1632 Series personnal comment

Eric Flint wrote:

> But the thing that _doesn't_ happen, or if it does not for very long at all,
> is people running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming
> and yelling or paralyzed.

It is certainly unlikely for any group used to violence, either war or
weather, so long as they have leaders who can react.

> It's similar to the common myth -- frequently repeated in fiction -- that
> large numbers of people commit suicide faced with unexpected catastrophe.

That probably originates from people using the event as an excuse as
they go on with a previously planned exercise.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

"George D. Phillies" <phillies.DeleteThis@WPI.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0405101836280.18799-100000@ccc3.wpi.edu...
> > You can't create consistent precision parts without computer control!
>
> Let me urge you find out what machine shops did 40 years ago. Or 140 years
> ago.

George, I literally burst out laughing when I read Mr. Know-it-All's
statement that "You can't create consistent precision parts without computer
control!" I was a machinist for about 25 years -- most of the time,
anyway -- before I became a writer. Apparently, I swindled my employers for
a quarter of a century into paying me good money to create consistent
precision parts when, I now discover from Mr. Know-it-All, I couldn't
possibly have done it because I never used a computerized machine tool.
Just, you know, the old-fashioned methods of indicators, micrometers,
gauges, standards and that favorite fallback of every swindler, the human
brain.

What planet does he live on?

Eric

PS. Even today, by the way, the most common factor involved in whether a
company decides to use computerized machine tools or conventional machine
tools is NOT "consistent precision." It's simply an economic issue. If the
production run is large enough, then it's almost always cheaper to run the
parts on a computerized machine. But if, for instance, you're making
something like a single precision shaft to replace a broken one -- which,
mind you, HAS to be consistent and precise because they're going to put that
shaft right back into the same machine it came out of -- then it's almost
always faster and cheaper to use conventional machines. The human brain is
still vastly more flexible and adaptable than any computer. By the time a
programmer got the whole program set up to guide the brainless computer
through the steps of making the shaft, an experienced machinist like myself
would have already finished it. It's only when the production runs get long
enough that the advantage of computerized machining starts kicking in. As
time goes on, of course, the length of production run needed gets shorter
and shorter. Someday they may even get it quick enough to make it
worthwhile to do even single parts on a computerized machine. But they're
not there yet -- which is why there are still hundreds of thousands of
conventional machinists employed all over the United States, and equivalent
numbers in other advanced industrial countries.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle.RemoveThis@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-B4368C.11233012052004@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <Z5GdnbvU9eyJ9T_dRVn-tA.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
> "Eric Flint" <eflint.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> Frankly, the only book of yours (either solo or in collaboration) that I
> have not liked is _Forward the Mage_.

Heh. Well, you're hardly alone in that, Michelle. The Joe's World comic
fantasy novels sell fewer copies than just about anything I write, solo or
in collaboration. THE PHILOSOPHICAL STRANGLER sells better than FORWARD THE
MAGE, but not by much.

I always knew that would be true. They're definitely quirky and written
very much -- more so than anything else I write -- just to please me. Those
people who do like the books tend to really like them, but (like me) they're
in the minority.

Oh, well. If the day ever comes when I just start writing to make a buck,
I'll either quit writing or my brain will be rotting away and the books
won't be worth much anyway. I'm not impractical, so I'll always space out
the Joe's World books less frequently than other work I do, but I'll still
keep writing them. I've been working on that story since I was 22 years
old, over a third of a century ago now.

Eric
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle RemoveThis @michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-6A1104.11384812052004@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <ibOdnfZ3LNR9-T_dRVn_iw RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
> "Eric Flint" <eflint RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> So, when will the New World get involved in the story line? I'm sure
> that when the people there find out that people from their own future
> have arrived in Europe, they will be very interested. And thinking far
> ahead, how will these events affect the history of the New World, say in
> the late 18th century?

I just know know yet. I pretty much take this series one book at a time,
and make a conscious effort not to plan everything out ahead of time. I
think if an author does that, in an alternate history series, you tend to
lose the quirky contigent nature of real historical events and everything
starts happening in lock-step according to Ye Auteur's Grand Scheme.

Eric
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Verily I say unto thee, that on Wed, 12 May 2004 08:32:54 GMT,
Hans RemoveThis @Kill-All-Spammers.com spaketh thusly:

Ahh ... "I see," said the blind man as he worked his way through the
nudist colony.

