
fundamentally crazy.  Just to pick an example: one of Heinlein's
first works was about a United States under the thumb of a
religious dictatorship.  In general, utopian fiction has always
been a regarded as a boring exception to the rule: cautionary
tales about things going wrong in the brave new world of the future.</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Animats ( 122034 ) wrote : The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF require vast amounts of energy .
And that 's not happening .
There has n't been a new source of energy in fifty years , just marginal improvements in the old ones .
This matters .
That 's why space travel is a bust .
With chemical fuels , it will never be more than an overly expensive , marginal enterprise .
The better '50s SF writers all knew this ; read Heinlein 's " The Man Who Sold the Moon " .
They just assumed that , somehow , the energy problem would be cracked .
Did n't happen .
So space travel remains an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires .
Nope , you 're pretty much completely wrong here .
My understanding is that the energy required to get into low-earth orbit is roughly the same required by a transcontinental plane flight .
And further , once you are in LEO , energetically you 're around half-way to anywhere else in the solar system .
A " free energy scenario " would n't hurt , but really if you 're wondering why we do n't rule the solar system at this point , you 're going to have to look elsewhere .
During most of the 20th century , " progress " was a big theme .
We do n't hear that phrase used much any more .
The number by which one measures " progress " for the average Joe , " per capita median real income for urban wage earners " , peaked in 1973 .
( Median income , not average income ; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people .
) Back then , a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house , two cars , a boat , and an education for his kids .
That 's over .
( You do n't see that number mentioned much any more .
It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted " the highest standard of living in the world " .
) One suspects that the powers that be did n't much like the political unrest generated in the affluent 60s .
Best to keep people feeling a bit desperate and hungry , eh ?
But you know , just for argument 's sake... why would anyone in their right minds care about that crap ?
A two-car house in the burbs ?
Please , give me a bicycle in a real city any day .
Now we 're starting to run out of energy and raw materials .
Nobody serious thinks there 's enough left to sustain current output for another century , let alone bring China and India up to US levels of consumption .
Methinks you 've been listening too much to the " peakies " .
The people who really believe in the peak oil scenario are people who want to believe that it 's true ( why exactly do they keep ignoring the Caspian sea area ?
What do they think we 're doing in Afghanistan , anyway ? ) .
The oil companies are n't arguing with them too much , I suspect because this general belief is a great excuse for price gouging... Exxon has been doing great with " the energy crisis " part II .
It 's hard to write good SF about " the great winding down " .
It 's been done , but it 's not read much .
The glory days of SF coincide with the period during which " progress " was a win for the little guy .
A couple of things here : As I just mentioned to someone else : you 're whining about how nothing cool ever happens anymore on a medium that did n't exist 15 years ago .
Hell , 15 years ago , people were still having trouble with the idea of email .
The idea that Science Fiction is a literature of optimism is fundamentally crazy .
Just to pick an example : one of Heinlein 's first works was about a United States under the thumb of a religious dictatorship .
In general , utopian fiction has always been a regarded as a boring exception to the rule : cautionary tales about things going wrong in the brave new world of the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Animats (122034) wrote:The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF
require vast amounts of energy.
And that's not happening.
There
hasn't been a new source of energy in fifty years, just marginal
improvements in the old ones.
This matters.
That's why space travel is a bust.
With chemical fuels, it will
never be more than an overly expensive, marginal enterprise.
The
better '50s SF writers all knew this; read Heinlein's "The Man
Who Sold the Moon".
They just assumed that, somehow, the energy
problem would be cracked.
Didn't happen.
So space travel remains
an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires.
Nope, you're pretty much completely wrong here.
My understanding
is that the energy required to get into low-earth orbit is
roughly the same required by a transcontinental plane flight.
And further, once you are in LEO, energetically you're around
half-way to anywhere else in the solar system.
A "free energy scenario" wouldn't hurt, but really
if you're wondering why we don't rule the solar system at this
point, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme.
We
don't hear that phrase used much any more.
The number by which
one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median
real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973.
(Median
income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth
concentration to rich people.
) Back then, a guy without a high
school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a
house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids.
That's
over.
(You don't see that number mentioned much any more.
It was
heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard
of living in the world".
)


One suspects that the powers that be didn't much like the
political unrest generated in the affluent 60s.
Best to keep
people feeling a bit desperate and hungry, eh?
But you know, just for argument's sake... why would anyone in
their right minds care about that crap?
A two-car house in the
burbs?
Please, give me a bicycle in a real city any day.
Now we're starting to run out of energy and raw
materials.
Nobody serious thinks there's enough left to sustain
current output for another century, let alone bring China and
India up to US levels of consumption.
Methinks you've been listening too much to the "peakies".
The
people who really believe in the peak oil scenario are people who
want to believe that it's true (why exactly do they keep ignoring
the Caspian sea area?
What do they think we're doing in
Afghanistan, anyway?).
The oil companies aren't arguing with
them too much, I suspect because this general belief is a great
excuse for price gouging... Exxon has been doing great with "the
energy crisis" part II.
It's hard to write good SF about "the great winding down".
It's
been done, but it's not read much.
The glory days of SF coincide
with the period during which "progress" was a win for the little
guy.
A couple of things here:


As I just mentioned to someone else: you're whining about how
nothing cool ever happens anymore on a medium that didn't exist
15 years ago.
Hell, 15 years ago, people were still having
trouble with the idea of email.
The idea that Science Fiction is a literature of optimism is
fundamentally crazy.
Just to pick an example: one of Heinlein's
first works was about a United States under the thumb of a
religious dictatorship.
In general, utopian fiction has always
been a regarded as a boring exception to the rule: cautionary
tales about things going wrong in the brave new world of the future.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186594</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258833360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;what was once considered SciFi (Tech related) has moved more mainstream and become, in some cases, traditional fiction.</p><p>Ahhh... like the CBS network:</p><p>- CSI<br>- NCIS<br>- CIA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; what was once considered SciFi ( Tech related ) has moved more mainstream and become , in some cases , traditional fiction.Ahhh... like the CBS network : - CSI- NCIS- CIA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;what was once considered SciFi (Tech related) has moved more mainstream and become, in some cases, traditional fiction.Ahhh... like the CBS network:- CSI- NCIS- CIA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187754</id>
	<title>Convolutifusion</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258797540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SF doesn't run on steam. It runs on sales. Look at what's selling now vs. then.</p><p>Prediction is still as prevalent. It just has to be further and further out because of the acceleration of technologies. It's harder to hit the single-generation prediction window.</p><p>TFA uses technology and computing interchangeably. Computing is a subset. Computing is becoming predictable, and those that write about it are paying more attention to it rather than simply imagining. Not to do so leaves them open to criticism from, well, pretty much the entire audience of TFA and its transfer over here.</p><p>There's a lot more very visually descriptive, realistic-science SF now days being used as the basis for social commentary/prediction. Figure those predictions into the field's output and see if things don't even back out.</p><p>Other technologies are not being so smoothed, pre-compressed, pre-approved and second guessed. They're not suffering from the prediction deficit. Frinstance, the second place Hugo nominee from 1971 (the first place being "no award") isn't heavy on the details, but the technology necessary is barely less than overt:<br>"There's a star ship circling in the sky,<br>it's gonna be ready by 1990.<br>They'll be building it up in the air,<br>ever since 1980.<br>People with a clever plan<br>can assume the role of the mighty.<br>Hijack the star ship,<br>carry 7000 people past the sun."<br>[Blows Against The Empire -- Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship]</p><p>Finally, it's pretty silly to set a standard and claim other works don't measure up to it unless you can objectively show it to measure out as such. And if it did, the resulting article wouldn't be "isn't it great that subsequent SF is keeping pace with..." it's be saying "what a damn shame that everybody is copying X and riding on its coat tails." Gwan, you know you would. If you want a more interesting and applicable (as well as less predictable) answer, instead of having some techies from a techie magazine try to apply techie tunnelvision so they can sound halfway relevant, ask some SF writers to answer it. Just don't ask those who, despite being credited with helping start a new SF movement (especially a tech based one) did so almost entirely without knowledge of the current tech much less predicted future. If you do, you'll likely get an answer something like "Hell, what did I know? I wasn't predicting, I was writing fiction."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SF does n't run on steam .
It runs on sales .
Look at what 's selling now vs. then.Prediction is still as prevalent .
It just has to be further and further out because of the acceleration of technologies .
It 's harder to hit the single-generation prediction window.TFA uses technology and computing interchangeably .
Computing is a subset .
Computing is becoming predictable , and those that write about it are paying more attention to it rather than simply imagining .
Not to do so leaves them open to criticism from , well , pretty much the entire audience of TFA and its transfer over here.There 's a lot more very visually descriptive , realistic-science SF now days being used as the basis for social commentary/prediction .
Figure those predictions into the field 's output and see if things do n't even back out.Other technologies are not being so smoothed , pre-compressed , pre-approved and second guessed .
They 're not suffering from the prediction deficit .
Frinstance , the second place Hugo nominee from 1971 ( the first place being " no award " ) is n't heavy on the details , but the technology necessary is barely less than overt : " There 's a star ship circling in the sky,it 's gon na be ready by 1990.They 'll be building it up in the air,ever since 1980.People with a clever plancan assume the role of the mighty.Hijack the star ship,carry 7000 people past the sun .
" [ Blows Against The Empire -- Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship ] Finally , it 's pretty silly to set a standard and claim other works do n't measure up to it unless you can objectively show it to measure out as such .
And if it did , the resulting article would n't be " is n't it great that subsequent SF is keeping pace with... " it 's be saying " what a damn shame that everybody is copying X and riding on its coat tails .
" Gwan , you know you would .
If you want a more interesting and applicable ( as well as less predictable ) answer , instead of having some techies from a techie magazine try to apply techie tunnelvision so they can sound halfway relevant , ask some SF writers to answer it .
Just do n't ask those who , despite being credited with helping start a new SF movement ( especially a tech based one ) did so almost entirely without knowledge of the current tech much less predicted future .
If you do , you 'll likely get an answer something like " Hell , what did I know ?
I was n't predicting , I was writing fiction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SF doesn't run on steam.
It runs on sales.
Look at what's selling now vs. then.Prediction is still as prevalent.
It just has to be further and further out because of the acceleration of technologies.
It's harder to hit the single-generation prediction window.TFA uses technology and computing interchangeably.
Computing is a subset.
Computing is becoming predictable, and those that write about it are paying more attention to it rather than simply imagining.
Not to do so leaves them open to criticism from, well, pretty much the entire audience of TFA and its transfer over here.There's a lot more very visually descriptive, realistic-science SF now days being used as the basis for social commentary/prediction.
Figure those predictions into the field's output and see if things don't even back out.Other technologies are not being so smoothed, pre-compressed, pre-approved and second guessed.
They're not suffering from the prediction deficit.
Frinstance, the second place Hugo nominee from 1971 (the first place being "no award") isn't heavy on the details, but the technology necessary is barely less than overt:"There's a star ship circling in the sky,it's gonna be ready by 1990.They'll be building it up in the air,ever since 1980.People with a clever plancan assume the role of the mighty.Hijack the star ship,carry 7000 people past the sun.
"[Blows Against The Empire -- Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship]Finally, it's pretty silly to set a standard and claim other works don't measure up to it unless you can objectively show it to measure out as such.
And if it did, the resulting article wouldn't be "isn't it great that subsequent SF is keeping pace with..." it's be saying "what a damn shame that everybody is copying X and riding on its coat tails.
" Gwan, you know you would.
If you want a more interesting and applicable (as well as less predictable) answer, instead of having some techies from a techie magazine try to apply techie tunnelvision so they can sound halfway relevant, ask some SF writers to answer it.
Just don't ask those who, despite being credited with helping start a new SF movement (especially a tech based one) did so almost entirely without knowledge of the current tech much less predicted future.
If you do, you'll likely get an answer something like "Hell, what did I know?
I wasn't predicting, I was writing fiction.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186510</id>
	<title>Sci-Fi isn't about product-ification</title>
	<author>MikeTheGreat</author>
	<datestamp>1258832940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is actually pretty interesting, as it mostly re-caps certain sci-fi ideas/novels that have been made into (or made it into) pop culture &amp; various products.  It isn't really till the last page of the article that they say that "Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart"</p><p>FWIW, I think this is the way things are supposed to be - sci-fi is about taking a new, interesting, novel, science-based idea &amp; exploring it; it's not about trying to predict what next year's phone will look like or what computer technology will be driving the market 5 years from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is actually pretty interesting , as it mostly re-caps certain sci-fi ideas/novels that have been made into ( or made it into ) pop culture &amp; various products .
It is n't really till the last page of the article that they say that " Since Snow Crash , no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world , and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart " FWIW , I think this is the way things are supposed to be - sci-fi is about taking a new , interesting , novel , science-based idea &amp; exploring it ; it 's not about trying to predict what next year 's phone will look like or what computer technology will be driving the market 5 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is actually pretty interesting, as it mostly re-caps certain sci-fi ideas/novels that have been made into (or made it into) pop culture &amp; various products.
It isn't really till the last page of the article that they say that "Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart"FWIW, I think this is the way things are supposed to be - sci-fi is about taking a new, interesting, novel, science-based idea &amp; exploring it; it's not about trying to predict what next year's phone will look like or what computer technology will be driving the market 5 years from now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187030</id>
	<title>The product is not enough</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258836120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash, but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow's products</i> </p><p>To Buy n' Large everything was a product.</p><p> But it was the machines who chose to remain - or become - human - and more than passive consumers of tech.</p><p>It's impossible to imagine Eve and Wall-E being content with the illusions of the <i>The Veldt.</i> Ray Bradbury's early and prophetic foreshadowing of the Matrix and Holodeck.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi 's influence on real-world technology , from Jules Verne to Snow Crash , but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow 's products To Buy n ' Large everything was a product .
But it was the machines who chose to remain - or become - human - and more than passive consumers of tech.It 's impossible to imagine Eve and Wall-E being content with the illusions of the The Veldt .
Ray Bradbury 's early and prophetic foreshadowing of the Matrix and Holodeck .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC Pro has traced the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash, but suggests that writers have run out of ideas when it comes to inspiring tomorrow's products To Buy n' Large everything was a product.
But it was the machines who chose to remain - or become - human - and more than passive consumers of tech.It's impossible to imagine Eve and Wall-E being content with the illusions of the The Veldt.
Ray Bradbury's early and prophetic foreshadowing of the Matrix and Holodeck.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187584</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258796580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm monotheistic but believe in multiple machines, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm monotheistic but believe in multiple machines , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm monotheistic but believe in multiple machines, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186604</id>
	<title>Beyond Imagination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258833420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           Science is going beyond the ability to imagine. Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise. It becomes difficult for those gifted with writing skills to catch on to the image and potential of these areas and bring them into popular formats such as sci-fi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is going beyond the ability to imagine .
Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise .
It becomes difficult for those gifted with writing skills to catch on to the image and potential of these areas and bring them into popular formats such as sci-fi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           Science is going beyond the ability to imagine.
Already we have areas of science so specialized that scientists can not communicate to each other as to the details of their expertise.
It becomes difficult for those gifted with writing skills to catch on to the image and potential of these areas and bring them into popular formats such as sci-fi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187386</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>McNally</author>
	<datestamp>1258795440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes these days. Now etgay <b>utoy foay</b> ymay awnlay.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Apparently they don't even teach <b>Pig</b> Latin correctly anymore. Eeshshay!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , they dont seem to teach anything in Latin classes these days .
Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay .
Apparently they do n't even teach Pig Latin correctly anymore .
Eeshshay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes these days.
Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.
Apparently they don't even teach Pig Latin correctly anymore.
Eeshshay!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187500</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258796160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the plausible future does suck. without the ability to create an energy source of both an order of magnitude larger in output and smaller in size there's just nowhere for gadgetry to go outside of very limited capacity with mostly terrestrial consequence. any plausible future requires a slimming down of total consumption without one.</p><p>the process of slimming will not be pretty and will make amazing fodder for a variety of fiction. assuming there's enough paper to print it on, and enough power to digitally read it. in the 70's 'soylent green' was a bit of a gut punch and based on a 1966 book called 'make room!make room!' by harry harrison. it's interesting that despite being at the peak of u.s. earning ability and the 'freedom' that provided; energy sources were considered to be at risk due to the oil embargo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dammit out of time with more to say. happy trails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the plausible future does suck .
without the ability to create an energy source of both an order of magnitude larger in output and smaller in size there 's just nowhere for gadgetry to go outside of very limited capacity with mostly terrestrial consequence .
any plausible future requires a slimming down of total consumption without one.the process of slimming will not be pretty and will make amazing fodder for a variety of fiction .
assuming there 's enough paper to print it on , and enough power to digitally read it .
in the 70 's 'soylent green ' was a bit of a gut punch and based on a 1966 book called 'make room ! make room !
' by harry harrison .
it 's interesting that despite being at the peak of u.s. earning ability and the 'freedom ' that provided ; energy sources were considered to be at risk due to the oil embargo .
/dammit out of time with more to say .
happy trails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the plausible future does suck.
without the ability to create an energy source of both an order of magnitude larger in output and smaller in size there's just nowhere for gadgetry to go outside of very limited capacity with mostly terrestrial consequence.
any plausible future requires a slimming down of total consumption without one.the process of slimming will not be pretty and will make amazing fodder for a variety of fiction.
assuming there's enough paper to print it on, and enough power to digitally read it.
in the 70's 'soylent green' was a bit of a gut punch and based on a 1966 book called 'make room!make room!
' by harry harrison.
it's interesting that despite being at the peak of u.s. earning ability and the 'freedom' that provided; energy sources were considered to be at risk due to the oil embargo.
/dammit out of time with more to say.
happy trails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>chocobot</author>
	<datestamp>1258795980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone read Anathem yet? It is a difficult read, mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent, but it is very rewarding. It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar. Definitely my favourite science fiction novel, although I am not a big sci fi fan. I tried reading Asimove short stories, and found myself bored out of my mind. Well, science fiction does not age well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone read Anathem yet ?
It is a difficult read , mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent , but it is very rewarding .
It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar .
Definitely my favourite science fiction novel , although I am not a big sci fi fan .
I tried reading Asimove short stories , and found myself bored out of my mind .
Well , science fiction does not age well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone read Anathem yet?
It is a difficult read, mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent, but it is very rewarding.
It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar.
Definitely my favourite science fiction novel, although I am not a big sci fi fan.
I tried reading Asimove short stories, and found myself bored out of my mind.
Well, science fiction does not age well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189696</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1258811820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>". I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?"</p><p>Fantasy doesn't require much thought from the reader, while science does. The public, by and large, are anti-science (despite the fact science has given them almost everything of value in the modern world!), uneducated, and would rather fap to fantasy than think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .
I do n't know why they 're doing it , perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership ; while fantasy has broader appeal ?
" Fantasy does n't require much thought from the reader , while science does .
The public , by and large , are anti-science ( despite the fact science has given them almost everything of value in the modern world !
) , uneducated , and would rather fap to fantasy than think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".
I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?
"Fantasy doesn't require much thought from the reader, while science does.
The public, by and large, are anti-science (despite the fact science has given them almost everything of value in the modern world!
), uneducated, and would rather fap to fantasy than think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187944</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, multiple gods from multiple machines, which is what I believe "deus ex machinas" intends, would be <i>dei ex machinis</i>.  Whether or not you agree about <i>machinis</i>, there's only one i in the plural of <i>deus</i>.  Agro a meo nunc se retrahe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , multiple gods from multiple machines , which is what I believe " deus ex machinas " intends , would be dei ex machinis .
Whether or not you agree about machinis , there 's only one i in the plural of deus .
Agro a meo nunc se retrahe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, multiple gods from multiple machines, which is what I believe "deus ex machinas" intends, would be dei ex machinis.
Whether or not you agree about machinis, there's only one i in the plural of deus.
Agro a meo nunc se retrahe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186610</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258833420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Living in a country where all school children have an XO, all having access to wikipedia, i'd say that root of that history is already made real, or at least, close enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in a country where all school children have an XO , all having access to wikipedia , i 'd say that root of that history is already made real , or at least , close enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in a country where all school children have an XO, all having access to wikipedia, i'd say that root of that history is already made real, or at least, close enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187210</id>
	<title>I think you're just shortsighted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258794060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is it plausible that the writers of the article just arent very open minded?  I mean how many years before the creation of the submarine did jules verne write of one? did everybody reading his books immediately think "a submarine! I'll go build one tomorrow!". I doubt it. I'm sure there's plenty of ideas akin to submarines floating around in our current books that just havnt been built yet, like, this seems infathomably short sighted to me. I read this title as "sci-fi is running out of steam because the stuff thats in the books isnt getting built right now".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is it plausible that the writers of the article just arent very open minded ?
I mean how many years before the creation of the submarine did jules verne write of one ?
did everybody reading his books immediately think " a submarine !
I 'll go build one tomorrow ! " .
I doubt it .
I 'm sure there 's plenty of ideas akin to submarines floating around in our current books that just havnt been built yet , like , this seems infathomably short sighted to me .
I read this title as " sci-fi is running out of steam because the stuff thats in the books isnt getting built right now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it plausible that the writers of the article just arent very open minded?
I mean how many years before the creation of the submarine did jules verne write of one?
did everybody reading his books immediately think "a submarine!
I'll go build one tomorrow!".
I doubt it.
I'm sure there's plenty of ideas akin to submarines floating around in our current books that just havnt been built yet, like, this seems infathomably short sighted to me.
I read this title as "sci-fi is running out of steam because the stuff thats in the books isnt getting built right now".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186818</id>
	<title>Gimme a minute</title>
	<author>Zixaphir</author>
	<datestamp>1258834680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Got four books in the backburner, looking for a publisher. If you keep telling them Sci-Fi is dead, you think they're gonna wanna publish my damn books?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got four books in the backburner , looking for a publisher .
If you keep telling them Sci-Fi is dead , you think they 're gon na wan na publish my damn books ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got four books in the backburner, looking for a publisher.
If you keep telling them Sci-Fi is dead, you think they're gonna wanna publish my damn books?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258836360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. I can come up with my own deus ex machinas, thank you.</p></div><p>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina, not deus ex machinas. OMG, they dont seem to teach <i> anything </i> in Latin classes these days. Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
I can come up with my own deus ex machinas , thank you.The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina , not deus ex machinas .
OMG , they dont seem to teach anything in Latin classes these days .
Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
I can come up with my own deus ex machinas, thank you.The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina, not deus ex machinas.
OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes these days.
Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188120</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>Ghostworks</author>
	<datestamp>1258800060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that prognostication gets harder as technological progress accelerates (as do gripping science fiction premises), and that science fiction is becoming less fantastical because we are so familiar with technology similar to what we find in those stories.  What seems to be missing these days, however, is the social, human element. For example, growing up I read a lot of golden age science fiction, most of the technology of which has been either now realized, or seems utterly laughable. (As an odd result of this, I've spent the better part of the decade thinking of myself as "living in the future".) In most of those stories, the technology featured prominently as a MacGuffin, a starting point for the real story.</p><p>So you have cheap nuclear power, enough to waste in broadcasting it wirelessly, and everyone says its safe. How do you know? What do you do when you find out it's not, and the most transformative 20 years in history prove a colossal mistake? So you have institutionalized slavery (robots), not just over bodies, but minds. How do you keep the system running? Is it even moral to enslave something you've built from the ground up? So your entire economy has come to rely in some way on a single cheap service. To what extent are the people offering that service entitled to run your society? Most of these questions have been touched on and answered again and again in science ficition, but the common element is not technology. Rather, the common element is how people cause and react to change on a grand scale.</p><p>Unfortunately, many readers tend to fixate on the technology itself, and the social message (the real meat of the tale) gets lost. After that, you degrade into what we have now: science fantasy. Exercises in world-building for the sake of world building, exotic new toys like lightsabers, super-science that acts as an instant stand-in for magic, and all the other little bits that used to be just scenery moving center stage. There's just enough there to look like science fiction, when all it really is is adventure fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that prognostication gets harder as technological progress accelerates ( as do gripping science fiction premises ) , and that science fiction is becoming less fantastical because we are so familiar with technology similar to what we find in those stories .
What seems to be missing these days , however , is the social , human element .
For example , growing up I read a lot of golden age science fiction , most of the technology of which has been either now realized , or seems utterly laughable .
( As an odd result of this , I 've spent the better part of the decade thinking of myself as " living in the future " .
) In most of those stories , the technology featured prominently as a MacGuffin , a starting point for the real story.So you have cheap nuclear power , enough to waste in broadcasting it wirelessly , and everyone says its safe .
How do you know ?
What do you do when you find out it 's not , and the most transformative 20 years in history prove a colossal mistake ?
So you have institutionalized slavery ( robots ) , not just over bodies , but minds .
How do you keep the system running ?
Is it even moral to enslave something you 've built from the ground up ?
So your entire economy has come to rely in some way on a single cheap service .
To what extent are the people offering that service entitled to run your society ?
Most of these questions have been touched on and answered again and again in science ficition , but the common element is not technology .
Rather , the common element is how people cause and react to change on a grand scale.Unfortunately , many readers tend to fixate on the technology itself , and the social message ( the real meat of the tale ) gets lost .
After that , you degrade into what we have now : science fantasy .
Exercises in world-building for the sake of world building , exotic new toys like lightsabers , super-science that acts as an instant stand-in for magic , and all the other little bits that used to be just scenery moving center stage .
There 's just enough there to look like science fiction , when all it really is is adventure fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that prognostication gets harder as technological progress accelerates (as do gripping science fiction premises), and that science fiction is becoming less fantastical because we are so familiar with technology similar to what we find in those stories.
What seems to be missing these days, however, is the social, human element.
For example, growing up I read a lot of golden age science fiction, most of the technology of which has been either now realized, or seems utterly laughable.
(As an odd result of this, I've spent the better part of the decade thinking of myself as "living in the future".
) In most of those stories, the technology featured prominently as a MacGuffin, a starting point for the real story.So you have cheap nuclear power, enough to waste in broadcasting it wirelessly, and everyone says its safe.
How do you know?
What do you do when you find out it's not, and the most transformative 20 years in history prove a colossal mistake?
So you have institutionalized slavery (robots), not just over bodies, but minds.
How do you keep the system running?
Is it even moral to enslave something you've built from the ground up?
So your entire economy has come to rely in some way on a single cheap service.
To what extent are the people offering that service entitled to run your society?
Most of these questions have been touched on and answered again and again in science ficition, but the common element is not technology.
Rather, the common element is how people cause and react to change on a grand scale.Unfortunately, many readers tend to fixate on the technology itself, and the social message (the real meat of the tale) gets lost.
After that, you degrade into what we have now: science fantasy.
Exercises in world-building for the sake of world building, exotic new toys like lightsabers, super-science that acts as an instant stand-in for magic, and all the other little bits that used to be just scenery moving center stage.
There's just enough there to look like science fiction, when all it really is is adventure fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187402</id>
	<title>Honest answer</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1258795560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There hasn't been much real science fiction for years. There have been lots of alien invasions and many, many action movies with captivating visual effects but no real science fiction.</p><p>For quality storytelling and a good dose of horror refer to the works of HP Lovecraft. If you haven't read his work go order it on amazon or download it from somewhere, you will be impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has n't been much real science fiction for years .
There have been lots of alien invasions and many , many action movies with captivating visual effects but no real science fiction.For quality storytelling and a good dose of horror refer to the works of HP Lovecraft .
If you have n't read his work go order it on amazon or download it from somewhere , you will be impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There hasn't been much real science fiction for years.
There have been lots of alien invasions and many, many action movies with captivating visual effects but no real science fiction.For quality storytelling and a good dose of horror refer to the works of HP Lovecraft.
If you haven't read his work go order it on amazon or download it from somewhere, you will be impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187772</id>
	<title>Re:Out of steam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258797660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My view is that to look further out that a few years now (with any degree of originality or insight)... you are going to have to get seriously weird. See Greg Egan. And weird doesn't sell all that well... if you need 15 pages of invented physics (like his recent book) explained to you before you get to the story, then your book isn't going to be massively popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My view is that to look further out that a few years now ( with any degree of originality or insight ) ... you are going to have to get seriously weird .
See Greg Egan .
And weird does n't sell all that well... if you need 15 pages of invented physics ( like his recent book ) explained to you before you get to the story , then your book is n't going to be massively popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My view is that to look further out that a few years now (with any degree of originality or insight)... you are going to have to get seriously weird.
See Greg Egan.
And weird doesn't sell all that well... if you need 15 pages of invented physics (like his recent book) explained to you before you get to the story, then your book isn't going to be massively popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189366</id>
	<title>Of course not</title>
	<author>edremy</author>
	<datestamp>1258809180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good SF has never been exclusively about the technology- it's about people, same as any other story since the dawn of storytelling.  (And don't bother commenting about aliens- they're people too.)  It's about how people react to that technology, how society deals with the changes and all the rest.  SF doesn't need to be thinking up new technologies all the time- pretty much anything imaginable has already been done, usually by multiple authors- the interesting story is "What comes next?"

