Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld?

In article <t24kn1puqiuvms72juaj433ephjknh0dcu.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Star wrote:
> I think that's exactly how a Protector would
> behave towards a defective breeder - at least in the case of the
> artificial heart and wooden leg - I won't vouch for the eyelashes...
>
The problem is that "defective" is poorly defined. I don't think
Larry was particularly up on the neo-Darwinian synthesis when he wrote
'Protector', otherwise he'd have been aware of the importance of
variety in genotypes. Which is what Protectors can't tolerate.
Unfortunately, in the real world, this intolerance of variation is
going to be a gift to any parasites the breeders have, and if a strain
of variation-intolerant Protectors appeared they'd soon acquire a load
of extremely-well adapted parasites and would under-breed compared to
more variation-tolerant Protector strains.
Genetically, the Protectors don't add up. It's one of the "six
impossible things" one has to believe before breakfast when reading
Known Space tales.

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:50 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

The "borg" process involves some pretty drastic changes - they don't
eat, for instance. That change alone is going to make pheremonal
changes to the subject, which should trigger the "smells different"
response.

The Protector is also capable of deducing that the borged breeder poses
a threat to the rest of the family, and I doubt that Protectors are
incapable of culling one for the good of the many. Having said that,
Teela is presumed to have been incapable of killing billions of
breeders in order to save trillions, but I am guessing that a borged
breeder would still smell wrong. If your skin turns a funny colour,
then I'm thinking that you might have a "personal hygene" problem to
boot.

On the more philosophical point, I've always seen reductio ad absurdum
as a last-resort arguement, only a hair's breadth away from the
straw-man. It's useful for breaking people away from absolute
statements, but they often come back with "ah, that's the exception
that proves the rule" as if they actually knew what that means.

Phil Hibbs.
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

In article <1132314595.595817.161150 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
> On the more philosophical point, I've always seen reductio ad absurdum
> as a last-resort arguement, only a hair's breadth away from the
> straw-man. It's useful for breaking people away from absolute
> statements, but they often come back with "ah, that's the exception
> that proves the rule" as if they actually knew what that means.
>
The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" uses "prove" in
it's sense which is cognate with "probe". Saying "the exception that
PROBES the rule" gives the meaning of the phrase much better in modern
usage. The earlier usage of "prove" as meaning "investigating" (pre-1900
or thereabouts?) has shifted, but the expression has outlived the change
in meaning.

"reductio ad absurdum" is a perfectly respectable logical
technique, of taking the consequences of a proposition and extrapolating
them to a point that there comes a contradiction between the
proposition's consequences and either one of your axioms, or common
experience. For example, trying to solve the simultaneous inequalities
X <= 3 and X^3 > 28
can be reduced to the "absurdity" that 27 > 28 . Perfectly respectable
logical (or mathematical, they're equivalent) technique.
"Straw man" is not a way of arguing against a proposition at all,
it's a way of avoiding arguing about the proposition (as tendered) by
substituting a different proposition (of your own choice). Of course the
good fun comes when you see someone trying to "straw man" your position
and outflank him (it's usually a him, don't ask me why) into having to
defend something indefensible.

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:40 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

Star wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:15:09 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljohanson.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>><nedw378.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>The vessels in Star Trek pretty much wok by magic, as run by
>>technomancers. Better to cross over trek into the Magic Goes Away
>>series.
>>
>
> That's an argument often levelled against ST by hard sf fans, and it's
> an unfair one.
>
> I'm no Trekker, but in return, KS enthusiasts would need to explain
> hyperdrive, artificial gravity, reactionless thrusters, stasis fields,
> the Power, how the Ringworld holds together, psychic luck... in terms
> of science as currently understood.
>
> There's magic in Niven's universe as well.
>
>

Any sufficently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Jim Lillie BSE MSE (EE)
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

