Posts by TracyMac
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I was there last week. I was appalled at how little – still – had been done since I’d been there a couple of years ago. A sea of “car parks”. A couple of bridges finished out by New Brighton. Great – but only just completed? Holy hell.
Also, a complex web submission form and no public meetings? That sounds inclusive of the less-technologically enabled among us, not.
-
Up Front: Well, Read Women, in reply to Emma Hart,
Diana Wynne Jones, Karen Healey, Emily Roddha, Tamora Pierce
All seconded. DWJ rocks. Also, Diane Duane.
-
Hard News: Political palatability and…, in reply to izogi,
considering that homeopathy can lure people away from other treatments which might actually make a measurable and significant difference.
Please don’t blame homeopathy for the kind of anti-conventional-medicine anti-vax types who latch onto homeopathy as a justification of their health care decisions. Yes, homeopathy attracts that type, and some practitioners also that type, or exploit them. But that kind of person will latch onto anything that seems to accord with their world view. Just another form of "doctor-shopping".
You can tell the difference between the paranoid and a more nuanced homeopathic practitioner (as opposed to, say, naturopaths) by asking how they feel about vaccination. If they’re anti, you ask how they reconcile their practice with homeopathy’s founder strongly endorsing it, in the late 18th century.
A decent homeopath is very quick to shunt someone off to a doctor for a serious matter, and they will not encourage patients to withdraw from conventional medication without the approval of their doctor. So much for “luring” (please).
Yes, there are unethical people who call themselves homeopaths, but they are by far a minority.
Anyway, end of digression. It just irritates me when homeopathy is used an analogy for anti-scientific thinking, when early homeopaths actually developed a type of scientific methodology before conventional medicine did (in terms of trying to test remedies in a repeatable and verifiable way on humans). Shame it doesn’t accord with scientific thought currently (I wish it did).
-
Up Front: Well, Read Women, in reply to Brodie Davis,
woman writers doing hardish sci/fi similar to Alaistair Reynolds or Neal Asher
I have to confess I haven't read either. Women doing hard SF tend to gravitate to cyberpunkish themes: Justine Robson, Tricia Sullivan.
Space opera, Bujold, of course, MJ Locke.
Elizabeth Bear does both, although I bounce off her a bit personally.
-
Shout out to the Bujold massive!
As for Hobb, I bounce off all her stuff, so she tends not to spring to mind.
As for 70s feminist SF that was more about polemic than plot, I'd put Russ and many others with Tepper. Still have a fondness for The Wanderground, although the more cultural-feminist tinges are a bit teeth-gritting. Emblematic of its time, like Asimov. I loved Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover books in the day, but now all the pulpy drama and bludgeoning of certain themes irk.
I like my polemic with plot and engaging characters. ☺
(I liked Grunts too, although not so much the rape jokes - tender topic)
-
I have to confess I'm warier of books by men, because of the danger of encountering Schrodinger's sexist.
Not to say that women authors can't be wall-bangingly sexist as well, but these days I don't read the kind of genres were I'd encounter that (traditional romances being one).
But I'm glad that for the Jim Butcher disappointments, there are the Ben Aaronoviches to take the bad taste out of your mouth.
-
Up Front: Well, Read Women, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Who are you alluding to? Nicola Griffith? Melissa Scott? Two of my faves.
I grew up reading Asimov. Still like the old bugger, although his portrayals of women were limited. Although better than many of the era. At least he had Susan Calvin as a lead character, with a brain, even if she was... odd.
-
Breaking news: Chinese agent says clients local
What was someone saying above about not having enough information on the actual data source?
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Tom Semmens,
You know, the "man of the people" schtick is getting really really tired.
I don't own a house and I won't, probably, ever. My mother doesn't own a house. None of my siblings except my tradie brother and his working wife own a house. Although, *gasp*, I lived in Grey Lynn for a while - before the million-dollar houses. I grew up in state houses, including in Glen Innes and South Auckland (my family all live in South Auckland).
What does your so-trenchant observation actually have to do with the topic under discussion?
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to David Hood,
could you elaborate on what you see as the seasonal effects on name frequency?
End of financial year in China? Exchange rate? Spring? Chinese New Year? I saw that as example of tossing out possible variables rather than an actual opinion that it DOES vary seasonally (correction welcome!)
As for the debate about whether B&T specifically target Chinese buyers beyond any other company, surely that's a data point that should have an impact on the wild assertions being made?
Not least because if they do target Chinese residents more than any other company, the results - such as they are - would be skewed upwards.