SILICON SOAPWARE wafting your way along the slipstreams of the Info Highway from Bubbles = Tom Digby = bubbles@well.com http://www.well.com/~bubbles/ Issue #117 New Moon of July 17, 2004 Contents copyright 2004 by Thomas G. Digby, with a liberal definition of "fair use". In other words, feel free to quote excerpts elsewhere (with proper attribution), post the entire zine (verbatim, including this notice) on other boards that don't charge specifically for reading the zine, link my Web page, and so on, but if something from here forms a substantial part of something you make money from, it's only fair that I get a cut of the profits. Silicon Soapware is available via email with or without reader feedback. Details of how to sign up are at the end. ********************* The Fourth of July is over for another year, and the sound of fireworks has pretty much faded from this neighborhood, perhaps to return around New Year's. As usual in recent years, the media ran lots of stories about how even "Safe and Sane" fireworks are dangerous, and how people should go to the professionally-run displays instead. But, as usual, people weren't buying it. Why is that? I have a theory. Imagine a group of people sitting around in their living room singing, perhaps with two or three of them strumming along on guitars. They may not all be the best singers and guitar players in the world, but they're friends and the songs are songs that the people in the group know and love. They enjoy participating. Then along comes the landlord or a condo association agent or some such and says that there's a No Singing rule. If you want music, here are some free passes to some symphony concerts that will be coming up soon. Some of the group may take the passes, and some may actually like symphonic music, but it's just not the same as sitting around in your living room singing along with friends. So they continue to do it, perhaps a little less loudly so the authorities will be less likely to notice, but even so they still do it. I believe backyard fireworks are the same way. The anti-fireworks laws have somewhat more grounding in legitimate public policy, in that the costs to society of injuries and fires from fireworks are higher than the costs to society of a little loud music by people of less than world- class talent, but that's just a difference in degree. The pleasures being given up to reduce those costs are similar in that people are being asked to refrain from participating in an activity they enjoy, and instead go be passive observers of something that's only sort of vaguely similar. So that's why people continue to defy their local anti-fireworks laws. ********************* How about a mad scientist who has a thing about tree-huggers, so he develops a giant carnivorous plant that hugs back? ********************* As a recent restaurant get-together was winding down and people were starting to leave I heard several of them saying things like "I'm over on that other street" in reference to where their cars were parked. It's a common figure of speech that we usually don't even think about. But I got to wondering: To what degree is it just a figure of speech, and to what degree does it stem from some kind of subconscious feeling that one's car is part of oneself? Did they use that same speech pattern back in pre-motor days when they might need to tell others where their horse was? How often would you have heard someone say something like "I'm tied up across the street"? And what of other kinds of possessions? As I try to think of examples I get the impression that there aren't all that many cases where one leaves major possessions some distance away and then needs to tell others where they are. But even so, with the few I can think of it seems that people would be more likely to say "My stuff is over there [pointing or giving coordinates or whatever]" than "I'm over there." So as I was wondering, is this form of expression unique to cars? And does it exist in languages other than English? If so, is it used in those other languages the same way it's used here, or is it different? ********************* Another movie idea: Anti-American fanatics buying up stock in major fast-food chains. Their plan is to gain control and then embark on a major marketing push that's even less healthy for consumers than what the fast-food chains are already doing. ********************* The new neighbor in the downstairs apartment is still bringing stuff in, weeks after the initial move-in. Most of it is boxes of books. He seems to have a lot of books, even by fannish standards, and these apartments aren't all that big. Does he have room for them all? Maybe he has some kind of secret dimensional portal in his apartment, leading to an alternate world where he has a castle or mansion or some such to store books in. Perhaps he's one of those wizards who reside mainly in other worlds but are occasionally seen in this one. They do now and then come here, but for various reasons tend to keep a low profile. Why do they come here? They come because magic is relatively weak in this world compared to most other more or less civilized worlds. Although that does make this world less interesting and less comfortable for them, it also makes it a good neutral meeting place for wizards who often find themselves embroiled in various conflicts and intrigues. The weak magic makes it harder for an opponent to cast any really harmful spells. Also, weak magic has led us to develop a strong technology, and most of that technology still works in most other worlds, even where magic is stronger. In many of those other worlds you can disrupt technological stuff with specific spells, but computers and video cameras and microwave ovens and such normally work quite well if there are no spells being cast against them or if they are otherwise suitably protected. So the wizards come here to buy tech gadgetry to use back home. That applies to chemistry and medicine as well. Even for a wizard, it's often easier to take Tylenol for a headache than to work up a healing spell. And many of our over-the-counter medicines do stranger and more wonderful things than their makers dreamed of when used as an ingredient in the right magical potion. So major magic-users from myriads of exotic worlds are walking our streets, with most of us being none the wiser. ********************* That leads to more thoughts about my neighbor's books. Maybe they aren't really books from this world at all, but strange spells and such from other worlds and times and realities. But even if you could get a look at them, you wouldn't learn