Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Gharlane of Eddore Memorial Posting (2002) (was: Re: One Year/Lensman FAQ)

7 views
Skip to first unread message

David Silberstein

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 11:04:06 PM6/10/02
to
[ Followups set - again, in memoriam. I don't intend to make a habit of it. ]

In article <d31f19ad.02061...@posting.google.com>,
Jan Yarnot <fossilf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It's been a year since Gharlane of Eddore left r.a.sf.tv. I still
>miss him. However, the Lensman FAQ lives on, thanks to Decomposed, at
>http://www.outel.org/decomposed/goe/lensfaq.html.


On this day (June 10) in 2001, Gharlane of Eddore passed into
the next plane of existence.

As a memoriam, I'll mention a few movies that I saw because
Gharlane heaped praise upon them. He was usually careful to
explain *why* he thought they were good, and since his taste
in written/visual SF was often very much in accord with mine,
I figured they were certainly worth a look.

Note that I did not always agree with his assessments, but
after seeing these movies, I could certainly understand why he
liked them - there was always a sense that someone involved
had been thoughtful and intelligent, and had tried to create
something of Quality. I can appreciate the effort even if
the result does not sing for me.

You don't have to take my word alone for the quality of these
movies - Google on their names for more thorough reviews. I
think most people who saw them liked them; it's just that they
were kinda underhyped at the time, or were drowned out by
flashier films.


1) TREMORS 2 - I had already seen TREMORS, but I had no idea
this sequel existed, or that it was any good. Given the
genre - cheesy monster flick - I would have been predisposed
to suspect that the sequel was a dog.

This turned out not to be the case. Both TREMORS & TREMORS 2
are *heaps* of fun, and should be seen back to back. Note that
I recently purchased a combo DVD package from Best Buy which
includes these two movies for $30 - an excellent bargain.

Recommended.


2) FREQUENCY - This sunk with barely a ripple shortly after it
came out. I've no idea why; it's a very cool time-communication
movie, and it was produced by people very much aware they were
making a movie with an unscientific premise - but who did an
excellent job trying to make it internally consistent. Excellent
story, good use of a minimal amount of effects, and a whole lot
of fun.

Recommended.


3) GATTACA - This one I can't quite agree with Gharlane on. I
realize that it was well written and thought out, but the whole
thing was just so slow paced I found myself not really able to
care. In addition, I found the color scheme unpleasant - there
was just too much brown everywhere (although I suppose this was
meant to symbolize the pervasive conformity warping the society).
And of course, the high-speed computers, that could sequence DNA
in a flash and access identity databases using the DNA sequences
instantaneously from anywhere -- and yet couldn't show a high-
resolution image of a human face -- seemed a little inconsistent.

But it was still interesting to watch, and if you are in a more
patient mood that I was, you may find it worth your while.

Partially Recommended.


4) THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR - This was a lot better than I expected.
I had been feeling a little hung up about it because I had heard
that it was about a computer simulating reality, where if you
die in the simulation, you die in real life, which always struck
me as being a really lame idea. Well, I found myself sufficiently
caught up in the story that when the inevitable happened, I didn't
mind it, and for that matter, it wasn't quite what I had thought
it would be. I think, as simulation stories go, it was much better
than THE MATRIX (which has some of the most amazingly cool effects
I've ever seen -- and the most abysmally stupid explanation for why
the simulation was created in the first place).

Recommended.


So, there you go. 3.5 -- no, make it 3.75 hits out of four.
Not bad for a brain in a jar, eh? Go and see them, if you haven't
already, and remember Gharlane.

Requiescat in Pace, Eddorian.

Nyrath the nearly wise

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 10:19:18 AM6/11/02
to
David Silberstein wrote:
> On this day (June 10) in 2001, Gharlane of Eddore passed into
> the next plane of existence.
>
=== snip ====

>
> So, there you go. 3.5 -- no, make it 3.75 hits out of four.
> Not bad for a brain in a jar, eh? Go and see them, if you haven't
> already, and remember Gharlane.
>
> Requiescat in Pace, Eddorian.

Clear Ether, Gharlane.
@}--'---,---

Lisa Coulter

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 11:01:34 AM6/11/02
to
dav...@kithrup.com (David Silberstein) wrote in message news:<GxItu...@kithrup.com>...


This was a *really* good movie, and if it had not been nominated for
the Hugo I would not have ever heard of it, let alone seen it. I
agree wholeheartedly, and would recommend it highly.

DId I mention that, as time travel films / shows/ stories go, it was
much more internally consistent, intelligently done, etc, etc, than
let's say, 90 % of the other one out there?

Lisa Coulter

Farewell, Gharlane. Perhaps we'll see each other at the end of all
things....in that great rasftv reunion in the sky.

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 1:14:53 PM6/11/02
to
In article <GxItu...@kithrup.com>,

David Silberstein <dav...@kithrup.com> wrote:
[ Followups set - again, in memoriam. I don't intend to make a habit of it. ]
>In article <d31f19ad.02061...@posting.google.com>,
>Jan Yarnot <fossilf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's been a year since Gharlane of Eddore left r.a.sf.tv. I still
>>miss him. However, the Lensman FAQ lives on, thanks to Decomposed, at
>>http://www.outel.org/decomposed/goe/lensfaq.html.
>
>On this day (June 10) in 2001, Gharlane of Eddore passed into
>the next plane of existence.

I can hardly believe it's been a year already. Sigh.

I still have the email stored away wherein he regales Lois McMaster
Bujold, Connie Willis, and Barbara Hambly's Sun-Cross books-- three
authors who I probably would never have read otherwise, but after
trying them have never looked back. It was his Daniel Keys Moran
exhuberance that made me the fan of Dan's work that I am today,
and any number of other authors which he mentioned over the years
were folks I gave a try to. I never regretted it.

I don't know if he and I just saw I to eye on what was entertaining
or if he was just really good at choosing entertainment, in general,
but I found that our preferences matched fairly closely.

With that, I'll add my Gharlane-inspired recommendations for television:

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Having seen the movie, I was horrified that a Teevee show was in the
works. How, I thought, could it be any good whatever?!? The movie
was tolerable at best (with Paul Reubens providing the best portions),
but an entire series?

I ignored it for the first two and a half years it was out, though
I noted that it was talked about by pretty much everyone else on rast.
(Yeah, but a lot of people talked about Voyager, as well-- popularity
is no real measure of quality). Having recently adjusted my killfile
to tag any Gharlane messages as "to read", I came across his comments
re: BtVS, and he seemed genuinely amused and even somewhat tickled by
the show-- which was shocking to me, as he was an opponent of schlock,
which was what I though BtVS must indeed be.

As the ads for the next episode aired on local radio, I decided, as
with GATTACA (and, later, THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR), that I'd give them
a try based on his recommendation alone. The episode aired was
"Dopplegangland", and it was hilarious, and I was hooked. And I had
the Brain in a Jar to thank for it.

My regret is that Gharlane didn't live to see the musical, as he would
undoubtedly have cherished it.

The show's perhaps not what it once was, but it's still one of the
better-written shows out there, especially in terms of dialogue. I never
got to see the first season until it came out in reruns and on DVD, and
until tonight I have never seen a single episode of the second season (it
comes out on DVD today), which I understand from an email to Gharlane is
some of the best television all around to air in years.

Highly recommended.


STARGATE SG-1
Another movie spinoff I was incredibly skeptical about. Again, until
I saw Gharlane's posts on the show, I figured it had to be stupid. After
all, it had MacGyver in it, for Ghu's sake! Gharlane wrote a stunning
review of the show, and I figured I couldn't lose.

About two weeks before he died, I decided to give the show a try, though
without cable I was kind of screwed. I emailed him, though, telling him
thanks for many good recommendations over the years, and that I was
planning on buying the Season One DVD box set on his recommendation alone.
He was a little worried, as he didn't want someone to shell out ~$40 on
something they'd just gotten as a recommendation. I painstakingly listed
out all the SF I'd read or seen through the years on his word, and told
him I wasn't worried. And that was the last time we exchanged words.

