Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #481587 > unrolled thread

Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel?

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? lenona321@yahoo.com - 2017-12-05 12:02 -0800
    Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-12-05 20:35 +0000
      Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-12-06 01:51 +0000
        Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-12-06 13:48 +0000
          Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2017-12-06 10:31 -0800
          Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2017-12-06 13:33 -0800
            Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2017-12-06 13:49 -0800
              Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2017-12-06 14:00 -0800
                Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2017-12-07 00:58 -0800
              Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-12-07 00:13 +0000
                Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-12-06 19:25 -0600
        Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2017-12-06 22:10 -0800
          Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2017-12-07 01:06 -0800
            Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-12-07 14:26 +0000
              Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 08:05 -0800
                Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-12-07 16:33 +0000
                  Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2017-12-07 12:21 -0800
                    Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2017-12-08 19:37 +0000
          Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-12-07 15:48 +0000
            Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2017-12-07 12:05 -0800
              Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-12-07 22:14 +0000
                Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2017-12-07 14:50 -0800
    Re: Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel? lenona321@yahoo.com - 2018-01-05 14:46 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#481587 — Upcoming 200th anniversary of...guess which novel?

Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/frankenstein-lives-200-years-later/2016/08/23/e6c572c8-64ad-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.d5f3afc7319b

http://med.stanford.edu/medicineandthemuse/events/FrankensteinAt200.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/200-years-since-frankenstein-and-its-still-alive-here-are-5-of-the-best-adaptations

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/25/563736769/brush-up-your-shelley-with-frankenstein-the-first-two-hundred-years

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/october/frankenstein-technology-ai.html

https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/podcasts/frankenstein-200.htm

http://frankenstein.asu.edu

And more:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1920&bih=974&ei=R_kmWra6GIiDjwSf_o6wDA&q=frankenstein+bicentennial&oq=frankenstein+bic&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i22i10i30k1l5j0i22i30k1l2.1981.3353.0.4289.3.3.0.0.0.0.140.327.1j2.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.326....0.cuGWd6LBUSY



Lenona.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#481590

In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
 <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)

Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?

It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481604

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
>
> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
>
> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
>

    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':

        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.

    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
into the scheme of things?

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481632

In article <20171205c@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
>> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
>>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
>>
>> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
>> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
>>
>> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
>>
>
>    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
>seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
>progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
>    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
>says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
>it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
>Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':
>
>        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
>    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
>    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
>    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
>    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
>    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
>    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
>    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
>    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
>    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
>    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.
>
>    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
>unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
>historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
>into the scheme of things?

It was the early 19th century.  Gothic trappings were in style.

As to anti-science fiction, I'm reminded of an Asimov essay
entitled "The Sin of the Scientist."  He notes that at the dawn
of the twentieth century everyone was enthusiastic about the
wonders that science was going to produce.  By 1920, science was
distrusted and scientists were portrayed as mad, working to
destroy the world.  "What," he inquires rhetorically, "happened
between 1900 and 1920?  World War I happened between 1900 and
1920."

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481648

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:15:07 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <20171205c@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> >
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> >> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
> >>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
> >>
> >> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> >> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
> >>
> >> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
> >>
> >
> >    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> >seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
> >progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
> >    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
> >says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
> >it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
> >Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':
> >
> >        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
> >    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
> >    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
> >    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
> >    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
> >    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
> >    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
> >    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
> >    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
> >    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
> >    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.
> >
> >    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
> >unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
> >historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
> >into the scheme of things?
> 
> It was the early 19th century.  Gothic trappings were in style.
> 
> As to anti-science fiction, I'm reminded of an Asimov essay
> entitled "The Sin of the Scientist."  He notes that at the dawn
> of the twentieth century everyone was enthusiastic about the
> wonders that science was going to produce.  By 1920, science was
> distrusted and scientists were portrayed as mad, working to
> destroy the world.  "What," he inquires rhetorically, "happened
> between 1900 and 1920?  World War I happened between 1900 and
> 1920."

