OT Which would you Choose

[dogscoff]

Yeah, they do lose, but I thought I maybe could trick you into finishing the book=-)

As for the Firefly-planet thing... I guess Joss Whedon created the Firefly's star system using FQM mod=-) Since all FTL travel, which is critical to almost all sci-fi, boils down to little more than handwavium anyway, why not handwave other details like the star system's structure? Especially if it prevents you from having to invent and maintain some convoluted system of warp drives, hyperspace or wormholes.

Basically, they are sacrificing some scientific credibility (something which is INCREDIBLY hard to attain in sci-fi anyway - how many sci-fi shows/ films/ books can you honestly name that a pedantic physicist couldn't pick holes in?) for storytelling and accessibility. This is something TV sci-fi has done since Kirk beamed down to his first polystyrene planet. Call it poetic license. As I said before, Firefly is character driven, the futuristic setting is nothing more than a pretty painted backdrop behind the actors.

Also, we don't yet have a detailled map of any solar system other than our own (and some of that is still inconclusive). We have models and speculation about the shape of other star systems, but most of the exoplanets we have found so far indicate that at least some planetary systems are very very different to this one. For all we know, a system with hundreds of terraformable worlds could be entirely possible.

Buffy is well worth watching, but like many of the best TV series you need to give it time. Like most of the best shows it takes about a series to settle into itself, and after that you can really begin warmng to it. Firefly is unusual in that it was brilliant within about 2 episodes. We'll never know if series 2 would have lived up to the promise of series 1.

[capnq]

Randallw said: Maybe the other books are better, I'll never know. I gave it a chance, he failed to interest me adequately. No more giving him money.

If you have access to a good public library, you don't need to spend any more money.

I couldn't give Firefly the benefit of the doubt when the intro messed things up by saying they found a system with 100s of habitable planets. Now unless aliens, that were never mentioned, were involved I assume they meant to say a section of space.

I've seen lengthy discussions on other forums debating how to rationalize that and other incongruities in Firefly. Some people interpret that bit as hundreds of terraformable planets/moons/etc., others prefer multiple stars in a relatively small cluster. There are also debates over whether they have FTL drives, gravity control, and assorted other superscience technologies.

I think one of the problems with the hundred-planet system idea is that as far as we understand gravity, that many planets in one star's habitable zone couldn't maintain stable orbits over time.

[Randallw]

capnq said:
If you have access to a good public library, you don't need to spend any more money

I was in fact at the library today and that occurred to me. I didn't see any of the books though.

[dmm]

I picked Enterprise, but (as has been mentioned) only if I'm not a red-shirt.
Since there's no money (see that great link posted by Randallw) I think I'd become a holodeck addict and get discharged. Takes "just one more turn" to another level.

[dmm]

capnq said:
I think one of the problems with the hundred-planet system idea is that as far as we understand gravity, that many planets in one star's habitable zone couldn't maintain stable orbits over time.

Believe it or not, I am such a nerd that I actually did some research into this a while ago (out of curiosity unrelated to Firefly). The conclusion I came to (FWIW) is that you can get a lot of "planets" in stable orbits in the habitable zone around a single star if (and only if) they are actually planet-sized moons of giant planets (themselves presumably uninhabitable due to high gravity). The giant planets don't have to be as far apart as our system's gas giants. In addition, you can (in principle) have stable binary and trinary star systems with the stars pretty close together and not stealing each others' planets. It helps to have cooler stars, as their habitable zones are thicker. (Also, since you've got several stars close together, you want to minimize high-energy photons.) Multiply it all together, and you can get quite a few habitable worlds all in one system and not super-distant from each other. And you could use the slingshot effect to help conserve fuel as you traveled between them. But could such systems actually FORM in RL? I would bet "no" but we have a lot to learn. And could you get HUNDREDS of worlds? Wow, that's a real stretch.