When the SG-1 set did finally come out on DVD, I was financially strapped,
being in the process of building a new house. The strategy was not to
spend any extra money, since we needed everything we could get to buy our
dream place. Then Gharlane Was No More, and I wanted a way to celebrate his
existence, and I could think of no better way to honor his memory than to
watch some damned good science fiction. :) So I went without lunches for
four weeks, per my accountant/wife's recommendation, and picked the show
up that day. I've not looked back, and my wife's even more of an addict
than me (must be that Daniel Jackson guy or something).

The series' major strong point, for me, is its internal consistency. I
can't think of an instance wherein something happened that was totally
precluded by another episode, and when it would make sense to use a plot
widget from a previous show to solve this week's problem, it's used, or
else mention is made of why it cannot be.

In Gharlane's words:

>Actually, I just think of "STARGATE: SG-1" as "TV-SkiFfy done
>somewhere within shouting distance of approximately right."
>
>Since no "Trek" series to date has managed a fraction of SG's
>internal consistency and vaguely coherent long-term plot
>development, it's kind of a non-sequitur to attempt to define
>"SG" in terms of prior, lesser, failed attempts.
>
>Furious as some of "SG"'s technical foul-ups and clumsy dialog
>have made me, I intend to buy the season DVD sets as they
>become available; this is not an investment I've been willing
>to consider with any previous TV-SkiFfy series, because they
>simply weren't worth the trouble. ( Although I have broken
>the 'erase' tabs off the cassettes I recorded "BABYLON 5" on,
>I didn't bother investing in the laserdisks, because it was
>obvious WB wasn't going to complete the set, and the "clinker"
>density was a bit high; I nominated and voted for the show
>for Hugos, but that doesn't mean I feel a huge desire to have
>disk copies of it all. )
>
>"STARGATE: SG-1" is the quality level other productions have to
>shoot for and exceed; it is the current de-facto standard of
>measurement in the field, and should not be evaluated in
>terms of its lesser predecessors. ( Particularly when the
>predecessors are smoking away roughly twice as much budget
>per air minute. )

Also Highly Recommended. The second season debuts on DVD September 3.
I urge you to take a look, or at least watch the reruns on SciFi or your
local syndication station.


--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way


Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 1:45:31 PM6/11/02
to
Aaron P. Brezenski wrote:

> Having seen the movie, I was horrified that a Teevee show was in the
> works. How, I thought, could it be any good whatever?!? The movie
> was tolerable at best

I thought the movie was great. That was why I didn't watch the series
for a long time, because the descriptions indicated that they'd
eliminated most of what made the movie appealing.

I now consider it to have been a pretty darn good show in its heyday.
The last season, well, less said the better -- except for the finale,
which kicked mucho butt, especially Giles' entrance:

"Nothing on Earth can stop me!"
*BA-WHOOM!*
"I'd like to test that theory."


> STARGATE SG-1
> Another movie spinoff I was incredibly skeptical about. Again, until
> I saw Gharlane's posts on the show, I figured it had to be stupid. After
> all, it had MacGyver in it, for Ghu's sake!

I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.

Gharlane may have been the one who first recommended "A Fire Upon the
Deep" to me. I know that I always paid close attention to his
recommendations.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm

lal_truckee

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 2:45:30 PM6/11/02
to
dav...@kithrup.com (David Silberstein) wrote in message news:<GxItu...@kithrup.com>...
>
> 3) GATTACA - <<CLIP>>

>
> But it was still interesting to watch, and if you are in a more
> patient mood that I was, you may find it worth your while.
>
> Partially Recommended.

_Gattaca_ should be on everyone's watch list JUST BECAUSE it is slow
and stable, with no explosions, and minimal special effects. Kudos to
those responsible. (Gaud, I'm tired of swishing spaceships,
pinnnnyanggging rayguns, and noisy vacuum explosions - save me from
special effects.))
>
>
> 4) THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR - <<CLIP>> I think, as simulation stories go, it was much better


> than THE MATRIX (which has some of the most amazingly cool effects
> I've ever seen -- and the most abysmally stupid explanation for why
> the simulation was created in the first place).
>
> Recommended.

I can't imagine how I came to live in a world where _The Matrix_, with
all it's implausible sillyness, is more popular than _The Thirteenth
Floor_, which at least tries for self-consistency and human impact as
a SF story.

You're correct - Gharlane had a good track record on suggesions and
recommendations ... RIP

lizard

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 3:30:30 PM6/11/02
to
Sea Wasp wrote:


>
> I now consider it to have been a pretty darn good show in its heyday.
> The last season, well, less said the better -- except for the finale,
> which kicked mucho butt, especially Giles' entrance:
>
> "Nothing on Earth can stop me!"
> *BA-WHOOM!*
> "I'd like to test that theory."
>
>


My wife, who is a professional librarian, was ecstatic during that
fight. "Woo hoo! Librarians kick ass!"

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 4:20:42 PM6/11/02
to

He kicked even more ass later, when you realize

Spoilers for real

That the sneaky old bastard had PLANNED all along on being beaten by
Willow, in precisely the way he was, and knew how it would play out.

A move worthy of my favorite devious anime Mysterious Old Man, Kaos
from Yoroiden Samurai Troopers.

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 7:26:32 PM6/11/02
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:45:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:

> I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
>diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
>GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.

Anderson is *not* MacGyver in SG-1, though. His subordinates are
smarter than he is, and he acknowledges it. He almost never gets to
have sex, and never treats women as stupid. I liked MacGyver, but it
had its flaws. I like SG-1 better.

--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com

Paul F. Dietz

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 8:47:46 PM6/11/02
to
"Aaron P. Brezenski" wrote:

> I still have the email stored away wherein he regales Lois McMaster
> Bujold, Connie Willis, and Barbara Hambly's Sun-Cross books

Is it just me, or are you also waiting for a third Sun Cross book?

Paul

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 9:12:41 PM6/11/02
to
In article <3D0637...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
wrote:

> > STARGATE SG-1
> > Another movie spinoff I was incredibly skeptical about. Again, until
> > I saw Gharlane's posts on the show, I figured it had to be stupid. After
> > all, it had MacGyver in it, for Ghu's sake!
>
> I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
> diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
> GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.

Sci-fi channel is going to be running them on weekdays, starting
sometime this month. I haven't seen season 1 yet, looking forward to
it.

They've also got first-run eps of season 6, though I wasn't impressed
with season 5 (totally wasted Peter Wingfield, who had the best
character on Highlander, <rot13>xvyyrq bss Qnavry</rot13>, and
generally didn't seem to know where they were going - though I did like
the revelation that the Replicators really were <rot13>yrtb zvaqfcevatf
tbar znq</rot13>, as I'd suspected)

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 9:43:28 PM6/11/02
to
In article <7117b86a.0206...@posting.google.com>,
lal_t...@yahoo.com (lal_truckee) said:

> I can't imagine how I came to live in a world where _The Matrix_,
> with all it's implausible sillyness, is more popular than _The
> Thirteenth Floor_, which at least tries for self-consistency and
> human impact as a SF story.

Here's how I see it: "The Thirteenth Floor" had the potential to be
"only" a quite good, but rather "quiet," film, and it completely met
that potential. "The Matrix," on the other hand, had the potential to
be something really incredible, but mostly blew it.

So of you measure the films on the basis of what they delivered,
"Thirteenth Floor" wins easily, but if you get into a "how high were
my hopes raised, how much of that 'Oh *wow*' enthusiasm-tingle did I
have in my belly at any point during the show" analysis, "The Matrix"
scores much higher.

And some people are at least as heavily influenced by that feeling of
belly-tingle as they are by dry, intellectual facts.

(Or else I'm just talking out of my ass. Take your pick.)

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 11:02:33 PM6/11/02
to

There's certainly potential for it, but Sun Cross concluded fairly
well -- Hambly *NEVER* wraps things up to the point that you can say
"Okay, that's it, nothing more to do HERE."

Personally, I'd rather have another Sun Wolf/Starhawk book. I
consider those to be her best series.