If you doubt this, learn the history of Fritz Haber and his family.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481658

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:15:07 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <20171205c@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> >
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> >> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
> >>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
> >>
> >> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> >> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
> >>
> >> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
> >>
> >
> >    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> >seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
> >progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
> >    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
> >says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
> >it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
> >Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':
> >
> >        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
> >    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
> >    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
> >    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
> >    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
> >    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
> >    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
> >    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
> >    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
> >    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
> >    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.
> >
> >    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
> >unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
> >historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
> >into the scheme of things?
> 
> It was the early 19th century.  Gothic trappings were in style.
> 
> As to anti-science fiction, I'm reminded of an Asimov essay
> entitled "The Sin of the Scientist."  He notes that at the dawn
> of the twentieth century everyone was enthusiastic about the
> wonders that science was going to produce.  By 1920, science was
> distrusted and scientists were portrayed as mad, working to
> destroy the world.  "What," he inquires rhetorically, "happened
> between 1900 and 1920?  World War I happened between 1900 and
> 1920."
> 
> -- 
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at gmail dot com

 A second conference was held at The Hague in May 1911, and out of it came the first international drug control treaty, the International Opium Convention of 1912.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481659

On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 21:33:21 UTC, Leo Sgouros  wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:15:07 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <20171205c@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
> > >>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
> > >>
> > >> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> > >> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
> > >>
> > >> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
> > >>
> > >
> > >    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> > >seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
> > >progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
> > >    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
> > >says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
> > >it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
> > >Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':
> > >
> > >        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
> > >    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
> > >    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
> > >    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
> > >    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
> > >    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
> > >    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
> > >    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
> > >    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
> > >    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
> > >    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.
> > >
> > >    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
> > >unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
> > >historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
> > >into the scheme of things?
> > 
> > It was the early 19th century.  Gothic trappings were in style.
> > 
> > As to anti-science fiction, I'm reminded of an Asimov essay
> > entitled "The Sin of the Scientist."  He notes that at the dawn
> > of the twentieth century everyone was enthusiastic about the
> > wonders that science was going to produce.  By 1920, science was
> > distrusted and scientists were portrayed as mad, working to
> > destroy the world.  "What," he inquires rhetorically, "happened
> > between 1900 and 1920?  World War I happened between 1900 and
> > 1920."
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dorothy J. Heydt
> > Vallejo, California
> > djheydt at gmail dot com
> 
>  A second conference was held at The Hague in May 1911, and out of it came the first international drug control treaty, the International Opium Convention of 1912.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

I'm not sure what point you're making.  Surely 
neither withdrawal symptoms nor simple sobriety 
led to people taking a less rosy view of science -
nor did they lead to the First World War...  
probably.

Then again, alcohol prohibition also started in 
the U.S. in - 1920? - although I'd say that wasn't 
scientists' fault either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481662

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 3:49:47 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 21:33:21 UTC, Leo Sgouros  wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:15:07 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > > In article <20171205c@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > > >> In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
> > > >>>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> > > >> after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
> > > >>
> > > >> It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >    The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> > > >seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
> > > >progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
> > > >    _The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James, Mendlesohn)
> > > >says that "the Gothic trappings of _Frankenstein_ place it firmly place
> > > >it firmly within the tradition of anti-science fiction." Here's how _The
> > > >Companion_ defines 'anti-science fiction':
> > > >
> > > >        The imaginary voyage was also the usual narrative form
> > > >    of scathing satirical fantasies, and scientists became
> > > >    satirical targets in Margaret Cavendish's _The Blazing World_
> > > >    (1666) and the third book of Jonathan Swift's _Gulliver's Tavels_
> > > >    (1726). Such works founded a tradition of 'anti-science fiction',
> > > >    whose reliance on similar motifs and narrative strategies has
> > > >    always resulted in its subsumption within the genre whose
> > > >    ambitions it opposes. Given the importance of scepticism and
> > > >    theoretical dissent to the advancement of science and the
> > > >    near-oxymoronic quality of the 'science fiction' label, this
> > > >    confusion is not entirely inappropriate.
> > > >
> > > >    _Frankenstein_'s science does not lead to a happy outcome. And its
> > > >unhappy ending makes the story anti-science fiction from the Whig
> > > >historiography perspective. But how the heck do Gothic trappings fit
> > > >into the scheme of things?
> > > 
> > > It was the early 19th century.  Gothic trappings were in style.
> > > 
> > > As to anti-science fiction, I'm reminded of an Asimov essay
> > > entitled "The Sin of the Scientist."  He notes that at the dawn
> > > of the twentieth century everyone was enthusiastic about the
> > > wonders that science was going to produce.  By 1920, science was
> > > distrusted and scientists were portrayed as mad, working to
> > > destroy the world.  "What," he inquires rhetorically, "happened
> > > between 1900 and 1920?  World War I happened between 1900 and
> > > 1920."
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Dorothy J. Heydt
> > > Vallejo, California
> > > djheydt at gmail dot com
> > 
> >  A second conference was held at The Hague in May 1911, and out of it came the first international drug control treaty, the International Opium Convention of 1912.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're making.  Surely 
> neither withdrawal symptoms nor simple sobriety 
> led to people taking a less rosy view of science -
> nor did they lead to the First World War...  
> probably.
> 
> Then again, alcohol prohibition also started in 
> the U.S. in - 1920? - although I'd say that wasn't 
> scientists' fault either.

