THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/09/14 -- Vol. 32, No. 45, Whole Number 1805
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
Drone Warriors (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
What Are the Chances? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Of Back Pains, Refrigerators, and Evolution (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
A Flight Down Memory Lane (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
BEARS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LIVING THINGS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Hugo Thoughts on Gender Distribution (letter of comment
by James Nicoll)
Genealogy and DNA (letter of comment by Greg Frederick)
This Week's Reading (LIFE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT and "Written
in Blood") (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Drone Warriors (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Mark has said that SLEEP DEALER is one of the top three science
fiction films of this millennium, covering topics such as water
wars, immigrant labor, telepresence, and drone warriors. So the
following article from GQ, "Confessions of a Drone Warrior" might
be of interest:
http://tinyurl.com/void-drone
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: What Are the Chances? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A lecturer said that the evolution of mammals has been going along
more than most people think. I thought the evolution of mammals
was--to the day--exactly as long as the evolution of goldfish.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Of Back Pains, Refrigerators, and Evolution (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
Why is my body like my refrigerator? We each have something in our
backs giving us trouble.
Last Ides of March, a Saturday, I woke up with a bad cough from a
recent cold and with a small backache. I expected they both would
go away on their own and the cold was the more serious one since it
would take longer to run its course. By afternoon the backache was
worse and was my main problem. By then it was too late to see a
doctor that day and our local medical service charges an additional
fee if they have to come in on a Sunday. I decided to wait it out
until Monday morning. It was probably a mistake to go cheap on
myself. Contrary to the pain passing I started having real pain
and walking was a lot worse than sitting. By Monday morning the
pain was very bad. I would describe it as feeling like there was a
clamp squeezing my right hip. I saw my doctor and he knew the
problem right away.
Diagnosis: Sciatica. Also known as a "pinched nerve." At times
the pain was excruciating. As long as I have the problem I might
as well make use of the experience and philosophize.
But what does this have to do with a refrigerator? I had a
refrigerator that was very unreliable. Every few months it would
just stop working and I had to call in a repairman. Finally one
repairman told me why I was having such trouble. It seems the
company that built the troublesome appliance was supposed to put a
refrigerator condenser in as part of the cooling system. They had
built either too few refrigerator condensers or too many air
conditioner condensers. The company decided to use the wrong
condenser. The one they installed would work for a while, but the
extra strain on it would kill it much faster than it would the
refrigerator condenser. It was just the wrong design for the job.
This whole thing reminds me of a religious argument. A creationist
says that the human body is too complex and wondrous to have ever
come together by a process as chancy as evolution. The eyes are
perfectly designed; the hand is just what we need; the liver and
pancreas, and kidneys all are a perfect form that could have only
have come about by design. The argument says that God created
humans and had perfectly designed them. I wish to report he human
spine has design flaws, it uses a device in the wrong place. And
that mistake is currently putting me out of commission.
Picture a curtain rod and hanging from it is a curtain held in
place by curtain rings. As long as the curtain rod is horizontal
it works reasonably well. Tip up one end so the rings will all
feel the pull of gravity and compress at the low end of the curtain
rod. The vertebrates are like curtain rings. While they hang
horizontally they work reasonably well, but lift one end of the
curtain rod and the rings will fall to the other end.
Well, the spine has what is essentially a pile of rings hanging on
the spinal column. They are vertebrae really. And they are sort
of shaped to stay in place. They apparently evolved on an animal
that keeps four feet on the floor and which has a horizontal spine.
But they have been installed in animal expected to have a vertical
back. They still work very well at least for a while. But the
fact that they are held vertically is asking for trouble. The
spine that was installed wants to be held horizontally, but the
owner (me) has no such plan.
Like the refrigerator that gave me so much trouble, the problems
came from using the almost right part and using it where the right
part should be. We have quadruped skeletal parts being used in a
bipedal body and they are bound to fail eventually. It is just
the wrong part for the job.
