http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cerebratescontemplations/~3/eduwX1cRYQ4/the-gathering-storm-robert-jordan-and-brandon-sanderson.html

(See Amy’s review of this book here.)

It’s that time at last!  In which I shall finally get around to my Gathering Storm review, and yes, I did read it much much earlier than this, but, hey, sometimes it takes me a while to get around to writing these things up.

I shall endeavor to remain spoiler-free in detail, just in case, but I may let a few generalities slip here and there.  But then, you all read it a long time ago, huh, so that shouldn’t be that much of a problem, I think.

Well, that was a roller-coaster ride, huh?  The pace of events now speeding right along.  As I may have mentioned, I thought we were seeing something of a return to form with Knife of Dreams, but Sanderson writes Jordan moving along a lot faster than Jordan ever did.  (A thought to contemplate: and given that he ended up cutting the last book into three while writing the plot at this pace, would anyone care to speculate how long it might have been, or how many volumes we might have ended up with, had Jordan been writing them?  Whew.)

Nice job on the voice, too.  Sanderson does a very good job of writing in a style that fits the world – as Amy said - (although I did have a few concerns along those lines during the first part of the prologue, with the Borderlands farmer) without falling into the trap of producing a Jordan pastiche, or worse, cod-Jordan.  Also, along similar lines, good capturing of the original characterization, although here I must follow almost everyone else who has written a Gathering Storm review and complain about Mat, who isn’t quite his old self.  Ah, well.  Hopefully that’ll settle down by next book.  (Although, on Mat, I do hope that his Extended Horror Movie Sequence has some point, purpose or payoff later, too, because I’m not entirely sure it was worth it on its own.)

Not sure how much more I can say without spoilage, so for now, just a quick summation: Excellent book!  Recommended if you have read the series up to now, and recommended if you gave up in the past, and recommended if you haven’t started yet, ‘cause if you start now, you might just be ready to finish with the rest of us.

http://feeds.penny-arcade.com/~r/pa-mainsite/~3/_sbQybX1p7A/

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cerebratescontemplations/~3/5rlEnD5ysJw/diversity-in-adultery.html

Further signs that the world has gone insane:

Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?

No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who've been linked to Woods resemble one another. I'm talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.

This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.

I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard.

But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.

Clearly, we must correct this problem of underrepresentation by introducing quotas, or maybe some form of points system, to ensure that everyone in Our Great Nation sleeps with a group of people statistically representative of the greater population on an annualized basis.  (Alas for those who are determined to remain monogamous, unless their spouse happens to have exactly the right genetic background.)

Seeing as the personal really is political, and all…

The January 1920 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES wrote an editorial calling Goddard's knowledge and honesty into question.

Science fiction fans still chortle over this one. I recall a short story by A.E. van Vogt which dealt with a professor-astronaut trying to explain to dimwitted newspapermen that a rocket, to fly in space, does not need air for its explosive charges to push against. (Go, go gadget Internet! The story was "The Problem Professor", published as "Project Spaceship" in 1949. If you wonder what I mean by 'professor-astronaut', keep in mind that in SF stories, like the Wright Brothers, the inventor was usually the test pilot. )

The money quote from the 1920 TIMES article is this:

"… after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey it will neither be accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left."

It goes on

"That Professor GODDARD with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

Note the scare quotes to refer to Goddard's chair at the college. But the TIMES now must question the great scientist's honesty:

"But there are such things as intentional mistakes or oversights…."

The TIMES then turns from calling Goddard a liar to critiquing science fiction. Here is the paragraph:

" ... JULES VERNE, who also knew a thing or two in assorted sciences—and had, besides, a surprising amount of prophetic power—deliberately seemed to make the same mistake that Professor GODDARD seems to make. For the Frenchman, having got his travelers to or toward the moon into the desperate fix of riding a tiny satellite of the satellite , saved them from circling it forever by means of an explosion, rocket fashion, where an explosion would not have had in the slightest degree the effect of releasing them from their dreadful slavery. That was one of VERNE 's few scientific slips, or else it was a deliberate step aside from scientific accuracy, pardonable enough in him as a romancer, but its like is not so easily explain when made by a savant who isn't writing a novel of adventure."

Forty nine years afterwards—one year shy of half a century— on July 17, 1969, the New York Times published a short item under the headline "A Correction," summarizing its 1920 editorial mocking Goddard, and concluding:

"Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."

Of course, this was one day after the launch of Apollo 11.

The TIMES is good-natured about the old mistake, mentioning that this principle has been known since Newton. But the TIMES is, as it turns out, behind the times: centuries late when it comes to physics, and decades when it comes to printing their retractions. (Better late than never—they still were swifter than the Roman Catholic Church pardoning Galileo.)

Sun is announcing the intent to discontinue production of the Solaris
Express
Community Edition (SXCE) by the end of October time-frame. As we
intend to
continue on a bi-weekly build schedule, consolidations will move towards
producing native Image Packaging System (IPS) packages alongside SVR4
packages and then phase out the latter completely. Technologies such as
IPS, Automated Install, Snap Upgrade and the Distribution Constructor
will be
integrating into a consolidation after following through the established
processes including architectural (ARC) review.

We recognize that this transition will require some effort for all
members of
the OpenSolaris development community, and are committed to working with
all of you in making that transition a success. You can expect updated
information from us and the communities which manage the consolidations
as we further plan the transition schedules.

Paul Samuelson is dead at 94.

I think it's pretty safe to say he was the most influential economist of the 20th century. One thing that always impressed me about him was his sense of humor, which came through in his writing. There have been several occasions when I was reading something he wrote and I actually laughed out loud. That's pretty remarkable for an economist.

Hello Seattle, I am a blank diskette
Formatted for Windows
With all your thumb drives, I am forgotten now
In the back of your bottom drawer

Hello Seattle, I am a lycanthrope
Howling in the summer's dusk
I hunt in greenbelts, stalking the albatross
Playing tag with fishing crows

Hello Seattle, I am a lightning bug
I appear on track nine
I'm in the thread that holds up the disco ball
And in a jar by your bed