Maybe the same assholes that want war also want everyone sober, in the sense that people that claim to be "pro-life" can support the death penalty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481700

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 3:00:57 PM UTC-7, Leo Sgouros wrote:

> in the sense that people that claim to be "pro-life" can support 
> the death penalty.

Just as people can support the death penalty for criminals, but 
still oppose genocide - killing people because their skin is the 
wrong color or whatever, it would seem to be an equally reasonable 
position to support the death penalty for criminals, but to oppose 
discriminating against innocent children because of age in respect 
of legal protection against homicide.

The notion that this stance involves any hypocrisy whatever is 
completely bizarre and unreasonable.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481675

In article <5977327c-9ec0-45df-8a6f-12254768a587@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>Then again, alcohol prohibition also started in 
>the U.S. in - 1920?

Correct.

 >- although I'd say that wasn't 
>scientists' fault either.

No, it was sort of "virtue" legislation left over from World War
I, when it was proposed.  It takes an amendment a while to work
through ratification, and by the time Prohibition was passed,
the war was over.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481683

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in 
news:p0KDys.1qyr@kithrup.com:

> In article <5977327c-9ec0-45df-8a6f-12254768a587@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>Then again, alcohol prohibition also started in 
>>the U.S. in - 1920?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >- although I'd say that wasn't 
>>scientists' fault either.
> 
> No, it was sort of "virtue" legislation left over from World War
> I, when it was proposed.  It takes an amendment a while to work
> through ratification, and by the time Prohibition was passed,
> the war was over.

The Temperance Movement got going in the early 1800s, and became
a major force after the Civil War. It was hardly something that
came in a hurry. - it had been building for many decades.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481696

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:51:58 AM UTC, D B Davis wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
> > <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
> >>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
> >
> > Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
> > after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
> >
> > It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
> >
> 
>     The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
> progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
(trimmed)
In general, I would expect any large organisation to host several different cultures and atmospheres. I spent three years as an undergraduate at Cambridge in the early eighties and didn't detect any militaristic vibe. I received the recommendation that I read "The Whig Interpretation of History" when attending an optional course on mathematical logic there. I spent two of those three years studying computer science. To the extent that there was an institutional culture at all, that sprung from almost all members of the faculty, and many students, doing part time work for Acorn Computers (now probably best known as designers of the ARM chip). One example of a Cambridge researcher not aligned with the military-industrial complex is Ross Anderson, who has been something of a maverick security researcher for years, and has long standing serious reservations about GCHQ (the UK's version of NSA) - https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2016/07/12/royal-society-report-on-cybersecurity-research/ https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/6919