You, sir, don't debate points.
You, sir, don't do any research.
You, sir, do insist on that which has been disproven.
You, sir, do repeat your opinions without evidence.
You, sir, are a troll, and have been troll-filed.

Feel free to have someone else e-mail me if you decide to debate,
since I won't read yours.


-- A crazy old Polack
E-mail replies to [last word of above line, lower case]@rtc.coop
Send e-mail as straight text only.
E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Verily I say unto thee, that on Wed, 12 May 2004 12:54:36 -0500, "Eric
Flint" <eflint.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> spaketh thusly:

> "Polack" <nospam.TakeThisOut@rtc.coop> wrote in message
> news:40a04485.4718013@news.restel.net...

[ more snip]

> It's similar to the common myth -- frequently repeated in fiction -- that
> large numbers of people commit suicide faced with unexpected catastrophe.
> There is not a shred of historical evidence to support that notion, and
> enormous evidence which refutes it. (Check the suicide rate in the Nazi
> concentration camps, for instance.)

I understood that on some of the Japanese-held islands, when the US
finally took them, the military officers sometimes committed sepuku.
The officers, not the grunts or civies.

The only data I have is third-hand accounts. Do you have better data?

> I would also point out that the technological disparity between the
> up-timers in the 1632 series and 17th century Europeans is no greater --
> smaller, in fact -- than the disparities which have existed in _real_
> historical contacts any number of times. If the Aztecs were paralyzed by
> horses and guns, it was news to Cortez. He had to form an alliance with
> other Indians to get into the Aztec capital -- and was then driven off for a
> while. It also would have come as news to the Portuguese who tried to sack
> the East African city-state of Mombasa the first time they sailed up. The
> Mombasans defeated them, despite never having encountered anything like the
> Portuguese ships and cannon fire.

The Aztecs v Cortez was the primary I was thinking about and the
information on this is readily available. I was also thinking of Cook
v the Hawaiians, though they had time to get used to the invaders
(considering Cook as some kind of demigod, IIRC) before they wised up.

I wasn't aware of the Mombasa incident. I'll have to look that one
up. Thanks.

-- A crazy old Polack
E-mail replies to [last word of above line, lower case]@rtc.coop
Send e-mail as straight text only.
E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.

I don't approve of political jokes ... I've seen too many of them get elected.
If we quit voting, will they all go away?
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

"Polack" <nospam RemoveThis @rtc.coop> wrote in message
news:40a769a4.6696314@news.restel.net...
> Verily I say unto thee, that on Wed, 12 May 2004 12:54:36 -0500, "Eric
> Flint" <eflint RemoveThis @comcast.net> spaketh thusly:
>
> > "Polack" <nospam RemoveThis @rtc.coop> wrote in message
> > news:40a04485.4718013@news.restel.net...
>
> [ more snip]
>
> > It's similar to the common myth -- frequently repeated in fiction --
that
> > large numbers of people commit suicide faced with unexpected
catastrophe.
> > There is not a shred of historical evidence to support that notion, and
> > enormous evidence which refutes it. (Check the suicide rate in the Nazi
> > concentration camps, for instance.)
>
> I understood that on some of the Japanese-held islands, when the US
> finally took them, the military officers sometimes committed sepuku.
> The officers, not the grunts or civies.

I spoke too broadly. There are, it is true, some _specific_ instances of
mass suicide. Another example is the Jim Jones mass suicide in Guyana. But
those are always due to ideological or religious impulses and (usually)
training. What I was talking about was the myth that in a real catastrophe,
large numbers of people commit suicide just because they can't handle the
situation. It's true that almost any change to the worse in objective
conditions will produce a somewhat high suicide rate. You can, for
instance, statistically predict that every percentage point increase in the
unemployment rate will produce on average a certain increase in the suicide
rate. But that's because people who were "on the edge" anyway in terms of
suicide are now pushed over it. What does NOT happen is that people who are
not suicidal suddenly become suicidal. They don't.

I gave one example, which is the suicide rate in Nazi concentration camps.
A more recent example is the earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam that
destroyed 80% of the city and killed something like 50,000 people. Think
about what the next day must have been like, psychologically, for the
survivors. Their whole world has been destroyed. In many cases, people
lost their entire families. Yes, when you read about the work of rescue
operations you will never run across any priority at all -- in fact, the
isuue is never even mentioned -- being given to suicide prevention.