[Tim_Ward]

Randallw said:
The appendicies to the book said the religious aliens lost. Maybe the other books are better, I'll never know. I gave it a chance, he failed to interest me adequately.

Consider Phlebas is, in my view, the weakest Culture novel.. however if you didn't like it, I'm not going to try and recommend the rest of the series to you. If you do ever come across them in the library, however, The Player of Games and Use of Weapons are generally considered the best.

Player of Games also gives you a solid insight into day to day life in the Culture.

EDIT: also this; http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html

Randallw said:
The Culture destroying the ring world merely so the enemy don't get it reminds me of Soviet scorched earth policy.

This bothered you, but the "destruction of war irrelevent culture orbitals, occasionally producing billions of deaths at a time" (quoting the appendix from memory) by the Idirans (for that is the name of the religious aliens) didn't?

Or the destruction of two stars in the Twin Novae battle, neither of which shone on unpopulated systems, by the Idirans?

(BTW; if you still have the novel you can safely read the Appendix's without giving away the end, the story is not about the war it merely uses it as a backdrop. They're pretty interesting, best part of the book in my opinion)

Normally I would never support aliens over humans but the humans in the book aren't human, they're slaves to machines

That's Horza's view. Horza absolutely dispises the Culture, which is why he works for the Idirans, even though the Idirans aren't exactly saints. He is a text book example of an unreliable narrator.

[mac5732]

interesting enterprise and sg-1 running neck and neck

[MrToxin]

I'd have to take the EVE universe over all those (wow, this poll is too short). Effectively immortal as long as I can still be cloned? Sign me up!

edit: From the poll options, DS9. If they can tolerate Quark and Garak, I'd be pretty much invisible which would be swell.

[RCCCL]

I voted for Firefly, mainly bacause I like the idea of space pirating/cowboys. To deal with the improbability of hundreds of planets, I like what Dogscoff said:

dogscoff said:

As for the Firefly-planet thing... I guess Joss Whedon created the Firefly's star system using FQM mod=-) Since all FTL travel, which is critical to almost all sci-fi, boils down to little more than handwavium anyway, why not handwave other details like the star system's structure? Especially if it prevents you from having to invent and maintain some convoluted system of warp drives, hyperspace or wormholes.

Basically, they are sacrificing some scientific credibility (something which is INCREDIBLY hard to attain in sci-fi anyway - how many sci-fi shows/ films/ books can you honestly name that a pedantic physicist couldn't pick holes in?) for storytelling and accessibility. This is something TV sci-fi has done since Kirk beamed down to his first polystyrene planet. Call it poetic license. As I said before, Firefly is character driven, the futuristic setting is nothing more than a pretty painted backdrop behind the actors.

Also, we don't yet have a detailled map of any solar system other than our own (and some of that is still inconclusive). We have models and speculation about the shape of other star systems, but most of the exoplanets we have found so far indicate that at least some planetary systems are very very different to this one. For all we know, a system with hundreds of terraformable worlds could be entirely possible.

It is rather easy to pick holes in just about any of the Scifi universes, it can be suprisingly easy to pick holes in the theoretical physics of our own universe.

Some of the others were tempting, I would probably pick DS9 and/or SG1 second/third. The Enterprise would be tempting, but being on "The Starfleet Flagship" would be alot of pressure in my opinion. I'm not to familliar with the Babylon universe.

One other Scifi I like would be the Dune books. For anyone whos has read more than just the first book by Frank Herbert, there is alot going on there. I'm currently reading one of the books by Brian Herbert, it deals with mankinds battle against the machines. I am enjoying it.

[Randallw]

Friendly warning. It's not too wise to mention the latest Dune books to die hard Dune fans. I'll admit they're the only ones I've really read and they were entertaining enough, if lacking in some areas, but recent Dune books are to die hard Dune fans as the SW prequels are to die hard SW fans . Me, I take what I can from things and don't let faults bother me.

Well apart from mixing genres and unsympathetic "good guys"