Jeff Walther

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 3:12:56 AM6/12/02
to
In article <9n1dguokeh587pv02...@4ax.com>, Marilee J. Layman
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:45:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
> >diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
> >GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.
>
> Anderson is *not* MacGyver in SG-1, though. His subordinates are
> smarter than he is, and he acknowledges it. He almost never gets to
> have sex, and never treats women as stupid. I liked MacGyver, but it
> had its flaws. I like SG-1 better.

There's this Major Carter romance thing going on though that bugs me a
little. It seems to me, that in order for Carter to be romantically
interested in O'Neil, she'd need to have the attraction to power thing
going. I can't see what else she'd see in him. He just seems way too
ignorant for her.

I guess it's another one of those cases of TV romance, where I just can't
see any background for the interest between the characters.

--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.

Helgi Briem

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:39:36 AM6/12/02
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:02:33 GMT, Sea Wasp
<sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:

>Personally, I'd rather have another Sun Wolf/Starhawk book. I
>consider those to be her best series.

I agree. I think they are probably my favorite fantasy
trology.

But of course, if there were a fourth....
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is

Niall McAuley

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:17:06 AM6/12/02
to
"Marilee J. Layman" <mjla...@erols.com> wrote in message news:9n1dguokeh587pv02...@4ax.com...

> Anderson is *not* MacGyver in SG-1, though. His subordinates are
> smarter than he is, and he acknowledges it. He almost never gets to
> have sex, and never treats women as stupid.

...and, of course, he's not gun shy.

Gharlane's opinion of how good Stargate SG:1 was likely to be:

>Well, they're promising a different world each week, and claim to
>have a two-year contract, and they've hired Richard Dean Anderson
>for the lead, so you'll get a lot of Politically Correct Booshwah
>hard-wired in to the series, lots of Sarah Brady-style ban-evil-guns
>lectures, and "MacGyver"esque fantasy gadgets made out of bent
>hairpins with a Swiss Army Knife...... I wouldn't expect too much.
>With any luck, it'll die faster than "LEGEND."

He did acknowledge that he was wrong, gracefully.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 11:29:11 AM6/12/02
to
Helgi Briem wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:02:33 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> >Personally, I'd rather have another Sun Wolf/Starhawk book. I
> >consider those to be her best series.
>
> I agree. I think they are probably my favorite fantasy
> trology.
>
> But of course, if there were a fourth....

I want to see Sun Wolf finally get a real handle on his powers and
then combine them with his warrior skills and kick some butt on the
repressive powers. Yes, I know, it's never that simple, but just ONCE
I'd like to see the Hambly Church get its butt whipped. The only real
problem I have with Hambly's writing is that the themes get repeated
SO much. It's one thing when you're using it as a deliberate parallel,
another when it's your standard plot trope.

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 2:06:10 PM6/12/02
to
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>> "Aaron P. Brezenski" wrote:

>> > I still have the email stored away wherein he regales Lois McMaster
>> > Bujold, Connie Willis, and Barbara Hambly's Sun-Cross books

>> Is it just me, or are you also waiting for a third Sun Cross book?

> There's certainly potential for it, but Sun Cross concluded fairly
>well -- Hambly *NEVER* wraps things up to the point that you can say
>"Okay, that's it, nothing more to do HERE."

> Personally, I'd rather have another Sun Wolf/Starhawk book. I
>consider those to be her best series.

I'd go for a sequel to _Bride of the Rat God,_ myself. That's one
of my favorite of hers.

I think there's still potential in her vampire characters, as well;
although _Traveling with the Dead_ fell far short of the first one.

I like Sun Wolf as well, but I thought the last one was, for Hambly,
pretty dire (meaning it was still fairly readable.) If she can pull
back up to the level of the first couple, another book would be
really nice.

I think it's time to let the Darwath books go, however.

--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.

Pål Are Nordal

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 2:16:23 PM6/12/02
to
Niall McAuley wrote:
>
> He did acknowledge that he was wrong, gracefully.

More like he started to see the show improving. I didn't find the show
consistently good until some time into the 2nd season, and judging from
his posts at the time, neither did he.

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 2:56:46 PM6/12/02
to

You mean there isn't one? Hmmm... in your timeline, has Microsoft been
purchased by RedHat, yet?

(yes, I'm still waiting. I found the end fairly unsatisfying)

Niall McAuley

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 5:37:03 PM6/12/02
to
"Pål Are Nordal" <dr...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3D078FF7...@spamcop.net...

I mean that he didn't think it stood a chance of being any good at all
given the people involved and the wretched movie, but he admitted
that he was wrong, and that it was watchable later. He even praised
the first season, or at least damned it with very faint damns.

If you look further back in the thread, at least one person bought
the first season on DVD, sight unseen, based on Gharlane's opinion.

Paul Vader

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 6:58:06 PM6/12/02
to
"Niall McAuley" <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> writes:
>I mean that he didn't think it stood a chance of being any good at all
>given the people involved and the wretched movie, but he admitted
>that he was wrong, and that it was watchable later. He even praised
>the first season, or at least damned it with very faint damns.

I think the thing that shocked Gharlane the most was how the military is
handled. It's not easy to find any mass media depiction of a military
leader anything like General Hammond. The idea of a calm, rational
commander who actually listens to the advice of his staff is so alien to
film/TV that it really stands out when you watch stargate.

That's not to say that there are not frothing, incompetent nitwits in
command in the army, of course. But what do I know? I get most of my
military knowledge from Tom Clancy and John Ringo novels. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 7:43:39 PM6/12/02
to
In article <G7PN8.807$vB....@news.indigo.ie>,

That was me, and Gharlane was careful to warn me in advance that there
were "imperfections". [boggle] Of course there are! It's from Hollywood!

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:00:23 PM6/12/02
to
In article <ae8jlu$4uq50$1...@ID-96845.news.dfncis.de>, Paul Vader
<pv+u...@pobox.com> writes

>"Niall McAuley" <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> writes:
>>I mean that he didn't think it stood a chance of being any good at all
>>given the people involved and the wretched movie, but he admitted
>>that he was wrong, and that it was watchable later. He even praised
>>the first season, or at least damned it with very faint damns.
>
>I think the thing that shocked Gharlane the most was how the military is
>handled. It's not easy to find any mass media depiction of a military
>leader anything like General Hammond. The idea of a calm, rational
>commander who actually listens to the advice of his staff is so alien to
>film/TV that it really stands out when you watch stargate.

So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.

Me? I'd have an Abrams sitting at the bottom of that ramp full-time
behind an armoured bulkhead, with its 120mm cannon pointed straight into
the middle of the gate. Behind *that*, I'd have an MX missile in a
horizontal launch cell pointing at the same spot. Screw subtlety.
--

Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk

Matt McIrvin

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:29:53 PM6/12/02
to
In article <ae8jlu$4uq50$1...@ID-96845.news.dfncis.de>,
pv+u...@pobox.com (Paul Vader) wrote:

> I think the thing that shocked Gharlane the most was how the military is
> handled. It's not easy to find any mass media depiction of a military
> leader anything like General Hammond. The idea of a calm, rational
> commander who actually listens to the advice of his staff is so alien to
> film/TV that it really stands out when you watch stargate.

"Dr. Strangelove" is one of my favorite movies, but I do think that it
(followed in short order by the US involvement in Vietnam) had a malign
effect on the depiction of the military in popular entertainment.

--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 1:28:14 AM6/13/02
to
Robert Sneddon wrote:


> So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
> when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
> soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.
>
> Me? I'd have an Abrams sitting at the bottom of that ramp full-time
> behind an armoured bulkhead, with its 120mm cannon pointed straight into
> the middle of the gate. Behind *that*, I'd have an MX missile in a
> horizontal launch cell pointing at the same spot. Screw subtlety.


...which would be great, if you weren't in an enclosed space.

There isn't just the squad of soldiers, btw. Take a look off to the
sides of the ramp. Heavy machine guns (or maybe light cannon, I haven't
paid that much attention to them).

In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
level of hardware.

