I'm in.

- Sid

Don't let the facts get in the way.

I was browsing through my copy of Our Gods Wear Spandex this morning, and found the following passage as part of the section where author Christopher Knowles lays out the influencing factors in the development of the superhero comic book:

Tarzan, whose name means "Skin-Boy" becomes the surrogate son of a gorilla named Kala, whose own baby had died.

Frowning, I made my way to my bookcase and pulled out my copy of Tarzan of the Apes (I own the edition with the Neal Adams cover - which seems appropriate, given that Neal Adams was a comic book artist as well) and flipped through until I found what I was looking for:

And then Tublat went to Kerchak to urge him to use his authority with Kala, and force her to give up little Tarzan, which was the name they had given to the tiny Lord Greystoke, and which meant "White-Skin."

In the next section of his book, Knowles discussed pulp magazines, citing the fact that Hugo Gernsback's Amazing Stories offered the first appearance of Buck Rogers, "and later, the first stories by sci-fi pioneer E.E. "Doc" Smith."  Ha - about ten pages later would be my guess, if not ten pages before.  Edward Elmer Smith's The Skylark of Space began its serialization in the same August 1928 edition of Amazing Stories that contained Philip Nowlan's Buck Rogers story.

At that point, I thought it was time for a little break from Mr. Knowles.

Those were just the errors I noticed on a casual basis - lord knows what I'd find if I sat down and methodically worked my way through the content.  It's disheartening to discover that someone writing a book isn't necessarily subject to the same demands for accuracy and research that I would have been faced with when doing an essay in high school.

- Sid

Been down so long it feels like up to me.

(Inspired by the previous posting on gravity.)

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Spock -  Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

The history of exploration can be measured - literally - by the introduction of standards like the adoption of Greenwich mean time or the development of latitude and longitude as an aid to navigation.  But one of the greatest standards is a standard yet to come, a standard of the future: Universal Down.

I can only speculate as to the genesis of Universal Down, what meeting of slightly seasick (or more accurately spacesick) minds was involved, but the utility of a universally consistent orientation for spacecraft must have been so attractive that it was adopted immediately, in spite of logic.

Because logic, after all, would suggest that it doesn't matter.  Logically, "down" is an abstract concept in space, restricted to the frame of reference created by whatever system of artificial gravity is in place on any given spaceship, and that spaceship only.  Removed from any sort of planetary reference, ships would be able to align themselves in any orientation that they wish.

And yet, regardless of this elementary fact, every passing Imperial starship, Romulan Warbird, or Cylon Basestar manages to arrive on the scene in perfect alignment with the spacecraft already there.  How would this be possible without some agreed upon standard of orientation, perhaps one based upon the lenticular model of the Milky Way galaxy?

If that is the case, then beware, starship captains and battlestar admirals alike.  For somewhere out there is a mysterious alien ship, a ship from Andromeda, from the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, or from Messier-83, a ship which may be upside down or sideways.  

And let there be war...

- Sid