Signals 17

Feb 5, 04:35 by IROSF
"Signals 17"
Feb 5, 08:27 by Marti McKenna
Kris, this happens to me whenever I realize I'm riding in a car and playing on the Internet on my phone. I love living in the future, and I'm damned glad to be living in *this* future at the moment. :)

Thanks for another excellent article.
Feb 5, 16:32 by Matt Leavitt
I'm sorry, but I found a number of things wrong or misleading about this article, and though the author may be an excellent fiction writer, this particular essay is very weak in my opinion.

First of all, I honestly have no idea why the author references the Red Sox, or the Yankees, for that matter, in the first place (btw, the Red Sox won their first world series in 86 years in _2004_, not 2003). Now, where a single catch for the Cubs *might* be able to affect their season, the Red Sox won the 2004 and 2007 World Series based on an entire year's worth of events. It's not like one butterfly squashing would have prevented that from happening. Now if you're talking about the Buckner-ian 1986 World Series, then that's a whole different matter, but the author clearly wasn't.

Also, the reference to Obama winning his Senate seat simply because Jack Ryan withdrew from the election is spurious. Obama was already leading that election in most polls even before Ryan pulled out. So it's not like Obama wouldn't necessarily have been Senator (or President) if those allegations against Ryan weren't made. Actually, most likely, it didn't make a difference.

This entire article even seems a little bit self-serving, where the author 1) implies that she is not a Red Sox fan, and says that 2008 "wasn't a good year" for the fans, even though the Red Sox did actually make it to the ALCS -- not to mention the fact that the Red Sox/Yankees really have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and 2) she barely talks specifics about (or reviews) the Stargate movie which seems to be the impetus for writing this article, and yet still has time to plug her own short story in this essay.

Though the topic of alternate history may have been a good one, and her discussion of a Bush/Gore alternate timeline was worthy of the article, I found the rest of the article to be just blasť.

Oh, and by the way, it is "Star Trek: Voyager" with a colon, and it is "a United States", not "an".
Feb 5, 16:52 by Marti McKenna
Thanks for chiming in, Matt. Typos fixed. :)
Feb 6, 02:46 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Wow, Matt. You took this really personally. It's whimsical and was never meant seriously.

One serious point: the Republicans never placed a viable candidate against Obama in that election after Ryan left. Even Obama says that the election didn't test him the way that, say, the primaries against Hillary Clinton did. That's all I'm referring to. Not whether Obama could have beaten Ryan. (Obama probably could have--he's an amazing politician.) But that the Repubs didn't have a chance after Ryan quit.
Feb 8, 19:22 by Todd Treichel
Although it's true that the Red Sox championships were culminations of long sequences of events, it does not follow that they would be immune to the Butterfly Effect. The idea is that the one small change leads to another, and another and so on, and after a while the changes start to look pretty significant. So if, for example, Gore becoming president changed something seemingly unrelated, say, the economy, or something in the life of some player or executive, and that led to some modestly different decisions, or different preparedness to compete, and those led to bigger decisions directly affecting who was playing for the Red Sox and how they performed, then the pennants would be at risk.

Anyway, the 2004 title hinged four times on the outcome of a single game, the 4th through 7th games against New York, so it's not hard to cook up a scenario in which something changed that series.

We're supposed to be exercising our imaginations, here.
Feb 9, 22:00 by Dennis McCunney
I'd pass on the whole "change the world" aspect, and make it more personal. Assume you could go back in time and change something to make your own life turn out differently. Perhaps to do something you didn't do, or not do something you did do, and whose consequences you regret. Would you do it?

I've thought about it on occasion, and I'm not sure whether I would. While I'm not entirely satisfied with the way my life has turned out (and who is?), the person I am now is the sum total of my choices and life experiences, and I'm reasonably pleased with the person I turned out to be. I'd be a different person if I meddled. Would I be better? Would I be worse? Would I even like the new me if I met him? I have no idea, but without some reasonable way of estimating the consequences, I'd be reluctant to meddle.
Feb 10, 00:39 by Lois Tilton
DMcCunney - you mean like this -

Mar 23, 08:51 by Don H
You don't have to "spend your time" worrying about any of this. See, time doesn't exist.

There's more if you just look for it.

Want to Post? Evil spammers have forced us to require login:

Sign In




NOTE: IRoSF no longer requires a 'username' -- why try to remember anything other than your own email address?

Not a subscriber? Subscribe now!

Problems logging in? Try our Problem Solver