<p>Lots of authors have dealt with societies where changing sex is easy, for example, something that we've barely begun to make possible.  But does this lead to a truly egalitarian society where men and women stand at exactly the same level, or a strictly segregated one where women stay home with the kids and make dinner?  If we develop interstellar travel but the speed of light is still the limit, can you have an actual society where travel time between worlds is measured in centuries?  Imagine that robots get to the point where they can fulfill your every need as soon as you ask for it- is there a point in living without struggle?

</p><p>This is also why SF tends to age less well than other genres of fiction- once the technology actually shows up, we get to see how people react, and then it's just part of everyday life.  To quote my 8-year-old, "Boooring"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good SF has never been exclusively about the technology- it 's about people , same as any other story since the dawn of storytelling .
( And do n't bother commenting about aliens- they 're people too .
) It 's about how people react to that technology , how society deals with the changes and all the rest .
SF does n't need to be thinking up new technologies all the time- pretty much anything imaginable has already been done , usually by multiple authors- the interesting story is " What comes next ?
" Lots of authors have dealt with societies where changing sex is easy , for example , something that we 've barely begun to make possible .
But does this lead to a truly egalitarian society where men and women stand at exactly the same level , or a strictly segregated one where women stay home with the kids and make dinner ?
If we develop interstellar travel but the speed of light is still the limit , can you have an actual society where travel time between worlds is measured in centuries ?
Imagine that robots get to the point where they can fulfill your every need as soon as you ask for it- is there a point in living without struggle ?
This is also why SF tends to age less well than other genres of fiction- once the technology actually shows up , we get to see how people react , and then it 's just part of everyday life .
To quote my 8-year-old , " Boooring "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good SF has never been exclusively about the technology- it's about people, same as any other story since the dawn of storytelling.
(And don't bother commenting about aliens- they're people too.
)  It's about how people react to that technology, how society deals with the changes and all the rest.
SF doesn't need to be thinking up new technologies all the time- pretty much anything imaginable has already been done, usually by multiple authors- the interesting story is "What comes next?
"

Lots of authors have dealt with societies where changing sex is easy, for example, something that we've barely begun to make possible.
But does this lead to a truly egalitarian society where men and women stand at exactly the same level, or a strictly segregated one where women stay home with the kids and make dinner?
If we develop interstellar travel but the speed of light is still the limit, can you have an actual society where travel time between worlds is measured in centuries?
Imagine that robots get to the point where they can fulfill your every need as soon as you ask for it- is there a point in living without struggle?
This is also why SF tends to age less well than other genres of fiction- once the technology actually shows up, we get to see how people react, and then it's just part of everyday life.
To quote my 8-year-old, "Boooring"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186792</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1258834560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes? It's fun to watch</p><p>Are you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2?</p><p>&gt; but certainly not realistic.</p><p>As opposed to transporters or tractor beams?  Anyway, anything that depends on mutant powers doing more than letting someone metabolize something new (like cellulose) or synthesize something (like vitamin C), I would call that Fantasy, not SF (unless a heck of a lot of explanation goes along with it, as in Niven's The Magic Goes Away series).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes ?
It 's fun to watchAre you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2 ? &gt; but certainly not realistic.As opposed to transporters or tractor beams ?
Anyway , anything that depends on mutant powers doing more than letting someone metabolize something new ( like cellulose ) or synthesize something ( like vitamin C ) , I would call that Fantasy , not SF ( unless a heck of a lot of explanation goes along with it , as in Niven 's The Magic Goes Away series ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Like the TV show Heroes?
It's fun to watchAre you watching the same series that I stopped watching after season 2?&gt; but certainly not realistic.As opposed to transporters or tractor beams?
Anyway, anything that depends on mutant powers doing more than letting someone metabolize something new (like cellulose) or synthesize something (like vitamin C), I would call that Fantasy, not SF (unless a heck of a lot of explanation goes along with it, as in Niven's The Magic Goes Away series).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460</id>
	<title>I think this is a false premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash"</p><p>Sci-Fi influencing real world technology?  Do you really think we went to the moon or invented the computer because someone wrote a fictional story about it a hundred years earlier?  Not hardly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the history of sci-fi 's influence on real-world technology , from Jules Verne to Snow Crash " Sci-Fi influencing real world technology ?
Do you really think we went to the moon or invented the computer because someone wrote a fictional story about it a hundred years earlier ?
Not hardly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the history of sci-fi's influence on real-world technology, from Jules Verne to Snow Crash"Sci-Fi influencing real world technology?
Do you really think we went to the moon or invented the computer because someone wrote a fictional story about it a hundred years earlier?
Not hardly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191924</id>
	<title>Writing off the writers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258882680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the height of sci-fi, according to the author, ended with Verne?  What about Gibson's influence?  Asimov's?  Are we to discount all the greats who came later and contributed to the inspiration of real world technology?</p><p>I'm rather skeptical of anyone who claims that the future of science-fiction could not possibly hold the potential for inspirational or accurate depictions of the future.  However, I agree with Xiaran who points out that the job of the novelist is to posit a "what if" scenario, not play oracle.  Whether or not a science-fiction novel brings greater ingenuity in technology is irrelvant; we instead must judge each book on its merit to present an intriguing story that explores a question of possibility and its ability to lead us down a new path of thought in a fluid and provocative manner.</p><p>--Neversremedy, just another sci-fi writer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the height of sci-fi , according to the author , ended with Verne ?
What about Gibson 's influence ?
Asimov 's ? Are we to discount all the greats who came later and contributed to the inspiration of real world technology ? I 'm rather skeptical of anyone who claims that the future of science-fiction could not possibly hold the potential for inspirational or accurate depictions of the future .
However , I agree with Xiaran who points out that the job of the novelist is to posit a " what if " scenario , not play oracle .
Whether or not a science-fiction novel brings greater ingenuity in technology is irrelvant ; we instead must judge each book on its merit to present an intriguing story that explores a question of possibility and its ability to lead us down a new path of thought in a fluid and provocative manner.--Neversremedy , just another sci-fi writer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the height of sci-fi, according to the author, ended with Verne?
What about Gibson's influence?
Asimov's?  Are we to discount all the greats who came later and contributed to the inspiration of real world technology?I'm rather skeptical of anyone who claims that the future of science-fiction could not possibly hold the potential for inspirational or accurate depictions of the future.
However, I agree with Xiaran who points out that the job of the novelist is to posit a "what if" scenario, not play oracle.
Whether or not a science-fiction novel brings greater ingenuity in technology is irrelvant; we instead must judge each book on its merit to present an intriguing story that explores a question of possibility and its ability to lead us down a new path of thought in a fluid and provocative manner.--Neversremedy, just another sci-fi writer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</id>
	<title>Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think not.</p><p>IMHO, what was once considered SciFi (Tech related) has moved more mainstream and become, in some cases, traditional fiction.</p><p>As well, I believe that SciFi authors continue to present not only technically challenging new idea, but moral questions around the use of technology.  An era of tech enlightenment forthcoming?</p><p>Lastly, I'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy.  I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?</p><p>I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they're not being written, but because they're not being published.</p><p>There's less competition in the book world, or at least it seems that way from where I sit.  Amazon, B&amp;N, Walmart...  I sometimes find hard SciFi at my local supermarket.</p><p>When Snow Crash was published, it was a different market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not.IMHO , what was once considered SciFi ( Tech related ) has moved more mainstream and become , in some cases , traditional fiction.As well , I believe that SciFi authors continue to present not only technically challenging new idea , but moral questions around the use of technology .
An era of tech enlightenment forthcoming ? Lastly , I 'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy .
I do n't know why they 're doing it , perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership ; while fantasy has broader appeal ? I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they 're not being written , but because they 're not being published.There 's less competition in the book world , or at least it seems that way from where I sit .
Amazon , B&amp;N , Walmart... I sometimes find hard SciFi at my local supermarket.When Snow Crash was published , it was a different market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not.IMHO, what was once considered SciFi (Tech related) has moved more mainstream and become, in some cases, traditional fiction.As well, I believe that SciFi authors continue to present not only technically challenging new idea, but moral questions around the use of technology.
An era of tech enlightenment forthcoming?Lastly, I'd offer up that fewer SciFi authors are being published because SciFi is being muddled with Fantasy.
I don't know why they're doing it, perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they're not being written, but because they're not being published.There's less competition in the book world, or at least it seems that way from where I sit.
Amazon, B&amp;N, Walmart...  I sometimes find hard SciFi at my local supermarket.When Snow Crash was published, it was a different market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186484</id>
	<title>Not enough predictions, try John Scalzi</title>
	<author>Tangential</author>
	<datestamp>1258832760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try reading John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" and ponder his fighting man of the future. Lots of tech futurism in that.

If that's not enough, try Ian Douglas's "Inheritance Trilogy" He's got worlds of amazing new technology as well.

Lots of nanobots, cloning, quantum power taps, consciousness transfers, etc.. in these books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try reading John Scalzi 's " Old Man 's War " and ponder his fighting man of the future .
Lots of tech futurism in that .
If that 's not enough , try Ian Douglas 's " Inheritance Trilogy " He 's got worlds of amazing new technology as well .
Lots of nanobots , cloning , quantum power taps , consciousness transfers , etc.. in these books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try reading John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" and ponder his fighting man of the future.
Lots of tech futurism in that.
If that's not enough, try Ian Douglas's "Inheritance Trilogy" He's got worlds of amazing new technology as well.
Lots of nanobots, cloning, quantum power taps, consciousness transfers, etc.. in these books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186894</id>
	<title>Fuel</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1258835220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your sci-fi still runs on steam? Mine runs on antimatter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your sci-fi still runs on steam ?
Mine runs on antimatter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your sci-fi still runs on steam?
Mine runs on antimatter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186400</id>
	<title>One word.</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1258832220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kinda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186576</id>
	<title>Stories.  Really GOOD stories</title>
	<author>lkcl</author>
	<datestamp>1258833240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the most important thing about sci-fi is not the technology itself, but the stories that use sci-fi  blended into the background.  the mistake of "Glorifying" technology is more often made by hollywood film directors than it is by sci-fi writers.</p><p>so, yes: sci-fi is often predictive of the near future (stephenson, gibson), and comes up with "the goods" but to be honest that's quite a specific genre of sci-fi, leaving out a whole range of books that are absolutely mind-blowing (asimov, reynolds and hamilton to name just three).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the most important thing about sci-fi is not the technology itself , but the stories that use sci-fi blended into the background .
the mistake of " Glorifying " technology is more often made by hollywood film directors than it is by sci-fi writers.so , yes : sci-fi is often predictive of the near future ( stephenson , gibson ) , and comes up with " the goods " but to be honest that 's quite a specific genre of sci-fi , leaving out a whole range of books that are absolutely mind-blowing ( asimov , reynolds and hamilton to name just three ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most important thing about sci-fi is not the technology itself, but the stories that use sci-fi  blended into the background.
the mistake of "Glorifying" technology is more often made by hollywood film directors than it is by sci-fi writers.so, yes: sci-fi is often predictive of the near future (stephenson, gibson), and comes up with "the goods" but to be honest that's quite a specific genre of sci-fi, leaving out a whole range of books that are absolutely mind-blowing (asimov, reynolds and hamilton to name just three).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187736</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258797420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"more literary than ever before."</p><p>Thanks for the warning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" more literary than ever before .
" Thanks for the warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"more literary than ever before.
"Thanks for the warning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191992</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1258884240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone read Anathem yet? It is a difficult read, mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent, but it is very rewarding. It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar. Definitely my favourite science fiction novel, although I am not a big sci fi fan. I tried reading Asimove short stories, and found myself bored out of my mind. Well, science fiction does not age well.</p></div><p>From my point of view, Anathem is one of the best novels I've ever read, and certainly the best published in the last couple of years.  Unfortunately, you do need to be highly-educated to understand parts of it. A good grounding in mathematics and the philosophy of science is essential!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone read Anathem yet ?
It is a difficult read , mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent , but it is very rewarding .
It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar .
Definitely my favourite science fiction novel , although I am not a big sci fi fan .
I tried reading Asimove short stories , and found myself bored out of my mind .
Well , science fiction does not age well.From my point of view , Anathem is one of the best novels I 've ever read , and certainly the best published in the last couple of years .
Unfortunately , you do need to be highly-educated to understand parts of it .
A good grounding in mathematics and the philosophy of science is essential !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone read Anathem yet?
It is a difficult read, mainly because Stephensons goes on a 100-page philosophical tangent, but it is very rewarding.
It also contains the most realistic space battle description evar.
Definitely my favourite science fiction novel, although I am not a big sci fi fan.
I tried reading Asimove short stories, and found myself bored out of my mind.
Well, science fiction does not age well.From my point of view, Anathem is one of the best novels I've ever read, and certainly the best published in the last couple of years.
Unfortunately, you do need to be highly-educated to understand parts of it.
A good grounding in mathematics and the philosophy of science is essential!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200172</id>
	<title>inspiration != science</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, even the best "hard" science fiction usually ends up having lots of problems.  Often, they do a nice job on some particular aspect of physics, fudge the rest of physics, and then completely fall apart on economics, sociology, biology, and evolution.  Or vice versa.</p><p>As for Nightfall, I find it implausible that any technical civilization would be surprised for the concept of "darkness" or that it or the appearance of stars would cause it to fall apart.  Civilizations tend to die of much more banal problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , even the best " hard " science fiction usually ends up having lots of problems .
Often , they do a nice job on some particular aspect of physics , fudge the rest of physics , and then completely fall apart on economics , sociology , biology , and evolution .
Or vice versa.As for Nightfall , I find it implausible that any technical civilization would be surprised for the concept of " darkness " or that it or the appearance of stars would cause it to fall apart .
Civilizations tend to die of much more banal problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, even the best "hard" science fiction usually ends up having lots of problems.
Often, they do a nice job on some particular aspect of physics, fudge the rest of physics, and then completely fall apart on economics, sociology, biology, and evolution.
Or vice versa.As for Nightfall, I find it implausible that any technical civilization would be surprised for the concept of "darkness" or that it or the appearance of stars would cause it to fall apart.
Civilizations tend to die of much more banal problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187492</id>
	<title>Re:It's not fortune-telling.</title>
	<author>Opyros</author>
	<datestamp>1258795980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't sound much like what he said; or at least, not in his essay "Prediction as a Side Effect". The essay begins:<blockquote><div><p>It is not really the business of science fiction writers to predict the future. It is particularly not our business to predict trivia. If we could foresee, with accuracy, the minor details of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, we wouldn't waste our time in that most insecure of all occupations&mdash;free-lance writing. We would play the stock market and the horses, instead, and grow rich.<br>
The fact is that the science fiction writer's first aim is to tell an interesting and exciting story that will amuse the reader[...]</p></div></blockquote><p>
(The essay is collected in <i>Today and Tomorrow and...</i> for anyone who wants to look it up.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't sound much like what he said ; or at least , not in his essay " Prediction as a Side Effect " .
The essay begins : It is not really the business of science fiction writers to predict the future .
It is particularly not our business to predict trivia .
If we could foresee , with accuracy , the minor details of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow , we would n't waste our time in that most insecure of all occupations    free-lance writing .
We would play the stock market and the horses , instead , and grow rich .
The fact is that the science fiction writer 's first aim is to tell an interesting and exciting story that will amuse the reader [ ... ] ( The essay is collected in Today and Tomorrow and... for anyone who wants to look it up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't sound much like what he said; or at least, not in his essay "Prediction as a Side Effect".
The essay begins:It is not really the business of science fiction writers to predict the future.
It is particularly not our business to predict trivia.
If we could foresee, with accuracy, the minor details of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, we wouldn't waste our time in that most insecure of all occupations—free-lance writing.
We would play the stock market and the horses, instead, and grow rich.
The fact is that the science fiction writer's first aim is to tell an interesting and exciting story that will amuse the reader[...]
(The essay is collected in Today and Tomorrow and... for anyone who wants to look it up.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258836180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to open another "sci-fi" vs. science fiction debate, but the place that sci-fi (in the sense of science fiction) has always drawn its inspiration is from, well, science.   When Asimov wrote <em>Nightfall</em>, he speculated about what would happen on a planet, inhabited by a society not too different from our own, that was surrounded by stars such that the entire planet was constantly illuminated.  What would happen, then, if it were later discovered that every 2000 years or so, one of those suns were visible eclipsed?  The society had never experienced dark.  His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences, but also the social sciences.</p><p>When he wrote <em>I, Robot</em>, he hypothesized about a computer brain that operated on positrons, which were recently discovered then.</p><p>So look for the sci-fi breakthroughs to occur where the scientific breakthroughs are occurring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to open another " sci-fi " vs. science fiction debate , but the place that sci-fi ( in the sense of science fiction ) has always drawn its inspiration is from , well , science .
When Asimov wrote Nightfall , he speculated about what would happen on a planet , inhabited by a society not too different from our own , that was surrounded by stars such that the entire planet was constantly illuminated .
What would happen , then , if it were later discovered that every 2000 years or so , one of those suns were visible eclipsed ?
The society had never experienced dark .
His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences , but also the social sciences.When he wrote I , Robot , he hypothesized about a computer brain that operated on positrons , which were recently discovered then.So look for the sci-fi breakthroughs to occur where the scientific breakthroughs are occurring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to open another "sci-fi" vs. science fiction debate, but the place that sci-fi (in the sense of science fiction) has always drawn its inspiration is from, well, science.
When Asimov wrote Nightfall, he speculated about what would happen on a planet, inhabited by a society not too different from our own, that was surrounded by stars such that the entire planet was constantly illuminated.
What would happen, then, if it were later discovered that every 2000 years or so, one of those suns were visible eclipsed?
The society had never experienced dark.
His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences, but also the social sciences.When he wrote I, Robot, he hypothesized about a computer brain that operated on positrons, which were recently discovered then.So look for the sci-fi breakthroughs to occur where the scientific breakthroughs are occurring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188084</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258799820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pig latin classes are failing, too. You don't move the vowels!</p><p>Ownay ouyay etgay offay ymay awnlay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pig latin classes are failing , too .
You do n't move the vowels ! Ownay ouyay etgay offay ymay awnlay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pig latin classes are failing, too.
You don't move the vowels!Ownay ouyay etgay offay ymay awnlay!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187022</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258836060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stephenson doesn't really write contemporary sci-fi, he writes much closer based on current events with trend-setting events.  I'm still working my way through the Cryptonomicon and am enjoying it quite a bit.  The biggest issue with most sci-fi these days is that the majority of authors aren't trying for new ideas, what ifs, maybes, or what could happen.  It's been done by their predecessors of the genre so they're building off of it.  There's a pile of room in innovation, no one is sure what direction to go.</p><p>But someone will have a mindblowing(throbbing forehead vein to go with it too) thought one of these days that will reshape it all, that's usually what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephenson does n't really write contemporary sci-fi , he writes much closer based on current events with trend-setting events .
I 'm still working my way through the Cryptonomicon and am enjoying it quite a bit .
The biggest issue with most sci-fi these days is that the majority of authors are n't trying for new ideas , what ifs , maybes , or what could happen .
It 's been done by their predecessors of the genre so they 're building off of it .
There 's a pile of room in innovation , no one is sure what direction to go.But someone will have a mindblowing ( throbbing forehead vein to go with it too ) thought one of these days that will reshape it all , that 's usually what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephenson doesn't really write contemporary sci-fi, he writes much closer based on current events with trend-setting events.
I'm still working my way through the Cryptonomicon and am enjoying it quite a bit.
The biggest issue with most sci-fi these days is that the majority of authors aren't trying for new ideas, what ifs, maybes, or what could happen.
It's been done by their predecessors of the genre so they're building off of it.
There's a pile of room in innovation, no one is sure what direction to go.But someone will have a mindblowing(throbbing forehead vein to go with it too) thought one of these days that will reshape it all, that's usually what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188070</id>
	<title>So what does modern SF offer...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1258799700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see - couple of examples:
</p><p> <b>Downloading/simulating human minds</b>: the philosophical and social implications of that are a recurring theme in Greg Egan's work - Permutation City, Diaspora and several of his shorts (such as "Learning to be Me"). If you want a side-order of ultraviolence with that, there's Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon".

Of course, that's <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/18/ibm-simulates-cats-brain-humans-are-next/" title="engadget.com">never gonna happen</a> [engadget.com].

</p><p> <b>Post-scarcity economics</b>: Not tech in itself, but the implications of tech. What if we had sufficient resources and robotic "labour" that everybody could just take whatever they reasonably wanted? How would the capitalism/socialism debate change that? This is the basis for Iain Banks' "Culture", but it also crops up a bit in Star Trek TNG.
</p><p> <a href="http://www.linux.org/" title="linux.org">Ain't never gonna happen</a> [linux.org]. I'd better explain that one: software is a microcosm in which a "post scarcity" economy is possible  because the marginal cost of "manufacturing" and distributing software has become negligible.