--
Keith


Del Cotter

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 2:51:15 AM6/13/02
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:

>Robert Sneddon wrote:
>> So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
>> when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
>> soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.

>There isn't just the squad of soldiers, btw. Take a look off to the


>sides of the ramp. Heavy machine guns (or maybe light cannon, I haven't
>paid that much attention to them).
>
>In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
>level of hardware.

'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
ago.

Excuse me, but titanium is aluminium that went to college. If script
(and novel) writers want to make up magic materials, I wish they'd call
them "Adamantium" or "Geranium" or something, and not misuse real names.

(okay, the geranium was on Star Trek, and I later worked out that I'd
misheard "duranium")

--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:rdChainstoreMassacre:TerryPratchettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeM
enInABoat:WilliamGoldmanThePrincessBride:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace
ToRead:GregEganQuarantine:JohnCrowleyLittle,Big:RobertCharlesWilsonBios:

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 6:09:44 AM6/13/02
to
In article <v9wZmHCj...@branta.demon.co.uk>, Del Cotter
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes

>
>Excuse me, but titanium is aluminium that went to college. If script
>(and novel) writers want to make up magic materials, I wish they'd call
>them "Adamantium" or "Geranium" or something, and not misuse real names.

I was glancing through a Cold War thriller yesterday in a charity shop
-- Mad Russians had captured an American PeaceKeeper silo and were
preparing to launch the missile at Russia to start WWIII. When one of
the junior American officers suggested shooting the thing down as it
left the silo with tank and artillery fire, he was told it wouldn't
work, because the missile was made of titanium.

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 10:20:57 AM6/13/02
to
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:
>
> >Robert Sneddon wrote:
> >> So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
> >> when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
> >> soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.
>
> >There isn't just the squad of soldiers, btw. Take a look off to the
> >sides of the ramp. Heavy machine guns (or maybe light cannon, I haven't
> >paid that much attention to them).

Heavy machine guns and what's looked like small missiles a time or two.

> >In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
> >level of hardware.
>
> 'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
> ago.

No, because it so close to the even horizon that it prevents incoming
matter from fully materializing. Titanium is used not for it's material
strength (as that is intended not to be an issue), but for heat
resistance.

--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 10:38:54 AM6/13/02
to
pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
news:1fdpn4e.q7hupoja2dr4N%pl...@newsreaders.com:

> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:

>...


>> >In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively
>> >low level of hardware.

>> 'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple
>> of weeks ago.

> No, because it so close to the even horizon that it prevents
> incoming matter from fully materializing.

You do have to wonder why no one else copies this idea, though, given
the number of allies and enemies of the Tau'ri aware of the iris.
For that matter, having a few prefab irises would offer an
alternative to burying the stargate for contacted planets of moderate
tech level. (They'd at least need radio, or there'd be no good way
of telling when to open it. Opening it on any sort of known schedule
is asking for a visit from the Goa'uld.)

Titanium is used not
> for it's material strength (as that is intended not to be an
> issue),

Though it has been, I think, largely because they occasionally don't
have complete control of the near side of the stargate. (If the
general public of the SG-1 universe knew how often Cheyenne Mountain
was partially or wholly under the control of hostile alien forces,
one suspects they'd sleep less well at night.)

but for heat resistance.

IIRC the titanium iris was destroyed at some point and replaced with
a more durable (though not so much real) material called trinium.

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 11:07:34 AM6/13/02
to
J.B. Moreno wrote:


>>>> So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
>>>>when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
>>>>soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.
>>>>
>>>There isn't just the squad of soldiers, btw. Take a look off to the
>>>sides of the ramp. Heavy machine guns (or maybe light cannon, I haven't
>>>paid that much attention to them).
>
> Heavy machine guns and what's looked like small missiles a time or two.
>
>>>In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
>>>level of hardware.
>>>
>>'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
>>ago.
>
> No, because it so close to the even horizon that it prevents incoming
> matter from fully materializing. Titanium is used not for it's material
> strength (as that is intended not to be an issue), but for heat
> resistance.


And anyway, in yet another example of Not Being Trek, they've since
replaced the original iris after it was destroyed in an accident. They
made a point about the new iris being made of "trinium", one of the
unobtanium type alloys they've run across and found a use for. There
was also mention trying to obtain enough naqadah (the really-strong
unobtanium that they keep running across) in order to build an even
stronger iris.

--
Keith

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 11:39:53 AM6/13/02
to
Here, J.B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:

>> >In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
>> >level of hardware.
>>
>> 'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
>> ago.

Later they installed a replacement iris of titanium-trinium alloy, if
you really want that imaginary-element thrill. But J. B. Moreno is
correct:

> No, because it so close to the event horizon that it prevents incoming


> matter from fully materializing. Titanium is used not for it's material
> strength (as that is intended not to be an issue), but for heat
> resistance.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 12:49:25 PM6/13/02
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote:


>>>>In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
>>>>level of hardware.
>>>>
>>>'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
>>>ago.
>
> Later they installed a replacement iris of titanium-trinium alloy, if
> you really want that imaginary-element thrill. But J. B. Moreno is
> correct:
>
>>No, because it so close to the event horizon that it prevents incoming
>>matter from fully materializing. Titanium is used not for it's material
>>strength (as that is intended not to be an issue), but for heat
>>resistance.


There's a neat scene early on after they install the iris and Apophis
is trying to send troops through anyway. The SG security team is standing
around and everyone is listening to the thumps of stuff hitting the other
side of the iris and looking fairly grossed out because they know what
it means.

--
Keith

John Schilling

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 2:50:05 PM6/13/02
to
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <ae8jlu$4uq50$1...@ID-96845.news.dfncis.de>, Paul Vader
><pv+u...@pobox.com> writes
>>"Niall McAuley" <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> writes:
>>>I mean that he didn't think it stood a chance of being any good at all
>>>given the people involved and the wretched movie, but he admitted
>>>that he was wrong, and that it was watchable later. He even praised
>>>the first season, or at least damned it with very faint damns.

>>I think the thing that shocked Gharlane the most was how the military is
>>handled. It's not easy to find any mass media depiction of a military
>>leader anything like General Hammond. The idea of a calm, rational
>>commander who actually listens to the advice of his staff is so alien to
>>film/TV that it really stands out when you watch stargate.

> So they've got this stargate thingy. Every now and then, it activates
>when they're not expecting it. When this happens they rush a squad of
>soldiers to the bottom of the ramp to cover whatever's coming through.

You may have missed the automatic cannon emplacements visible in some
shots of this standard response. The props department used WW2-era
20mm Oerlikons behind splinter shields; realistically, the contemporary
US armed forces would use 25mm Bushmasters. Enough to gut a light tank
at point-blank range.


> Me? I'd have an Abrams sitting at the bottom of that ramp full-time
>behind an armoured bulkhead, with its 120mm cannon pointed straight into
>the middle of the gate. Behind *that*, I'd have an MX missile in a
>horizontal launch cell pointing at the same spot. Screw subtlety.


I don't see how either of those does any good whatsoever when the Bad
Guys on the other end of the gate send their own equivalent of an MX
through the wormhole at us.

Threats coming through the stargate fall into three categories: Those
which can be defeated by small arms and light cannon, those which will
get hung up by the fact that they emerge in a maze of twisty passages,
all alike, and those which absolutely must not be allowed through in the
first place.

Against that last category, and the default defense against all attacks,
is the unobtanium iris that prevents the threat from materializing unless
Our Heroes decide to let it through. Setting up the iris first thing,
and the associated IFF system, is one of the signs that the producers
Have a Clue.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 3:46:30 PM6/13/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:

>Andrew Plotkin wrote:


I was hoping for the scene where, after the attack, they all drew straws
and the loser was handed a squeegee...