In article <kvadnb8QNPbatwvenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d.DeleteThis@adelphia.com>, Jim Lillie
wrote:
> > I'm no Trekker, but in return, KS enthusiasts would need to explain
> > hyperdrive, artificial gravity, reactionless thrusters, stasis fields,
> > the Power, how the Ringworld holds together, psychic luck... in terms
> > of science as currently understood.
> >
> > There's magic in Niven's universe as well.
> >
> >
>
> Any sufficently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
>
There's a necessary amount of "magic" in all SF by this definition,
otherwise you're restricted to the level of technology in James Bond
movies. Possibly not even that high. If I can just get the neighbour's cat
off the keyboard ... and go through that (incomplete) list ... psychic
luck and the other forms of psi are I think considered as degenerated
versions of Power ; reactionless thrusters and artificial gravity are
explicitly facets of the same underlying physics ; hyperdrive and /scrith/
are unexplained mysteries. Total 4 "unknowns" in this list, few of which
appear as important plot elements in any particular story or story-part.
More importantly, they're all limited in various ways, and their
limitations remain consistent between stories. Look at how the possible
breaking of a limit on hyperdrive is a recurring bribe in the whole
Ringworld series.
In one of his commentary/ anthology books (different book title in
America versus RoTW), Larry points out that in his opinion one of the
things that distinguishes SF from fantasy and mythology is that there are
only a limited number of "impossibles" in any one given SF story, and that
those "impossibles" remain consistent in the story. That leaves the
"puzzle" and "sociology" aspects of the story with an alternative universe
in which they can develop.
I think PTerry (Terry Pratchett) makes an explicit ironic contrast
in this sense in one of his books by parodying the "With one mighty leap,
he was free" way of resolving cliffhangers in radio series of the past. Or
maybe it was Douglas Adams. I see this as being part of Larry's point on
keeping the number of "impossibles" down.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:29 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:18:15 -0500, Jim Lillie wrote:

> Any sufficently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

And any magic distinguishable from technology is insufficiently advanced.
(And vice versa.)
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:00:05 GMT, Aidan Karley
<doIlookDAFTenoughTOpost.RemoveThis@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group> wrote:


>> >
>> > There's magic in Niven's universe as well.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Any sufficently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
>>
> There's a necessary amount of "magic" in all SF by this definition,

I'd agree with that; my original point was to note that Star Trek
always gets it in the neck for purveying "magic as science", whereas
other series (KS included) don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

In article <VA.00000aff.1ec7c939.DeleteThis@validemailaddresstoa.news.group>, Aidan
Karley wrote:
> Total 4 "unknowns" in this list, few of which
> appear as important plot elements in any particular story or story-part.
>
I should re-phrase that - there are few stories that require all
those plot elements at the same time. But it's probably too late already.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:09 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

In article <3ptdp1tokjaa7hk4bagoi8tiv1u2hn8ovk RemoveThis @4ax.com>, Star wrote:
> Star Trek
> always gets it in the neck for purveying "magic as science", whereas
> other series (KS included) don't.
>
My point is that the number of "magic" elements in KS stories is
generally lower than in Star Trek episodes. None of that implausible
mucking around with transporter beams in KS - you get to and from the
bottom of a hole by the simple (time consuming and energy-eating)
process of going up and down the walls. KS doesn't, of course, have to
fit it's stories into a 50 minute TV episode format, which helps. But
Trek does have this habit of pulling technobabble solutions out of the
hat, instead of the plot elements (I mean, characters) having to work
it out with the same technobabble they had in the last series.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:10 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld? 

On 2005-12-08, Aidan Karley <fakeaddressremovedratherthanwrapped>wrote:
> In article <3ptdp1tokjaa7hk4bagoi8tiv1u2hn8ovk DeleteThis @4ax.com>, Star wrote:
>> Star Trek
>> always gets it in the neck for purveying "magic as science", whereas
>> other series (KS included) don't.
>>
> My point is that the number of "magic" elements in KS stories is
> generally lower than in Star Trek episodes. None of that implausible
> mucking around with transporter beams in KS - you get to and from the
> bottom of a hole by the simple (time consuming and energy-eating)
> process of going up and down the walls. KS doesn't, of course, have to
> fit it's stories into a 50 minute TV episode format, which helps. But
> Trek does have this habit of pulling technobabble solutions out of the
> hat, instead of the plot elements (I mean, characters) having to work
> it out with the same technobabble they had in the last series.
>

If you don't like the story, the inconsistencies bother you, if
you do like it, they don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Could the Borg assimilate the Ringworld?