</p><p> <b>Near-future space flight:</b> Stephen Baxter wrote a whole series of books on the general thesis "NASA rejected my application to be an astronaut: NASA sucks!". We have Time which had private enterprise saving the space program; Voyage (what would happen if Apollo had stayed on track and gone to Mars) and Titan (what would happen if an anti-science US president didn't replace the shuttle and we suddenly had a good reason for wanting to go to Titan).
</p><p>Desperately cobbling together a cheap launcher from surplus shuttle components? Going back to an Apollo-style capsule instead of wasting fuel boosting space-planes into orbit? Private spaceflight saving the day? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares\_I" title="wikipedia.org">Ain't Never</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion\_(spacecraft)" title="wikipedia.org">Gonna</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://www.spacex.com/" title="spacex.com">happen</a> [spacex.com]
</p><p>(Interesting lack of US authors in that list, though...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see - couple of examples : Downloading/simulating human minds : the philosophical and social implications of that are a recurring theme in Greg Egan 's work - Permutation City , Diaspora and several of his shorts ( such as " Learning to be Me " ) .
If you want a side-order of ultraviolence with that , there 's Richard Morgan 's " Altered Carbon " .
Of course , that 's never gon na happen [ engadget.com ] .
Post-scarcity economics : Not tech in itself , but the implications of tech .
What if we had sufficient resources and robotic " labour " that everybody could just take whatever they reasonably wanted ?
How would the capitalism/socialism debate change that ?
This is the basis for Iain Banks ' " Culture " , but it also crops up a bit in Star Trek TNG .
Ai n't never gon na happen [ linux.org ] .
I 'd better explain that one : software is a microcosm in which a " post scarcity " economy is possible because the marginal cost of " manufacturing " and distributing software has become negligible .
Near-future space flight : Stephen Baxter wrote a whole series of books on the general thesis " NASA rejected my application to be an astronaut : NASA sucks ! " .
We have Time which had private enterprise saving the space program ; Voyage ( what would happen if Apollo had stayed on track and gone to Mars ) and Titan ( what would happen if an anti-science US president did n't replace the shuttle and we suddenly had a good reason for wanting to go to Titan ) .
Desperately cobbling together a cheap launcher from surplus shuttle components ?
Going back to an Apollo-style capsule instead of wasting fuel boosting space-planes into orbit ?
Private spaceflight saving the day ?
Ai n't Never [ wikipedia.org ] Gon na [ wikipedia.org ] happen [ spacex.com ] ( Interesting lack of US authors in that list , though... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see - couple of examples:
 Downloading/simulating human minds: the philosophical and social implications of that are a recurring theme in Greg Egan's work - Permutation City, Diaspora and several of his shorts (such as "Learning to be Me").
If you want a side-order of ultraviolence with that, there's Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon".
Of course, that's never gonna happen [engadget.com].
Post-scarcity economics: Not tech in itself, but the implications of tech.
What if we had sufficient resources and robotic "labour" that everybody could just take whatever they reasonably wanted?
How would the capitalism/socialism debate change that?
This is the basis for Iain Banks' "Culture", but it also crops up a bit in Star Trek TNG.
Ain't never gonna happen [linux.org].
I'd better explain that one: software is a microcosm in which a "post scarcity" economy is possible  because the marginal cost of "manufacturing" and distributing software has become negligible.
Near-future space flight: Stephen Baxter wrote a whole series of books on the general thesis "NASA rejected my application to be an astronaut: NASA sucks!".
We have Time which had private enterprise saving the space program; Voyage (what would happen if Apollo had stayed on track and gone to Mars) and Titan (what would happen if an anti-science US president didn't replace the shuttle and we suddenly had a good reason for wanting to go to Titan).
Desperately cobbling together a cheap launcher from surplus shuttle components?
Going back to an Apollo-style capsule instead of wasting fuel boosting space-planes into orbit?
Private spaceflight saving the day?
Ain't Never [wikipedia.org] Gonna [wikipedia.org] happen [spacex.com]
(Interesting lack of US authors in that list, though...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186664</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, nanotech often plays prominently in modern sci-fi.  Everything from self-assembling structures to epidemiology.  In addition, there are many themes that investigate the nature of consciousness and sentience and how that relates to artificial structures (ie. downloading oneself into an artificial construct) and how one might use it to avoid death.  In addition, there are various explorations of the intersection of quantum and relativistic phenomenon both on the small scale (Egan et al) and on the large scale (black holes and interstellar travel).  Even near-future novels such as Firestar haven't come true yet, since space exploration slowed so dramatically in the last 20 years.</p><p>In short, if you're not seeing any new future tech in SF, you're not reading the same stuff I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , nanotech often plays prominently in modern sci-fi .
Everything from self-assembling structures to epidemiology .
In addition , there are many themes that investigate the nature of consciousness and sentience and how that relates to artificial structures ( ie .
downloading oneself into an artificial construct ) and how one might use it to avoid death .
In addition , there are various explorations of the intersection of quantum and relativistic phenomenon both on the small scale ( Egan et al ) and on the large scale ( black holes and interstellar travel ) .
Even near-future novels such as Firestar have n't come true yet , since space exploration slowed so dramatically in the last 20 years.In short , if you 're not seeing any new future tech in SF , you 're not reading the same stuff I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, nanotech often plays prominently in modern sci-fi.
Everything from self-assembling structures to epidemiology.
In addition, there are many themes that investigate the nature of consciousness and sentience and how that relates to artificial structures (ie.
downloading oneself into an artificial construct) and how one might use it to avoid death.
In addition, there are various explorations of the intersection of quantum and relativistic phenomenon both on the small scale (Egan et al) and on the large scale (black holes and interstellar travel).
Even near-future novels such as Firestar haven't come true yet, since space exploration slowed so dramatically in the last 20 years.In short, if you're not seeing any new future tech in SF, you're not reading the same stuff I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188754</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1258804320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that Asimov wrote of sci-fi having three stages of development, according to their focus (these are my names standing in for his longer descriptions):</p><p>Adventure<br>Devices<br>People</p><p>He considered sci-fi that focused on the human condition to be the most mature form of it.  If you go back and read even some of the "best" of that gadget-inspired sci-fi, it's easy to see why--almost all of it is complete garbage, even if you've already filtered it to a couple hundred of the top stories.  As for the adventure-focused sci-fi, it's mostly Swiss Family Robinson in space, which can be fun but isn't especially valuable in a fiction-as-art sort of way.</p><p>Most of the greatest sci-fi is great either because it anticipates/inspires something technological (though that doesn't mean the story or its prose are necessarily any good) or because it comments well on the human condition.  Unless you're lucky or prescient, writing tech-focused stories is a good way to churn out crap and a bad way to make a mark on literary history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that Asimov wrote of sci-fi having three stages of development , according to their focus ( these are my names standing in for his longer descriptions ) : AdventureDevicesPeopleHe considered sci-fi that focused on the human condition to be the most mature form of it .
If you go back and read even some of the " best " of that gadget-inspired sci-fi , it 's easy to see why--almost all of it is complete garbage , even if you 've already filtered it to a couple hundred of the top stories .
As for the adventure-focused sci-fi , it 's mostly Swiss Family Robinson in space , which can be fun but is n't especially valuable in a fiction-as-art sort of way.Most of the greatest sci-fi is great either because it anticipates/inspires something technological ( though that does n't mean the story or its prose are necessarily any good ) or because it comments well on the human condition .
Unless you 're lucky or prescient , writing tech-focused stories is a good way to churn out crap and a bad way to make a mark on literary history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that Asimov wrote of sci-fi having three stages of development, according to their focus (these are my names standing in for his longer descriptions):AdventureDevicesPeopleHe considered sci-fi that focused on the human condition to be the most mature form of it.
If you go back and read even some of the "best" of that gadget-inspired sci-fi, it's easy to see why--almost all of it is complete garbage, even if you've already filtered it to a couple hundred of the top stories.
As for the adventure-focused sci-fi, it's mostly Swiss Family Robinson in space, which can be fun but isn't especially valuable in a fiction-as-art sort of way.Most of the greatest sci-fi is great either because it anticipates/inspires something technological (though that doesn't mean the story or its prose are necessarily any good) or because it comments well on the human condition.
Unless you're lucky or prescient, writing tech-focused stories is a good way to churn out crap and a bad way to make a mark on literary history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192450</id>
	<title>The next wave....</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1258893780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When electricity and the telephone were new, the thought that the world would be focused on improvements and technology would be laughable.   Inventors were few and far between, so there was a lot of room for just writing about crazy ideas about what the future may hold for new inventions.   Once the personal computer became common(beyond the early adopters), the future, and what sort of inventions might come out has really dropped.</p><p>So, wireless communications have gone personal in the form of cell phones.   Video calls are almost here(it is here, but not common and not good enough for mainstream).   Even things like being able to just hop on a plane and be in Europe in 6-9 hours(from the USA) used to be an element of science fiction.   So, where do we go from here?   Space and space travel.   Instant transport(transporter technology from Star Trek) is there.   Flying cars as well, and robotics....all have been done before technology has made them possible.</p><p>So, what we really need is a new generation that has been raised on the current technology to look forward and come up with something new.   In the same way that those older than 40 already should expect that future "the next big thing" will come from those much younger, due to having grown up with technology being EVERYWHERE, when it comes to writing, the same expectation should be there.</p><p>It really just comes from the perspective of the writers needing to really REACH to come up with a new idea, writers tend to go from their own experiences, and then extending from there based on the latest scientific releases.   Asimov used the positron to explain how robots worked(their "thinking") for example.   But, much of what has been in the works for science is really in the hard-core stage, where a lot of particle physics comes into play.    Or you see work going on discovering planets around stars, but really, no really new on a conceptual basis has been hitting the news.</p><p>Looking for new planets...old<br>new energy sources....old<br>flight...old<br>space travel....old concept, but aside from how it is implemented, not terribly new.</p><p>We are seeing the start of people taking a trip into orbit, but even living on other planets, meeting alien life, and so on has been done enough where it just isn't NEW anymore.   Even the future evolution of humanity has been done a bit, though "future humans" tend to be very like the humans of today, just with better technology available to them.</p><p>So, what new things that have not been thought of yet will come out?   It really may take another 50-100 years before Sci-Fi really wakes back up, just because something really really different needs to be invented that will amaze people.   Think about it, short of aliens REALLY showing up here on Earth, is there any scientific invention that would really surprise us anymore?</p><p>My own expectation for the next few hundred years is more like Babylon 5 than Star Trek....human society and nature have not had a real push to change, and even the idea of "try to be nice to others" seems to be fading away, where there is more encouragement to be an obnoxious ass than a decent person.   So, who knows what the future may hold, but the future of society rather than the technology of the future is where there is more room for writing right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When electricity and the telephone were new , the thought that the world would be focused on improvements and technology would be laughable .
Inventors were few and far between , so there was a lot of room for just writing about crazy ideas about what the future may hold for new inventions .
Once the personal computer became common ( beyond the early adopters ) , the future , and what sort of inventions might come out has really dropped.So , wireless communications have gone personal in the form of cell phones .
Video calls are almost here ( it is here , but not common and not good enough for mainstream ) .
Even things like being able to just hop on a plane and be in Europe in 6-9 hours ( from the USA ) used to be an element of science fiction .
So , where do we go from here ?
Space and space travel .
Instant transport ( transporter technology from Star Trek ) is there .
Flying cars as well , and robotics....all have been done before technology has made them possible.So , what we really need is a new generation that has been raised on the current technology to look forward and come up with something new .
In the same way that those older than 40 already should expect that future " the next big thing " will come from those much younger , due to having grown up with technology being EVERYWHERE , when it comes to writing , the same expectation should be there.It really just comes from the perspective of the writers needing to really REACH to come up with a new idea , writers tend to go from their own experiences , and then extending from there based on the latest scientific releases .
Asimov used the positron to explain how robots worked ( their " thinking " ) for example .
But , much of what has been in the works for science is really in the hard-core stage , where a lot of particle physics comes into play .
Or you see work going on discovering planets around stars , but really , no really new on a conceptual basis has been hitting the news.Looking for new planets...oldnew energy sources....oldflight...oldspace travel....old concept , but aside from how it is implemented , not terribly new.We are seeing the start of people taking a trip into orbit , but even living on other planets , meeting alien life , and so on has been done enough where it just is n't NEW anymore .
Even the future evolution of humanity has been done a bit , though " future humans " tend to be very like the humans of today , just with better technology available to them.So , what new things that have not been thought of yet will come out ?
It really may take another 50-100 years before Sci-Fi really wakes back up , just because something really really different needs to be invented that will amaze people .
Think about it , short of aliens REALLY showing up here on Earth , is there any scientific invention that would really surprise us anymore ? My own expectation for the next few hundred years is more like Babylon 5 than Star Trek....human society and nature have not had a real push to change , and even the idea of " try to be nice to others " seems to be fading away , where there is more encouragement to be an obnoxious ass than a decent person .
So , who knows what the future may hold , but the future of society rather than the technology of the future is where there is more room for writing right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When electricity and the telephone were new, the thought that the world would be focused on improvements and technology would be laughable.
Inventors were few and far between, so there was a lot of room for just writing about crazy ideas about what the future may hold for new inventions.
Once the personal computer became common(beyond the early adopters), the future, and what sort of inventions might come out has really dropped.So, wireless communications have gone personal in the form of cell phones.
Video calls are almost here(it is here, but not common and not good enough for mainstream).
Even things like being able to just hop on a plane and be in Europe in 6-9 hours(from the USA) used to be an element of science fiction.
So, where do we go from here?
Space and space travel.
Instant transport(transporter technology from Star Trek) is there.
Flying cars as well, and robotics....all have been done before technology has made them possible.So, what we really need is a new generation that has been raised on the current technology to look forward and come up with something new.
In the same way that those older than 40 already should expect that future "the next big thing" will come from those much younger, due to having grown up with technology being EVERYWHERE, when it comes to writing, the same expectation should be there.It really just comes from the perspective of the writers needing to really REACH to come up with a new idea, writers tend to go from their own experiences, and then extending from there based on the latest scientific releases.
Asimov used the positron to explain how robots worked(their "thinking") for example.
But, much of what has been in the works for science is really in the hard-core stage, where a lot of particle physics comes into play.
Or you see work going on discovering planets around stars, but really, no really new on a conceptual basis has been hitting the news.Looking for new planets...oldnew energy sources....oldflight...oldspace travel....old concept, but aside from how it is implemented, not terribly new.We are seeing the start of people taking a trip into orbit, but even living on other planets, meeting alien life, and so on has been done enough where it just isn't NEW anymore.
Even the future evolution of humanity has been done a bit, though "future humans" tend to be very like the humans of today, just with better technology available to them.So, what new things that have not been thought of yet will come out?
It really may take another 50-100 years before Sci-Fi really wakes back up, just because something really really different needs to be invented that will amaze people.
Think about it, short of aliens REALLY showing up here on Earth, is there any scientific invention that would really surprise us anymore?My own expectation for the next few hundred years is more like Babylon 5 than Star Trek....human society and nature have not had a real push to change, and even the idea of "try to be nice to others" seems to be fading away, where there is more encouragement to be an obnoxious ass than a decent person.
So, who knows what the future may hold, but the future of society rather than the technology of the future is where there is more room for writing right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186938</id>
	<title>Bogged down with realism.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258835460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read 50's and 60's sci fi it seems a lot more experimental and weird than most of today's.<br>The concepts were so far from being possible that the writers don't seem to bother so much with explanations, or tying the plot to a scientific theory.</p><p>I think the problem today is that science is so capable, that writers have to spend half their time making explanations or excuses to fit in with what is 'possible'. So you end up with pages of roughly scientific explanations which are still mumbo jumbo in the end anyway.</p><p>Sci fi writers should forget about realism so much, as that just bogs down the plot, looks dated very quickly, and in the end is almost always impossible fantasy anyway. I've got in the habit of skipping most of the explanations with recent sci fi.</p><p>With the older sci fi if someone said there was a gaseous intelligence shaped like a sphere you just accepted it. Adding pages of explanation about quantum circuitry and dio-foamic nano modules does not improve the book or the concepts one whit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read 50 's and 60 's sci fi it seems a lot more experimental and weird than most of today 's.The concepts were so far from being possible that the writers do n't seem to bother so much with explanations , or tying the plot to a scientific theory.I think the problem today is that science is so capable , that writers have to spend half their time making explanations or excuses to fit in with what is 'possible' .
So you end up with pages of roughly scientific explanations which are still mumbo jumbo in the end anyway.Sci fi writers should forget about realism so much , as that just bogs down the plot , looks dated very quickly , and in the end is almost always impossible fantasy anyway .
I 've got in the habit of skipping most of the explanations with recent sci fi.With the older sci fi if someone said there was a gaseous intelligence shaped like a sphere you just accepted it .
Adding pages of explanation about quantum circuitry and dio-foamic nano modules does not improve the book or the concepts one whit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read 50's and 60's sci fi it seems a lot more experimental and weird than most of today's.The concepts were so far from being possible that the writers don't seem to bother so much with explanations, or tying the plot to a scientific theory.I think the problem today is that science is so capable, that writers have to spend half their time making explanations or excuses to fit in with what is 'possible'.
So you end up with pages of roughly scientific explanations which are still mumbo jumbo in the end anyway.Sci fi writers should forget about realism so much, as that just bogs down the plot, looks dated very quickly, and in the end is almost always impossible fantasy anyway.
I've got in the habit of skipping most of the explanations with recent sci fi.With the older sci fi if someone said there was a gaseous intelligence shaped like a sphere you just accepted it.
Adding pages of explanation about quantum circuitry and dio-foamic nano modules does not improve the book or the concepts one whit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192008</id>
	<title>Exploring Hypothesis is still relevant!</title>
	<author>BlueYoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1258884660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like when an author create a context to explore a hypothesis. Isaac Asimov did that on the foundation and robots series with the concepts of psychohistory and robopsychology. Frank Herbert with "Dosadi" shows what is happening when you put a full society into a high-stress condition. With his other books he explores concept like AI, Gods, religion, racism...</p><p>Hypothesis exploration is where Science fiction meet Fantasy and their predecessor fantastic. All this genre explore alternative reality where the rules of your world are changed. Uchronie is a sub-genre: "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson explorer a divergence reality where the Black Death annihilated European civilization in 1347.</p><p>That's why I would say that Sci-fi is still promising not maybe for gadget or tech but for the liberty it gives to the Author (and by extension the reader ^^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like when an author create a context to explore a hypothesis .
Isaac Asimov did that on the foundation and robots series with the concepts of psychohistory and robopsychology .
Frank Herbert with " Dosadi " shows what is happening when you put a full society into a high-stress condition .
With his other books he explores concept like AI , Gods , religion , racism...Hypothesis exploration is where Science fiction meet Fantasy and their predecessor fantastic .
All this genre explore alternative reality where the rules of your world are changed .
Uchronie is a sub-genre : " The Years of Rice and Salt " by Kim Stanley Robinson explorer a divergence reality where the Black Death annihilated European civilization in 1347.That 's why I would say that Sci-fi is still promising not maybe for gadget or tech but for the liberty it gives to the Author ( and by extension the reader ^ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like when an author create a context to explore a hypothesis.
Isaac Asimov did that on the foundation and robots series with the concepts of psychohistory and robopsychology.
Frank Herbert with "Dosadi" shows what is happening when you put a full society into a high-stress condition.
With his other books he explores concept like AI, Gods, religion, racism...Hypothesis exploration is where Science fiction meet Fantasy and their predecessor fantastic.
All this genre explore alternative reality where the rules of your world are changed.
Uchronie is a sub-genre: "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson explorer a divergence reality where the Black Death annihilated European civilization in 1347.That's why I would say that Sci-fi is still promising not maybe for gadget or tech but for the liberty it gives to the Author (and by extension the reader ^^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200228</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258971780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machina</i></p><p>No, it's not. The regular plural of "deus" is "dei".  Rare, irregular plurals are "di" and "dii".</p><p>Deus-ex-machinas is a reasonable plural of deus-ex-machina in English; I recommend hyphenation.</p><p><i>OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes </i></p><p>Apparently not.  Neither do they seem to teach English very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machinaNo , it 's not .
The regular plural of " deus " is " dei " .
Rare , irregular plurals are " di " and " dii " .Deus-ex-machinas is a reasonable plural of deus-ex-machina in English ; I recommend hyphenation.OMG , they dont seem to teach anything in Latin classes Apparently not .
Neither do they seem to teach English very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct plural form of deus ex machina is deii ex machinaNo, it's not.
The regular plural of "deus" is "dei".
Rare, irregular plurals are "di" and "dii".Deus-ex-machinas is a reasonable plural of deus-ex-machina in English; I recommend hyphenation.OMG, they dont seem to teach  anything  in Latin classes Apparently not.
Neither do they seem to teach English very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192460</id>
	<title>Sci-fi publishers should close up</title>
	<author>bruthasj</author>
	<datestamp>1258893960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to close scifi publishers. All ideas have been exhausted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to close scifi publishers .
All ideas have been exhausted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to close scifi publishers.
All ideas have been exhausted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250</id>
	<title>Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to look to bulk fantasy for invention inspiration.  Indistinguishable from magic and all that rot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to look to bulk fantasy for invention inspiration .
Indistinguishable from magic and all that rot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to look to bulk fantasy for invention inspiration.
Indistinguishable from magic and all that rot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186750</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1258834260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My misgivings about Heroes aside (come on, either going in the past affects the future or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways), the last episode with Peter becoming exhausted from healing people feeds into your idea of energy consumed.  As far as everything else, the show has thrown out physics from the very beginning, but if it's ruining your enjoyment of the show just assume that Sylar has the ability to make that recoil energy occur in the deep far off regions of space on tiny dust particles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My misgivings about Heroes aside ( come on , either going in the past affects the future or it does n't , you ca n't have it both ways ) , the last episode with Peter becoming exhausted from healing people feeds into your idea of energy consumed .
As far as everything else , the show has thrown out physics from the very beginning , but if it 's ruining your enjoyment of the show just assume that Sylar has the ability to make that recoil energy occur in the deep far off regions of space on tiny dust particles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My misgivings about Heroes aside (come on, either going in the past affects the future or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways), the last episode with Peter becoming exhausted from healing people feeds into your idea of energy consumed.
As far as everything else, the show has thrown out physics from the very beginning, but if it's ruining your enjoyment of the show just assume that Sylar has the ability to make that recoil energy occur in the deep far off regions of space on tiny dust particles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187928</id>
	<title>Actually it is the other way around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Past Scifi authors have predicted new technologies, that humanity until now was not able to even invent. In the same aspect, humanity has even failed to come up with solutions to the technologies that have been proposed in the scifi novels of long past novels and authors thereof. And by long past I mean authors such as Aldous Huxley (genetics, selection), Stanislaw Lem (space travel, technology), Poul Anderson (space travel, technology), Gene Roddenberry (space travel, technology, sociology), John C. Crowley (genetics, hybrids/cross-breeds), or William Gibson (cybernetics, technology), and others not being mentioned here.</p><p>Actually, humanity must first achieve any of the above depicted technologies in order for humanity to create something new in terms of scifi art.</p><p>Of course, genetics (hybrids/cross-breeds), cybernetics (prostheses,enhancements,exo-skeletons) and other technologies are on their way. But not until those technologies have become a vital part of our every day living, no real new scifi may be established.</p><p>In my opinion, Art/Scifi generates new technology/new ways of thinking based on past/current ways of thinking and past/current technology and current inventions thereof.<br>And, as soon as that new way of thinking/the new technology becomes available, new Art/Scifi will be generated, unless we deal with some very prophetic and thus very ingenous archetypes<br>of Scifi authors. But I fear, that we do not have such authors at the moment, and if there were such authors, unrelated individuals or groups of them would know how to prevent such authors from<br>succeeding in their overall accomplishment, before it even gets published. Unless the author himself or herself would keep the project under full closure, which is, in my opinion, not always possible.<br>So, if anything leaks from a todays novel project, then the whole world would know about it, and, subsequently some other person would come first presenting the original  author's ideas to the public<br>as his or her own, consequently limiting the achievement of todays or future Artists/Scifi authors to a mere replication of past achievements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Past Scifi authors have predicted new technologies , that humanity until now was not able to even invent .
In the same aspect , humanity has even failed to come up with solutions to the technologies that have been proposed in the scifi novels of long past novels and authors thereof .
And by long past I mean authors such as Aldous Huxley ( genetics , selection ) , Stanislaw Lem ( space travel , technology ) , Poul Anderson ( space travel , technology ) , Gene Roddenberry ( space travel , technology , sociology ) , John C. Crowley ( genetics , hybrids/cross-breeds ) , or William Gibson ( cybernetics , technology ) , and others not being mentioned here.Actually , humanity must first achieve any of the above depicted technologies in order for humanity to create something new in terms of scifi art.Of course , genetics ( hybrids/cross-breeds ) , cybernetics ( prostheses,enhancements,exo-skeletons ) and other technologies are on their way .
But not until those technologies have become a vital part of our every day living , no real new scifi may be established.In my opinion , Art/Scifi generates new technology/new ways of thinking based on past/current ways of thinking and past/current technology and current inventions thereof.And , as soon as that new way of thinking/the new technology becomes available , new Art/Scifi will be generated , unless we deal with some very prophetic and thus very ingenous archetypesof Scifi authors .
But I fear , that we do not have such authors at the moment , and if there were such authors , unrelated individuals or groups of them would know how to prevent such authors fromsucceeding in their overall accomplishment , before it even gets published .
Unless the author himself or herself would keep the project under full closure , which is , in my opinion , not always possible.So , if anything leaks from a todays novel project , then the whole world would know about it , and , subsequently some other person would come first presenting the original author 's ideas to the publicas his or her own , consequently limiting the achievement of todays or future Artists/Scifi authors to a mere replication of past achievements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Past Scifi authors have predicted new technologies, that humanity until now was not able to even invent.
In the same aspect, humanity has even failed to come up with solutions to the technologies that have been proposed in the scifi novels of long past novels and authors thereof.
And by long past I mean authors such as Aldous Huxley (genetics, selection), Stanislaw Lem (space travel, technology), Poul Anderson (space travel, technology), Gene Roddenberry (space travel, technology, sociology), John C. Crowley (genetics, hybrids/cross-breeds), or William Gibson (cybernetics, technology), and others not being mentioned here.Actually, humanity must first achieve any of the above depicted technologies in order for humanity to create something new in terms of scifi art.Of course, genetics (hybrids/cross-breeds), cybernetics (prostheses,enhancements,exo-skeletons) and other technologies are on their way.
But not until those technologies have become a vital part of our every day living, no real new scifi may be established.In my opinion, Art/Scifi generates new technology/new ways of thinking based on past/current ways of thinking and past/current technology and current inventions thereof.And, as soon as that new way of thinking/the new technology becomes available, new Art/Scifi will be generated, unless we deal with some very prophetic and thus very ingenous archetypesof Scifi authors.
But I fear, that we do not have such authors at the moment, and if there were such authors, unrelated individuals or groups of them would know how to prevent such authors fromsucceeding in their overall accomplishment, before it even gets published.
Unless the author himself or herself would keep the project under full closure, which is, in my opinion, not always possible.So, if anything leaks from a todays novel project, then the whole world would know about it, and, subsequently some other person would come first presenting the original  author's ideas to the publicas his or her own, consequently limiting the achievement of todays or future Artists/Scifi authors to a mere replication of past achievements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188458</id>
	<title>change the goal</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1258802220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't read or write science fiction that that aims to change technology. Read or write science fiction that aims to change the way society looks at or uses technology.</p><p>Either that, or something that is simply a good read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't read or write science fiction that that aims to change technology .
Read or write science fiction that aims to change the way society looks at or uses technology.Either that , or something that is simply a good read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't read or write science fiction that that aims to change technology.
Read or write science fiction that aims to change the way society looks at or uses technology.Either that, or something that is simply a good read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190148</id>
	<title>More Knowledge limits plausible fiction...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258815240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to wait for science fiction to really die wait for the L.H.C to discover the Higgs Boson, now they have the thing working again.</p><p>Once we get that theory of everything and find out that even with that knowledge that we can't do any of SFs big ideas it will be dead!</p><p>Space travel - dead already. Stuck to below light speed. Realisation that the power requirements for mathmatically FTL are unobtainable.<br>Warfare - No interesting concepts left. Any serious conflict means the death of everyone. Whats left is fighting guerillas with robots - but wait, thats happening now in afghanistan!<br>AIs - Whats the point? You get a theory of everything and can do nothing with it. Now you can reach that conclusion faster with the excess processing power!<br>Medicine - We aren't that far from understanding all there is to know about the body. What's left is how the brain functions to create a conciousness but it doesn't have many practical implications unless you are a spiritual sort. I mean we already have cheap sentient machines, they are called the working class.</p><p>Basically if we reach a point where there aren't many possibilities or unknowns in an area of science, fiction based on it suffers.<br>Medicine is starting to reach this stage in my opinion. We know enough about AIDS to know that its gonna be a right bitch to cure, if it is even possible for example</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to wait for science fiction to really die wait for the L.H.C to discover the Higgs Boson , now they have the thing working again.Once we get that theory of everything and find out that even with that knowledge that we ca n't do any of SFs big ideas it will be dead ! Space travel - dead already .
Stuck to below light speed .
Realisation that the power requirements for mathmatically FTL are unobtainable.Warfare - No interesting concepts left .
Any serious conflict means the death of everyone .
Whats left is fighting guerillas with robots - but wait , thats happening now in afghanistan ! AIs - Whats the point ?
You get a theory of everything and can do nothing with it .
Now you can reach that conclusion faster with the excess processing power ! Medicine - We are n't that far from understanding all there is to know about the body .
What 's left is how the brain functions to create a conciousness but it does n't have many practical implications unless you are a spiritual sort .
I mean we already have cheap sentient machines , they are called the working class.Basically if we reach a point where there are n't many possibilities or unknowns in an area of science , fiction based on it suffers.Medicine is starting to reach this stage in my opinion .
We know enough about AIDS to know that its gon na be a right bitch to cure , if it is even possible for example</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to wait for science fiction to really die wait for the L.H.C to discover the Higgs Boson, now they have the thing working again.Once we get that theory of everything and find out that even with that knowledge that we can't do any of SFs big ideas it will be dead!Space travel - dead already.
Stuck to below light speed.
Realisation that the power requirements for mathmatically FTL are unobtainable.Warfare - No interesting concepts left.
Any serious conflict means the death of everyone.
Whats left is fighting guerillas with robots - but wait, thats happening now in afghanistan!AIs - Whats the point?
You get a theory of everything and can do nothing with it.
Now you can reach that conclusion faster with the excess processing power!Medicine - We aren't that far from understanding all there is to know about the body.
What's left is how the brain functions to create a conciousness but it doesn't have many practical implications unless you are a spiritual sort.
I mean we already have cheap sentient machines, they are called the working class.Basically if we reach a point where there aren't many possibilities or unknowns in an area of science, fiction based on it suffers.Medicine is starting to reach this stage in my opinion.
We know enough about AIDS to know that its gonna be a right bitch to cure, if it is even possible for example</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189006</id>
	<title>Baxter and Bear still not afraid to predict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stephen Baxter and Greg Bear still seem to be able to write science fiction that make bold predictions. I highly recommend both authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen Baxter and Greg Bear still seem to be able to write science fiction that make bold predictions .
I highly recommend both authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen Baxter and Greg Bear still seem to be able to write science fiction that make bold predictions.
I highly recommend both authors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189086</id>
	<title>A local dip in an uptrending curve is not the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258806360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no earthshaking discoveries.  None of the "once a generation, this changes everything" kind of discovery.  We're moving quickly, but in entirely conceivable and steady ways.  Previous generation had "man landing on the moon".  We had "networked PCs".</p><p>There will be some scientific discovery, in the next decade.  Something of a magnitude that fundamentally alters what is *really* possible.  Something that will enter in the public subconscious, making the magical seem altogether possible.  This will give imaginitive people a fertile field in which to play again.</p><p>Along will come a pop SciFi movie and/or book that will fuel that subconscious spark.  It will explode into the minds of a whole new generation of young people, frustrated with the pace of progress and dreaming of the cool things that might be.  Just like it did for us, and generations before.</p><p>So yes, SciFi is tapped.  For us, now.</p><p>But what SciFi will the kids who are just being born be hooked on as they come into *their* teens?  Stuff that will make ours look like "Flash Gordon" does to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no earthshaking discoveries .
None of the " once a generation , this changes everything " kind of discovery .
We 're moving quickly , but in entirely conceivable and steady ways .
Previous generation had " man landing on the moon " .
We had " networked PCs " .There will be some scientific discovery , in the next decade .
Something of a magnitude that fundamentally alters what is * really * possible .
Something that will enter in the public subconscious , making the magical seem altogether possible .
This will give imaginitive people a fertile field in which to play again.Along will come a pop SciFi movie and/or book that will fuel that subconscious spark .
It will explode into the minds of a whole new generation of young people , frustrated with the pace of progress and dreaming of the cool things that might be .
Just like it did for us , and generations before.So yes , SciFi is tapped .
For us , now.But what SciFi will the kids who are just being born be hooked on as they come into * their * teens ?
Stuff that will make ours look like " Flash Gordon " does to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no earthshaking discoveries.
None of the "once a generation, this changes everything" kind of discovery.
We're moving quickly, but in entirely conceivable and steady ways.
Previous generation had "man landing on the moon".
We had "networked PCs".There will be some scientific discovery, in the next decade.
Something of a magnitude that fundamentally alters what is *really* possible.
Something that will enter in the public subconscious, making the magical seem altogether possible.
This will give imaginitive people a fertile field in which to play again.Along will come a pop SciFi movie and/or book that will fuel that subconscious spark.
It will explode into the minds of a whole new generation of young people, frustrated with the pace of progress and dreaming of the cool things that might be.
Just like it did for us, and generations before.So yes, SciFi is tapped.
For us, now.But what SciFi will the kids who are just being born be hooked on as they come into *their* teens?
Stuff that will make ours look like "Flash Gordon" does to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186442</id>
	<title>REAL Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because in ten years we will be moving away from technology and into the realm of latent psychic abilities.
<br> <br>
If I'm wrong, no one will remember; but, if I'm right, I'm a frickin' genius!
<br> <br>
For all the technologies that SciFi imagined and helped create, tehre are thousands more that just didn't happen.  So of the thousands upon thousands of SciFi stories being written every year, i think you will be able to find some that accurately predicted the rise in tech.  They just may not be the mainstream, big name ones.  That is perhaps the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because in ten years we will be moving away from technology and into the realm of latent psychic abilities .
If I 'm wrong , no one will remember ; but , if I 'm right , I 'm a frickin ' genius !
For all the technologies that SciFi imagined and helped create , tehre are thousands more that just did n't happen .
So of the thousands upon thousands of SciFi stories being written every year , i think you will be able to find some that accurately predicted the rise in tech .
They just may not be the mainstream , big name ones .
That is perhaps the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because in ten years we will be moving away from technology and into the realm of latent psychic abilities.
If I'm wrong, no one will remember; but, if I'm right, I'm a frickin' genius!
For all the technologies that SciFi imagined and helped create, tehre are thousands more that just didn't happen.
So of the thousands upon thousands of SciFi stories being written every year, i think you will be able to find some that accurately predicted the rise in tech.
They just may not be the mainstream, big name ones.
That is perhaps the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189934</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>RubberDogBone</author>
	<datestamp>1258813680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just that Trek has inverted polarized tachyon beams, it's that they JUST HAPPEN to have come up with it in the very episode where the thing is needed.</p><p>Example:  (something happens) and the only way to save the day is for Geordi to convince the Captain to use the handy gadget or beam he had invented that day.  Wow what timing.  Ship goes home.</p><p>My favorite was one of the season-ending cliff hangers in which the whole thing was going to hell with the Borg -UNTIL they used some new shielding Geordi had just invented, which turned out to be the exact trick they needed.  They never had it before.  Never used it after that one episode.  It was just the gimmick of the week.</p><p>ST:NG got very very bad about and Voyager was headed that way when I quit watching it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just that Trek has inverted polarized tachyon beams , it 's that they JUST HAPPEN to have come up with it in the very episode where the thing is needed.Example : ( something happens ) and the only way to save the day is for Geordi to convince the Captain to use the handy gadget or beam he had invented that day .
Wow what timing .
Ship goes home.My favorite was one of the season-ending cliff hangers in which the whole thing was going to hell with the Borg -UNTIL they used some new shielding Geordi had just invented , which turned out to be the exact trick they needed .
They never had it before .
Never used it after that one episode .
It was just the gimmick of the week.ST : NG got very very bad about and Voyager was headed that way when I quit watching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just that Trek has inverted polarized tachyon beams, it's that they JUST HAPPEN to have come up with it in the very episode where the thing is needed.Example:  (something happens) and the only way to save the day is for Geordi to convince the Captain to use the handy gadget or beam he had invented that day.
Wow what timing.
Ship goes home.My favorite was one of the season-ending cliff hangers in which the whole thing was going to hell with the Borg -UNTIL they used some new shielding Geordi had just invented, which turned out to be the exact trick they needed.
They never had it before.
Never used it after that one episode.
It was just the gimmick of the week.ST:NG got very very bad about and Voyager was headed that way when I quit watching it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188012</id>
	<title>Has SF run out of steam? Rudy Rucker begs 2 differ</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1258799220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Programmable plastics.
Bionic implants.
Mind transfers into hardware and back into "wetware".
Superconducting quantum CPU robots with real AI and free will, as well as capacity to self-replicate.
"Cost-free" communications using the 4th spatial dimension
etc, etc.