Lynn Calvin

unread,
Jun 14, 2002, 12:19:46 AM6/14/02
to
On 12 Jun 2002 18:06:10 GMT, ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck)
wrote:

>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>>Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>>> "Aaron P. Brezenski" wrote:
>
>>> > I still have the email stored away wherein he regales Lois McMaster
>>> > Bujold, Connie Willis, and Barbara Hambly's Sun-Cross books
>
>>> Is it just me, or are you also waiting for a third Sun Cross book?
>
>> There's certainly potential for it, but Sun Cross concluded fairly
>>well -- Hambly *NEVER* wraps things up to the point that you can say
>>"Okay, that's it, nothing more to do HERE."
>
>> Personally, I'd rather have another Sun Wolf/Starhawk book. I
>>consider those to be her best series.
>
>I'd go for a sequel to _Bride of the Rat God,_ myself. That's one
>of my favorite of hers.

I think she may have a manuscript for this. Look at her web page.
--
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com

Ross TenEyck

unread,
Jun 14, 2002, 1:58:37 PM6/14/02
to
lca...@interaccess.com (Lynn Calvin) writes:
>On 12 Jun 2002 18:06:10 GMT, ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck)
>wrote:

>>I'd go for a sequel to _Bride of the Rat God,_ myself. That's one


>>of my favorite of hers.

>I think she may have a manuscript for this. Look at her web page.

Looks like she doesn't have a manuscript, but she does have an idea:

The Official Word/In the Future: As was mentioned in the July,
2001 Monthly Update, Barbara originally planned to write a
sequel to this, called Curse of the Swamp Monster. An outpouring
of mail followed this update, and in the August, 2001 Monthly
Update, she mentions that it's possible that this book will be
written before long.

And on Sun Cross:

The Official Word/In the Future: For some reason, this series
tends to attract very hard-core fans, who insist that there
must be a third book. There are plans to return to the world,
only not very soon. The following was taken from the May 1st,
2000 Weekly Update:

"Yes, eventually I DO plan to write a third in the Sun Cross
series, but since the story was originally planned and structured
as a single volume, it will probably be awhile before I'll be able
to sit down and work out implications of Rhion's return and the
war of the wizards against the priests of Agon. "

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jun 14, 2002, 2:09:53 PM6/14/02
to
In article <aedasd$n...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> "Yes, eventually I DO plan to write a third in the Sun Cross
> series, but since the story was originally planned and structured
> as a single volume, it will probably be awhile before I'll be able
> to sit down and work out implications of Rhion's return and the
> war of the wizards against the priests of Agon. "

Yay! Great news!!!!!!

SkyeFire

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 6:34:51 AM6/16/02
to
In article <v9wZmHCj...@branta.demon.co.uk>, Del Cotter
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:

>
>>In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively low
>>level of hardware.
>
>'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple of weeks
>ago.
>
>Excuse me, but titanium is aluminium that went to college. If script
>(and novel) writers want to make up magic materials, I wish they'd call
>them "Adamantium" or "Geranium" or something, and not misuse real names.

What misuse? They didn't HAVE any "magic materials" at that point in the
show. They had to make do with purely terrestrial logistics, and titanium was
the best they could do. The trick that makes the iris work is its proximity to
the "event horizon" of the planar wormhole -- it's so close to the "surface"
(the "water" effect) that objects coming through the Gate can't re-integrate on
the molecular level. That little property of the Gate effect allowed them to
be confident they could hold off attacks through the Gate even by the Gould's
advanced technology.
But, it came back to bite them later when one of the System Lords used a
particle beam weapon through the Gate -- accelerated subatomic particles were
small enough to re-integrate between the iris and the event horizon, and
started slowly melting down the iris.

Franklin Hummel

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 2:43:58 PM6/16/02
to

For me, remembering Gharlane was taken on a new direction with all
these 10-10-220 commericals of late with ALF.
For those who don't know, Gharlane's P.O. Box mailing address was
under the name of "Gordon Shumway".
*sigh*
--Franklin Hummel, Boston, MA, USA


Johnny1A

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 9:46:34 PM6/16/02
to
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<9n1dguokeh587pv02...@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:45:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
> >diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
> >GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.

>
> Anderson is *not* MacGyver in SG-1, though. His subordinates are
> smarter than he is, and he acknowledges it. He almost never gets to
> have sex, and never treats women as stupid. I liked MacGyver, but it
> had its flaws. I like SG-1 better.

I don't recall off-hand that MacGyver treated women as stupid,
particularly, except in the sense that _everyone_ was stupid from his
point of view, and he was usually nice about it.
Shermanlee

Dan Dassow

unread,
Jun 16, 2002, 11:45:38 PM6/16/02
to
"Franklin Hummel" <hum...@world.std.com> wrote in message news:<GxtAp...@world.std.com>...

Franklin,
Thanks for sharing. I thought I was the only one to get
misty-eyed whenever they show the 10-10-220 commercials featuring
ALF. I also now find it difficult to watch "Project: ALF".

Dan Dassow

William December Starr

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 12:34:58 AM6/17/02
to
In article <RBYgaJAo...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>,
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:

>> Excuse me, but titanium is aluminium that went to college. If
>> script (and novel) writers want to make up magic materials, I wish
>> they'd call them "Adamantium" or "Geranium" or something, and not

>> misuse real names. [Del Cotter]


>
> I was glancing through a Cold War thriller yesterday in a charity
> shop -- Mad Russians had captured an American PeaceKeeper silo and
> were preparing to launch the missile at Russia to start WWIII. When
> one of the junior American officers suggested shooting the thing
> down as it left the silo with tank and artillery fire, he was told
> it wouldn't work, because the missile was made of titanium.

Shit, I think I read that. The silo was located somewhere on the East
Coast, in Maryland or something? And the two people sent in to try to
get in via a tunnel/cave system were both ex-tunnel rats from the
Vietnam War -- one an American who was sprung from jail for it and
the other an ex-Viet Cong woman who'd later immigrated to the States?

I remember thinking that once they had the Russian support troops on
the ground suppressed, they should have at least _thought_ of just
landing a helicopter or two on top of the damned silo as soon as it
opened up (or better yet, a bleeping *tank* airlifted by a Sikorsky
Skyhook or something). But I suppose a missile made of indestructible
*TITANIUM* would just have plowed right through all that too.

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

Adam Littman

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:07:37 AM6/17/02
to

Yeah. He mailed me something once, the return address had that name and a
three eyed smiley face drawn on it (this was back way before the movie
"Evolution").

In my next e-mail I asked him how things were on Melmac ;-)

--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 5:50:21 AM6/17/02
to
In article <aejoti$93q$1...@panix2.panix.com>, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> writes

>
>Shit, I think I read that. The silo was located somewhere on the East
>Coast, in Maryland or something?

Quite near Washington D.C. The Prez flew out in a 'copter after the
operation was over to hand out medals.

> And the two people sent in to try to
>get in via a tunnel/cave system were both ex-tunnel rats from the
>Vietnam War -- one an American who was sprung from jail for it and
>the other an ex-Viet Cong woman who'd later immigrated to the States?

That's the one.


>
>I remember thinking that once they had the Russian support troops on
>the ground suppressed, they should have at least _thought_ of just
>landing a helicopter or two on top of the damned silo as soon as it
>opened up (or better yet, a bleeping *tank* airlifted by a Sikorsky
>Skyhook or something). But I suppose a missile made of indestructible
>*TITANIUM* would just have plowed right through all that too.

Heck, the Delta Force commandos assaulting the silo dropped multi-pound
charges of C-4 down the tube beside the missile to clear the Speznatz
defenders. This did not materially affect the missile either.

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:11:42 PM6/17/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
>

> > Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:
> >...
> >> >In any event, the presence of the iris explains the relatively
> >> >low level of hardware.
>
> >> 'Cos it's made of *titanium*, right? I saw the pilot a couple
> >> of weeks ago.
>
> > No, because it so close to the even horizon that it prevents
> > incoming matter from fully materializing.
>
> You do have to wonder why no one else copies this idea, though, given
> the number of allies and enemies of the Tau'ri aware of the iris.

Probably because most of them are either (a) powerful enough that it
isn't a hinderance, or (b) aren't interested in doing any exploring of
their own (and hence have no interest in having it open).