And speaking of bad design, for what other animals is giving birth
such an excruciatingly painful nightmare? [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: A Flight Down Memory Lane (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I just watched THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954), and it reminded me
just how different flying was back then. Here are the few things
I noticed:
Planes were smaller; this one seats about forty.
Planes flew emptier; this one has sixteen passengers.
The overhead "bins" are not enclosed, but the only things up there
are blankets and pillows, and a few hats and coats. This is
because ...
People did not carry loads of carry-on luggage. A woman brought
her purse; a man might have a briefcase. (When there are only
sixteen passengers, they do not have to worry about the airline
losing their luggage.)
Meals were free.
*Drinks* were free.
People dressed up to fly. This is even more surprising because ...
It took thirteen hours to fly from Hawaii to San Francisco, and was
apparently an overnight flight.
The seats had no arm rests.
The seats did have lots of leg room, and also were wider than seats
are now.
The windows on the plane had little curtains that could be drawn
over them.
The little boy had a cap pistol with him on the plane. But this is
nothing compared to ...
One of the other passengers had a real gun with him.
There were three pilots and they actually had to fly the plane
rather than rely on autopilots.
The navigator had no GPS to help him.
The luggage compartment is accessible from the main cabin.
People smoke on the airplane.
People meeting a plane could come to the gate and even onto the
tarmac.
There were no jetways. (Of course, even today, many airports have
no jetways.)
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BEARS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Disney's nature photography team, Disneynature, captures
the story of a mother Alaskan bear and her two cubs--newborn at the
beginning--and follows them for three seasons until the cubs' first
hibernation. The story is aimed to be child-friendly and soft
pedals some of the harsher realities of bear life mentioned. BEARS
was directed by Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey. John
C. Reilly narrates with a style less factual than joking.
Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
Going back to the early 1950s, Disney made memorable nature
documentaries like THE VANISHING PRAIRIE, THE AFRICAN LION, and
WHITE WILDERNESS. (One project which was intended to be a
documentary about undersea life evolved into the film 20,000
LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA.) Over the years the techniques and tools of
nature photography have improved and advanced to record some
breathtaking images in series such as PLANET EARTH and David
Attenborough's many nature series. The new film BEARS has
photography that would have been spectacular twenty years ago, but
is perhaps not quite as impressive any more. Still, BEARS often
leaves the viewer wondering just how a particular shot could be
taken. Apparently the filmmakers crept into a cave with a sleeping
mother bear with two newborn cubs and started filming without
somehow awakening the wrath of an angry mother bear. Really good
nature photography is expensive to produce and perhaps costs were
cut back by making this an unusually short feature film, only 78
minutes including credits.
The classic film that BEARS harkens back to is Jean-Jacques
Annaud's excellent THE BEAR (1988). That film was not documentary
but fiction based on a novel by James Oliver Curwood. It traced
the life of one orphaned bear cub and an adult male who reluctantly
adopts the cub. That film had terrific nature photography and much
the same plot that BEARS does, bears surviving in a difficult
environment.
We now know that THE BEAR had staged scenes and even stealth
special effects and editing effects so the bear cub never actually
had to face dangerous animals. In BEARS we never get much of an
idea if there are staged scenes and editing effects. The Disney
team probably could not have shot this film without considerable
control of the animals being filmed. It would be impossible to
film if the animals did not hit the expected marks.
We see in BEARS that bears come out of hibernation in a cave in
snowy mountains. Young and old they wake up with a huge trek to
travel to get to the nearest food they can barely eat. From that
point on their lives are long stretches of hunger punctuated with
occasional insufficient meals and just a few feasts.
John C. Reilly narrates and makes viewers long for the factual
style that Morgan Freeman brought to MARCH OF THE PENGUINS. Here
the narration is whimsical with too many jokes and too few facts.
Perhaps the tone has to be kept light for the younger audience.
Some dangers that threaten bears quickly mentioned in passing
include predators like wolves and dangers from other bears
including bullying, violence, and even cannibalism. But the
biggest enemy a bear faces appears to be hunger.