There's plenty of ideas to be developed. SF is still as full of ideas as back in Jules Verne's day.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware\_Tetralogy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware\_Tetralogy</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmable plastics .
Bionic implants .
Mind transfers into hardware and back into " wetware " .
Superconducting quantum CPU robots with real AI and free will , as well as capacity to self-replicate .
" Cost-free " communications using the 4th spatial dimension etc , etc .
There 's plenty of ideas to be developed .
SF is still as full of ideas as back in Jules Verne 's day .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware \ _Tetralogy [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmable plastics.
Bionic implants.
Mind transfers into hardware and back into "wetware".
Superconducting quantum CPU robots with real AI and free will, as well as capacity to self-replicate.
"Cost-free" communications using the 4th spatial dimension
etc, etc.
There's plenty of ideas to be developed.
SF is still as full of ideas as back in Jules Verne's day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware\_Tetralogy [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187856</id>
	<title>Since when is sci-fi just about hardware or tech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Back in the days of space opera and pulps, sure, sci-fi was more about the hardware than about characters, society, psychology, or even plot.  And a lot of the plots back then were "deus ex machina".
</p><p>
Today, we want to know more than just what great tech is in our future - we want to know how it will affect us. Why we should worry.  Why we should ask "whatcanpossiblygowrong".  Why we as a planet make one choice and not another, even though we know the first choice is the worse of the two.
</p><p>
Sci-fi is still in its infancy. It'll grow up only as the human race grows up, so it's got either a very long run ahead of it, or, if we don't heed the warnings from the dystopians, a very short one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the days of space opera and pulps , sure , sci-fi was more about the hardware than about characters , society , psychology , or even plot .
And a lot of the plots back then were " deus ex machina " .
Today , we want to know more than just what great tech is in our future - we want to know how it will affect us .
Why we should worry .
Why we should ask " whatcanpossiblygowrong " .
Why we as a planet make one choice and not another , even though we know the first choice is the worse of the two .
Sci-fi is still in its infancy .
It 'll grow up only as the human race grows up , so it 's got either a very long run ahead of it , or , if we do n't heed the warnings from the dystopians , a very short one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Back in the days of space opera and pulps, sure, sci-fi was more about the hardware than about characters, society, psychology, or even plot.
And a lot of the plots back then were "deus ex machina".
Today, we want to know more than just what great tech is in our future - we want to know how it will affect us.
Why we should worry.
Why we should ask "whatcanpossiblygowrong".
Why we as a planet make one choice and not another, even though we know the first choice is the worse of the two.
Sci-fi is still in its infancy.
It'll grow up only as the human race grows up, so it's got either a very long run ahead of it, or, if we don't heed the warnings from the dystopians, a very short one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187842</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the idea behind "deus ex machinas" is of multiple gods from multiple machines, so the correct Latin would therefore be <i>dei ex machinis</i>.  Whether or not you agree about <i>machinis</i>, there's still only one i in the plural of <i>deus</i>.   Se retrahe nunc ex agro meo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea behind " deus ex machinas " is of multiple gods from multiple machines , so the correct Latin would therefore be dei ex machinis .
Whether or not you agree about machinis , there 's still only one i in the plural of deus .
Se retrahe nunc ex agro meo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea behind "deus ex machinas" is of multiple gods from multiple machines, so the correct Latin would therefore be dei ex machinis.
Whether or not you agree about machinis, there's still only one i in the plural of deus.
Se retrahe nunc ex agro meo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186718</id>
	<title>Re:It's not fortune-telling.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258834020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;The purpose of SF isn't fortune-telling.</p><p>Ph.D. Isaac Asimov would disagree with you.  He viewed science fiction as a source of ideas that could be developed for the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; The purpose of SF is n't fortune-telling.Ph.D .
Isaac Asimov would disagree with you .
He viewed science fiction as a source of ideas that could be developed for the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;The purpose of SF isn't fortune-telling.Ph.D.
Isaac Asimov would disagree with you.
He viewed science fiction as a source of ideas that could be developed for the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30207470</id>
	<title>Re:PC Pro just needs to read more Sci-Fi</title>
	<author>metaconcept</author>
	<datestamp>1258976880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A Fire Upon the Deep</i> is definitely better, as is <i>A Deepness in the Sky</i>. Both are very well worthwhile; in fact both number among my favourite science fiction novels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Fire Upon the Deep is definitely better , as is A Deepness in the Sky .
Both are very well worthwhile ; in fact both number among my favourite science fiction novels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Fire Upon the Deep is definitely better, as is A Deepness in the Sky.
Both are very well worthwhile; in fact both number among my favourite science fiction novels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191562</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1258832880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asimov's short stories are shit, mostly.  Clarke's short stories are at least much better, if not reliably good.  If you must read Asimov, I recommend his scientific essays, which are amazing (there are a couple dozen collections of them floating around).  His writing on literature is also very good--I have his guides to Shakespeare and The Bible, and they're both engaging, informative, fun reads.  Generally, stick to his non-fic.  I still haven't tried his novels (his short stories turned me off so much from his fiction) but his non-fic is <i>solid</i>.</p><p>If you want to read older sci-fi, I can personally recommend:</p><ul> <li>just about anything by Bradbury</li><li>at least some of Clarke (so far, I can only vouch for <i>The City and the Stars</i> and <i>Childhood's End</i>)</li><li>Atwood when she ventures in to the genre (and when she doesn't, for that matter)</li><li>W.M. Miller, Jr.'s <i>A Canticle for Leibowitz</i>.  I cannot stress enough how good this book is.  I don't mean "good for sci-fi";  I mean <i>good</i>.</li><li>Vonnegut.  All of it (well... almost all of it).  I actually like him best when he's not writing sci-fi, but that seems to be a minority opinion.  Personal favorites are <i>Deadeye Dick</i>, <i>Bluebeard</i>, and <i>Mother Night</i>, but the closest thing to a canonical "big three" for him is <i>Slaughterhouse Five</i>, <i>Cat's Cradle</i>, and <i>Breakfast of Champions</i> (though some would probably sub <i>The Sirens of Titan</i> in <i>BoC</i>'s place)</li><li>Orson Scott Card's novella <i>Ender's Game</i> is what I'd call top-notch (and I mean <i>top</i>) juvenile fiction.  Haven't read the later novel-length version, so I can't comment on it.</li><li> <i>Dune</i>.  I like it all the way to the end of <i>God Emperor of Dune</i>, at which point I feel the story is over and the remaining books are just an author wanking over a universe he can't let go.  The writing's at least serviceable throughout (I can't say that for some of his other books) and, if nothing else, the series is fun for a game of "spot the socio-cultural reference"</li></ul><p>Most of these can stand on the same shelf as any contemporary literature and not be (overly) dwarfed.</p><p>Others I've heard are on the same level, but haven't yet read:</p><ul> <li>P.K. Dick (ok, ok, make fun of me all you want, I know it's a geek sin that I haven't read him yet)</li><li>Le Guin</li></ul><p>As for Stephenson, I've read <i>Snow Crash</i>, <i>Anathem</i>, and <i>Cryptonomicon</i>, in that order, and my preference is the exact reverse of that order, if that helps you choose your next Stephenson read (assuming you haven't read it already).  <i>SC</i> was OK but I doubt I'd have kept reading him if <i>Anathem</i> hadn't been better, and <i>Cryptonomicon</i> was so good that I've decided to dedicated a big chunk of time to reading <i>The Diamond Age</i> and his big trilogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov 's short stories are shit , mostly .
Clarke 's short stories are at least much better , if not reliably good .
If you must read Asimov , I recommend his scientific essays , which are amazing ( there are a couple dozen collections of them floating around ) .
His writing on literature is also very good--I have his guides to Shakespeare and The Bible , and they 're both engaging , informative , fun reads .
Generally , stick to his non-fic .
I still have n't tried his novels ( his short stories turned me off so much from his fiction ) but his non-fic is solid.If you want to read older sci-fi , I can personally recommend : just about anything by Bradburyat least some of Clarke ( so far , I can only vouch for The City and the Stars and Childhood 's End ) Atwood when she ventures in to the genre ( and when she does n't , for that matter ) W.M .
Miller , Jr. 's A Canticle for Leibowitz .
I can not stress enough how good this book is .
I do n't mean " good for sci-fi " ; I mean good.Vonnegut .
All of it ( well... almost all of it ) .
I actually like him best when he 's not writing sci-fi , but that seems to be a minority opinion .
Personal favorites are Deadeye Dick , Bluebeard , and Mother Night , but the closest thing to a canonical " big three " for him is Slaughterhouse Five , Cat 's Cradle , and Breakfast of Champions ( though some would probably sub The Sirens of Titan in BoC 's place ) Orson Scott Card 's novella Ender 's Game is what I 'd call top-notch ( and I mean top ) juvenile fiction .
Have n't read the later novel-length version , so I ca n't comment on it .
Dune. I like it all the way to the end of God Emperor of Dune , at which point I feel the story is over and the remaining books are just an author wanking over a universe he ca n't let go .
The writing 's at least serviceable throughout ( I ca n't say that for some of his other books ) and , if nothing else , the series is fun for a game of " spot the socio-cultural reference " Most of these can stand on the same shelf as any contemporary literature and not be ( overly ) dwarfed.Others I 've heard are on the same level , but have n't yet read : P.K .
Dick ( ok , ok , make fun of me all you want , I know it 's a geek sin that I have n't read him yet ) Le GuinAs for Stephenson , I 've read Snow Crash , Anathem , and Cryptonomicon , in that order , and my preference is the exact reverse of that order , if that helps you choose your next Stephenson read ( assuming you have n't read it already ) .
SC was OK but I doubt I 'd have kept reading him if Anathem had n't been better , and Cryptonomicon was so good that I 've decided to dedicated a big chunk of time to reading The Diamond Age and his big trilogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov's short stories are shit, mostly.
Clarke's short stories are at least much better, if not reliably good.
If you must read Asimov, I recommend his scientific essays, which are amazing (there are a couple dozen collections of them floating around).
His writing on literature is also very good--I have his guides to Shakespeare and The Bible, and they're both engaging, informative, fun reads.
Generally, stick to his non-fic.
I still haven't tried his novels (his short stories turned me off so much from his fiction) but his non-fic is solid.If you want to read older sci-fi, I can personally recommend: just about anything by Bradburyat least some of Clarke (so far, I can only vouch for The City and the Stars and Childhood's End)Atwood when she ventures in to the genre (and when she doesn't, for that matter)W.M.
Miller, Jr.'s A Canticle for Leibowitz.
I cannot stress enough how good this book is.
I don't mean "good for sci-fi";  I mean good.Vonnegut.
All of it (well... almost all of it).
I actually like him best when he's not writing sci-fi, but that seems to be a minority opinion.
Personal favorites are Deadeye Dick, Bluebeard, and Mother Night, but the closest thing to a canonical "big three" for him is Slaughterhouse Five, Cat's Cradle, and Breakfast of Champions (though some would probably sub The Sirens of Titan in BoC's place)Orson Scott Card's novella Ender's Game is what I'd call top-notch (and I mean top) juvenile fiction.
Haven't read the later novel-length version, so I can't comment on it.
Dune.  I like it all the way to the end of God Emperor of Dune, at which point I feel the story is over and the remaining books are just an author wanking over a universe he can't let go.
The writing's at least serviceable throughout (I can't say that for some of his other books) and, if nothing else, the series is fun for a game of "spot the socio-cultural reference"Most of these can stand on the same shelf as any contemporary literature and not be (overly) dwarfed.Others I've heard are on the same level, but haven't yet read: P.K.
Dick (ok, ok, make fun of me all you want, I know it's a geek sin that I haven't read him yet)Le GuinAs for Stephenson, I've read Snow Crash, Anathem, and Cryptonomicon, in that order, and my preference is the exact reverse of that order, if that helps you choose your next Stephenson read (assuming you haven't read it already).
SC was OK but I doubt I'd have kept reading him if Anathem hadn't been better, and Cryptonomicon was so good that I've decided to dedicated a big chunk of time to reading The Diamond Age and his big trilogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186530</id>
	<title>Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge</title>
	<author>platykurtic</author>
	<datestamp>1258833000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're looking for a near-future cool technology book this is my recommendation. It's augmented reality, which is only now beginning to exists in any semi-useful form, taken to the limits. The author is a computer science professor, so most of his technology is written with an idea of what's possible the whole story is very cool. It's definitely a world I could envision coming to be in a few decades</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking for a near-future cool technology book this is my recommendation .
It 's augmented reality , which is only now beginning to exists in any semi-useful form , taken to the limits .
The author is a computer science professor , so most of his technology is written with an idea of what 's possible the whole story is very cool .
It 's definitely a world I could envision coming to be in a few decades</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking for a near-future cool technology book this is my recommendation.
It's augmented reality, which is only now beginning to exists in any semi-useful form, taken to the limits.
The author is a computer science professor, so most of his technology is written with an idea of what's possible the whole story is very cool.
It's definitely a world I could envision coming to be in a few decades</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187534</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1258796340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I do want more than a bit of technobabble.</p></div><p>Technobabble has its place. Look at the writings of Peter F. Hamilton. Very little solid science behind any of it, mostly pure space opera. I think it still has valid technology predictions. Ideas about what might be possible are more important than a plausible explanation of how to get there, at least in fiction stories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I do want more than a bit of technobabble.Technobabble has its place .
Look at the writings of Peter F. Hamilton. Very little solid science behind any of it , mostly pure space opera .
I think it still has valid technology predictions .
Ideas about what might be possible are more important than a plausible explanation of how to get there , at least in fiction stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I do want more than a bit of technobabble.Technobabble has its place.
Look at the writings of Peter F. Hamilton. Very little solid science behind any of it, mostly pure space opera.
I think it still has valid technology predictions.
Ideas about what might be possible are more important than a plausible explanation of how to get there, at least in fiction stories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191092</id>
	<title>Sci fi isn't dead.</title>
	<author>watanabe</author>
	<datestamp>1258826760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sci-Fi, the act of writing out speculations on our future, or an alternate one, isn't dead. The Spec-Fiction portion of it isn't dead, at least. The extrapolating current life into the future portion is having trouble, though. Vernor Vinge explains this nicely in his Singularity essays. He claims that sci fi writers have been dealing with the difficulties of making quality predictions for at least a decade, maybe two decades now.</p><p>In short, rate of change is speeding up, ergo change is going to be geometric, maybe exponential, ergo there will be some period of time, reasonably short, after which we (as current humans living on earth) will not understand very much about the world.</p><p>Vinge (and Ray Kurzweil) call this the Singularity. It's a nice, compelling idea if you're a math guy or gal (and I am a math guy).</p><p>Corollary to all this: Either you can write near-term extrapolative fiction or you can write post-singularity fiction, but there's no mid-range future. The mid-range future will happen in like an afternoon one day, and nobody will notice it due to what happens shortly after. This lack of mid-range predictability is what's bugging some people. But, functionally, I don't understand why. Scientists don't need Arthur C. Clarke to dream impossible dreams right now -- IBM neuroscientists are physically simulating a cat brain ALREADY for goodness sake! They don't need to think 'out of the box' about what the future could hold. The world has moved on, and into a space where finance guys will PAY people to IMPLEMENT their crazy sci-fi ideas.</p><p>We call the finance guys venture capitalists. They are helping build hotels in space, yadda,yadda,yadda. The future is already here at some level, and the mid-range future is being obsessively considered by inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs and VCs,</p><p>The stross quote backs this idea, change is already happening rapidly, and speeding up in a way that surprises a hard-SF writer.</p><p>This is why I like the tack Vinge has recently taken: think about INTERFACE to a new world. Think about ethics right around the time of the singularity. These are good places for sci-fi authors, traditionally a pretty thoughtful bunch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-Fi , the act of writing out speculations on our future , or an alternate one , is n't dead .
The Spec-Fiction portion of it is n't dead , at least .
The extrapolating current life into the future portion is having trouble , though .
Vernor Vinge explains this nicely in his Singularity essays .
He claims that sci fi writers have been dealing with the difficulties of making quality predictions for at least a decade , maybe two decades now.In short , rate of change is speeding up , ergo change is going to be geometric , maybe exponential , ergo there will be some period of time , reasonably short , after which we ( as current humans living on earth ) will not understand very much about the world.Vinge ( and Ray Kurzweil ) call this the Singularity .
It 's a nice , compelling idea if you 're a math guy or gal ( and I am a math guy ) .Corollary to all this : Either you can write near-term extrapolative fiction or you can write post-singularity fiction , but there 's no mid-range future .
The mid-range future will happen in like an afternoon one day , and nobody will notice it due to what happens shortly after .
This lack of mid-range predictability is what 's bugging some people .
But , functionally , I do n't understand why .
Scientists do n't need Arthur C. Clarke to dream impossible dreams right now -- IBM neuroscientists are physically simulating a cat brain ALREADY for goodness sake !
They do n't need to think 'out of the box ' about what the future could hold .
The world has moved on , and into a space where finance guys will PAY people to IMPLEMENT their crazy sci-fi ideas.We call the finance guys venture capitalists .
They are helping build hotels in space , yadda,yadda,yadda .
The future is already here at some level , and the mid-range future is being obsessively considered by inventors , scientists , entrepreneurs and VCs,The stross quote backs this idea , change is already happening rapidly , and speeding up in a way that surprises a hard-SF writer.This is why I like the tack Vinge has recently taken : think about INTERFACE to a new world .
Think about ethics right around the time of the singularity .
These are good places for sci-fi authors , traditionally a pretty thoughtful bunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-Fi, the act of writing out speculations on our future, or an alternate one, isn't dead.
The Spec-Fiction portion of it isn't dead, at least.
The extrapolating current life into the future portion is having trouble, though.
Vernor Vinge explains this nicely in his Singularity essays.
He claims that sci fi writers have been dealing with the difficulties of making quality predictions for at least a decade, maybe two decades now.In short, rate of change is speeding up, ergo change is going to be geometric, maybe exponential, ergo there will be some period of time, reasonably short, after which we (as current humans living on earth) will not understand very much about the world.Vinge (and Ray Kurzweil) call this the Singularity.
It's a nice, compelling idea if you're a math guy or gal (and I am a math guy).Corollary to all this: Either you can write near-term extrapolative fiction or you can write post-singularity fiction, but there's no mid-range future.
The mid-range future will happen in like an afternoon one day, and nobody will notice it due to what happens shortly after.
This lack of mid-range predictability is what's bugging some people.
But, functionally, I don't understand why.
Scientists don't need Arthur C. Clarke to dream impossible dreams right now -- IBM neuroscientists are physically simulating a cat brain ALREADY for goodness sake!
They don't need to think 'out of the box' about what the future could hold.
The world has moved on, and into a space where finance guys will PAY people to IMPLEMENT their crazy sci-fi ideas.We call the finance guys venture capitalists.
They are helping build hotels in space, yadda,yadda,yadda.
The future is already here at some level, and the mid-range future is being obsessively considered by inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs and VCs,The stross quote backs this idea, change is already happening rapidly, and speeding up in a way that surprises a hard-SF writer.This is why I like the tack Vinge has recently taken: think about INTERFACE to a new world.
Think about ethics right around the time of the singularity.
These are good places for sci-fi authors, traditionally a pretty thoughtful bunch.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186540</id>
	<title>Is that the goal of sci-fi writers?</title>
	<author>knifeyspooney</author>
	<datestamp>1258833060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science fiction may inspire inventors. The technology it depicts, whether or not the author intended it as prediction, may ultimately be invented in the reader's lifetime. One gets a profound feeling when it happens that way!<br> <br>