much. Assuming they're in English (or some other language you know), they may not pertain to this reality. Some of the spells and recipes and such will only work in certain other worlds whose physical and/or magical laws are different from those of our world. And you can't always tell what reality a book was written for by looking at it, because its authors may not have known about any realities other than their own. So you just have to sort of know which things will work where. Or maybe somebody has compiled a list, and has written their own book about it. Even then you have to be careful because there's no consistent naming convention for the various worlds and dimensions and timelines and realities. And even if someone does start to categorize them, is the set finite? Can all the myriad worlds and realities be fully cataloged, or will there always be gaps and inconsistencies? And how often do things change? That may be another complicating factor. So even if he brings in an infinite number of books from the libraries of other wizards in realms whose portals open to other parts of our world, he may never really complete his library. Such is life, whether or not you're a wizard. ********************* Do creative vampires speak of "Thinking outside the casket"? ********************* Somebody at a party was complaining that movies and TV drama didn't seem realistic because (with a few recent exceptions) the characters never went to the bathroom. After some twists and turns in the conversation I brought up a way that ships in the Star Trek universe might not need bathrooms: Beam the waste matter from out of people's bodies into whatever bio-recycling system the ship uses, so nobody has to ever do what we think of a normal bodily functions. Even if the original ST technology wasn't good enough, it might be by the time we get to NG or thereabouts. It would require some real-time way of sensing what parts of the body are where and being able to distinguish the container from the contents, but it still should be possible given sufficiently sophisticated scanners. The user may not even need to go to a special part of the ship. Just announce into the air "I need to go to the bathroom" and remain relatively still for a couple of seconds, and the ship's computers will hear you and do the necessary scanning and beaming. Another feature which might be possible given good enough remote molecular scanning, is to teleport dirt and dead cells and such off of people's skin so they don't have to take showers either. Similarly, they may never need to brush their teeth. I'd previously thought of futures where people have little teleporters implanted in their bodies for getting rid of wastes and such, so in a way this is just an extension of that idea. But this may have much broader potential. But either way, imagine how barbaric people accustomed to such things from early childhood would think of us as being. ********************* Do vampire travel agents sell Yuletide tours of places like Alaska and Scandinavia as "The land of the midday dark"? ********************* At one point in a movie I saw recently the main character was faced with the prospect of the woman he was in love with marrying someone else. She really would have preferred him, but he had some hidden reasons for feeling it wouldn't be fair for him to marry her. At that point I noticed that nobody in the whole cast ever said anything about Polyamory. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference in this particular case, but I was reminded of how seldom the concept comes up in this society. That later led to thoughts that to the degree the Polyamory movement succeeds, it will deprive movies (and stage plays and other forms of storytelling) of one of their old dramatic standbys: The hero's girlfriend about to be married to somebody else, often a villain. Of course this has already been weakened from a few decades ago when marriage was generally assumed to be for life. Now there's at least the possibility that she will end up divorced later on, perhaps in a sequel. And if Polyamory ever does catch on, the finality of the lady love forsaking the hero for some other man will be weakened even further. Of course there may be compensations, such as the possibility of new dramatic situations in a household with several husbands and/or wives sharing various partners of various genders. But will any of those equal the drama of a preacher being interrupted just as he starts to say "I now pronounce you ..."? ********************* Once again the Olympics are coming up, reminding me of this: TORCH SONG SOLO The last man on Earth(?) sits alone in his camp On the way to the Olympics. How he has come to be Torch-bearer is kind of hazy, Along with why there seem to be no crowds along the way To cheer him on. He's not really sure where the Games are, And even if he knew for certain It wouldn't seem right to go straight there Without first finding people along the way That he can show the Torch to. A secret part of him also suspects That if he ever did arrive at the stadium He would find no pomp and pageantry, No cheering crowds, And nothing to do But collect all the medals by default And ever after Have nothing to do. So he will run the Torch forever, Taking whichever road looks most tempting, On the chance that somewhere The cheering crowds Are waiting. -- Tom Digby Composed 0215hr 7/25/84 ********************* HOW TO GET SILICON SOAPWARE EMAILED TO YOU If you're getting it via email and the Reply-to in the headers is ss_talk@bubbles.best.vwh.net you're getting the list version, and anything you send to that address will be posted. That's the one you want if you like conversation. There's usually a burst of activity after each issue, often dying down to almost nothing in between. Any post can spark a new flurry at any time. If there's no mention of "bubbles.best.vwh.net" in the headers, you're getting the BCC version. That's the one for those who want just Silicon Soapware with no banter. The zine content is the same for both. To get on the conversation-list version point your browser to http://bubbles.best.vwh.net/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi and select the ss_talk list. Enter your email address in the space provided and hit Signup. When you receive an email confirmation request go to the URL it will give you. (If you're already on the list and want to get off there will be an Unsubscribe URL at the bottom of each list posting you receive.) To get on or off the BCC list email me (bubbles@well.sf.ca.us or bubbles@well.com). I currently do that one manually. -- END --