There is also a song in the middle of the film as well as another
under the credits. I could have done without them.
Unlike with THE BEAR, there are no humans in the film proper. That
gives the film more of the documentary feel. In the closing
credits we do see the nature photographers at work showing the work
of shooting such a film. BEARS rates a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or
7/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2458776/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bears_2014/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LIVING THINGS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In one room what could be essentially a stage play unfolds
when a vegan and a meat-eater have an ever-more hostile argument
over the moral issues of whether eating meat is justifiable. Eric
Shapiro (who writes and directs) gives most of the cogent arguments
to the pro-vegan side. Shapiro does not seem quite ready to trust
his audience to reach their own conclusions. Still, a good
argument back and forth makes for compelling viewing. And Ben
Siegler at least has a magnetic presence. Rating: low +2 (-4 to
+4) or 7/10
I like a good film of argument. One of my favorite films is
INHERIT THE WIND (1960), which builds to the historic debate
between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryon. But I want the
filmmaker to play fair. I want to be presented with the best
arguments of both sides and I do not want the filmmaker to be
giving me little hints as to which side is in the right. The film
A FEW GOOD MEN (1992) pits a clean-cut Tom Cruise against a cigar-
smoking, male chauvinist Jack Nicholson. Even before Nicholson
gets a chance to present his viewpoint director Rob Reiner has told
me whose side I should agree with. Writer/director Eric Shapiro is
not quite so blatant, but not a whole lot less. When we first see
carnivore Leo (played by Ben Siegler) he already has been offensive
the last time he saw his son's wife Rhona (Rhoda Jordan). Mild
tension starts right away. What was intended to be a pleasant
dinner with Rhona, her husband Stephen (never seen), and her
father-in-law Leo becomes more and more a mean-spirited extended
exchange as the story progresses.
Rhona teaches yoga, reads Deepak Chopra, and has an open seemingly
empathetic manner. When she says things like "we can shed
positivity" and "all beings are one" she seems a little New Age-
ish. Leo is a polar opposite, a frustrated and rage-filled man.
He seems to see veganism as a conspiracy against him and will not
allow himself to eat vegan even for only one meal. This is true in
spite of his having had a recent heart attack that probably was
contributed to by his unhealthy diet heavy with meat. The viewer
is probably already thinking that Leo probably isn't rational on
the subject of meat.
We are given character flaws for Leo where on balance we get more
positive aspects of Rhona. Leo is fixed in his ways and candid to
the point of being hurtful. Self-satisfied, he either holds a
viewpoint or assumes that it is nonsense. He tells Rhona that he
is very good at debating, but he in fact is not a listener.
Shapiro adds little touches to make him more of a stereotypical
right-winger. He denies climate change. Rhona and Leo each do
negative things in the discussion, but Leo seems to have five
faults for every one of Rhona's.
Another point I wondered about is how this rage-filled,
insensitive man could easily have gone through the entire story and
not have his religion mentioned. I believe there are angry
Lutherans out there someplace, but I do not think it would have
worked for the story to have made Leo an infuriated Lutheran.
Instead, Shapiro tells us this physically dangerous man is a Jew.
While his viewpoints seem to have nothing to do with the teachings
of Judaism, Shapiro feels it necessary to bring in Leo as a Jew.
Somehow Shapiro finds that the acceptable choice.
There probably is not much of the controversy in LIVING THINGS that
one could not find by looking for "reasons to be Vegan" on the
Internet. But part of what makes the film work is a strong
performance by Ben Siegler. His performance is really the core of
this film. I would rate LIVING THINGS a low +2 on the -4 to +4
scale or 7/10. LIVING THINGS was released on DVD April 15 and will
be released to VOD on May 15.
[In the interest of full disclosure this is my position. I eat
meat and feel that I have evolved from meat eaters (and I have
canine teeth to prove it) and that humans like dogs can eat meat
with a clear conscience. This I feel gives me the right to be a
meat-eater. Nonetheless, I also think that most of the best moral
arguments are on the side of vegetarians (including vegans). I
would be morally and ethically better not to eat meat. I do not
try to rationalize this behavior. That puts me somewhere in the
middle of the spectrum between these two characters.]