> For that matter, having a few prefab irises would offer an alternative to
> burying the stargate for contacted planets of moderate tech level.
> (They'd at least need radio, or there'd be no good way of telling when to
> open it. Opening it on any sort of known schedule is asking for a visit
> from the Goa'uld.)

Given that the have FTL, I for one wouldn't feel comfortable leaving my
equipment lying around for the Goa'uld to study anytime they get the
itch. Burying is nice and simple, and there's nothing to learn from
studying a buried gate.



> > Titanium is used not for it's material strength (as that is intended not
> > to be an issue),
>
> Though it has been, I think, largely because they occasionally don't
> have complete control of the near side of the stargate. (If the
> general public of the SG-1 universe knew how often Cheyenne Mountain
> was partially or wholly under the control of hostile alien forces,
> one suspects they'd sleep less well at night.)

I'm not sure that the material strength was ever that important -- even
when aliens have been on the near side of the stargate, it's just meant
to slow them down a bit, anything that they can't just zap out of the
way would do.

> > but for heat resistance.
>
> IIRC the titanium iris was destroyed at some point and replaced with a
> more durable (though not so much real) material called trinium.

Which is one of the things I like about the show -- things change, and
when they do, the changes are lasting (i.e. their having zap guns
available when they need them, even if they mainly do prefer slugs).

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:11:46 PM6/17/02
to
Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote

> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:45:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
> > >diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
> > >GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.

Yes, but as rumor had it (I don't know if this is true or not)
MacGyver's anti-gun, non-violent, approach to life was because that was
the way Anderson was -- SG1 with that type of attitude would have been a
dismal flop because the Gou'ald simply can't be won over by passive
means. The only "passive" race to successfully do so, does so by (a)
hiding from them and (b) having a higher tech level (i.e. the system
lords don't want to push the issue in case they aren't really that stuck
on non-violence and being obnoxious would push them over into kicking
Gou'ald butt).

> > Anderson is *not* MacGyver in SG-1, though. His subordinates are
> > smarter than he is, and he acknowledges it. He almost never gets to
> > have sex, and never treats women as stupid. I liked MacGyver, but it
> > had its flaws. I like SG-1 better.
>
> I don't recall off-hand that MacGyver treated women as stupid,
> particularly, except in the sense that _everyone_ was stupid from his
> point of view, and he was usually nice about it.

Possibly so, but he "rescued" more women than he did men, so he was more
often shown treating them as being stupid.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:27:37 PM6/17/02
to
pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
news:1fdx8jp.sc5a6cxdm1r1N%pl...@newsreaders.com:

> Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

>...


>> You do have to wonder why no one else copies this idea, though,
>> given the number of allies and enemies of the Tau'ri aware of
>> the iris.

> Probably because most of them are either (a) powerful enough
> that it isn't a hinderance, or (b) aren't interested in doing
> any exploring of their own (and hence have no interest in having
> it open).

And in how many episodes have our heroes managed to use the stargate
to get onto a Goa'uld planet against the wishes of its Jaffa guards?
(The gates should, of course, be better fortified overall as well--
the choke point for fast travel to your planet should have more than
a few guys with staff weapons to defend it.) The iris protects
against unauthorized offworld activation, which under normal
circumstances can be done any time, from any other gate, as long as
the stargate isn't buried or otherwise deactivated.

>> For that matter, having a few prefab irises would offer an
>> alternative to burying the stargate for contacted planets of
>> moderate tech level. (They'd at least need radio, or there'd be
>> no good way of telling when to open it. Opening it on any sort
>> of known schedule is asking for a visit from the Goa'uld.)

> Given that the have FTL, I for one wouldn't feel comfortable
> leaving my equipment lying around for the Goa'uld to study
> anytime they get the itch. Burying is nice and simple, and
> there's nothing to learn from studying a buried gate.

Is there anything to learn from studying an iris, once you've got the
basic concept?

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:22:23 PM6/17/02
to
J.B. Moreno wrote:


> Yes, but as rumor had it (I don't know if this is true or not)
> MacGyver's anti-gun, non-violent, approach to life was because that was
> the way Anderson was -- SG1 with that type of attitude would have been a
> dismal flop because the Gou'ald simply can't be won over by passive
> means. The only "passive" race to successfully do so, does so by (a)
> hiding from them and (b) having a higher tech level (i.e. the system
> lords don't want to push the issue in case they aren't really that stuck
> on non-violence and being obnoxious would push them over into kicking
> Gou'ald butt).


Ah, the Nox. My favourite bit with them occurred when one was visiting
a planet protected from the Goa'uld by huge honking energy cannons.
When the Goa'uld launched a sneak attack that destroyed the cannons,
Teal'c revealed that he had, with the cooperation of the Nox, concealed
one of the cannons which he then used to shoot down the attacking
mothership. Carter turns to the Nox woman and says "I thought
your people were pacifists?"

"We are. I hid the weapon, I did not fire it."

"That's a pretty fine line you didn't cross."

"Yes, it is."

Given that flexible approach to pacifism, one can see the Goa'uld's
point in avoiding them.

It also demonstrates how the show portrays aliens as being pretty
pragmatic when need be instead of the typical Trek "We have our
culture that we shall follow come hell or high water" portrayal.

--
Keith


Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 3:57:29 PM6/17/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in
news:3D0E36EF...@polarnet.ca:
>...

> Ah, the Nox. My favourite bit with them occurred when one was
> visiting a planet protected from the Goa'uld by huge honking
> energy cannons. When the Goa'uld launched a sneak attack that
> destroyed the cannons, Teal'c revealed that he had, with the
> cooperation of the Nox, concealed one of the cannons which he
> then used to shoot down the attacking mothership.
>...

Not that it helped that particular planet in the long run. Y'know,
James Kirk's problem was only that the women who fell in love with
him tended to die by the end of the episode. Falling in love with
Sam Carter generally means that your whole *species* gets it in the
neck within a year or two. (Perhaps the Nox recognize this, since I
don't recall any Nox developing attachments to Major Carter.)

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 4:21:14 PM6/17/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer wrote:


>>Ah, the Nox. My favourite bit with them occurred when one was
>>visiting a planet protected from the Goa'uld by huge honking
>>energy cannons. When the Goa'uld launched a sneak attack that
>>destroyed the cannons, Teal'c revealed that he had, with the
>>cooperation of the Nox, concealed one of the cannons which he
>>then used to shoot down the attacking mothership.
>

> Not that it helped that particular planet in the long run. Y'know,
> James Kirk's problem was only that the women who fell in love with
> him tended to die by the end of the episode. Falling in love with
> Sam Carter generally means that your whole *species* gets it in the
> neck within a year or two. (Perhaps the Nox recognize this, since I
> don't recall any Nox developing attachments to Major Carter.)


It's the Jack O'Neill Effect. Anyone who personally annoys Jack
O'Neill tends to come to a spectacular end, even if O'Neill is
not directly involved. And nothing would annoy O'Neill more than
someone getting the chick that he's got the hots for.

--
Keith

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 4:59:29 PM6/17/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in
news:3D0E44BA...@polarnet.ca:

> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>...


>> Not that it helped that particular planet in the long run.
>> Y'know, James Kirk's problem was only that the women who fell
>> in love with him tended to die by the end of the episode.
>> Falling in love with Sam Carter generally means that your whole
>> *species* gets it in the neck within a year or two. (Perhaps
>> the Nox recognize this, since I don't recall any Nox developing
>> attachments to Major Carter.)

> It's the Jack O'Neill Effect. Anyone who personally annoys Jack
> O'Neill tends to come to a spectacular end, even if O'Neill is
> not directly involved. And nothing would annoy O'Neill more
> than someone getting the chick that he's got the hots for.

Hmm... they mostly also belong to species with better-than-Terran
technology which they refuse to share. Which also annoys Jack
O'Neill. The Asgard are very smart to flatter him. ("Really,
O'Neill, your combustion-driven pea-shooters are *much* more
effective against runaway von Neumann machines than our millennia-old
tech. Honest. We aren't hiding the real anti-Replicator armaments
in our other galaxy or anything.") And the Nox and Oma Whatsername
should really should watch their step.