But good science fiction imagines the effects of advanced technology on the human condition. The inventions it depicts should be theoretically feasible, and the year in which it is set should be appropriate to the level of scientific advancement that would be needed. But verisimilitude is only a tool for telling a good story about people, which is the true metric of any fiction, science- or otherwise.<br> <br>

If the advancements depicted in a sci-fi work never take place, should that disqualify it from greatness? Is <i>Star Trek TNG</i> only any good if the advancements it portrays occur in real life, along the same timeline?<br> <br>

And if a work inspires no one to invent, then so what? What of dystopic sci-fi? Heaven forbid a great science-fiction novel like <i>1984</i> inspired anyone to develop the technology it portrays! (Although, in that case, the author was definitely making technological predictions, which happened to come true.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science fiction may inspire inventors .
The technology it depicts , whether or not the author intended it as prediction , may ultimately be invented in the reader 's lifetime .
One gets a profound feeling when it happens that way !
But good science fiction imagines the effects of advanced technology on the human condition .
The inventions it depicts should be theoretically feasible , and the year in which it is set should be appropriate to the level of scientific advancement that would be needed .
But verisimilitude is only a tool for telling a good story about people , which is the true metric of any fiction , science- or otherwise .
If the advancements depicted in a sci-fi work never take place , should that disqualify it from greatness ?
Is Star Trek TNG only any good if the advancements it portrays occur in real life , along the same timeline ?
And if a work inspires no one to invent , then so what ?
What of dystopic sci-fi ?
Heaven forbid a great science-fiction novel like 1984 inspired anyone to develop the technology it portrays !
( Although , in that case , the author was definitely making technological predictions , which happened to come true .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science fiction may inspire inventors.
The technology it depicts, whether or not the author intended it as prediction, may ultimately be invented in the reader's lifetime.
One gets a profound feeling when it happens that way!
But good science fiction imagines the effects of advanced technology on the human condition.
The inventions it depicts should be theoretically feasible, and the year in which it is set should be appropriate to the level of scientific advancement that would be needed.
But verisimilitude is only a tool for telling a good story about people, which is the true metric of any fiction, science- or otherwise.
If the advancements depicted in a sci-fi work never take place, should that disqualify it from greatness?
Is Star Trek TNG only any good if the advancements it portrays occur in real life, along the same timeline?
And if a work inspires no one to invent, then so what?
What of dystopic sci-fi?
Heaven forbid a great science-fiction novel like 1984 inspired anyone to develop the technology it portrays!
(Although, in that case, the author was definitely making technological predictions, which happened to come true.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186828</id>
	<title>All good sci-fi is...</title>
	<author>mikeage</author>
	<datestamp>1258834800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lots of fi, minimal sci, except where necessary.</p><p>Good sci-fi, like all good literature, is about people, not technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lots of fi , minimal sci , except where necessary.Good sci-fi , like all good literature , is about people , not technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lots of fi, minimal sci, except where necessary.Good sci-fi, like all good literature, is about people, not technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1258836120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you. Most of what passes for science fiction is essentially "space fantasy". It is all the same old story but the props are different. Take a medieval knights and dragons story and replace Excalibur with light sabre, horses with space ships, strange countries with strange planets and you get what passes for Sci-Fi. Real science fiction where the props are much less important, (and the story teller goes out of his way to make them more prosaic and commonplace) but the theme, the storyline etc is science based is very difficult to find. The likes of Asimov and Clarke do not find big audiences. Even Chrichton had some decent half science stories.  It is George Lucas and his clones with stunted imagination rule the roost in the SciFi genre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
Most of what passes for science fiction is essentially " space fantasy " .
It is all the same old story but the props are different .
Take a medieval knights and dragons story and replace Excalibur with light sabre , horses with space ships , strange countries with strange planets and you get what passes for Sci-Fi .
Real science fiction where the props are much less important , ( and the story teller goes out of his way to make them more prosaic and commonplace ) but the theme , the storyline etc is science based is very difficult to find .
The likes of Asimov and Clarke do not find big audiences .
Even Chrichton had some decent half science stories .
It is George Lucas and his clones with stunted imagination rule the roost in the SciFi genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
Most of what passes for science fiction is essentially "space fantasy".
It is all the same old story but the props are different.
Take a medieval knights and dragons story and replace Excalibur with light sabre, horses with space ships, strange countries with strange planets and you get what passes for Sci-Fi.
Real science fiction where the props are much less important, (and the story teller goes out of his way to make them more prosaic and commonplace) but the theme, the storyline etc is science based is very difficult to find.
The likes of Asimov and Clarke do not find big audiences.
Even Chrichton had some decent half science stories.
It is George Lucas and his clones with stunted imagination rule the roost in the SciFi genre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189554</id>
	<title>Re:Cliche'd to death</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1258810440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to be irked at how Sci-Fi and Fantasy were generally lumped into a signal category.  Nowadays I realize that for the bulk of "Sci-Fi" there's really no difference.  There's no science in violating the laws of physics without explanation.  In most settings the spaceships and the other cliches lack any plausible technical details, and the story is entirely about the characters rather than the technology.  Not that that's bad, it just completely lacks the "Sci" part of "Sci-Fi".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be irked at how Sci-Fi and Fantasy were generally lumped into a signal category .
Nowadays I realize that for the bulk of " Sci-Fi " there 's really no difference .
There 's no science in violating the laws of physics without explanation .
In most settings the spaceships and the other cliches lack any plausible technical details , and the story is entirely about the characters rather than the technology .
Not that that 's bad , it just completely lacks the " Sci " part of " Sci-Fi " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be irked at how Sci-Fi and Fantasy were generally lumped into a signal category.
Nowadays I realize that for the bulk of "Sci-Fi" there's really no difference.
There's no science in violating the laws of physics without explanation.
In most settings the spaceships and the other cliches lack any plausible technical details, and the story is entirely about the characters rather than the technology.
Not that that's bad, it just completely lacks the "Sci" part of "Sci-Fi".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30201756</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258990500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moon was quite well done, but not without it's own scientific inconsistencies. It is never explained why there is Earth-like gravity on the lunar station. Also, the station itself is strangely tremendous. Even that far in the future hauling materials up to the moon (or even manufacturing them there) has to be expensive and time consuming. Why then would they build nearly empty hallways that are 4 meters wide for an operation requiring one person? The answer I think is that it's easier and too maneuver the camera in there. It was a small detail, but distracting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moon was quite well done , but not without it 's own scientific inconsistencies .
It is never explained why there is Earth-like gravity on the lunar station .
Also , the station itself is strangely tremendous .
Even that far in the future hauling materials up to the moon ( or even manufacturing them there ) has to be expensive and time consuming .
Why then would they build nearly empty hallways that are 4 meters wide for an operation requiring one person ?
The answer I think is that it 's easier and too maneuver the camera in there .
It was a small detail , but distracting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moon was quite well done, but not without it's own scientific inconsistencies.
It is never explained why there is Earth-like gravity on the lunar station.
Also, the station itself is strangely tremendous.
Even that far in the future hauling materials up to the moon (or even manufacturing them there) has to be expensive and time consuming.
Why then would they build nearly empty hallways that are 4 meters wide for an operation requiring one person?
The answer I think is that it's easier and too maneuver the camera in there.
It was a small detail, but distracting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188246</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1258800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You talk as if fantasy were a bad thing.  If you don't want any, read peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature.  Sci-Fi is just fantasy with a bit of science.  Science fiction rarely invents anything; at best it is good prognostication, which is still not to say it actually influences science, just as predicting the outcome of a football match isn't what makes it so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You talk as if fantasy were a bad thing .
If you do n't want any , read peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature .
Sci-Fi is just fantasy with a bit of science .
Science fiction rarely invents anything ; at best it is good prognostication , which is still not to say it actually influences science , just as predicting the outcome of a football match is n't what makes it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You talk as if fantasy were a bad thing.
If you don't want any, read peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature.
Sci-Fi is just fantasy with a bit of science.
Science fiction rarely invents anything; at best it is good prognostication, which is still not to say it actually influences science, just as predicting the outcome of a football match isn't what makes it so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</id>
	<title>Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258835880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF require vast amounts of energy.  And that's not happening.  There hasn't been a new source of energy in fifty years, just
marginal improvements in the old ones. This matters.
</p><p>That's why space travel is a bust.  With chemical fuels, it will never be more than an overly expensive, marginal enterprise. The better '50s SF writers all knew this; read Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon".  They just assumed that, somehow, the energy problem would be cracked.  Didn't happen.  So space travel remains an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires.
</p><p>
Industrial civilization is only 200 years old.  1808, the first time someone bought a train ticket on a commercial railroad and went someplace, is a good starting point.  Industrial abundance, being able to make more stuff than people could consume, only goes back to WWII.
</p><p>
During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme.  We don't hear that phrase used much any more.
The number by which one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973. (Median income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people.) Back then, a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids.  That's over.  (You don't see that number mentioned much any more.  It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard of living in the world".)
</p><p>
Now we're starting to run out of energy and raw materials.  Nobody serious thinks there's enough left to sustain current output for another century, let alone bring China and India up to US levels of consumption.
</p><p>
It's hard to write good SF about "the great winding down".  It's been done, but it's not read much.  The glory days of SF coincide with the period during which "progress" was a win for the little guy.
</p><p>
That's why SF is dead. The plausible future sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF require vast amounts of energy .
And that 's not happening .
There has n't been a new source of energy in fifty years , just marginal improvements in the old ones .
This matters .
That 's why space travel is a bust .
With chemical fuels , it will never be more than an overly expensive , marginal enterprise .
The better '50s SF writers all knew this ; read Heinlein 's " The Man Who Sold the Moon " .
They just assumed that , somehow , the energy problem would be cracked .
Did n't happen .
So space travel remains an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires .
Industrial civilization is only 200 years old .
1808 , the first time someone bought a train ticket on a commercial railroad and went someplace , is a good starting point .
Industrial abundance , being able to make more stuff than people could consume , only goes back to WWII .
During most of the 20th century , " progress " was a big theme .
We do n't hear that phrase used much any more .
The number by which one measures " progress " for the average Joe , " per capita median real income for urban wage earners " , peaked in 1973 .
( Median income , not average income ; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people .
) Back then , a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house , two cars , a boat , and an education for his kids .
That 's over .
( You do n't see that number mentioned much any more .
It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted " the highest standard of living in the world " .
) Now we 're starting to run out of energy and raw materials .
Nobody serious thinks there 's enough left to sustain current output for another century , let alone bring China and India up to US levels of consumption .
It 's hard to write good SF about " the great winding down " .
It 's been done , but it 's not read much .
The glory days of SF coincide with the period during which " progress " was a win for the little guy .
That 's why SF is dead .
The plausible future sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The real problem is that most of the big themes in classical SF require vast amounts of energy.
And that's not happening.
There hasn't been a new source of energy in fifty years, just
marginal improvements in the old ones.
This matters.
That's why space travel is a bust.
With chemical fuels, it will never be more than an overly expensive, marginal enterprise.
The better '50s SF writers all knew this; read Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon".
They just assumed that, somehow, the energy problem would be cracked.
Didn't happen.
So space travel remains an expensive ego trip for countries and billionaires.
Industrial civilization is only 200 years old.
1808, the first time someone bought a train ticket on a commercial railroad and went someplace, is a good starting point.
Industrial abundance, being able to make more stuff than people could consume, only goes back to WWII.
During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme.
We don't hear that phrase used much any more.
The number by which one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973.
(Median income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people.
) Back then, a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids.
That's over.
(You don't see that number mentioned much any more.
It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard of living in the world".
)

Now we're starting to run out of energy and raw materials.
Nobody serious thinks there's enough left to sustain current output for another century, let alone bring China and India up to US levels of consumption.
It's hard to write good SF about "the great winding down".
It's been done, but it's not read much.
The glory days of SF coincide with the period during which "progress" was a win for the little guy.
That's why SF is dead.
The plausible future sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189578</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, then leave it open. Postulate that something is possible and that it has become so commonplace that there's no need to explain it as something special. Take Gibson for example. He never explains how his future works. It does. And it's been accepted as so mundane that nobody bothers explaining, so why should the author? Actually, sometimes it seems that Gibson's figures don't know exactly why their technology works either...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , then leave it open .
Postulate that something is possible and that it has become so commonplace that there 's no need to explain it as something special .
Take Gibson for example .
He never explains how his future works .
It does .
And it 's been accepted as so mundane that nobody bothers explaining , so why should the author ?
Actually , sometimes it seems that Gibson 's figures do n't know exactly why their technology works either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, then leave it open.
Postulate that something is possible and that it has become so commonplace that there's no need to explain it as something special.
Take Gibson for example.
He never explains how his future works.
It does.
And it's been accepted as so mundane that nobody bothers explaining, so why should the author?
Actually, sometimes it seems that Gibson's figures don't know exactly why their technology works either...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191788</id>
	<title>Re:We just don't know it yet...</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1258922700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To use the Neal Stephenson example, what about "The Diamond Age"?</p></div><p>Exactly! I was very surprised by the summary's quote: 'Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,'. What kind of impact did Snow Crash have? There are almost no novel concepts in that book. Metaverse -&gt; Second Life maybe, but that's it. The Diamond Age is a far more visionary book, but nanotech is much to young to see what kind of impact it may have, or whether it's way off base.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To use the Neal Stephenson example , what about " The Diamond Age " ? Exactly !
I was very surprised by the summary 's quote : 'Since Snow Crash , no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world , and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,' .
What kind of impact did Snow Crash have ?
There are almost no novel concepts in that book .
Metaverse - &gt; Second Life maybe , but that 's it .
The Diamond Age is a far more visionary book , but nanotech is much to young to see what kind of impact it may have , or whether it 's way off base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use the Neal Stephenson example, what about "The Diamond Age"?Exactly!
I was very surprised by the summary's quote: 'Since Snow Crash, no novel has had quite the same impact on the computing world, and you might argue that sci-fi and hi-tech are drifting further apart,'.
What kind of impact did Snow Crash have?
There are almost no novel concepts in that book.
Metaverse -&gt; Second Life maybe, but that's it.
The Diamond Age is a far more visionary book, but nanotech is much to young to see what kind of impact it may have, or whether it's way off base.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187722</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258797300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.</p></div><p>Iway eesay atwhay ouyay idday erethay</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.Iway eesay atwhay ouyay idday erethay</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now etgay utoy foay ymay awnlay.Iway eesay atwhay ouyay idday erethay
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332</id>
	<title>Out of steam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258831920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's why everybody's switching to steampunk. Plenty of steam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's why everybody 's switching to steampunk .
Plenty of steam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's why everybody's switching to steampunk.
Plenty of steam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204214</id>
	<title>Re:Unfair</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1259003820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>SF has never been about predicting the future. SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about it</p></div></blockquote><p>This is called "Speculative Fiction", of which Science Fiction is a subcategory (that usually has something to do with science).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SF has never been about predicting the future .
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a " what if " and writing a story about itThis is called " Speculative Fiction " , of which Science Fiction is a subcategory ( that usually has something to do with science ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SF has never been about predicting the future.
SF is an extremely broad genre but if I had to put it into a sound bite I would say it is about positing a "what if" and writing a story about itThis is called "Speculative Fiction", of which Science Fiction is a subcategory (that usually has something to do with science).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192078</id>
	<title>nope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258886340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.richardkmorgan.com/books.htm" title="richardkmorgan.com" rel="nofollow">Richard K. Morgan</a> [richardkmorgan.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard K. Morgan [ richardkmorgan.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard K. Morgan [richardkmorgan.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832</id>
	<title>Why does sci-fi need to predict a technology?</title>
	<author>sabernet</author>
	<datestamp>1258834800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me what, exactly, does Foundation realistically predict?  It was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space with funny maths, glowey nuclear bits and, most importantly, damn good writing.</p><p>It was entertaining without being preachy or predictive.  Not all sci-fi need tell us what we should develop.  In my opinion, that's what's causing so much of the crap sci-fi bulk shit I see in bookstores now:  They focus too much on showing us this "cool idea for a toy" the author had instead of trying to tell an engaging story.</p><p>Do I need to know how the pocket raygun works?  No.  Will I be entertained just the same if the author states its use like this:</p><p>"Blinded by the flash, [protagonist] waits for his eyes to readjust.  'Dammit....' was the only thing he could think to utter while his mind was tackling the sheer whiteness his eyes continued to show him as well as the hot and cold sensations that followed the initial nova.  At last, he could make out a hazy image of his nemesis, still wielding the phasegun and still directing its barrel at what had previously been a quite sturdy wall, the edges of of new hole glowing red hot while frost accumulated on the tip of the pistol."</p><p>Presumably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me what , exactly , does Foundation realistically predict ?
It was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space with funny maths , glowey nuclear bits and , most importantly , damn good writing.It was entertaining without being preachy or predictive .
Not all sci-fi need tell us what we should develop .
In my opinion , that 's what 's causing so much of the crap sci-fi bulk shit I see in bookstores now : They focus too much on showing us this " cool idea for a toy " the author had instead of trying to tell an engaging story.Do I need to know how the pocket raygun works ?
No. Will I be entertained just the same if the author states its use like this : " Blinded by the flash , [ protagonist ] waits for his eyes to readjust .
'Dammit.... ' was the only thing he could think to utter while his mind was tackling the sheer whiteness his eyes continued to show him as well as the hot and cold sensations that followed the initial nova .
At last , he could make out a hazy image of his nemesis , still wielding the phasegun and still directing its barrel at what had previously been a quite sturdy wall , the edges of of new hole glowing red hot while frost accumulated on the tip of the pistol .
" Presumably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me what, exactly, does Foundation realistically predict?
It was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space with funny maths, glowey nuclear bits and, most importantly, damn good writing.It was entertaining without being preachy or predictive.
Not all sci-fi need tell us what we should develop.
In my opinion, that's what's causing so much of the crap sci-fi bulk shit I see in bookstores now:  They focus too much on showing us this "cool idea for a toy" the author had instead of trying to tell an engaging story.Do I need to know how the pocket raygun works?
No.  Will I be entertained just the same if the author states its use like this:"Blinded by the flash, [protagonist] waits for his eyes to readjust.
'Dammit....' was the only thing he could think to utter while his mind was tackling the sheer whiteness his eyes continued to show him as well as the hot and cold sensations that followed the initial nova.
At last, he could make out a hazy image of his nemesis, still wielding the phasegun and still directing its barrel at what had previously been a quite sturdy wall, the edges of of new hole glowing red hot while frost accumulated on the tip of the pistol.
"Presumably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186740</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Krahar</author>
	<datestamp>1258834200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the powers disappeared during the solar eclipse in one episode, suggesting that the power is coming from the sun, though clearly not in the form of visible light since the powers also work in-doors. There is no physical contradiction in Sylar's telekinesis, since the law of action-reaction merely requires an opposite force being exerted *somewhere*, it is not required that Sylar's body be the place for that reaction to occur. E.g. his power could work by pushing against a large volume of air, buildings nearby or deep into the ground. This is exactly the same principle of how someone in a crane can move heavy things without his body being crushed - his body just controls the movement, while the real action happens somewhere outside the crane driver's body.<br> <br>

