It's hard for me to say this considering how much I like Billy Bat, but I think it's the best serial manga I'm reading right now. It's by Ohba Tsugumi, the same guy who wrote Death Note
Billy Bat is by Naoki Urasawa, who did Monster, Pluto, 20th Century Boys, etc.
Aye, Billy - Urasawa, Bakuman - Tsugumi (should have broke into another paragraph). I wish I could find more of Urasawa's older stuff. I really liked Jugoro!, but I can't find any of Yawara!, Happy! or Pineapple Army in English.
Yawara! anime in English. It's not the entire series, though. They don't have the license to all the episodes.
I'm reading Cryptonomicon for the first time. It has already sparked a discussion of information theory with a bunch of nerds at the coffee shop (they saw me reading it).
I'm reading Cryptonomicon for the first time. It has already sparked a discussion of information theory with a bunch of nerds at the coffee shop (they saw me reading it).
I absolutely love this book! One of my favorites. Hope you're enjoying it.
I'm reading Cryptonomicon for the first time. It has already sparked a discussion of information theory with a bunch of nerds at the coffee shop (they saw me reading it).
I couldn't make it through the last time I tried. It's really dense in points, which is one of Stephenson's favorite adjectives for his books it seems, given the breakdown of Sumerian mythology in Snow Crash that went on for a few dozen pages. I really liked what I read though, I'll have to give it another go this summer.
I am very much enjoying it, far more than Snow Crash. I still haven't read the one he did about Babbage yet, but Cryptonomicon is starting to persuade me to read more of his work. I should probably reread Cosmos one of these days, though.
Oh, and I've been picking random Transmet books off my shelf and reading them. And quoting entire passages to (at?) my friends. Good times.
Finished reading The Fall of Hyperion. It and the first book together were really good, despite the fact that the first book ends rather abruptly. I'm reading Cosmos next, and will probably start it on the plane this afternoon.
Just finished reading "First to fight" by David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Pretty good, I think, but not without it's problems, but overall worth the read if you like a bit of Millitary Science fiction on the Unit scale, rather than the "Epic space battles" scale.
About to start reading Doctorow's "For the win" - Will take notes as I go and write a review.
I didn't actually manage to start "For the win" last night. I'm reading it in Stanza on my iphone, and the first 2% of the entire text is his preamble, explaining his position on copyright, talking about how it's not on kindle, itunes or audible, blah, blah fuckin' blah.
Jesus christ, doctorow - YOU'RE A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER. STOP PISSING ABOUT AND WRITE SOME FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION.
I didn't actually manage to start "For the win" last night. I'm reading it in Stanza on my iphone, and the first 2% of the entire text is his preamble, explaining his position on copyright, talking about how it's not on kindle, itunes or audible, blah, blah fuckin' blah.
Jesus christ, doctorow - YOU'RE A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER. STOP PISSING ABOUT AND WRITE SOME FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION.
He has that at the beginning of all of his books. Skip it.
He has that at the beginning of all of his books. Skip it.
It's gotten worse since he started - This is even longer again by about half than his Pre-amble to makers or little brother. I suspect it will take four or five more novels till it reaches critical mass, and he just releases the preamble bullshit as a completely separate book because of length.
It's really quite an enjoyable book. The characters are mostly likeable, even though there are some "You stupid fucker! WTF are you doing!" moments, they're not forced, it's not characters being forced to hold the idiot ball. The setting is well laid out, the worldbuilding is quite good - there is a particularly rich description about a particular area in the book that's very, very good. It definitely focuses on the characters and the world more than the lavish and detailed descriptions of the home-built tech that abounds in many other Doctorow novels. The characters display actual cunning and smarts, and there isn't any "Hand of god" at play when the characters are in trouble - Though, I will admit, at times it's a bit of "Oh, this bad situation is happening, but that's okay, I prepared for this earlier like THIS! And it saves us almost perfectly!" but it's entirely justifiable and makes sense with what the characters tend to do, and how they normally behave within the novel, or information that they'd have available. Overall, it's well written, and while it does somewhat pander to it's audience, it's not enough to make it annoying.
On the downside, It's Doctorow. Sometimes within the novel, it's like he's beating you over the head with his politics and philosophy, and there are some unrealistic points. The world-building does fail in some points - you think it's a bit wierd till you realise that it's set about 20 minutes in the future, somewhere roughly after the events of "Little brother", though it's never made clear if it's the same "universe" or not. Also, for all of the well-researched stuff about economics and the places it's set, there are moments that kinda yank you out of the book, if you're aware of how it's getting it wrong - For example, One character gets their shin broken with a bone poking through the skin, and it's described as spraying and gushing blood - but a broken shin in the manner described isn't going to bleed that much, let alone spraying or gushing blood. Also, Again, it's doctorow. He telegraphs his moves at times, and you can sometimes pick up what's going to happen a few chapters ahead, but to his credit, this doesn't really happen with major plot points - there is only one major bit of plot that this occurs with, but to be honest, it was quite well justified.
Overall, it's a good book, and worth a read - especially for the price, since it's available for free. If you enjoyed "Little brother" and "Makers"(a tragically short novel, it's odd how he never wrote more after that first bit) you will probably enjoy this book. Even if you've not read Doctorow's works before, it's worth picking up for the price, and reading through.
Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, or The Evening Redness in the West. Judge Holden is unbelievably evil. He might be the single most evil character I've ever seen in a book.
I'm currently reading "Don't Be Such a Scientist" by Randy Olsen, which discusses the sad truth that scientists need to learn how to explain things to non-scientists by using mass-communication techniques.