(The main thing I found out about Cambridge academics at Cambridge was that they wanted to waste as little time on undergraduates as possible. I later spent some time as a Research Assistant at UCL. What I found there was a very strong desire to keep grants flowing in by keeping the funding bodies happy. In the case of Ministry of Defense funded work this meant producing monthly reports and trying to look good in competition with equivalent American research groups - DARPA and the MoD seemed to be pretty hands off. European Union funded research was much more in danger of conflicts of interest. At the time DARPA was giving away TCP/IP via BSD Unix, but the EU wanted to assemble a cartel of European industries with IPR over communications protocols for which they could charge. Fortunately for the internet, it turned out that free code implementing protocols tested and modified in practice beat out expensive complexity designed by committee and barely tested before standardisation. The only shadow remaining on the internet of those attempts is the presence of ASN.1 in SNMP, which to this day makes things unnecessarily complicated).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481701

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:10:33 PM UTC-7, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:51:58 AM UTC, D B Davis wrote:
 
> >     The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
> > seems present at both places.

>  I spent three years as an undergraduate at Cambridge in the early 
> eighties and didn't detect any militaristic vibe.

At first, I thought his comment rather odd, since one of the first 
things I think of in connection with the question of the political 
climate at Cambridge are the misdeeds of some of their most infamous 
graduates. (The title of a book by Yuri Modin should illuminate to whom 
I refer.)

So I wouldn't have thought of Cambridge as a particularly patriotic or 
jingoistic institution.

However, he could have been talking about something else - for which 
"militaristic" would have been the wrong word. Like MIT, Cambridge 
probably does attract people fascinated with science and technology to 
a greater degree than its closest rival institution.

The reason for that is because Oxford has a requirement for its 
students that would be considered highly unacceptable, and indeed 
bizarre, in American political culture.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481713

In article <a85a023b-804b-4d3b-8682-49736c065c16@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>The reason for that is because Oxford has a requirement for its 
>students that would be considered highly unacceptable, and indeed 
>bizarre, in American political culture.

And that requirement would be?

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481725

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:45:08 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <a85a023b-804b-4d3b-8682-49736c065c16@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The reason for that is because Oxford has a requirement for its 
> >students that would be considered highly unacceptable, and indeed 
> >bizarre, in American political culture.
> 
> And that requirement would be?

I don't know what Quaddie is thinking of. There was a religious test for
students, I think at both Oxford and Cambridge; they were nominally ordained
as some kind of low-level clergy, but this went out in the early 1800s.

The only other thing I can think of is the former ban on faculty marrying, 
which was of concern as recently as the early 1900s; there's was a reason 
CS Lewis lived off-campus. 

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481734

In article <86024f18-52bc-4a0f-a77f-0d25be9f7293@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei  <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:45:08 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <a85a023b-804b-4d3b-8682-49736c065c16@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >The reason for that is because Oxford has a requirement for its 
>> >students that would be considered highly unacceptable, and indeed 
>> >bizarre, in American political culture.
>> 
>> And that requirement would be?
>
>I don't know what Quaddie is thinking of. There was a religious test for
>students, I think at both Oxford and Cambridge; they were nominally ordained
>as some kind of low-level clergy, but this went out in the early 1800s.

Right.  I forget who it was couldn't attend either University
because he was a Unitarian.  Could it have been Isaac Newton?
Somebody jog my memory, please.
>
>The only other thing I can think of is the former ban on faculty marrying, 
>which was of concern as recently as the early 1900s; there's was a reason 
>CS Lewis lived off-campus. 

Lewis lived off-campus because he lived with his deceased army
buddy's mother, whom he had promised to care for.  He didn't
marry till late in his life.   *Tolkien* was married and lived
off-campus for that reason.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481780

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:00:06 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <86024f18-52bc-4a0f-a77f-0d25be9f7293@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Trei  <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:45:08 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <a85a023b-804b-4d3b-8682-49736c065c16@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The reason for that is because Oxford has a requirement for its 
> >> >students that would be considered highly unacceptable, and indeed 
> >> >bizarre, in American political culture.
> >> 
> >> And that requirement would be?
> >
> >I don't know what Quaddie is thinking of. There was a religious test for
> >students, I think at both Oxford and Cambridge; they were nominally ordained
> >as some kind of low-level clergy, but this went out in the early 1800s.
> 
> Right.  I forget who it was couldn't attend either University
> because he was a Unitarian.  Could it have been Isaac Newton?