Eric
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 12 May 2004, W Brian McDonald wrote:

 > On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:21:03 -0400, "George D. Phillies"
 > <phillies.TakeThisOut@WPI.EDU> wrote:
 >
  > >good enough. If you did produce something that accurate, the relevant
  > >calculation would readily be done by downtimers using the local mechanical
  > >calculator.

And you got it!

 > i would also add that there should have been at least a couple people
 > in town who knew about the abacus. doesn't take much time to become
 > proficient with and a good man on an abacus can do math problems just
 > about as fast as a man with a calculator.

The locals would have been happy to teach the uptimers about abaci, since
counters of this sort where in use throughout Europe.

George<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

On Wed, 12 May 2004, Eric Flint wrote:

 >
 > "Polack" <nospam.RemoveThis@rtc.coop> wrote in message
 > news:40a04485.4718013@news.restel.net...
  > > Verily I say unto thee, that on Tue, 11 May 2004 01:51:52 GMT,
  > > Hans.RemoveThis@Kill-All-Spammers.com spaketh thusly:
 >
 > (snips)
 >
  > > I suggest you read some of the "first contact" literature available in
  > > historical archives; cases where a relatively high-tech society (ie:
  > > the Oriental and European explorers) first met in a violent
  > > confrontation with a low-tech (stone age abos) society. It's amazing
  > > how quickly the primitives overcome their superstitious dread and
  > > counterattack in good form -- though they almost always get their
  > > butts kicked anyway.
 >
 > This is an excellent point, and worth repeating. I get really impatient
 > with people who insist that 17th century people would have reacted with
 > incredible shock to the uptimers.

Also, airplanes do not look vaguely like demons, and the downtimers had
plenty of allegedly accurate representations of demons and gargoyles lying
about.

 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment 

Verily I say unto thee, that on Wed, 12 May 2004 13:48:14 -0500, "Eric
Flint" <eflint.DeleteThis@comcast.net> spaketh thusly:

> I spoke too broadly. There are, it is true, some _specific_ instances of
> mass suicide. Another example is the Jim Jones mass suicide in Guyana. But
> those are always due to ideological or religious impulses and (usually)
> training. What I was talking about was the myth that in a real catastrophe,
> large numbers of people commit suicide just because they can't handle the
> situation. It's true that almost any change to the worse in objective
> conditions will produce a somewhat high suicide rate. You can, for
> instance, statistically predict that every percentage point increase in the
> unemployment rate will produce on average a certain increase in the suicide
> rate. But that's because people who were "on the edge" anyway in terms of
> suicide are now pushed over it. What does NOT happen is that people who are
> not suicidal suddenly become suicidal. They don't.
>
> I gave one example, which is the suicide rate in Nazi concentration camps.
> A more recent example is the earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam that
> destroyed 80% of the city and killed something like 50,000 people. Think
> about what the next day must have been like, psychologically, for the
> survivors. Their whole world has been destroyed. In many cases, people
> lost their entire families. Yes, when you read about the work of rescue
> operations you will never run across any priority at all -- in fact, the
> isuue is never even mentioned -- being given to suicide prevention.

I agree.

Some 30+ years ago, there was a plane crash in Compton, CA. Lots of
people dead and dismembered, but I don't remember anyone suicidal ...
even those on whose house the plane "landed". Lots of goulish
sightseers but no apparent suicides-to-be.

I've worked as part of the rescue crew to I-don't-know how many
traffic accidents and storms (including tornadoes). Even in those
cases where 1 adult family member is fine and the rest are dead,
suicide watch is not SOP. Shock treatment is, but not suicide watch.

(To those who think losing your children is not catastrophic, I can
only say that if you haven't been there, you don't get a vote.)

Also, people tend to follow their nature/base personality. It doesn't
take a disaster to make suicidal people kill themselves.

-- A crazy old Polack
E-mail replies to [last word of above line, lower case]@rtc.coop
Send e-mail as straight text only.
E-mail received in any other format is automatically deleted unread.

It's wonderful being senile.
You get to see new places and meet new people without ever leaving home.
 >> Stay informed about: 1632 Series personnal comment