The actual unrealistic part of Heroes is that there just isn't any mechanism for the human body to acquire such powers without some kind of outside intervention, but that is clearly part of the setting and the kind of thing you have to accept to be able to enjoy most super hero stories.<br> <br>

As for the people responding to you saying "what the hell is wrong with you", I would say that anyone watching something like Heroes and NOT having thoughts like "where is the power coming from?" pop into their mind... they should ask for a refund on any education they may have (not) participated in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the powers disappeared during the solar eclipse in one episode , suggesting that the power is coming from the sun , though clearly not in the form of visible light since the powers also work in-doors .
There is no physical contradiction in Sylar 's telekinesis , since the law of action-reaction merely requires an opposite force being exerted * somewhere * , it is not required that Sylar 's body be the place for that reaction to occur .
E.g. his power could work by pushing against a large volume of air , buildings nearby or deep into the ground .
This is exactly the same principle of how someone in a crane can move heavy things without his body being crushed - his body just controls the movement , while the real action happens somewhere outside the crane driver 's body .
The actual unrealistic part of Heroes is that there just is n't any mechanism for the human body to acquire such powers without some kind of outside intervention , but that is clearly part of the setting and the kind of thing you have to accept to be able to enjoy most super hero stories .
As for the people responding to you saying " what the hell is wrong with you " , I would say that anyone watching something like Heroes and NOT having thoughts like " where is the power coming from ?
" pop into their mind... they should ask for a refund on any education they may have ( not ) participated in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the powers disappeared during the solar eclipse in one episode, suggesting that the power is coming from the sun, though clearly not in the form of visible light since the powers also work in-doors.
There is no physical contradiction in Sylar's telekinesis, since the law of action-reaction merely requires an opposite force being exerted *somewhere*, it is not required that Sylar's body be the place for that reaction to occur.
E.g. his power could work by pushing against a large volume of air, buildings nearby or deep into the ground.
This is exactly the same principle of how someone in a crane can move heavy things without his body being crushed - his body just controls the movement, while the real action happens somewhere outside the crane driver's body.
The actual unrealistic part of Heroes is that there just isn't any mechanism for the human body to acquire such powers without some kind of outside intervention, but that is clearly part of the setting and the kind of thing you have to accept to be able to enjoy most super hero stories.
As for the people responding to you saying "what the hell is wrong with you", I would say that anyone watching something like Heroes and NOT having thoughts like "where is the power coming from?
" pop into their mind... they should ask for a refund on any education they may have (not) participated in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188618</id>
	<title>One who still got steam</title>
	<author>zipherx</author>
	<datestamp>1258803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Ian M. Banks!! He is writing some of the best Sci-Fi these days, one of he's latest is "Matter" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org], do yourself a favor and read all of he's novels, they are so invigorating for the genre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Ian M .
Banks ! ! He is writing some of the best Sci-Fi these days , one of he 's latest is " Matter " wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] , do yourself a favor and read all of he 's novels , they are so invigorating for the genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Ian M.
Banks!! He is writing some of the best Sci-Fi these days, one of he's latest is "Matter" wikipedia [wikipedia.org], do yourself a favor and read all of he's novels, they are so invigorating for the genre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192006</id>
	<title>Re:REAL Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258884540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why go for latent abilities when humans have problems with their present ones?</p><p>Most of mankind still cling to thoughts of physical possessions, turfs, spreading their genes, sexuality and the social game around it. They fear death, the unknown, diseases, shame and personal failures.</p><p>Whatever sci-fi authors bring up, if they won't alter above mentioned things, the books are going to be yet more of the modern-day-man-in-the-far-far-future type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why go for latent abilities when humans have problems with their present ones ? Most of mankind still cling to thoughts of physical possessions , turfs , spreading their genes , sexuality and the social game around it .
They fear death , the unknown , diseases , shame and personal failures.Whatever sci-fi authors bring up , if they wo n't alter above mentioned things , the books are going to be yet more of the modern-day-man-in-the-far-far-future type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why go for latent abilities when humans have problems with their present ones?Most of mankind still cling to thoughts of physical possessions, turfs, spreading their genes, sexuality and the social game around it.
They fear death, the unknown, diseases, shame and personal failures.Whatever sci-fi authors bring up, if they won't alter above mentioned things, the books are going to be yet more of the modern-day-man-in-the-far-far-future type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188366</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.  It should be dei ex machina or even di ex machina.  Kind of like Romanes eunt domus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
It should be dei ex machina or even di ex machina .
Kind of like Romanes eunt domus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
It should be dei ex machina or even di ex machina.
Kind of like Romanes eunt domus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191556</id>
	<title>Ghost in the Shell</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1258832760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever said Sci-Fi ran out of steam should watch all the Ghost in the Shell movies and series. I've never seen a series address technology ethics in such an elaborate way.</p><p>Times are changing. Science fiction should just adapt with the current trends and start from it. What dangers await society? What opportunities? In the cyberpunk era, we didn't even imagine open source gaining power. What about SPAM? What about the degeneration of society? What about the growth of social networking? What about the fight between freedom of speech and the copyright police? (We've read 1984, but where are the media companies?)</p><p>As you can see, there's a lot of material to work on. It only takes some imagination and connecting the dots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever said Sci-Fi ran out of steam should watch all the Ghost in the Shell movies and series .
I 've never seen a series address technology ethics in such an elaborate way.Times are changing .
Science fiction should just adapt with the current trends and start from it .
What dangers await society ?
What opportunities ?
In the cyberpunk era , we did n't even imagine open source gaining power .
What about SPAM ?
What about the degeneration of society ?
What about the growth of social networking ?
What about the fight between freedom of speech and the copyright police ?
( We 've read 1984 , but where are the media companies ?
) As you can see , there 's a lot of material to work on .
It only takes some imagination and connecting the dots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever said Sci-Fi ran out of steam should watch all the Ghost in the Shell movies and series.
I've never seen a series address technology ethics in such an elaborate way.Times are changing.
Science fiction should just adapt with the current trends and start from it.
What dangers await society?
What opportunities?
In the cyberpunk era, we didn't even imagine open source gaining power.
What about SPAM?
What about the degeneration of society?
What about the growth of social networking?
What about the fight between freedom of speech and the copyright police?
(We've read 1984, but where are the media companies?
)As you can see, there's a lot of material to work on.
It only takes some imagination and connecting the dots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187388</id>
	<title>all hte above are drame fictions</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1258795440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hardly science fiction like babylon V or even somehting like starlost for gods sake....</p><p>the problem is they are trying to dramtize too much , my bet is the actors unions are demanding more pay and you get that buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...YUP talking. more blah blah = more $$$ to actors = less special affects......</p><p>add also the increasing hard IP laws and your not seeing people want to invent anymore...too much risk you get sued for some patent or other thing , which is why music will die cause what hollywood is basically doing is outting 30 K songs a month so by the year 2020 ever possible combination of song or note will be pwned<br>then the real war of liberation begins</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hardly science fiction like babylon V or even somehting like starlost for gods sake....the problem is they are trying to dramtize too much , my bet is the actors unions are demanding more pay and you get that buy ...YUP talking .
more blah blah = more $ $ $ to actors = less special affects......add also the increasing hard IP laws and your not seeing people want to invent anymore...too much risk you get sued for some patent or other thing , which is why music will die cause what hollywood is basically doing is outting 30 K songs a month so by the year 2020 ever possible combination of song or note will be pwnedthen the real war of liberation begins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hardly science fiction like babylon V or even somehting like starlost for gods sake....the problem is they are trying to dramtize too much , my bet is the actors unions are demanding more pay and you get that buy ...YUP talking.
more blah blah = more $$$ to actors = less special affects......add also the increasing hard IP laws and your not seeing people want to invent anymore...too much risk you get sued for some patent or other thing , which is why music will die cause what hollywood is basically doing is outting 30 K songs a month so by the year 2020 ever possible combination of song or note will be pwnedthen the real war of liberation begins</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306</id>
	<title>Cliche'd to death</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1258831740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the sci-fi cliches. At some point, there was enough sci-fi for certain elements to become staple.</p><p>At that point, writing new sci-fi was a matter of rearranging these cliches into something that appeared to be novel. Unfortunately, you can only do this for so long, before the cliches become exhausted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the sci-fi cliches .
At some point , there was enough sci-fi for certain elements to become staple.At that point , writing new sci-fi was a matter of rearranging these cliches into something that appeared to be novel .
Unfortunately , you can only do this for so long , before the cliches become exhausted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the sci-fi cliches.
At some point, there was enough sci-fi for certain elements to become staple.At that point, writing new sci-fi was a matter of rearranging these cliches into something that appeared to be novel.
Unfortunately, you can only do this for so long, before the cliches become exhausted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187056</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty mainstream TV shows</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258836300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.   Could you beam..... I mean upload your copy of Bones over to me?  'k thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Could you beam..... I mean upload your copy of Bones over to me ?
'k thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Could you beam..... I mean upload your copy of Bones over to me?
'k thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189582</id>
	<title>Sure seems that way!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1258810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the current purveyors are now interested in the world's largest prime number and whether there's water on a planet four generations away. Meanwhile the religion of ManMadeGlobalWarming(TM) has them all a-twitter.</p><p>Yeah, it's dead. Science killed it. There are no futures we perceive, that we want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the current purveyors are now interested in the world 's largest prime number and whether there 's water on a planet four generations away .
Meanwhile the religion of ManMadeGlobalWarming ( TM ) has them all a-twitter.Yeah , it 's dead .
Science killed it .
There are no futures we perceive , that we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the current purveyors are now interested in the world's largest prime number and whether there's water on a planet four generations away.
Meanwhile the religion of ManMadeGlobalWarming(TM) has them all a-twitter.Yeah, it's dead.
Science killed it.
There are no futures we perceive, that we want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30202758</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1258995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some good negative Sci-Fi check out Tuf Voyaging by George R.R. Martin... while it's definitely written for a teenage crowd it does an amazing job of pointing out that without free energy environmentalism is synonymous with population control and the implications of even the most beneficent forms of population control.<br> <br> I think Tuf's solution to over population might occur proximately with Stephenson's Diamond age... I'm pretty sure we won't get nano technology until it doesn't have the potential for Grey Goo. Which will be never if modern virus authors are any indication.<br> <br> It's interesting how the real dangers of evolving technology have to be envisioned by dozens of authors.<br> <br> There is one of every type of exploitative, destructive or just curious evil genius lurking behind every innovation... think of spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some good negative Sci-Fi check out Tuf Voyaging by George R.R .
Martin... while it 's definitely written for a teenage crowd it does an amazing job of pointing out that without free energy environmentalism is synonymous with population control and the implications of even the most beneficent forms of population control .
I think Tuf 's solution to over population might occur proximately with Stephenson 's Diamond age... I 'm pretty sure we wo n't get nano technology until it does n't have the potential for Grey Goo .
Which will be never if modern virus authors are any indication .
It 's interesting how the real dangers of evolving technology have to be envisioned by dozens of authors .
There is one of every type of exploitative , destructive or just curious evil genius lurking behind every innovation... think of spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some good negative Sci-Fi check out Tuf Voyaging by George R.R.
Martin... while it's definitely written for a teenage crowd it does an amazing job of pointing out that without free energy environmentalism is synonymous with population control and the implications of even the most beneficent forms of population control.
I think Tuf's solution to over population might occur proximately with Stephenson's Diamond age... I'm pretty sure we won't get nano technology until it doesn't have the potential for Grey Goo.
Which will be never if modern virus authors are any indication.
It's interesting how the real dangers of evolving technology have to be envisioned by dozens of authors.
There is one of every type of exploitative, destructive or just curious evil genius lurking behind every innovation... think of spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30197696</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>doom</author>
	<datestamp>1258896060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they're not being written, but because they're not being published.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Try actually talking to some editors.   They tend to tell you they're not publishing hard SF because they're not getting submissions of it,
and the reason is pretty simple: it's hard to write well, and if you know enough to do it, you probably know enough to do something else that's going to pay better and will usually seem like more important work.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they 're not being written , but because they 're not being published .
Try actually talking to some editors .
They tend to tell you they 're not publishing hard SF because they 're not getting submissions of it , and the reason is pretty simple : it 's hard to write well , and if you know enough to do it , you probably know enough to do something else that 's going to pay better and will usually seem like more important work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe we see less innovative SciFi books not because they're not being written, but because they're not being published.
Try actually talking to some editors.
They tend to tell you they're not publishing hard SF because they're not getting submissions of it,
and the reason is pretty simple: it's hard to write well, and if you know enough to do it, you probably know enough to do something else that's going to pay better and will usually seem like more important work.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189188</id>
	<title>Pardon the heresy</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1258807560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what's in Snowcrash? Isn't that the one with the sword brandishing pizza<br>delivery guy? I held off on reading it because I have this mental block that<br>when a sword/light sabre is involved, it crossed that thin line into fantasy<br>aka space opera. Plus the opinions of some that say that Neal S would write<br>and write and the book will end when he decides to stop. (or something to that<br>effect).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what 's in Snowcrash ?
Is n't that the one with the sword brandishing pizzadelivery guy ?
I held off on reading it because I have this mental block thatwhen a sword/light sabre is involved , it crossed that thin line into fantasyaka space opera .
Plus the opinions of some that say that Neal S would writeand write and the book will end when he decides to stop .
( or something to thateffect ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what's in Snowcrash?
Isn't that the one with the sword brandishing pizzadelivery guy?
I held off on reading it because I have this mental block thatwhen a sword/light sabre is involved, it crossed that thin line into fantasyaka space opera.
Plus the opinions of some that say that Neal S would writeand write and the book will end when he decides to stop.
(or something to thateffect).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191800</id>
	<title>Re:Not enough predictions, try John Scalzi</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1258922940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta give a huge thumbs up to John Scalzi's "Old Man's War"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta give a huge thumbs up to John Scalzi 's " Old Man 's War "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta give a huge thumbs up to John Scalzi's "Old Man's War"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192744</id>
	<title>Re:Unfair</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1258899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move.</p></div><p>This one doesn't really count as SF anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move.This one does n't really count as SF anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if there was an evil dystopic government that monitored our every move.This one doesn't really count as SF anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187936</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Romani ite domun</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Romani ite domun [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Romani ite domun [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1258800720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's why I liked last year's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/" title="imdb.com"> <i>Moon</i> </a> [imdb.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why I liked last year 's Moon [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why I liked last year's  Moon  [imdb.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192160</id>
	<title>Re:PC Pro just needs to read more Sci-Fi</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1258887840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read Rainbow's End. If there ever was a well written story about the potential of augumented reality, networked everyting, and the power of knowledge Vinge's book is one to read.</p><p>Unfortunately it will probably take another ten years or so until the people growing up with this tech end up in writer positions in the entertainment industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read Rainbow 's End .
If there ever was a well written story about the potential of augumented reality , networked everyting , and the power of knowledge Vinge 's book is one to read.Unfortunately it will probably take another ten years or so until the people growing up with this tech end up in writer positions in the entertainment industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read Rainbow's End.
If there ever was a well written story about the potential of augumented reality, networked everyting, and the power of knowledge Vinge's book is one to read.Unfortunately it will probably take another ten years or so until the people growing up with this tech end up in writer positions in the entertainment industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186716</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258834020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, y'know, that little thing called "Being able to tap in to 'casimir force' to be used as useful energy"<br>Or maybe he has somehow tapped in to some field that permeates all around the universe.<br>Or countless other things.</p><p>It is called Science Fiction for a reason.<br>And not to mention the fact that it could very well be possible.<br>Don't even begin to think the human race knows that much about the universe, we are as clueless as lemmings even today despite having been in to space and other planets. (directly or indirectly)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , y'know , that little thing called " Being able to tap in to 'casimir force ' to be used as useful energy " Or maybe he has somehow tapped in to some field that permeates all around the universe.Or countless other things.It is called Science Fiction for a reason.And not to mention the fact that it could very well be possible.Do n't even begin to think the human race knows that much about the universe , we are as clueless as lemmings even today despite having been in to space and other planets .
( directly or indirectly )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, y'know, that little thing called "Being able to tap in to 'casimir force' to be used as useful energy"Or maybe he has somehow tapped in to some field that permeates all around the universe.Or countless other things.It is called Science Fiction for a reason.And not to mention the fact that it could very well be possible.Don't even begin to think the human race knows that much about the universe, we are as clueless as lemmings even today despite having been in to space and other planets.
(directly or indirectly)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187326</id>
	<title>Is SF really about technology?</title>
	<author>aleclee</author>
	<datestamp>1258795020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A long time ago, I took a class examining SF and one of the core principles presented was that science fiction was not so much about technology but rather the interplay/impact of tech and society.  It was more about predicting traffic jams that automobiles.</p><p>We've seen so much tech as plot device (e.g., ST:TNG) that we've forgotten why tech was compelling in the first place.  IMO, it's somewhat analo.gous to the tech bubble in the stock market.  People were creating formulaic e-businesses (Selling dog foot on the internet?  really?) without really thinking about the business side of things.  Similarly, we see a lot of technology-based stories where the emphasis was more on the technology than the story.  What made HAL interesting wasn't that he could autonomously manage a space ship or had a voice interface.  What was fascinating was that a computer could become neurotic to the point of being homocidal.</p><p>When writers start writing stories based on plot and characters rather than some twist on technology, that's when we'll see a resurgence of futurist SF, mainly because the stories will be compelling...to both readers and entrepreneurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A long time ago , I took a class examining SF and one of the core principles presented was that science fiction was not so much about technology but rather the interplay/impact of tech and society .
It was more about predicting traffic jams that automobiles.We 've seen so much tech as plot device ( e.g. , ST : TNG ) that we 've forgotten why tech was compelling in the first place .
IMO , it 's somewhat analo.gous to the tech bubble in the stock market .
People were creating formulaic e-businesses ( Selling dog foot on the internet ?
really ? ) without really thinking about the business side of things .
Similarly , we see a lot of technology-based stories where the emphasis was more on the technology than the story .
What made HAL interesting was n't that he could autonomously manage a space ship or had a voice interface .
What was fascinating was that a computer could become neurotic to the point of being homocidal.When writers start writing stories based on plot and characters rather than some twist on technology , that 's when we 'll see a resurgence of futurist SF , mainly because the stories will be compelling...to both readers and entrepreneurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long time ago, I took a class examining SF and one of the core principles presented was that science fiction was not so much about technology but rather the interplay/impact of tech and society.
It was more about predicting traffic jams that automobiles.We've seen so much tech as plot device (e.g., ST:TNG) that we've forgotten why tech was compelling in the first place.
IMO, it's somewhat analo.gous to the tech bubble in the stock market.
People were creating formulaic e-businesses (Selling dog foot on the internet?
really?) without really thinking about the business side of things.
Similarly, we see a lot of technology-based stories where the emphasis was more on the technology than the story.
What made HAL interesting wasn't that he could autonomously manage a space ship or had a voice interface.
What was fascinating was that a computer could become neurotic to the point of being homocidal.When writers start writing stories based on plot and characters rather than some twist on technology, that's when we'll see a resurgence of futurist SF, mainly because the stories will be compelling...to both readers and entrepreneurs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189082</id>
	<title>Skinned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258806360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word - Skinned. Robin Wasserman is awesome and takes Sci-Fi come teen novel to a new level.<br>@timjnx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word - Skinned .
Robin Wasserman is awesome and takes Sci-Fi come teen novel to a new level .
@ timjnx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word - Skinned.
Robin Wasserman is awesome and takes Sci-Fi come teen novel to a new level.
@timjnx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192206</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1258888740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is a consistent world, but the wall of terminology Stephenson throws at the reader at the start of Anathem is just plain bad writing. Opposite of his openings in other books, really.</p><p>Charlie Strauss seems to be begging for attention with this. His books are so ridiculously out there - Accelerando, I'm looking at you - that it seems like he bases his novels on nothing more than a misunderstood issue of Pop Sci. Doing things like hand-waving the problem of qualia and the nature of consciousness really turned me off on him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is a consistent world , but the wall of terminology Stephenson throws at the reader at the start of Anathem is just plain bad writing .
Opposite of his openings in other books , really.Charlie Strauss seems to be begging for attention with this .
His books are so ridiculously out there - Accelerando , I 'm looking at you - that it seems like he bases his novels on nothing more than a misunderstood issue of Pop Sci .
Doing things like hand-waving the problem of qualia and the nature of consciousness really turned me off on him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is a consistent world, but the wall of terminology Stephenson throws at the reader at the start of Anathem is just plain bad writing.
Opposite of his openings in other books, really.Charlie Strauss seems to be begging for attention with this.
His books are so ridiculously out there - Accelerando, I'm looking at you - that it seems like he bases his novels on nothing more than a misunderstood issue of Pop Sci.
Doing things like hand-waving the problem of qualia and the nature of consciousness really turned me off on him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186462</id>
	<title>90\% of everything...</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1258832700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of everything is crap.  It's easy to look back and see the 10\% of sci-fi that inspired real-world technology, it's a lot harder to look at the writing today and see how it is affecting things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of everything is crap .
It 's easy to look back and see the 10 \ % of sci-fi that inspired real-world technology , it 's a lot harder to look at the writing today and see how it is affecting things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of everything is crap.
It's easy to look back and see the 10\% of sci-fi that inspired real-world technology, it's a lot harder to look at the writing today and see how it is affecting things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191250</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>steve\_bryan</author>
	<datestamp>1258828920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Positrons were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932. Asimov was 8 and 12 respectively so how young was he when he wrote <i>I, Robot</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Positrons were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932 .
Asimov was 8 and 12 respectively so how young was he when he wrote I , Robot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Positrons were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928 and discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932.
Asimov was 8 and 12 respectively so how young was he when he wrote I, Robot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189954</id>
	<title>If you mean the SciFi channel...</title>
	<author>valley</author>
	<datestamp>1258813920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...of course it's out of steam. That's why they renamed it SyFy and added wrestling shows and similar nonsense. Appeal to the masses and all that rubbish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...of course it 's out of steam .
That 's why they renamed it SyFy and added wrestling shows and similar nonsense .
Appeal to the masses and all that rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of course it's out of steam.
That's why they renamed it SyFy and added wrestling shows and similar nonsense.
Appeal to the masses and all that rubbish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190992</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258825560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's still this year. Great movie, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's still this year .
Great movie , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's still this year.
Great movie, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186486</id>
	<title>Re:Out of steam?</title>
	<author>fabioalcor</author>
	<datestamp>1258832820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they ran out of antimatter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they ran out of antimatter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they ran out of antimatter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186380</id>
	<title>Sci-fi still fi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me a flying car and I'll be a bit more inclined to buy this jargon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me a flying car and I 'll be a bit more inclined to buy this jargon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me a flying car and I'll be a bit more inclined to buy this jargon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472</id>
	<title>Plenty mainstream TV shows</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1258832760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Numb3rs, CSIs, all are a lot more of sci-fi than typical TV shows.  I noticed Bones, especially, have sci-fi style humor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Numb3rs , CSIs , all are a lot more of sci-fi than typical TV shows .
I noticed Bones , especially , have sci-fi style humor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Numb3rs, CSIs, all are a lot more of sci-fi than typical TV shows.
I noticed Bones, especially, have sci-fi style humor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186402</id>
	<title>influence, or prediction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Science fiction has long inspired real-world technology</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not sure about that. I think technology is advancing regardless of science fiction. We would still have space rockets and cell phones without Jules Verne and Star Trek.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science fiction has long inspired real-world technologyI 'm not sure about that .
I think technology is advancing regardless of science fiction .
We would still have space rockets and cell phones without Jules Verne and Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science fiction has long inspired real-world technologyI'm not sure about that.
I think technology is advancing regardless of science fiction.
We would still have space rockets and cell phones without Jules Verne and Star Trek.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187692</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258797180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme.  We don't hear that phrase used much any more.
The number by which one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973. (Median income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people.) Back then, a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids.  That's over.  (You don't see that number mentioned much any more.  It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard of living in the world".)
</p><p>
That's why SF is dead. The plausible future sucks.</p></div><p>Although I would offhand agree with a lot of things you said, the US census bureau seems to dissagree with you and sees raising median real incomes:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household\_income\_in\_the\_United\_States, specifically<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Household\_income\_65\_to\_05.png" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Household\_income\_65\_to\_05.png</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Maybe you're over 35 too, from here on, the world will always be a worse place than when we were young<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p> But seriously, there was a lot of gloom and doom in the seventies and eighties, when everyone expected we'll die from pollution or simply exterminate ourselves in an atomic war (I have several dozen novels dealing with that possibility alone). Still there was lots of great SF.</p><p>I don't think there is less good SF around, its just that the future has become more complicated. I mean, these days William Gibson is not writing SF anymore, he's writing plain novels."At some point there, we left the present and entered the future" (http://xkcd.com/652). I'd say its the abundance of progress, which makes predictions so hard. Come one, compare the youth of someone in the 80ies to todays kids: always online? always being able to chat, mail, watch porn, play, flirt, and reserach for homework? Time is moving fast.

