Dead Bang

[Dragonflight]

Bob recently pointed out that my writing's a little dark. That's largely, I think, because of the obvious Blade Runner feel to the series. I get the feeling that there's no "happy ending" in a properly written episode. There's a sense of closure, and as a general rule, the bad guys often get what they have coming to them, but about the best you can hope for is to come to terms with what happened, and move on. Double Vision and Scoop Chase were about the only two that ended on a "happy ever after" note.
So if there's a lot of angst in the story so far, just look at it like a long OAV. And that means you *know* the bad guys are going to get the bill for damages eventually...

[Bob Schroeck]

Hey, how dark can the world be if there's a magical girl and a flying Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang both in the same city?


-- Bob
---------
There's no wrong way to eat a Rhesus.

[Dragonflight]

I'm reminded of the serial black-and-whites, which portrayed the future of air travel as being full of blimps and giant futuristic flying aircraft carriers with improbable looking planes fighting monsters.
Imagine what a renegade Boomer scientist could do with open-source antigravity...

[The StarWolf]

" I'm reminded of the serial black-and-whites, which portrayed the future of air travel as being full of blimps and giant futuristic flying aircraft carriers with improbable looking planes fighting monsters."
Sounds like the inspiration for SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW, opening ... some time later this year at a theatre hopefully near you.
***********
Wolf then realizes there's now another thing holding up Chrono Racer ...
(Obscure reference #74)

[Bob Schroeck]

Imagine what anyone could do with open-source antigravity. Or open source gunpowder weapons... or open-source internal combustion engines...
I'm firmly of the belief that the argument to suppress a knowledge or technology "for the good of mankind" is actually an argument "for the good of the suppressor", and that the two are not in any way necessarily congruent.


-- Bob
---------
There's no wrong way to eat a Rhesus.

[The Wanderer]

---

I'm firmly of the belief that the argument to suppress a knowledge or technology "for the good of mankind" is actually an argument "for the good of the suppressor", and that the two are not in any way necessarily congruent.

---

Oh, I'm fairly sure some things really *shouldn't* be let out - for one counterexample, how about a brew-it-in-your-living-room-with-common-household-ingredients recipe for a nuclear explosion bigger (albeit cleaner) than the ones of World War II?
I've seen a piece of fiction with what purports to be such a recipe. I figure the odds of its actually working are quite slim... but I, for one, have not been fool enough to try it out.

[The StarWolf]

"the argument to suppress a knowledge or technology "for the good of mankind" is actually an argument "for the good of the suppressor", and that the two are not in any way necessarily congruent."
I'm tempted to agree. That splendid line from YES, MINISTER comes to mind when Sir Humphrey explains ...
"Bernard, the Official Secrets Act was not put in place to protect the secrets, it's there to protect the officials."
On the other paw, as a long time friend of Dragonflight and I once put it, sure we were supposed to have aircars by now (and the Skycar design comes close) but considering how badly the average human drives in TWO dimensions, who would be dim enough to make generally available to them something able to maneuver in THREE and which might come crashing through your penthouse window because they didn't take that "left turn at 'Albaquoike'"?

[Moonsword]

Make the girl very depressed and moody then add in lots of blood and anguish. I'm sure we can make a darkfic out of it.

[Bob Schroeck]

---

Oh, I'm fairly sure some things really *shouldn't* be let out - for one counterexample, how about a brew-it-in-your-living-room-with-common-household-ingredients recipe for a nuclear explosion bigger (albeit cleaner) than the ones of World War II?

---

I'm sure we all can come up with all kinds of imaginary extremes to justify rules of suppression. How about... the instructions to create a 100% lethal self-replicating bioweapon using only Cheerios and old socks? I'd suppress that in a minute, so why not suppress real things, too?
Every technology has its potential for misuse. Why not ban all knives because they're used in stabbings? Forget about how difficult it will be to cook; legitimate uses -- or unexpected positive derivative uses -- are no excuse for leaving dangerous items like that around in any household for any lunatic to find.


-- Bob
---------
There's no wrong way to eat a Rhesus.

[Disruptor]

I'd say not supressed, but restricted to proper training.
No self taught medical surgery for example.
--------------------
Tom Mathews aka Disruptor

[The Wanderer]

---

I'm sure we all can come up with all kinds of imaginary extremes to justify rules of suppression.

---

Oh, indeed. My point was that, counter to your earlier statement, an argument to suppress knowledge "for the good of mankind" is not necessarily "for the good of the suppressor". I was objecting to expressing it as an absolute, not claiming that what you actually meant isn't true.

[Bob Schroeck]

Okay. I will admit that all generalizations are false. Let me rephrase -- whenever someone says something should be banned or suppressed for the good of man or the good of the people, find out how he's likely to profit from that ban. Because that profit -- rather than altruism -- is most likely the reason for his advocacy.


-- Bob
---------
There's no wrong way to eat a Rhesus.