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3511546/combined
What others are saying will be posted at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/living_things/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo Thoughts on Gender Distribution (letter of comment by
James Nicoll)
In response to Evelyn's comments on gender distribution in the Hugo
nominations in the 04/25/14 issue of the MT VOID, James Nicoll
writes:
A note: where a work has n authors, each author counts as 1/nth of
an author, a decision I made early on and really regret whenever I
do the Hugos;
2014:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/4905846.html
2013:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/4253306.html
2012:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/3700432.html
And for novels:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/4803568.html
Three women being nominated as Best Pro Artist breaks a record that
has stood since the 1980s but that's not saying much because there
have been entire decades where no women were nominated at all, and
not just back in the Old Days:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/4841729.html
Decade Female/Total
1950s 0
1960s 0.01
1970s 0.02
1980s 0.11
1990s 0
2000s 0
2010s 0.05
(does not include 2014)
This may also be of interest:
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2014/20140428/2sfcount-a.shtml
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2013/20130422/2sfcount-a.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/void-2011-sfcount
[-jn]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Genealogy and DNA (letter of comment by Greg Frederick)
If you like genealogy, there now is a web site that allows you to
take your DNA genotype and use it to trace where your ancestors
came from possibly as far back as 1,000 years ago. I copied part
of the article about this:
"Tracing our ancestry is now a major social trend and genealogy
is the number one hobby in America. An estimated one million
people in the USA have already had their DNA genotyped. People
can explore their DNA by simply taking a swab from inside their
mouth and sending it to a company such as 23andme or
ancestry.com for costs ranging from $99-$200.
Dr Elhaik's co-author, Dr Tatiana Tatarinova, developed a
website making genealogy GPS accessible to the public.
'To help people find their roots, I developed a website that
allows anyone who has had their DNA genotyped to upload their
results and use GPS to find their ancestral home,' said Dr
Tatarinova, who is also an Associate Professor of Research
Paediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of
Southern California."
I have been busy with work and not able to read as much as I would
like so the book reviews will still be coming but not as frequent.
I did read another book recently by Niall Ferguson titled EMPIRE
but I was not inspired to write a review. It was about the rise
and fall of the British Empire. [-gf]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
LIFE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: FROM THE DOUBLE HELIX TO THE DAWN OF
DIGITAL LIFE by J. Craig Venter (ISBN 978-0-670-02540-4) was the
April choice for our book discussion group.
Venter describes ARROWSMITH by Sinclair Lewis as being inspired by
Jacques Loeb, whom Venter describes as "perhaps the first true
biological engineer. ... Loeb made two-headed worms and ...
caused the eggs of sea urchins to begin embryonic development
without being fertilized by sperm." I found this interesting
because ARROWSMITH is the story most often cited as a counter-
example to Theodore Sturgeon's definition of science fiction as "A
science fiction story is a story built around human beings, with a
human problem, and a human solution, which would not have happened
at all without its scientific content."
(While looking up that quote, I ran across this one from Rod
Serling: "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction
is the improbable made possible.")
"[Friedrich Wohler] helped to demolish the old view that two bodies
that had different physical and chemical properties could not have
the same composition." He did this by converting ammonium cyanate
to urea, without changing its composition. (I am not sure if
diamonds and coal would also qualify.) This is often claimed to be
the first creation of an organic compound from an inorganic one,
but earlier Wohler had combined water and cyanogen to create oxalic
acid.
Venter talks about encoding information into DNA. Not
surprisingly, science fiction has been there: "Written in Blood" by
Chris Lawson (ASIMOV'S SCIENCE FICTION, June 1999). Using a
substitution cipher on codons and some (unspecified) compression
technique, an old man has developed a way to write the entire
Qur'an in DNA in a virus that will then write it into the
recipient's white blood cells. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why
it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states
that this has already happened
--Douglas Adams