I'm halfway through Arthur C. Clark's The Songs of Distant Earth. It's not one of his top-tier novels. It's not that it's bad, but you need to have a reason to care about the core characters, and he's not given me many compelling reasons. His strength here is premise, not (so far) follow-up.
Just started Lord of Chaos a few days ago. Somehow I feel like it'll take me as long to read the Wheel of Time series as it took for Jordan to write it (up to book 11 anyway).
I'm currently reading "Don't Be Such a Scientist" by Randy Olsen, which discusses the sad truth that scientists need to learn how to explain things to non-scientists by using mass-communication techniques.
What I find funny is that the person possibly the most famous for doing this - Bill Nye the Science Guy - Isn't a scientist, but an Engineer, with a focus on aerospace tech.
I'm currently reading "Don't Be Such a Scientist" by Randy Olsen, which discusses the sad truth that scientists need to learn how to explain things to non-scientists by using mass-communication techniques.
What I find funny is that the person possibly the most famous for doing this - Bill Nye the Science Guy - Isn't a scientist, but an Engineer, with a focus on aerospace tech.
Engineers are scientists too. Anyone who properly applies the scientific method is a scientist.
By the amount of stories you've told about you blowing shit up, I have no trouble believing that.
An engineer is not a scientist. A Scientist is a Scientist. An Engineer is an Engineer.
So you refute the possibility of any one of those being the other? I find that hard to accept. An Engineer can very easily be a scientist and vice versa. Even someone who has not been formally educated in or even holds a job in either of those positions can be one or both of those.
Actually...
Engineer: a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.
Scientists use systematic methods to study the world around them. They use an organized approach to observe and study the world. They ask questions, look for patterns, and try to find general rules for the natural world.
By these definitions (which I would doubt you'd find their credibility in question), I fit the description of an engineer and a scientist. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago, I designed, prototyped, built, installed, tested, and refined a cell phone holder for my bike. Could you not call that engineering in its most fundamental sense?
And what about what I do for fun/a job? I fix computers by observing the problem, forming a hypothesis as to it's cause and how to fix it, predicting the outcome of each possible repair solution, experimenting by implementing the best predicted solution, observing the outcome and altering my approach if needed, and recording my results. Is that not an application of the scientific method? And is not the scientific method the pillar on which all science, past or present, stands?
Comments
Oh, and I've been picking random Transmet books off my shelf and reading them. And quoting entire passages to (at?) my friends. Good times.
I'm reading Cosmos next, and will probably start it on the plane this afternoon.
About to start reading Doctorow's "For the win" - Will take notes as I go and write a review.
Jesus christ, doctorow - YOU'RE A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER. STOP PISSING ABOUT AND WRITE SOME FUCKING SCIENCE FICTION.
Hm.
It's really quite an enjoyable book. The characters are mostly likeable, even though there are some "You stupid fucker! WTF are you doing!" moments, they're not forced, it's not characters being forced to hold the idiot ball. The setting is well laid out, the worldbuilding is quite good - there is a particularly rich description about a particular area in the book that's very, very good. It definitely focuses on the characters and the world more than the lavish and detailed descriptions of the home-built tech that abounds in many other Doctorow novels.
The characters display actual cunning and smarts, and there isn't any "Hand of god" at play when the characters are in trouble - Though, I will admit, at times it's a bit of "Oh, this bad situation is happening, but that's okay, I prepared for this earlier like THIS! And it saves us almost perfectly!" but it's entirely justifiable and makes sense with what the characters tend to do, and how they normally behave within the novel, or information that they'd have available.
Overall, it's well written, and while it does somewhat pander to it's audience, it's not enough to make it annoying.
On the downside, It's Doctorow. Sometimes within the novel, it's like he's beating you over the head with his politics and philosophy, and there are some unrealistic points. The world-building does fail in some points - you think it's a bit wierd till you realise that it's set about 20 minutes in the future, somewhere roughly after the events of "Little brother", though it's never made clear if it's the same "universe" or not.
Also, for all of the well-researched stuff about economics and the places it's set, there are moments that kinda yank you out of the book, if you're aware of how it's getting it wrong - For example, One character gets their shin broken with a bone poking through the skin, and it's described as spraying and gushing blood - but a broken shin in the manner described isn't going to bleed that much, let alone spraying or gushing blood.
Also, Again, it's doctorow. He telegraphs his moves at times, and you can sometimes pick up what's going to happen a few chapters ahead, but to his credit, this doesn't really happen with major plot points - there is only one major bit of plot that this occurs with, but to be honest, it was quite well justified.
Overall, it's a good book, and worth a read - especially for the price, since it's available for free. If you enjoyed "Little brother" and "Makers"(a tragically short novel, it's odd how he never wrote more after that first bit) you will probably enjoy this book. Even if you've not read Doctorow's works before, it's worth picking up for the price, and reading through.
No, An engineer is not a scientist. A Scientist is a Scientist. An Engineer is an Engineer.
Actually... By these definitions (which I would doubt you'd find their credibility in question), I fit the description of an engineer and a scientist. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago, I designed, prototyped, built, installed, tested, and refined a cell phone holder for my bike. Could you not call that engineering in its most fundamental sense?
And what about what I do for fun/a job?
I fix computers by observing the problem, forming a hypothesis as to it's cause and how to fix it, predicting the outcome of each possible repair solution, experimenting by implementing the best predicted solution, observing the outcome and altering my approach if needed, and recording my results. Is that not an application of the scientific method? And is not the scientific method the pillar on which all science, past or present, stands?
REPLY!