Regards</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>During most of the 20th century , " progress " was a big theme .
We do n't hear that phrase used much any more .
The number by which one measures " progress " for the average Joe , " per capita median real income for urban wage earners " , peaked in 1973 .
( Median income , not average income ; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people .
) Back then , a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house , two cars , a boat , and an education for his kids .
That 's over .
( You do n't see that number mentioned much any more .
It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted " the highest standard of living in the world " .
) That 's why SF is dead .
The plausible future sucks.Although I would offhand agree with a lot of things you said , the US census bureau seems to dissagree with you and sees raising median real incomes : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household \ _income \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States , specifically http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Household \ _income \ _65 \ _to \ _05.png [ wikipedia.org ] Maybe you 're over 35 too , from here on , the world will always be a worse place than when we were young : D But seriously , there was a lot of gloom and doom in the seventies and eighties , when everyone expected we 'll die from pollution or simply exterminate ourselves in an atomic war ( I have several dozen novels dealing with that possibility alone ) .
Still there was lots of great SF.I do n't think there is less good SF around , its just that the future has become more complicated .
I mean , these days William Gibson is not writing SF anymore , he 's writing plain novels .
" At some point there , we left the present and entered the future " ( http : //xkcd.com/652 ) .
I 'd say its the abundance of progress , which makes predictions so hard .
Come one , compare the youth of someone in the 80ies to todays kids : always online ?
always being able to chat , mail , watch porn , play , flirt , and reserach for homework ?
Time is moving fast .
Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
During most of the 20th century, "progress" was a big theme.
We don't hear that phrase used much any more.
The number by which one measures "progress" for the average Joe, "per capita median real income for urban wage earners", peaked in 1973.
(Median income, not average income; the average is biased by wealth concentration to rich people.
) Back then, a guy without a high school diploma could get a job at GM and make enough to buy a house, two cars, a boat, and an education for his kids.
That's over.
(You don't see that number mentioned much any more.
It was heavily publicized back when the US boasted "the highest standard of living in the world".
)

That's why SF is dead.
The plausible future sucks.Although I would offhand agree with a lot of things you said, the US census bureau seems to dissagree with you and sees raising median real incomes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household\_income\_in\_the\_United\_States, specifically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Household\_income\_65\_to\_05.png [wikipedia.org] Maybe you're over 35 too, from here on, the world will always be a worse place than when we were young :D But seriously, there was a lot of gloom and doom in the seventies and eighties, when everyone expected we'll die from pollution or simply exterminate ourselves in an atomic war (I have several dozen novels dealing with that possibility alone).
Still there was lots of great SF.I don't think there is less good SF around, its just that the future has become more complicated.
I mean, these days William Gibson is not writing SF anymore, he's writing plain novels.
"At some point there, we left the present and entered the future" (http://xkcd.com/652).
I'd say its the abundance of progress, which makes predictions so hard.
Come one, compare the youth of someone in the 80ies to todays kids: always online?
always being able to chat, mail, watch porn, play, flirt, and reserach for homework?
Time is moving fast.
Regards
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187554</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is a false premise</title>
	<author>c\_sd\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1258796460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We went to the moon because a lot of people believed in it and thought it was the right thing to do. They grew up dreaming about it and in many cases sci-fi was the first place they came across the possibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We went to the moon because a lot of people believed in it and thought it was the right thing to do .
They grew up dreaming about it and in many cases sci-fi was the first place they came across the possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We went to the moon because a lot of people believed in it and thought it was the right thing to do.
They grew up dreaming about it and in many cases sci-fi was the first place they came across the possibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188426</id>
	<title>Unusual for SciFi to have better movies than books</title>
	<author>Chatz</author>
	<datestamp>1258802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given we have just had our best year for SciFi movies that I can remember with Star Trek, District 9, and Moon all extremely good I would have thought SciFi was in good hands with some new benchmarks for future movies to aspire to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given we have just had our best year for SciFi movies that I can remember with Star Trek , District 9 , and Moon all extremely good I would have thought SciFi was in good hands with some new benchmarks for future movies to aspire to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given we have just had our best year for SciFi movies that I can remember with Star Trek, District 9, and Moon all extremely good I would have thought SciFi was in good hands with some new benchmarks for future movies to aspire to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192770</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1258899540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's why SF is dead. The plausible future sucks.</p></div></blockquote><p>
SF isn't dead - people's imaginations have been dulled to death by this vapid, empty society. The masses are interested in entertainment that mimics fast food, cheap, tasty but ultimately unsatisfying. The plausible future only sucks because all of the interesting advancements are locked up in patent vaults of the largest corporations in the world where they are traded to maintain the status quo and market share.</p><p>
Science Fiction is a discourse about possibilities, therefore it is a dangerous idea because it makes people believe change is a possibility. Change imposes a disruptive force which is associated with risk, something that modern economists demonstrated recently they have great difficulty handling competently. Worst of all Science Fiction allows the possibility of hope, which means Science Fiction is being killed.</p><p>
Because hope is the biggest threat to any established power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why SF is dead .
The plausible future sucks .
SF is n't dead - people 's imaginations have been dulled to death by this vapid , empty society .
The masses are interested in entertainment that mimics fast food , cheap , tasty but ultimately unsatisfying .
The plausible future only sucks because all of the interesting advancements are locked up in patent vaults of the largest corporations in the world where they are traded to maintain the status quo and market share .
Science Fiction is a discourse about possibilities , therefore it is a dangerous idea because it makes people believe change is a possibility .
Change imposes a disruptive force which is associated with risk , something that modern economists demonstrated recently they have great difficulty handling competently .
Worst of all Science Fiction allows the possibility of hope , which means Science Fiction is being killed .
Because hope is the biggest threat to any established power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why SF is dead.
The plausible future sucks.
SF isn't dead - people's imaginations have been dulled to death by this vapid, empty society.
The masses are interested in entertainment that mimics fast food, cheap, tasty but ultimately unsatisfying.
The plausible future only sucks because all of the interesting advancements are locked up in patent vaults of the largest corporations in the world where they are traded to maintain the status quo and market share.
Science Fiction is a discourse about possibilities, therefore it is a dangerous idea because it makes people believe change is a possibility.
Change imposes a disruptive force which is associated with risk, something that modern economists demonstrated recently they have great difficulty handling competently.
Worst of all Science Fiction allows the possibility of hope, which means Science Fiction is being killed.
Because hope is the biggest threat to any established power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188492</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1258802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what's happening</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes.  Internal consistency is everything.</p><p>Take a book like Neal Stephenson's <i>Anathem</i>.  A completely made up world and premise, yet it's own logic is so consistent that it's easy to accept it as a world that could exist.  The way he takes Platonic ideals and turns them into a real possibility is amazing.  It wasn't an easy or fast-moving read, but it's one of the most satisfying books I read this summer.  And certainly the book I was most likely to read from aloud to my wife, who's a mathematician.  If you've read the book, you'll understand why.</p><p>During a summer when the news media was filled with screaming people for whom avoiding education is a badge of honor, it was a refreshing reminder that sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is search for the truth even when it does not correspond with what you've been told.  And that nothing is so dangerous as willful ignorance..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what 's happeningYes .
Internal consistency is everything.Take a book like Neal Stephenson 's Anathem .
A completely made up world and premise , yet it 's own logic is so consistent that it 's easy to accept it as a world that could exist .
The way he takes Platonic ideals and turns them into a real possibility is amazing .
It was n't an easy or fast-moving read , but it 's one of the most satisfying books I read this summer .
And certainly the book I was most likely to read from aloud to my wife , who 's a mathematician .
If you 've read the book , you 'll understand why.During a summer when the news media was filled with screaming people for whom avoiding education is a badge of honor , it was a refreshing reminder that sometimes , the bravest thing you can do is search for the truth even when it does not correspond with what you 've been told .
And that nothing is so dangerous as willful ignorance. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what's happeningYes.
Internal consistency is everything.Take a book like Neal Stephenson's Anathem.
A completely made up world and premise, yet it's own logic is so consistent that it's easy to accept it as a world that could exist.
The way he takes Platonic ideals and turns them into a real possibility is amazing.
It wasn't an easy or fast-moving read, but it's one of the most satisfying books I read this summer.
And certainly the book I was most likely to read from aloud to my wife, who's a mathematician.
If you've read the book, you'll understand why.During a summer when the news media was filled with screaming people for whom avoiding education is a badge of honor, it was a refreshing reminder that sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is search for the truth even when it does not correspond with what you've been told.
And that nothing is so dangerous as willful ignorance..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192236</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it's the publishing side that's the probl</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1258889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd blame the author for a crappy book.  I've already read Heart of Darkness, do I really need to read it again <b>"in space"</b>?  And executed by a lesser author?  I wish I had been born 40 years before I was, so I could have been part of a culture that actually created new things instead of looking to the past and imitating it endlessly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd blame the author for a crappy book .
I 've already read Heart of Darkness , do I really need to read it again " in space " ?
And executed by a lesser author ?
I wish I had been born 40 years before I was , so I could have been part of a culture that actually created new things instead of looking to the past and imitating it endlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd blame the author for a crappy book.
I've already read Heart of Darkness, do I really need to read it again "in space"?
And executed by a lesser author?
I wish I had been born 40 years before I was, so I could have been part of a culture that actually created new things instead of looking to the past and imitating it endlessly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186980</id>
	<title>Re:Why does sci-fi need to predict a technology?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258835700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of psycohistory maybe? predicting with large groups of people will probably do? Is more plausible now than when was written? That concept existed before, and in that extent?<br><br>Anyway, replaying history in future terms gives another meaning to the phrase "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of psycohistory maybe ?
predicting with large groups of people will probably do ?
Is more plausible now than when was written ?
That concept existed before , and in that extent ? Anyway , replaying history in future terms gives another meaning to the phrase " those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of psycohistory maybe?
predicting with large groups of people will probably do?
Is more plausible now than when was written?
That concept existed before, and in that extent?Anyway, replaying history in future terms gives another meaning to the phrase "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192222</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>wdef</author>
	<datestamp>1258888980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  Chrichton was no great stylist but he did outstanding background research and usually had a point about society in mind.

<p>George Lucas is a huge disappointment.  He started out making great films (eg American Graffiti) then went down the tube with the moronic Star Bores endless sequels which are space opera not SF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Chrichton was no great stylist but he did outstanding background research and usually had a point about society in mind .
George Lucas is a huge disappointment .
He started out making great films ( eg American Graffiti ) then went down the tube with the moronic Star Bores endless sequels which are space opera not SF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Chrichton was no great stylist but he did outstanding background research and usually had a point about society in mind.
George Lucas is a huge disappointment.
He started out making great films (eg American Graffiti) then went down the tube with the moronic Star Bores endless sequels which are space opera not SF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188574</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1258803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing as the topics of genre and Neal Stephenson has been raised I will link this lecture by mister Stephenson. <a href="http://fora.tv/2008/05/08/Neal\_Stephenson\_Science\_Fiction\_as\_a\_Literary\_Genre" title="fora.tv">Neal Stephenson: Science Fiction as a Literary Genre</a> [fora.tv]; were he talks about SF and the idea of genres in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as the topics of genre and Neal Stephenson has been raised I will link this lecture by mister Stephenson .
Neal Stephenson : Science Fiction as a Literary Genre [ fora.tv ] ; were he talks about SF and the idea of genres in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as the topics of genre and Neal Stephenson has been raised I will link this lecture by mister Stephenson.
Neal Stephenson: Science Fiction as a Literary Genre [fora.tv]; were he talks about SF and the idea of genres in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187010</id>
	<title>The Borg</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1258835880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are heading that way and eventually someone will figure out how to control the synthetic parts of us and the human race will become like a hive. Just don't open up that ups\_shipping\_quote.zip with your ultra fast instant cranial web access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are heading that way and eventually someone will figure out how to control the synthetic parts of us and the human race will become like a hive .
Just do n't open up that ups \ _shipping \ _quote.zip with your ultra fast instant cranial web access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are heading that way and eventually someone will figure out how to control the synthetic parts of us and the human race will become like a hive.
Just don't open up that ups\_shipping\_quote.zip with your ultra fast instant cranial web access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187048</id>
	<title>Science has narrowed a bit</title>
	<author>nimblebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1258836240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at some of the science fiction of the pre-70s, it was full of possibility. Things could shrink and grow, turkeys could be formed in matter dispensers, radiation might give you powers, you could 'reverse your polarity' and become antimatter and, instead of just exploding like we know antimatter would now, we could throw lightning bolts (okay, I'll fess up - I got the Space:1999 Megaset for my birthday).</p><p>Besides all the "expired" science possibilities, there's a real gamble to be made trying to second-guess what physics will discover. We're finding all sorts of nifty quantum effects in quantum computing, but we are hardly much closer to understanding what it "really means" than Niehls Bohr. Care to guess whether MOND will actually come out on top? What the LHC will find in a year or two?</p><p>It seems like we're at the point where:</p><ul>
<li>Somebody's already patented it, feasible or not</li><li>Somebody's already working on it, if it's technically feasible</li><li>Somebody's already made it, but it's really expensive</li><li>We know it will get there, it will just take a lot of time and money</li><li>We're already jaded of hearing about it, if it's been going on for 30 years</li><li>The idea's at a high risk of being based on faulty physics</li><li>It would be great if battery power were portable and infinite, but right now, it's a pain</li><li><p>Apart from immortality, I don't think I have tons on my personal wish list right now that isn't merely a matter of money or waiting.</p><p>Does anyone still have a long "wouldn't it be cool if" list that's feasible given current science and human nature?</p></li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at some of the science fiction of the pre-70s , it was full of possibility .
Things could shrink and grow , turkeys could be formed in matter dispensers , radiation might give you powers , you could 'reverse your polarity ' and become antimatter and , instead of just exploding like we know antimatter would now , we could throw lightning bolts ( okay , I 'll fess up - I got the Space : 1999 Megaset for my birthday ) .Besides all the " expired " science possibilities , there 's a real gamble to be made trying to second-guess what physics will discover .
We 're finding all sorts of nifty quantum effects in quantum computing , but we are hardly much closer to understanding what it " really means " than Niehls Bohr .
Care to guess whether MOND will actually come out on top ?
What the LHC will find in a year or two ? It seems like we 're at the point where : Somebody 's already patented it , feasible or notSomebody 's already working on it , if it 's technically feasibleSomebody 's already made it , but it 's really expensiveWe know it will get there , it will just take a lot of time and moneyWe 're already jaded of hearing about it , if it 's been going on for 30 yearsThe idea 's at a high risk of being based on faulty physicsIt would be great if battery power were portable and infinite , but right now , it 's a painApart from immortality , I do n't think I have tons on my personal wish list right now that is n't merely a matter of money or waiting.Does anyone still have a long " would n't it be cool if " list that 's feasible given current science and human nature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at some of the science fiction of the pre-70s, it was full of possibility.
Things could shrink and grow, turkeys could be formed in matter dispensers, radiation might give you powers, you could 'reverse your polarity' and become antimatter and, instead of just exploding like we know antimatter would now, we could throw lightning bolts (okay, I'll fess up - I got the Space:1999 Megaset for my birthday).Besides all the "expired" science possibilities, there's a real gamble to be made trying to second-guess what physics will discover.
We're finding all sorts of nifty quantum effects in quantum computing, but we are hardly much closer to understanding what it "really means" than Niehls Bohr.
Care to guess whether MOND will actually come out on top?
What the LHC will find in a year or two?It seems like we're at the point where:
Somebody's already patented it, feasible or notSomebody's already working on it, if it's technically feasibleSomebody's already made it, but it's really expensiveWe know it will get there, it will just take a lot of time and moneyWe're already jaded of hearing about it, if it's been going on for 30 yearsThe idea's at a high risk of being based on faulty physicsIt would be great if battery power were portable and infinite, but right now, it's a painApart from immortality, I don't think I have tons on my personal wish list right now that isn't merely a matter of money or waiting.Does anyone still have a long "wouldn't it be cool if" list that's feasible given current science and human nature?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186926</id>
	<title>The Future has Arrived, why bother inventing one?</title>
	<author>cutecub</author>
	<datestamp>1258835400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To an author, I think the attraction of Science Fiction is that it allows them to put a veneer of plausibility on settings which would otherwise be too fantastic to be credible. This allows them the freedom to explore ideas or situations which couldn't possibly occur if set in "the real world."</p><p>But the current world has become sufficiently complex and interesting that writers such as William Gibson and Margaret Attwood no longer need to set their stories in some near-future dystopia - our current dystopia is sufficient to tell the stories they want to tell.</p><p>Gibson's last few books have been set in, effectively, the present day. There's no need for him to go to 2030 or beyond to explore the idea of immersive, ubiquitous computing and communication: we all have smart-phones in 2009. Everyone I see on the streets of San Francisco is walking around in a trance, like they're jacked into Cyberspace.</p><p>There's no need for Margaret Attwood to set The Handmaiden's Tail in 2195, there's plenty of opportunity to explore theocracy and coercive reproduction in the crazy, polluted and Balkanized world of the present day.</p><p>I think that Science Fiction writers who rely on the old cliches of Warp-drive and alien worlds simply aren't trying hard enough.</p><p>21st Century Earth IS an alien world... all you have to do is pay attention.</p><p>-Sean</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To an author , I think the attraction of Science Fiction is that it allows them to put a veneer of plausibility on settings which would otherwise be too fantastic to be credible .
This allows them the freedom to explore ideas or situations which could n't possibly occur if set in " the real world .
" But the current world has become sufficiently complex and interesting that writers such as William Gibson and Margaret Attwood no longer need to set their stories in some near-future dystopia - our current dystopia is sufficient to tell the stories they want to tell.Gibson 's last few books have been set in , effectively , the present day .
There 's no need for him to go to 2030 or beyond to explore the idea of immersive , ubiquitous computing and communication : we all have smart-phones in 2009 .
Everyone I see on the streets of San Francisco is walking around in a trance , like they 're jacked into Cyberspace.There 's no need for Margaret Attwood to set The Handmaiden 's Tail in 2195 , there 's plenty of opportunity to explore theocracy and coercive reproduction in the crazy , polluted and Balkanized world of the present day.I think that Science Fiction writers who rely on the old cliches of Warp-drive and alien worlds simply are n't trying hard enough.21st Century Earth IS an alien world... all you have to do is pay attention.-Sean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To an author, I think the attraction of Science Fiction is that it allows them to put a veneer of plausibility on settings which would otherwise be too fantastic to be credible.
This allows them the freedom to explore ideas or situations which couldn't possibly occur if set in "the real world.
"But the current world has become sufficiently complex and interesting that writers such as William Gibson and Margaret Attwood no longer need to set their stories in some near-future dystopia - our current dystopia is sufficient to tell the stories they want to tell.Gibson's last few books have been set in, effectively, the present day.
There's no need for him to go to 2030 or beyond to explore the idea of immersive, ubiquitous computing and communication: we all have smart-phones in 2009.
Everyone I see on the streets of San Francisco is walking around in a trance, like they're jacked into Cyberspace.There's no need for Margaret Attwood to set The Handmaiden's Tail in 2195, there's plenty of opportunity to explore theocracy and coercive reproduction in the crazy, polluted and Balkanized world of the present day.I think that Science Fiction writers who rely on the old cliches of Warp-drive and alien worlds simply aren't trying hard enough.21st Century Earth IS an alien world... all you have to do is pay attention.-Sean</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188560</id>
	<title>The Question Should Be...</title>
	<author>scorpivs</author>
	<datestamp>1258803000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The statement of fact is in error; sci-fi is not 'running out of steam,' rather<br>
its hard-working labor force of brilliant creators has been replaced and<br>
its definition has been slowly undermined by the poor spelling, grammar<br>
and foresight of changeling-zombies.The question should be, 'How can we<br>
exclude the latent influx of horror, gratuitous sex/anime and 'professional'<br>
wrestling from our midst..."<br>
<br>
Fikstit fer ya.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The statement of fact is in error ; sci-fi is not 'running out of steam, ' rather its hard-working labor force of brilliant creators has been replaced and its definition has been slowly undermined by the poor spelling , grammar and foresight of changeling-zombies.The question should be , 'How can we exclude the latent influx of horror , gratuitous sex/anime and 'professional ' wrestling from our midst... " Fikstit fer ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statement of fact is in error; sci-fi is not 'running out of steam,' rather
its hard-working labor force of brilliant creators has been replaced and
its definition has been slowly undermined by the poor spelling, grammar
and foresight of changeling-zombies.The question should be, 'How can we
exclude the latent influx of horror, gratuitous sex/anime and 'professional'
wrestling from our midst..."

