We tread upon the mythic ground of religions and civilizations that far predate “Western” nations and Christianity; we dream of traveling amid stars that were named by Arab astronomers, using the numbers they devised to help us find our way; we retell the colonization stories that were life and death for the Irish and the English and the Inka and the Inuit; we find drama in the struggles of the marginalized and not-quite-assimilated of every society. Speculative fiction is at its core syncretic; this stuff doesn’t come out of nowhere. And it certainly didn’t spring solely from the imaginations of a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys in the 1950s.
So I propose a solution — which I would like to appropriate, if you will allow, from Australia’s history and present. It is time for a Reconciliation within SFF.
It is time that we all recognized the real history of this genre, and acknowledged the breadth and diversity of its contributors. It’s time we acknowledged the debt we owe to those who got us here — all of them. It’s time we made note of what ground we’ve trodden upon, and the wrongs we’ve done to those who trod it first. And it’s time we took steps — some symbolic, some substantive — to try and correct those errors. I do not mean a simple removal of the barriers that currently exist within the genre and its fandom, though doing that’s certainly the first step. I mean we must now make an active, conscious effort to establish a literature of the imagination which truly belongs to everyone."
Some reforms to the CFAA are headed in the wrong direction.
Terms of service on websites routinely say, for instance, that users must enter only truthful information. As Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, wrote, the law — at least as the government reads it — means that “describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome’ [on a dating website] when you’re actually short and homely [could] earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”
But c’mon. 2.2% up, 0.1% down; you say potato, I say eliminate food stamps. And for Pete’s sake, how were Ren and Stimpy supposed to know that their paper — which has brought austerity to millions — was flawed? It wasn’t peer-reviewed.
So, no one needs to fact-check them. …
Now after publication in 2010, one economist complained that they refused to share their data. Well, of course they didn’t share their data. If they can’t use Excel, I doubt they could send an e-mail attachment. ..
But folks, Siegfried and Roy are standing by their results, saying:
CARMEN REINHART & KENNETH ROGOFF (4/16/2013): The weight of the evidence to date — including this latest comment [by Herndon] seems entirely consistent with our original interpretation of the data.
Right! Entirely consistent with their interpretation, because no matter how much the results change, the hypothesis must remain the same. That’s science!
Peer review is important! “And for Pete’s sake, how were Ren and Stimpy supposed to know that their paper — which has brought austerity to millions — was flawed? It wasn’t peer-reviewed. “