Newton went to Trinity college, Cambridge.  He was upper class (from new money on his father's side, old money from his mother's) and the family was respectably Anglican. His stepfather and uncle were Anglican priests.

At some point Newton concluded that the Trinity had no biblical justification, and that Christ was a created being, not in any sense  God.  He described himself as an Arian - but privately.

This was a problem when he was offered the Lucasian Professorship, as all professors had to swear an oath of belief in the 39 articles.  Newton didn't believe in a number of these.

Somehow this issue was finessed, Newton did not swear the oath (but did not publicly assert his views) and got the position.  My reading and the wikipedia account of this do not agree, but perhaps that's my bad memory.

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481902

"William Hyde"  wrote

> Right.  I forget who it was couldn't attend either University
> because he was a Unitarian.  Could it have been Isaac Newton?

>Newton went to Trinity college, Cambridge.  He was upper class (from new 
>money on his father's side, old money from his mother's) and the family was 
>respectably Anglican. His stepfather and uncle were Anglican priests.

>At some point Newton concluded that the Trinity had no biblical 
>justification, and that Christ was a created being, not in any sense  God. 
>He described himself as an Arian - but privately.

>This was a problem when he was offered the Lucasian Professorship, as all 
>professors had to swear an oath of belief in the 39 articles.  Newton 
>didn't believe in a number of these.

>Somehow this issue was finessed, Newton did not swear the oath (but did not 
>publicly assert his views) and got the position.  My reading and the 
>wikipedia account of this do not agree, but perhaps that's my bad memory.

He would also have had to swear to become an MP and Master of the Mint. But 
perhaps these were just Church of England membership oaths. Don't know what 
the Scots had to swear to.

-- 
Mike D 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481723

mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:51:58 AM UTC, D B Davis wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> > In article <6dc0628f-463e-40a8-9434-e2044a127b7d@googlegroups.com>,
>> > <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Some articles. Only trouble is, I'm not sure if the publication date was
>> >>on January 1st or March 11th of 1818. (I'm in a rush.)
>> >
>> > Hm.  I looked at the Subject line and thought, "1817, a year
>> > after eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death?  Frankenstein?
>> >
>> > It's always a relief when I discover my brain still works.
>> >
>>
>>     The University of Cambridge reminds me of MIT. A militaristic vibe
>> seems present at both places. Whig historiography's scientific
>> progression to a better place resonates with the vibe.
> (trimmed)
> In general, I would expect any large organisation to host several different
> cultures and atmospheres. I spent three years as an undergraduate at Cambridge
> in the early eighties and didn't detect any militaristic vibe. I received the
> recommendation that I read "The Whig Interpretation of History" when attending
> an optional course on mathematical logic there. I spent two of those three
> years studying computer science. To the extent that there was an institutional
> culture at all, that sprung from almost all members of the faculty, and many
> students, doing part time work for Acorn Computers (now probably best known as
> designers of the ARM chip). One example of a Cambridge researcher not aligned
> with the military-industrial complex is Ross Anderson, who has been something
> of a maverick security researcher for years, and has long standing serious
> reservations about GCHQ (the UK's version of NSA) -
> https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2016/07/12/royal-society-report-on-cybersecurity-research/ https
://www.varsity.co.uk/news/6919
>
> (The main thing I found out about Cambridge academics at Cambridge was that they
> wanted to waste as little time on undergraduates as possible. I later spent some
> time as a Research Assistant at UCL. What I found there was a very strong desire
> to keep grants flowing in by keeping the funding bodies happy. In the case of
> Ministry of Defense funded work this meant producing monthly reports and trying
> to look good in competition with equivalent American research groups - DARPA and
> the MoD seemed to be pretty hands off. European Union funded research was much
> more in danger of conflicts of interest. At the time DARPA was giving away TCP/IP
> via BSD Unix, but the EU wanted to assemble a cartel of European industries with
> IPR over communications protocols for which they could charge. Fortunately for the
> internet, it turned out that free code implementing protocols tested and modified
> in practice beat out expensive complexity designed by committee and barely tested
> before standardisation. The only shadow remaining on the internet of those attempts
> is the presence of ASN.1 in SNMP, which to this day makes things unnecessarily
> complicated).