(For that matter, Daniel Jackson was frequently annoying to O'Neill.
And where is Daniel now?)

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 7:11:08 PM6/17/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer wrote:


>>>Not that it helped that particular planet in the long run.
>>>Y'know, James Kirk's problem was only that the women who fell
>>>in love with him tended to die by the end of the episode.
>>>Falling in love with Sam Carter generally means that your whole
>>>*species* gets it in the neck within a year or two. (Perhaps
>>>the Nox recognize this, since I don't recall any Nox developing
>>>attachments to Major Carter.)
>
>>It's the Jack O'Neill Effect. Anyone who personally annoys Jack
>>O'Neill tends to come to a spectacular end, even if O'Neill is
>>not directly involved. And nothing would annoy O'Neill more
>>than someone getting the chick that he's got the hots for.
>
> Hmm... they mostly also belong to species with better-than-Terran
> technology which they refuse to share. Which also annoys Jack
> O'Neill. The Asgard are very smart to flatter him. ("Really,
> O'Neill, your combustion-driven pea-shooters are *much* more
> effective against runaway von Neumann machines than our millennia-old
> tech. Honest. We aren't hiding the real anti-Replicator armaments
> in our other galaxy or anything.") And the Nox and Oma Whatsername
> should really should watch their step.


The Asgard also named their biggest, baddest battleship after him,
clearly demonstrating their superior insight and intelligence. No
wonder they've lasted so long.


> (For that matter, Daniel Jackson was frequently annoying to O'Neill.
> And where is Daniel now?)


Gettin' some from Rommie, which one might argue is the better deal.
(Michael Shanks was, and might still be, dating Lexa "Andromeda" Doig.)

--
Keith

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 8:16:48 PM6/17/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in
news:3D0E6C8C...@polarnet.ca:

> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:


>>Keith Morrison writes:
>>>It's the Jack O'Neill Effect. Anyone who personally annoys
>>>Jack O'Neill tends to come to a spectacular end

>...

>> Hmm... they mostly also belong to species with
>> better-than-Terran technology which they refuse to share.
>> Which also annoys Jack O'Neill. The Asgard are very smart to
>> flatter him.

>...

> The Asgard also named their biggest, baddest battleship after
> him, clearly demonstrating their superior insight and
> intelligence.

Or said they did. :-) IIRC, only Carter and Teal'c ever saw it.
Can either of them read Asgard? ("As you see, our new flagship is
called the _O'Neill_." "Umm... doesn't it _Naglfar_ on the side,
there?" "Well, you see, the way it is, Dr. Jackson, is that what
with the war and all, we haven't had time to repaint it since your
last great victory against our common foe. Yes. But we'll get to
it, we promise.")

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 9:12:47 PM6/17/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
>

> > Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
> >...
> >> You do have to wonder why no one else copies this idea, though,
> >> given the number of allies and enemies of the Tau'ri aware of
> >> the iris.
>
> > Probably because most of them are either (a) powerful enough
> > that it isn't a hinderance, or (b) aren't interested in doing
> > any exploring of their own (and hence have no interest in having
> > it open).
>
> And in how many episodes have our heroes managed to use the stargate
> to get onto a Goa'uld planet against the wishes of its Jaffa guards?

-snip-
The Goa'uld consider themselves in charge and a multi-system power -- as
such, they don't think they /need/ a fixed defense of that kind. So far
it's only Earth that is doing that kind of thing to them, and we aren't
considered a threat -- despite having had some major impact upon their
society.

> >> For that matter, having a few prefab irises would offer an
> >> alternative to burying the stargate for contacted planets of
> >> moderate tech level. (They'd at least need radio, or there'd be
> >> no good way of telling when to open it. Opening it on any sort
> >> of known schedule is asking for a visit from the Goa'uld.)
>
> > Given that the have FTL, I for one wouldn't feel comfortable
> > leaving my equipment lying around for the Goa'uld to study
> > anytime they get the itch. Burying is nice and simple, and
> > there's nothing to learn from studying a buried gate.
>
> Is there anything to learn from studying an iris, once you've got the
> basic concept?

Yeah -- it'd give them a chance to study our IFF equipment, and possibly
with their superior tech be able to spoof it. Burying it on the other
hand tells them nothing other than the fact that they aren't able to
establish a wormhole to that planet.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 11:08:20 PM6/17/02
to
pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
news:1fdxuj1.1rvbi9d867jj0N%pl...@newsreaders.com:
> Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

>> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in
>...

>> > Given that the have FTL, I for one wouldn't feel comfortable
>> > leaving my equipment lying around for the Goa'uld to study
>> > anytime they get the itch. Burying is nice and simple, and
>> > there's nothing to learn from studying a buried gate.

>> Is there anything to learn from studying an iris, once you've
>> got the basic concept?

> Yeah -- it'd give them a chance to study our IFF equipment, and
> possibly with their superior tech be able to spoof it. Burying
> it on the other hand tells them nothing other than the fact that
> they aren't able to establish a wormhole to that planet.

I didn't mean give the locals a complete copy of the SGC's setup.
Just an iris (or the plans thereof), and the idea that they'd best
have some sort of radio confirmation on when to open it. Let them
develop their own procedures-- or, if they don't think they're up
to it, they can bury the gate. (Whether it's worth setting up an
iris/GDO setup on the worlds where humans have bases is a judgment
call, balancing the cost of losing the base versus the cost of
risking the IFF equipment.)

Johnny1A

unread,
Jun 17, 2002, 11:12:35 PM6/17/02
to
pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote in message news:<1fdx8yp.hukmhi1yejgvrN%pl...@newsreaders.com>...

> Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote
> > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:45:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen this yet. I will be. I'll note that our tastes seem
> > > >diametrically opposed in some ways, though. MacGyver being in it was a
> > > >GOOD thing. MacGyver fits in my top ten series list easily.
>
> Yes, but as rumor had it (I don't know if this is true or not)
> MacGyver's anti-gun, non-violent, approach to life was because that was
> the way Anderson was --

I normally get the crawly hives when I run across that sort of
nonsense in fiction, SF or otherwise, but on _MacGyver_ it worked. I
think it's because MacGyver, though a pacifist himself, isn't
_contemptuous_ of military men or police, he just prefers different
methods. Also, given his skills the attitude makes more sense for him
than for most.

I think one reason I have such fond memories of _MacGyver_ is that it
was such a refreshing contrast to the _Rambo_ mentality which was all
over TV and movies then. It was fun to see the hero defeat the enem
with his brain rather that hitting him and uttering monosyllables.

>
> Possibly so, but he "rescued" more women than he did men, so he was more
> often shown treating them as being stupid.

Shermanlee

Ian Burrell

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:45:55 AM6/18/02
to
In article <lMU9ZiAd...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>,

Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Heck, the Delta Force commandos assaulting the silo dropped multi-pound
>charges of C-4 down the tube beside the missile to clear the Speznatz
>defenders. This did not materially affect the missile either.
>

Obviously some alternate reality. In this reality, an Air Force
repairman dropped a wrench into a Titan II silo. The wrench caused a
fuel leak, the fuel exploded, the explosion blew off the silo door,
but the nuclear warhead was recovered intact.

- Ian

--
"Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It's just very
particular about who it makes friends with."

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 1:32:22 AM6/18/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer wrote:


>>Yeah -- it'd give them a chance to study our IFF equipment, and
>>possibly with their superior tech be able to spoof it. Burying
>>it on the other hand tells them nothing other than the fact that
>>they aren't able to establish a wormhole to that planet.
>
> I didn't mean give the locals a complete copy of the SGC's setup.
> Just an iris (or the plans thereof), and the idea that they'd best
> have some sort of radio confirmation on when to open it. Let them
> develop their own procedures-- or, if they don't think they're up
> to it, they can bury the gate. (Whether it's worth setting up an
> iris/GDO setup on the worlds where humans have bases is a judgment
> call, balancing the cost of losing the base versus the cost of
> risking the IFF equipment.)


