Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

littlebrown.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 363 posts

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#291

Post by IvyMike »

Suitov wrote: post #217
jeffheard wrote: post #78

Two of my favorite authors now... Three if you count that some people consider K.J. Parker to be a pseudonym of Iain (M) Banks. My two favorites of his I think will always be Use of Weapons and Look to Windward. Coincidentally, I just started re-reading Excession last night.

KJ? A pseudonym of Iain? I reckon she'd be highly amused at that... "For example, I don't much enjoy reading Iain M. Banks, simply because his world-view and mine don't coincide much; but I’ve learned an enormous amount from his masterful use of structure and language." -- KJ Parker ( http://www.orbitbooks.net/interview/k-j-parker/ )

I think it's unlikely, too.

But Iain Banks criticizing and then praising his own work under a pseudonym is something he would think was very funny.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#292

Post by [deleted] »

rsofaer wrote: post #290
guy2221 wrote: post #279

This is tragic and heart-breaking. Please be strong and live every minute to the fullest. But I do have one constructive comment perhaps someone can get to this author. >The bottom line, now, I'm afraid, is that as a late stage gall bladder cancer patient, I'm expected to live for 'several months' and it’s extremely unlikely I'll live beyond a year. So it looks like my latest novel, The Quarry, will be my last. >As a…

One of Richard Feynman's books speaks to his wedding to Arline Greenbaum. They married partly because they thought she was dying much faster than she actually was. Pain isn't necessarily regret. I think you're wrong about this.

[deleted]

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#293

Post by syncsynchalt »

anigbrowl wrote: post #284
arethuza wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly nitpick: doesn't Consider Phlebas take place in our past?

Depends where you think humanity-on-Earth sits relative to the Culture. Since most of the Culture is human and we on Earth are as yet unaware of any spacefaring civilizations, I view it as a possible future for humanity. I would not be surprised if we encounter other life in space, but I'd be extremely startled if it turned out to be human life.

Pretty sure our present is post-Idiran-war based on the short story in The State Of The Art.

EDIT: I should specify that Contact is working on present-day Earth in that story, from what I recall.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#294

Post by thisrod »

darkarmani wrote: post #289
brazzy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 41% of deaths are due to cancer. That's not even true if you look only at rich countries - cardiovascular diseases cause more deaths. The amount of effort, let alone money, spent on cancer research is already obscene compared to what is spent on other serious problems.

So if i move to a poorer country, I have less of a chance to get cancer?

Yes. If you live in a poor country, you're likely to die some other way before you get cancer.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#295

Post by nooneelse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #284
arethuza wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly nitpick: doesn't Consider Phlebas take place in our past?

Depends where you think humanity-on-Earth sits relative to the Culture. Since most of the Culture is human and we on Earth are as yet unaware of any spacefaring civilizations, I view it as a possible future for humanity. I would not be surprised if we encounter other life in space, but I'd be extremely startled if it turned out to be human life.

In cannon, Earth is an un-contacted planet and the Culture isn't our future. They are out there now.

Though, obviously, as a literary device you are right.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#296

Post by anigbrowl »

syncsynchalt wrote: post #293
anigbrowl wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends where you think humanity-on-Earth sits relative to the Culture. Since most of the Culture is human and we on Earth are as yet unaware of any spacefaring civilizations, I view it as a possible future for humanity. I would not be surprised if we encounter other life in space, but I'd be extremely startled if it turned out to be human life.

Pretty sure our present is post-Idiran-war based on the short story in The State Of The Art. EDIT: I should specify that Contact is working on present-day Earth in that story, from what I recall.

Oh, you're right as an in-world thing. But I meant this sort of high technology described is in our future, ie I'm using 'in the future' as a proxy for 'science fiction.' Sorry about the confusion.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#297

Post by nooneelse »

abraininavat wrote: post #236
xradionut wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Player of Games is one of the few sci-fi books I recommend to readers interested in the genre.

To everyone who enjoyed Player of Games, I ask.. why? I'm not suggesting your opinions are wrong , of course, but I had a much different impression. Obviously Player of Games is well regarded by many people, so I'm curious to know what I missed. --- SPOILERS BELOW --- My general impression was that the Empire of Azad was that its conception lacked imagination. The peculiarities of the species (the three sexes, the so…

In Player of Games, the Culture doesn't represent we humans on Earth. The Azad do. They aren't alien and different because of that.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#298

Post by polyfractal »

nawitus wrote: post #251
mikeash wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 1% success rate is rather pessimistic, too. Where do you get that? From what little I understand, 1% seems highly optimistic, given how destructive the freezing process is at the moment.

It's my own estimation based on the evidence I've seen. There's plenty of detail when you look at neural tissue using a microscope: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm...

That is not peer-reviewed research, and therefore I treat it about as seriously as I treat any other comment on the internet: at best incompetent, at worst maliciously deceiving. Considering its published by a company that makes money from freezing people...probably the latter.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#299

Post by polyfractal »

nawitus wrote: post #79
polyfractal wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. As an ex-biologist, I can assure you that horrible cellular damage is being committed to these "preserved" people. I used to flash-freeze all sorts of cells, ranging from bacteria (e. coli) to animal (IMCD3 and MDCK kidney) to human (Human Embryonic Kidney, Primary cortical a…

>Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. No, that's not very rational. Cryopreservation may have low chances of success, but it's like a billion billion billion times better than just dying (which has zero chance of success). Nobody is claiming that cryopreservation is very probable, but it's a lot better than noth…

>No, that's not very rational. Cryopreservation may have low chances of success, but it's like a billion billion billion times better than just dying (which has zero chance of success). Nobody is claiming that cryopreservation is very probable, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Ok, I'll give you that there is a non-zero chance. Other's have touched upon that in this thread, and I would contend that giving 200k to some family/friend is more useful than throwing it away, but it's your money. If you are happy with a negligible-but-non-zero chance, go for it.

>I don't think your critique is very relevant, when almost all cryopreservation is only done to the brain, not the whole body.

There is exactly zero evidence that a brain/mind is functional without it's body. And there is currently no computer simulation or interface capable of simulating a human body and its various sensory input, so this is a moot point.

>Thawing is not relevant to be discussed at this point, because the bodies will not be thawed using current technology. If the cryopreserved brain has enough information to be reconstructed, it will be done at some point using advanced nanotechnology. Nobody will be thawing brains using 21st century technology.

Bit of a cop-out, no? Is the flying spaghetti monster going to thaw you? At this point your theories are no better than saying a big bearded guy in the sky is going to resurrect you. Except he'll do it for free.

>By the way, scientists don't refer to the cryopreversation as freezing, they call it vitrification.

I guess I wasn't a classically trained biologist working in neuroscience labs for 6 years then, sorry. Also, it was before my cup of coffee in the morning.

Appropriate terminology or no, my points were and are still valid.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#300

Post by polyfractal »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #66
polyfractal wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. As an ex-biologist, I can assure you that horrible cellular damage is being committed to these "preserved" people. I used to flash-freeze all sorts of cells, ranging from bacteria (e. coli) to animal (IMCD3 and MDCK kidney) to human (Human Embryonic Kidney, Primary cortical a…

I'm assuming that as an author of fairly hard sci-fi Banks would not mind overmuch if he was resurrected as a "mere" upload. The point of cryo is once the initial damage is done, no additional information loss to entropy occurs, so you can afford waiting for far-distance supertech to see if your neural behavior is at all reconstructable.

That's fair enough, although it should be noted that proteins/molecules are still active at -80C, just very slow. Things still break down, some enzymes are still active, etc.
Post reply on HN