    "Military vibe" is sloppy of me. "Deep State (DS) vibe" works better
because DS includes /all/ of the usual suspects. Cambridge's ARM chip
enthusiasm is the smoking gun for me. (It's Microchip enthusiasm on this
side of the pond.)
    My current non-fiction read is _Spy Catcher_ (Wright). The book was
or is banned in Britain. It's written by a former spymaster named
Wright, who closely resembles the George Smiley character in a Le Carre
novel.
    Early in the book Wright talks about Klop Ustinov, the father of
the actor. The DS cheated Klop Ustinov out of a pension. Wright writes,
"I learned a lesson I never forgot: that MI5 expects its officers to
remain loyal unto the grave, without necessarily offering loyalty in
return." After the DS cheated Wright out of his pension he made up the
difference with sales of _Spy Catcher_.
    The book contains a lot of very dated science. It's all
fun-and-games and spy-versus-spy with the Communist bloc. You never know
the other side's using your own technology against you to feed you
chicken feed instead of gold dust. Then someone dies to remind readers
of the stakes of this game.
    In _Dune_ (Herbert) it seems wasteful (to me) for a young Paul
Atreides to devote so much time to martial arts. Then you see Ali
Abdullah Saleh's fate unfold and you understand why.

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481776

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, D B Davis wrote:
(trimmed)
> 
>     "Military vibe" is sloppy of me. "Deep State (DS) vibe" works better
> because DS includes /all/ of the usual suspects. Cambridge's ARM chip
> enthusiasm is the smoking gun for me. (It's Microchip enthusiasm on this
> side of the pond.)

The history of ARM is written up perfectly well in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers, and I can vouch for what was public knowledge up to about 1983, which is the atmosphere of microcomputer development around Cambridge then (but not the ARM itself). There was a popular enthusiasm for microprocessors as the coming thing, and for home computing - largely messing around with BASIC and early video games. There were about a dozen microcomputer companies within cycling distance of Cambridge, mostly aimed at hobbyist home computers, but some working on early business applications. AFAIK the motivation was that a hardware guy, a software guy, and somebody who knew something about business could set up a computer company near the University they had just graduated from, and enjoy something close to the student life but making a reasonable amount of money, with hopes of riches in the future. There was some government money from the BBC - Acorn got the contract for the BBC Micro, which was supposed to produce a nation of computer programmers - but I don't recognise anything that amounts to the deep state.

>     My current non-fiction read is _Spy Catcher_ (Wright). The book was
> or is banned in Britain. It's written by a former spymaster named
> Wright, who closely resembles the George Smiley character in a Le Carre
> novel.
The status of this is covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher, which states that it was un-banned in 1988. I think I have a legal British copy around somewhere, and it's certainly very amusing. I'd describe Wright as more in the image of Q than Smiley. From memory, he came in as a scientist and made his mark there. I don't remember being impressed at his judgement or his people skills, and while (at least by his telling) his grudge about being cheated out of a pension is perfectly understandable, it doesn't fit with Smiley, who was pleased just to have the opportunity to give something back to his nation by serving it (and I suspect must have had a private income, given his social status and lifestyle).

>     Early in the book Wright talks about Klop Ustinov, the father of
> the actor. The DS cheated Klop Ustinov out of a pension. Wright writes,
> "I learned a lesson I never forgot: that MI5 expects its officers to
> remain loyal unto the grave, without necessarily offering loyalty in
> return." After the DS cheated Wright out of his pension he made up the
> difference with sales of _Spy Catcher_.
>     The book contains a lot of very dated science. It's all
> fun-and-games and spy-versus-spy with the Communist bloc. You never know
> the other side's using your own technology against you to feed you
> chicken feed instead of gold dust. Then someone dies to remind readers
> of the stakes of this game.
>     In _Dune_ (Herbert) it seems wasteful (to me) for a young Paul
> Atreides to devote so much time to martial arts. Then you see Ali
> Abdullah Saleh's fate unfold and you understand why.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> --
> Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web