Fikstit fer ya.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258833720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what's happening, with reasons that can be understood. That we will come up with an alloy that is more durable than anything we can produce today is likely. It is also quite imaginable that we will some day be able to tap into new power sources, like cold fusion or, given enough time, pure matter-energy transformation. We might discover the antagonist to gravity and create antigravity. We will be able to colonize other planets (though I would much prefer an explanation other than "because it's there", human tends to be lazy).</p><p>But I do want more than a bit of technobabble. That's why I prefer Bab5 to Star Trek. In the latter, there's nothing an inverted polarized tachyon beam, beamed through subspace into a cobalt-balonium matrix cannot accomplish. I can come up with my own deus ex machinas, thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what 's happening , with reasons that can be understood .
That we will come up with an alloy that is more durable than anything we can produce today is likely .
It is also quite imaginable that we will some day be able to tap into new power sources , like cold fusion or , given enough time , pure matter-energy transformation .
We might discover the antagonist to gravity and create antigravity .
We will be able to colonize other planets ( though I would much prefer an explanation other than " because it 's there " , human tends to be lazy ) .But I do want more than a bit of technobabble .
That 's why I prefer Bab5 to Star Trek .
In the latter , there 's nothing an inverted polarized tachyon beam , beamed through subspace into a cobalt-balonium matrix can not accomplish .
I can come up with my own deus ex machinas , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I like SciFi that gives me a good reason for what's happening, with reasons that can be understood.
That we will come up with an alloy that is more durable than anything we can produce today is likely.
It is also quite imaginable that we will some day be able to tap into new power sources, like cold fusion or, given enough time, pure matter-energy transformation.
We might discover the antagonist to gravity and create antigravity.
We will be able to colonize other planets (though I would much prefer an explanation other than "because it's there", human tends to be lazy).But I do want more than a bit of technobabble.
That's why I prefer Bab5 to Star Trek.
In the latter, there's nothing an inverted polarized tachyon beam, beamed through subspace into a cobalt-balonium matrix cannot accomplish.
I can come up with my own deus ex machinas, thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187308</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1258794840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I agree with you.....</p><p>Dystopian science fiction is some of my favorite to read or watch in movie form.  Everything from 1984 and Brave New World (soon to be made into a movie, last I heard, with Leonardo DeCapprio signed on to play a role) to Minority Report....   None of these really paint a rosy picture of the future, or pretend that we've found some gigantic new energy source.</p><p>The plausible future might suck, but good writers can make entertaining stories about that, just as well as they can write "happy, feel-good" stories about our great success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I agree with you.....Dystopian science fiction is some of my favorite to read or watch in movie form .
Everything from 1984 and Brave New World ( soon to be made into a movie , last I heard , with Leonardo DeCapprio signed on to play a role ) to Minority Report.... None of these really paint a rosy picture of the future , or pretend that we 've found some gigantic new energy source.The plausible future might suck , but good writers can make entertaining stories about that , just as well as they can write " happy , feel-good " stories about our great success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I agree with you.....Dystopian science fiction is some of my favorite to read or watch in movie form.
Everything from 1984 and Brave New World (soon to be made into a movie, last I heard, with Leonardo DeCapprio signed on to play a role) to Minority Report....   None of these really paint a rosy picture of the future, or pretend that we've found some gigantic new energy source.The plausible future might suck, but good writers can make entertaining stories about that, just as well as they can write "happy, feel-good" stories about our great success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188830</id>
	<title>Charles H. Duell strikes again!</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258804740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we have just witnessed the science fiction literature equivalent of Duell's quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>Everything that can be invented has been invented.<br>Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we have just witnessed the science fiction literature equivalent of Duell 's quote : Everything that can be invented has been invented.Charles H. Duell , Commissioner , U.S. patent office , 1899</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we have just witnessed the science fiction literature equivalent of Duell's quote:Everything that can be invented has been invented.Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188170</id>
	<title>Re:Why SF is dead.</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1258800420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not helping that the economic leadership is clinging to 200 year old ideas of economy, when things have moved in a very different direction (why produce centrally at a large system, and ship in costly ways, when one can send over the plans and have it built locally, most likely modified to use local resource?).</p><p>ok, some see it, but want to be the landlord of the new economy by slapping rent on all the forms creativity takes.</p><p>end result, ACTA and "friends"...</p><p>as they say, give a man a fish, and he is not hungry for that day, teach the same man to fish and he will never go hungry (as long as there is fish to be caught). Problem is when someone wants to get "rent" for each time someone fishing technique is used and/or taught...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not helping that the economic leadership is clinging to 200 year old ideas of economy , when things have moved in a very different direction ( why produce centrally at a large system , and ship in costly ways , when one can send over the plans and have it built locally , most likely modified to use local resource ?
) .ok , some see it , but want to be the landlord of the new economy by slapping rent on all the forms creativity takes.end result , ACTA and " friends " ...as they say , give a man a fish , and he is not hungry for that day , teach the same man to fish and he will never go hungry ( as long as there is fish to be caught ) .
Problem is when someone wants to get " rent " for each time someone fishing technique is used and/or taught.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not helping that the economic leadership is clinging to 200 year old ideas of economy, when things have moved in a very different direction (why produce centrally at a large system, and ship in costly ways, when one can send over the plans and have it built locally, most likely modified to use local resource?
).ok, some see it, but want to be the landlord of the new economy by slapping rent on all the forms creativity takes.end result, ACTA and "friends"...as they say, give a man a fish, and he is not hungry for that day, teach the same man to fish and he will never go hungry (as long as there is fish to be caught).
Problem is when someone wants to get "rent" for each time someone fishing technique is used and/or taught...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189514</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258810140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, for *any* story to entertain, it has to make sense.</p><p>Even fantasy.</p><p>The problem with technobabble (as you point out) is that it undermines the logic of a science fiction story.  When the writer can pull a reverse polarization tachyon burst rabbit out of his main deflector array hat whenever he needs to get the hero out of trouble, he is signaling that he'll resort to anything to get the hero where he wants him by the end of act 3.  As a reader, one has to wonder, "why am I bothering to *understand* all this stuff if it can be changed whenever it's expedient?" That problem isn't limited to the purported explanation of the technology; rampant use of technobabble to solve plot dilemmas undermines the characterization and story itself.</p><p>Now personally, I don't have any fixed opinions on whether a Deus Ex Machina is a bad thing.   Lord of the Rings climaxes with what could be reasonably characterized as D.E.M.: Frodo fails in the quest, and Gollum's treachery allows him to succeed.  Now I realize a counter-argument could be asserted that Frodo condemned Gollum to throw himself into the fire when he showed Gollum mercy, but lets set that aside for a bit. LotR *had* to end with Frodo *morally* failing, otherwise the ending would fail to demonstrate Tolkien's entire point.  Really, LotR is the last salvo in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation debate: it's about the relationship of good works and grace in salvation.   It is the duty of every conscious, moral being to give the last full measure of devotion, and for Frodo that is not a euphemism for "death".   It literally means he must give *all* the devotion is capable of giving to his task before grace becomes operative.</p><p>The point is, it's not only logically *consistent*; it's *necessary* for the task to exceed Frodo's ability to achieve through his own strength and cleverness.  Therefore something like a D.E.M. is *mandated* for that story; it is not *utterly* unconnected to the Frodo's past actions, but that's true in most cases where blatant uses of D.E.M. occur. Having the hero succeed through consequences he is not conscious of violates the particular standards of taste that absolutely ban the use of D.E.M.  People who insist on that as a hard and fast rule usually don't like LotR.</p><p>So fantasy and science fiction *both* have to be logical.  The kind logic is different.  When a science fiction character straps on an anti-grav belt, we assume that there is not just the *physics* to back that up -- after all  how is that different from magic?   We also assume the existence of that device implies a whole bunch of social science we're perfectly familiar with.  We assume there is an economic system which produces them according to the same supply and demand rules that drives *our* world to manufacture and market pogo sticks.   We assume that there are industrial entities that specialize in various aspects of the belt, from the chemical companies that produce the polymer webbing fabric to the companies that specialize in the switches and knobs. There's probably an industrial designer who figured out what geometry would be most ergonomic for the control pad.</p><p>What's more, we assume the belt comes with standard *psychology*.  We don't assume the belt works differently depending on the wearer's state of mind -- or if it does, we insist on a consistent sounding explanation (even if it is technobabble, it becomes a *rule* for our universe).</p><p>Do people who have fear of heights have trouble using the anti-grav belt?  Maybe, or maybe not, but it's a point that has to be dealt with if a character uses it for the first time (we can assume the Galactic Patrol Academy has dealt with those problems as far as its cadets are concerned).    Jules Verne brought this very issue up in his book "Robur the Conquerer", which was kind of like 20,000 leagues under the sea but with an airship rather than a submarine.  He points out that people with acrophobia by in large *don't* suffer from ascending in a balloon the way they suffer at the edge of a cliff, and</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for * any * story to entertain , it has to make sense.Even fantasy.The problem with technobabble ( as you point out ) is that it undermines the logic of a science fiction story .
When the writer can pull a reverse polarization tachyon burst rabbit out of his main deflector array hat whenever he needs to get the hero out of trouble , he is signaling that he 'll resort to anything to get the hero where he wants him by the end of act 3 .
As a reader , one has to wonder , " why am I bothering to * understand * all this stuff if it can be changed whenever it 's expedient ?
" That problem is n't limited to the purported explanation of the technology ; rampant use of technobabble to solve plot dilemmas undermines the characterization and story itself.Now personally , I do n't have any fixed opinions on whether a Deus Ex Machina is a bad thing .
Lord of the Rings climaxes with what could be reasonably characterized as D.E.M .
: Frodo fails in the quest , and Gollum 's treachery allows him to succeed .
Now I realize a counter-argument could be asserted that Frodo condemned Gollum to throw himself into the fire when he showed Gollum mercy , but lets set that aside for a bit .
LotR * had * to end with Frodo * morally * failing , otherwise the ending would fail to demonstrate Tolkien 's entire point .
Really , LotR is the last salvo in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation debate : it 's about the relationship of good works and grace in salvation .
It is the duty of every conscious , moral being to give the last full measure of devotion , and for Frodo that is not a euphemism for " death " .
It literally means he must give * all * the devotion is capable of giving to his task before grace becomes operative.The point is , it 's not only logically * consistent * ; it 's * necessary * for the task to exceed Frodo 's ability to achieve through his own strength and cleverness .
Therefore something like a D.E.M .
is * mandated * for that story ; it is not * utterly * unconnected to the Frodo 's past actions , but that 's true in most cases where blatant uses of D.E.M .
occur. Having the hero succeed through consequences he is not conscious of violates the particular standards of taste that absolutely ban the use of D.E.M .
People who insist on that as a hard and fast rule usually do n't like LotR.So fantasy and science fiction * both * have to be logical .
The kind logic is different .
When a science fiction character straps on an anti-grav belt , we assume that there is not just the * physics * to back that up -- after all how is that different from magic ?
We also assume the existence of that device implies a whole bunch of social science we 're perfectly familiar with .
We assume there is an economic system which produces them according to the same supply and demand rules that drives * our * world to manufacture and market pogo sticks .
We assume that there are industrial entities that specialize in various aspects of the belt , from the chemical companies that produce the polymer webbing fabric to the companies that specialize in the switches and knobs .
There 's probably an industrial designer who figured out what geometry would be most ergonomic for the control pad.What 's more , we assume the belt comes with standard * psychology * .
We do n't assume the belt works differently depending on the wearer 's state of mind -- or if it does , we insist on a consistent sounding explanation ( even if it is technobabble , it becomes a * rule * for our universe ) .Do people who have fear of heights have trouble using the anti-grav belt ?
Maybe , or maybe not , but it 's a point that has to be dealt with if a character uses it for the first time ( we can assume the Galactic Patrol Academy has dealt with those problems as far as its cadets are concerned ) .
Jules Verne brought this very issue up in his book " Robur the Conquerer " , which was kind of like 20,000 leagues under the sea but with an airship rather than a submarine .
He points out that people with acrophobia by in large * do n't * suffer from ascending in a balloon the way they suffer at the edge of a cliff , and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for *any* story to entertain, it has to make sense.Even fantasy.The problem with technobabble (as you point out) is that it undermines the logic of a science fiction story.
When the writer can pull a reverse polarization tachyon burst rabbit out of his main deflector array hat whenever he needs to get the hero out of trouble, he is signaling that he'll resort to anything to get the hero where he wants him by the end of act 3.
As a reader, one has to wonder, "why am I bothering to *understand* all this stuff if it can be changed whenever it's expedient?
" That problem isn't limited to the purported explanation of the technology; rampant use of technobabble to solve plot dilemmas undermines the characterization and story itself.Now personally, I don't have any fixed opinions on whether a Deus Ex Machina is a bad thing.
Lord of the Rings climaxes with what could be reasonably characterized as D.E.M.
: Frodo fails in the quest, and Gollum's treachery allows him to succeed.
Now I realize a counter-argument could be asserted that Frodo condemned Gollum to throw himself into the fire when he showed Gollum mercy, but lets set that aside for a bit.
LotR *had* to end with Frodo *morally* failing, otherwise the ending would fail to demonstrate Tolkien's entire point.
Really, LotR is the last salvo in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation debate: it's about the relationship of good works and grace in salvation.
It is the duty of every conscious, moral being to give the last full measure of devotion, and for Frodo that is not a euphemism for "death".
It literally means he must give *all* the devotion is capable of giving to his task before grace becomes operative.The point is, it's not only logically *consistent*; it's *necessary* for the task to exceed Frodo's ability to achieve through his own strength and cleverness.
Therefore something like a D.E.M.
is *mandated* for that story; it is not *utterly* unconnected to the Frodo's past actions, but that's true in most cases where blatant uses of D.E.M.
occur. Having the hero succeed through consequences he is not conscious of violates the particular standards of taste that absolutely ban the use of D.E.M.
People who insist on that as a hard and fast rule usually don't like LotR.So fantasy and science fiction *both* have to be logical.
The kind logic is different.
When a science fiction character straps on an anti-grav belt, we assume that there is not just the *physics* to back that up -- after all  how is that different from magic?
We also assume the existence of that device implies a whole bunch of social science we're perfectly familiar with.
We assume there is an economic system which produces them according to the same supply and demand rules that drives *our* world to manufacture and market pogo sticks.
We assume that there are industrial entities that specialize in various aspects of the belt, from the chemical companies that produce the polymer webbing fabric to the companies that specialize in the switches and knobs.
There's probably an industrial designer who figured out what geometry would be most ergonomic for the control pad.What's more, we assume the belt comes with standard *psychology*.
We don't assume the belt works differently depending on the wearer's state of mind -- or if it does, we insist on a consistent sounding explanation (even if it is technobabble, it becomes a *rule* for our universe).Do people who have fear of heights have trouble using the anti-grav belt?
Maybe, or maybe not, but it's a point that has to be dealt with if a character uses it for the first time (we can assume the Galactic Patrol Academy has dealt with those problems as far as its cadets are concerned).
Jules Verne brought this very issue up in his book "Robur the Conquerer", which was kind of like 20,000 leagues under the sea but with an airship rather than a submarine.
He points out that people with acrophobia by in large *don't* suffer from ascending in a balloon the way they suffer at the edge of a cliff, and</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186842</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>noir\_lord</author>
	<datestamp>1258834920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.

Iain M Banks and Neal Asher among others are writing good thought provoking and enjoyable books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Iain M Banks and Neal Asher among others are writing good thought provoking and enjoyable books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Iain M Banks and Neal Asher among others are writing good thought provoking and enjoyable books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187766</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1258797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>W His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences, but also the social sciences.</p></div><p>I agree, social sciences should be included in sci-fi. My favourite Asimov story is "The Martian way", which is pretty much all about human nature, wrapped up in a futuristic scenario.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>W His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences , but also the social sciences.I agree , social sciences should be included in sci-fi .
My favourite Asimov story is " The Martian way " , which is pretty much all about human nature , wrapped up in a futuristic scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W His inspiration was drawn from not just the physical sciences, but also the social sciences.I agree, social sciences should be included in sci-fi.
My favourite Asimov story is "The Martian way", which is pretty much all about human nature, wrapped up in a futuristic scenario.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186592</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258833360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what the hell is wrong with you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what the hell is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the hell is wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187752</id>
	<title>Good Sc-Fi</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1258797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't depend on Tech. Instead as The Foundation Series covered, it was the characters and the society that developed. The Tech was there to facilitate the telling of the story. It's the same with Star Wars. The tech existed but was not the focus of the story and that's what Sci-Fi has always covered. The social impact of technology. A classic that comes to mind is the Multiplex Man. Interesting and a good movie revolving around similar aspects was Johhny Mennomic.</p><p>How anyone can say that Sci-Fi is dead/dying is a mystery to me. Someone else mentioned David Webber (Honor Harrington Series) and even though it's Sci-Fi as a Genre, it's actually a damn good Action/Adventure series along the lines of the WWII Movies involving John Wayne and others. The same with David Drake (Hammer's Slammers) and any of the many Military Sci-Fi. None of them revolve around the Tech as the main element of the story. Instead the revolve around the action, character developments and social aspects and yes there's plenty of social commentary in the stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't depend on Tech .
Instead as The Foundation Series covered , it was the characters and the society that developed .
The Tech was there to facilitate the telling of the story .
It 's the same with Star Wars .
The tech existed but was not the focus of the story and that 's what Sci-Fi has always covered .
The social impact of technology .
A classic that comes to mind is the Multiplex Man .
Interesting and a good movie revolving around similar aspects was Johhny Mennomic.How anyone can say that Sci-Fi is dead/dying is a mystery to me .
Someone else mentioned David Webber ( Honor Harrington Series ) and even though it 's Sci-Fi as a Genre , it 's actually a damn good Action/Adventure series along the lines of the WWII Movies involving John Wayne and others .
The same with David Drake ( Hammer 's Slammers ) and any of the many Military Sci-Fi .
None of them revolve around the Tech as the main element of the story .
Instead the revolve around the action , character developments and social aspects and yes there 's plenty of social commentary in the stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't depend on Tech.
Instead as The Foundation Series covered, it was the characters and the society that developed.
The Tech was there to facilitate the telling of the story.
It's the same with Star Wars.
The tech existed but was not the focus of the story and that's what Sci-Fi has always covered.
The social impact of technology.
A classic that comes to mind is the Multiplex Man.
Interesting and a good movie revolving around similar aspects was Johhny Mennomic.How anyone can say that Sci-Fi is dead/dying is a mystery to me.
Someone else mentioned David Webber (Honor Harrington Series) and even though it's Sci-Fi as a Genre, it's actually a damn good Action/Adventure series along the lines of the WWII Movies involving John Wayne and others.
The same with David Drake (Hammer's Slammers) and any of the many Military Sci-Fi.
None of them revolve around the Tech as the main element of the story.
Instead the revolve around the action, character developments and social aspects and yes there's plenty of social commentary in the stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204992</id>
	<title>Re:Sci-fi not predicting far enough?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259008320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Latina est langua mortua,<br>In arena jacet.<br>Prima necavit Romanas,<br>Nunc nos interfacit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Latina est langua mortua,In arena jacet.Prima necavit Romanas,Nunc nos interfacit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latina est langua mortua,In arena jacet.Prima necavit Romanas,Nunc nos interfacit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188376</id>
	<title>Re:Cliche'd to death</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1258801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If SF has become as cliched as you imply, I think a fair amount of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of publishers, as I discuss in more detail <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452790&amp;cid=30188346" title="slashdot.org">in this comment</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>If SF has become as cliched as you imply , I think a fair amount of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of publishers , as I discuss in more detail in this comment [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If SF has become as cliched as you imply, I think a fair amount of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of publishers, as I discuss in more detail in this comment [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190338</id>
	<title>Re:Short Answer</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1258816860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi. It's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently, especially in mainstream culture, these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired.</p></div><p>You need to read some of the good modern sci-fi.  Vernor Vinge is the author everyone mentions, but there are others writing some really creative stuff.  So creative, in fact, that a lot of people find it too "out there" to read comfortably, which was also the case with Golden Age science fiction.  A lot of the recent Hugo and Nebula nominees are excellent, though the winners are typically a little more mainstream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi .
It 's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently , especially in mainstream culture , these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired.You need to read some of the good modern sci-fi .
Vernor Vinge is the author everyone mentions , but there are others writing some really creative stuff .
So creative , in fact , that a lot of people find it too " out there " to read comfortably , which was also the case with Golden Age science fiction .
A lot of the recent Hugo and Nebula nominees are excellent , though the winners are typically a little more mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sci-Fi lost the last of its steam when it switched from being Science Fiction to being Sci Fi.
It's been part of a continuing downward spiral where while there have been more offerings recently, especially in mainstream culture, these offerings are increasingly more and more derivative and uninspired.You need to read some of the good modern sci-fi.
Vernor Vinge is the author everyone mentions, but there are others writing some really creative stuff.
So creative, in fact, that a lot of people find it too "out there" to read comfortably, which was also the case with Golden Age science fiction.
A lot of the recent Hugo and Nebula nominees are excellent, though the winners are typically a little more mainstream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186706</id>
	<title>Yep.  All the good ideas are used up.  Go home.</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1258833960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  All the good ideas are used up.  Go home.</p><p>Damn, I wish I could use mod points on TFA instead of just comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
All the good ideas are used up .
Go home.Damn , I wish I could use mod points on TFA instead of just comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
All the good ideas are used up.
Go home.Damn, I wish I could use mod points on TFA instead of just comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198578</id>
	<title>Re:Why does sci-fi need to predict a technology?</title>
	<author>doom</author>
	<datestamp>1258903560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
 sabernet (751826) wrote:</p><blockquote><div><p>Tell me what, exactly, does Foundation realistically predict? It
was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space
with funny maths, glowey nuclear bits and, most importantly, damn
good writing.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The whole notion of science fiction as prediction is a red
herring, the issue at hand is science fiction as a source of
inspiration.
</p><p>
Notably, Paul Krugman admits that Asimov's "psychohistory"
was one of the things that inspired him as a kid to go on to do work in
macroeconomics:
<a href="http://obsidianrook.com/doomfiles/TWISTED\_PATHS.html" title="obsidianrook.com">TWISTED\_PATHS</a> [obsidianrook.com]
</p><p>
I think you'll find that the typical young physicist these days got involved in the game because they wanted to discover hyperdrive.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sabernet ( 751826 ) wrote : Tell me what , exactly , does Foundation realistically predict ?
It was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space with funny maths , glowey nuclear bits and , most importantly , damn good writing .
The whole notion of science fiction as prediction is a red herring , the issue at hand is science fiction as a source of inspiration .
Notably , Paul Krugman admits that Asimov 's " psychohistory " was one of the things that inspired him as a kid to go on to do work in macroeconomics : TWISTED \ _PATHS [ obsidianrook.com ] I think you 'll find that the typical young physicist these days got involved in the game because they wanted to discover hyperdrive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 sabernet (751826) wrote:Tell me what, exactly, does Foundation realistically predict?
It
was a retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in space
with funny maths, glowey nuclear bits and, most importantly, damn
good writing.
The whole notion of science fiction as prediction is a red
herring, the issue at hand is science fiction as a source of
inspiration.
Notably, Paul Krugman admits that Asimov's "psychohistory"
was one of the things that inspired him as a kid to go on to do work in
macroeconomics:
TWISTED\_PATHS [obsidianrook.com]

I think you'll find that the typical young physicist these days got involved in the game because they wanted to discover hyperdrive.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186478</id>
	<title>For me, SciFi died</title>
	<author>Megaweapon</author>
	<datestamp>1258832760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they day they dropped MST3K.  Bastards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they day they dropped MST3K .
Bastards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they day they dropped MST3K.
Bastards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187922</id>
	<title>Hahaha</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1258798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Humans have run out of ideas' this story is such B.S. Just because the author has a writing block does not mean the rest of humanity does.
 I read Stross's book ACCELARANDO, and there is NO WAY that most of those ideas will be realized anytime soon. Human imagination is always active, but sometimes the masses are not as exposed to it (ie. Hollywood is sucking ass right now being a franchise whore).</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Humans have run out of ideas ' this story is such B.S .
Just because the author has a writing block does not mean the rest of humanity does .
I read Stross 's book ACCELARANDO , and there is NO WAY that most of those ideas will be realized anytime soon .
Human imagination is always active , but sometimes the masses are not as exposed to it ( ie .
Hollywood is sucking ass right now being a franchise whore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Humans have run out of ideas' this story is such B.S.
Just because the author has a writing block does not mean the rest of humanity does.
I read Stross's book ACCELARANDO, and there is NO WAY that most of those ideas will be realized anytime soon.
Human imagination is always active, but sometimes the masses are not as exposed to it (ie.
Hollywood is sucking ass right now being a franchise whore).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187868</id>
	<title>Re:Reality closer to SciFi, SciFi != Fantasy</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1258798320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?</p></div><p>Yeah, being a fan of sword and sorcery stuff has always been good for pulling babes. Er...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership ; while fantasy has broader appeal ? Yeah , being a fan of sword and sorcery stuff has always been good for pulling babes .
Er.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps that hard SciFi traditionally had a predominately male readership; while fantasy has broader appeal?Yeah, being a fan of sword and sorcery stuff has always been good for pulling babes.
Er...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186942</id>
	<title>The problem is we can see the future</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1258835460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the idea that science-fiction is about predicting advances in technology is retarded.</p><p>Secondly, at this stage in human's technological development, we kind of know what the next step is, and that step is artificial intelligence. And the step after that is unknowable. Vernor Vinge has lots to say about this.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the idea that science-fiction is about predicting advances in technology is retarded.Secondly , at this stage in human 's technological development , we kind of know what the next step is , and that step is artificial intelligence .
And the step after that is unknowable .
Vernor Vinge has lots to say about this .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the idea that science-fiction is about predicting advances in technology is retarded.Secondly, at this stage in human's technological development, we kind of know what the next step is, and that step is artificial intelligence.
And the step after that is unknowable.
Vernor Vinge has lots to say about this.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186408</id>
	<title>Hey!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258832280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was spelled SyFy from now on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was spelled SyFy from now on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was spelled SyFy from now on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188714</id>
	<title>Vinge  Stephenson</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1258804080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Snow Crash is overrated. Go back to Vinge's "True Names" for a more credible "Metaverse".</p><p>As for ideas, well, speaking of Vinge... as we get closer to the Singularity then you'd expect *near future* SF to start hitting a near future event horizon. But Vinge is still trowing out some interesting stuff... the library eater in Vinge's "Rainbow's End" turns out to be Google, but there's a boatload of ideas in there that haven't come true yet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Snow Crash is overrated .
Go back to Vinge 's " True Names " for a more credible " Metaverse " .As for ideas , well , speaking of Vinge... as we get closer to the Singularity then you 'd expect * near future * SF to start hitting a near future event horizon .
But Vinge is still trowing out some interesting stuff... the library eater in Vinge 's " Rainbow 's End " turns out to be Google , but there 's a boatload of ideas in there that have n't come true yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snow Crash is overrated.
Go back to Vinge's "True Names" for a more credible "Metaverse".As for ideas, well, speaking of Vinge... as we get closer to the Singularity then you'd expect *near future* SF to start hitting a near future event horizon.
But Vinge is still trowing out some interesting stuff... the library eater in Vinge's "Rainbow's End" turns out to be Google, but there's a boatload of ideas in there that haven't come true yet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30201756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30207470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30193100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30202758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30199060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30197696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_21_177221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30202758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188228
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190992
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30201756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188492
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192206
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187036
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187766
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188754
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200172
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188292
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187534
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187060
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188084
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187936
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187944
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189218
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30200228
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187722
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30199060
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188366
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188308
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187656
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187584
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188142
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204992
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187386
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30204214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30197696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30207470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30189554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30188376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30193100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30190338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30198578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30192006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30187736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30191800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_21_177221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_21_177221.30186530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
