admin

May 272017
 

So, progress on the novel has been brisk of late. The end is in sight! I’m currently sitting at about 400 novel-length pages, which is frankly probably far too long for a first novel by an unknown nobody. But, y’know, editing… For all I know, cut all the drivel out of it and it might result in a pamphlet.

But let’s say it gets published, and meets with great acclaim. Huzzah! One thing that authors seem to do is book signings. Now, at the best of times this idea fills me with an uncomfortableness. On the one hand, being the center of attention? Bleah. On the other hand, how many times have you gone to a Books-A-Barnes & Borders and saw a book signing by an author you’ve never heard of, hawking a book that seems uninteresting to you, and the author is sitting at the table, piled with books… and there ain’t nobody there. Yeesh. Talk bout a buzz kill. About the only thing more distressing than being the object of attention of a bunch of strangers is to be *ignored* at such an event. I always feel *real* bad for the very sad and lonely looking authors at such empty events.

So, California has come up with a solution: basically make book signings illegal.

California threatens to shut down book signings and therefore small booksellers

If you are selling a “signed something-or-other worth more than five bucks,” guess what… onerous new book-keeping regulations:

Sellers must, among other things:

  1. Note the purchase price and date of sale,
  2. specify whether the item is part of a limited edition,
  3. note the size of the edition, anticipate any future editions,
  4. disclose whether the seller is bonded,
  5. divulge any previous owner’s name and address,
  6. if the book was signed in the presence of the seller, specify the date and location of the signing, and identify a witness to the autograph.

And what happens if you don’t have such records for a book signing that occurred, say, five years before the State official shows up to check your papers? Potentially tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Ta-da. No more book signings.

 Posted by at 6:10 pm
May 252017
 

There seem to be two primary ways to tell if a forthcoming movie or TV series is going to be bad:

  1. The released materials – photos, descriptions, clips, trailers, etc. – just look or read as “bad”
  2. The people promoting the show start putting plans in place to downplay how awful it is, or to explain away a forthcoming disaster.

With Star Trek: Discovery, we’ve had a whole lot of #1. The disregard for established continuity, the jarring design elements, the apparent lack of any actual familiarity with Star Trek on the part of the people behind the show have led a *lot* or people to conclude that this STD is gonna burn.

But now they’re entering into Phase 2. Specifically… the “Ghostbusters 2016” playbook of “let’s blame the fans:”

Racist Star Trek Fans Decry Discovery‘s Diversity, Revealing They Know Nothing About Star Trek

Yeah, that’ll certainly help fix the problem. Someone doesn’t like your show? Call them a racist or a sexist. It worked *so* well for Ghostbusters 2016.

 

 

 Posted by at 11:15 am
May 252017
 

The first launch of the Electron launch vehicle almost made it to orbit. Launched from new Zealand, Rocket Lab’s two stage vehicle is designed to be cheap and expendable, with a projected launch price of about $5M and a payload of just a few hundred pounds. The dollars/pound cost of the vehicle is pretty bad compared to the likes of the Falcon 9,  but that’s to be expected. Economics does not scale down well with launch vehicles. But if you have a burning need to put a small payload into space in a hurry, a launch vehicle like this should be attractive.

New Zealand space launch is first from a private site

 

 

 Posted by at 6:08 am
May 232017
 

On the scale of planets, every known material is essentially a fluid. Build an Earth-sized cube out of diamond, and it will collapse under its own weight into a close approximation of a sphere. With that in mind, there are really only a few things that determine the shape of a planet. Structural strength? Nope. Surface tension? Nope. Magnetics? *Maybe,* if there were some insanely powerful magnetic fields involved. It basically comes down to gravity and centripetal force. Under most conditions, what you have is a blob of matter trying to condense down to a sphere, but being pulled into a slight oblate spheroid due to spin. If you jack up the rate of spin, the planet will become more and more oblate; spin it fast enough and the outer rim will reach orbital velocity and bits of the planet will start dripping off. But until that point, the planet will be basically just a flattened sphere.

A few years ago someone ran the numbers and found that if things were *just* right, you could have a toroidal (donut) planet.That would be definitely interesting, but while it doesn’t violate the laws of physics, it is vanishingly unlikely to occur naturally. Such a world would almost certainly have to be *built,* using technology and engineering far beyond us. This type of world would also need active intelligent maintenance in order to survive in the long term (and this probably means “historical long-term,” not “geological long-term”).

But another contender has stepped to the fore, the “synestia:”

The structure of terrestrial bodies: Impact heating, corotation limits, and synestias

This is a naturally occuring non-spherical world. But it is *not* an inviting place, nor one with a well defined surface. The idea is that early on in the development of solar systems, molten rocky worlds would get slammed now and again by giant impactors; hitting just right, they’d throw up a cloud of rock vapor that would form a funky shape that would persist on the order of a century. The heat of the vapor would help it maintain its shape; as the heat dissipates, the structure collapses, back down into a sphere.

 Posted by at 2:19 pm
May 232017
 

Evidence for a link between genetics and intelligence. This should not be terribly surprising… genetics is responsible for a *lot* about a person, from physicality to personality. But for some reason, some people get damn upset when you start discussing the idea that there is a genetic basis for intelligence. Sure, environment – from the quality of your nutrition to the quality of your parents to the quality of you schooling – plays a role. Epigenetics plays a role. But why *wouldn’t* genetics play a role? The reason why humans are smarter than chimps isn’t because we have better school lunch programs.

One obvious notion to be drawn from the recognition of a genetic basis for intelligence is that it should be possible to breed for it… or against it. And boy howdy do a whole lot of people not want to consider *that* possibility.

‘Smart genes’ account for 20% of intelligence: study

Study also concludes that the “smart genes” studied also have a role in autism.

 Posted by at 1:49 am