I seem to recall that the times O'Neill & Co suggested burying
the local Stargate involved planets too low on the tech scale to
do the iris/IFF thing.

They haven't run across many planets at roughly Earth-level tech.
Most have been either behind technologically or more advanced (thus
suggesting they had other defenses available).

Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way. It's
been shown that you don't know what's on the other side of an
activated gate until you actually go see. Which is one of the
reasons that for new locations they send through the rover first.

It also explains Apophis's Suicide Squad. He was just sending
them through, not knowing they were being smooshed into molecular
paste. He probably assumed a raging battle was taking place.

--
Keith


Heather Garvey

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 11:25:40 AM6/18/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>
>Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way. It's
>been shown that you don't know what's on the other side of an
>activated gate until you actually go see. Which is one of the
>reasons that for new locations they send through the rover first.

Um, yes, burying prevents a wormhole from establishing and
people from arriving. The iris doesn't "bury" the wormhole - it just
puts a very very very tight lid on it.


--
Heather Garvey "The school has lost its funding for textbooks, so
ra...@xnet.com you've all been given wildlife survival manuals.
Today you'll be quizzed on how to skin a moose."
-- Miss Bitters, _Invader ZIM_

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 11:27:04 AM6/18/02
to
Here, Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:

> Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.

Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.

> It's
> been shown that you don't know what's on the other side of an
> activated gate until you actually go see. Which is one of the
> reasons that for new locations they send through the rover first.

If the wormhole forms, you know the other end isn't buried, but you
don't know if there's an iris-style covering (which will splat you)
or implacably hostile conditions (of many definitions) or a lack of
dialing facilities.

> It also explains Apophis's Suicide Squad. He was just sending
> them through, not knowing they were being smooshed into molecular
> paste. He probably assumed a raging battle was taking place.

Right.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.

Niall McAuley

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 11:57:23 AM6/18/02
to
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message news:aenjg8$f30$5...@reader1.panix.com...

> Here, Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:

> > Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.

> Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
> chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.

So, that time when O'Neill was lost for months and being hit on
by a local woman, but keeps trying to dig out the gate, and
Mong'o or whatever his name is jumps into the cave formed at the
buried gate by the whoosh of the wormhole appearing, and as
he can't phone home he has to dig his way out before he runs
out of air, in that episode, how come burying the gate didn't
stop it working?
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:46:08 PM6/18/02
to
Niall McAuley <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> wrote:

> "Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in

> > Here, Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.
>
> > Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
> > chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.
>
> So, that time when O'Neill was lost for months and being hit on
> by a local woman, but keeps trying to dig out the gate, and
> Mong'o or whatever his name is jumps into the cave formed at the
> buried gate by the whoosh of the wormhole appearing, and as
> he can't phone home he has to dig his way out before he runs
> out of air, in that episode, how come burying the gate didn't
> stop it working?

By sheer coincidence, the gate ended up in a pocket sufficiently large
to enable a wormhole to be established -- when it did, it enlarged the
pocket.

Heather Garvey

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:54:26 PM6/18/02
to
J.B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:

>Niall McAuley <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> So, that time when O'Neill was lost for months and being hit on
>> by a local woman, but keeps trying to dig out the gate, and
>> Mong'o or whatever his name is jumps into the cave formed at the
>> buried gate by the whoosh of the wormhole appearing, and as
>> he can't phone home he has to dig his way out before he runs
>> out of air, in that episode, how come burying the gate didn't
>> stop it working?
>
>By sheer coincidence, the gate ended up in a pocket sufficiently large
>to enable a wormhole to be established -- when it did, it enlarged the
>pocket.

It wasn't coincidence. The gate was active when the meteor
hit. The wormhole kept anything from filling in the gate until it turned
off. By then a molten layer of rock created the next best thing to an
iris. So the wormhole formed, but everything went *splat*, just like
people do against our iris. It took them three months to get through,
because Sam had to figure out a way to "melt" the "iris" enough to let
the whoosh form and hollow out enough space to dig the rest of the way
through.

And yeah, they never really explain why the wormhole can
form without the whoosh - or why they don't then just close the iris
when dialing in or out as a safety measure, so no one can even
accidentally get killed by the deadly whoosh.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:50:33 PM6/18/02
to

It wasn't buried, it was in a cave.

If I recall correctly, the gate was hit with a wave of lava or rock
(or something) just as it was *opening*. The wormhole had already
formed, and was whooshing around, which carved out the hole.

If you bury a stargate which is inactive, it counts as "buried" --
presumably the continuous mass across the ring-plane is what's
important. If you bury a stargate which is open and stable, I think
you get mass right up to the ring-plane but not across it, so it would
act as a natural iris. (This configuration would remain after the gate
closed, assuming of course that you're burying it in solid matter.)

That episode was a strange boundary case, because the gate was open
but its surface wasn't stable yet.

Actually I *do* have a consistency nitpick with that episode. I don't
think you should be able to run a rope through a stargate connection,
not without either severing it or sucking the entire thing through.

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 12:36:08 PM6/18/02
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote:


>>Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.
>
> Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
> chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.


I stand corrected. I forgot about the bit where they've established
than something physically within the gate prevent the wormhole from
forming.

--
Keith


Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 1:33:23 PM6/18/02
to
Here, Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:

Note that a lot of my memory of the episode in question seems to be
wrong, also. Thanks to people who have posted corrections.

Mmm, Stargates. I just like the looks of the things.

Keith Morrison

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 2:50:07 PM6/18/02
to
Andrew Plotkin wrote:


> Actually I *do* have a consistency nitpick with that episode. I don't
> think you should be able to run a rope through a stargate connection,
> not without either severing it or sucking the entire thing through.


There are other cases of this happening. In the episode with the rogue
team using the backup Stargate to steal things, O'Neill keeps a gate
open by holding his hand in it.

--

Keith


Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 3:41:27 PM6/18/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in
news:3D0F80DF...@polarnet.ca:

That's a little different, though. The effect, when we follow
people into the stargate, is that they walk into the gate, then are
in the dark being whisked through a hyperspace light show, then
they come out the other side. Presumably, you don't get whisked
till all of your body's past the singularity. And if you're
halfway into the gate, it can't shut off, because the Ancients
sometimes believed in safety features. It's sort of the equivalent
of the interlock that prevents an elevator door from slicing your
arm off.

But a rope fed into the stargate should just be hanging around in
hyperspace till it's *all* fed in, at which point it should be
transported to the other gate in its entirety and pop out.
Normally, it's not possible for someone or something to be
partially on one side of the gate and partially on the other. The
rope in that episode, IIRC, was an exception.

Sea Wasp

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 4:35:01 PM6/18/02
to

Wouldn't fit with the original way the Stargate worked, though --
they had that wierdo probe machine that stuck some instruments
through, checked to see if it was survivable on the other side, and
pulled its probe back.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm

John Schilling

unread,
Jun 18, 2002, 6:14:13 PM6/18/02
to
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> writes:

>> Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>>...
>>> You do have to wonder why no one else copies this idea, though,
>>> given the number of allies and enemies of the Tau'ri aware of
>>> the iris.

>> Probably because most of them are either (a) powerful enough
>> that it isn't a hinderance, or (b) aren't interested in doing
>> any exploring of their own (and hence have no interest in having
>> it open).

>And in how many episodes have our heroes managed to use the stargate
>to get onto a Goa'uld planet against the wishes of its Jaffa guards?
>(The gates should, of course, be better fortified overall as well--
>the choke point for fast travel to your planet should have more than
>a few guys with staff weapons to defend it.)


Better fortified, better located, and better used. The one thing the
show consistently gets wrong, is having stargates mounted prominently
in some untended shrine on a path a nice walk from a small town.

The only locations that make sense are wholly abandoned and probably
buried by accident if not design, or smack in the middle of the local
equivalent of Grand Central Station. In use 24/7, except perhaps for
dead-end terminals on backwater planets, and even those would get
enough traffic for a full-time staff as well as the guards.

If you know what a stargate is, you *use* it. And even the most limited
of commerce between entire planets is going to seriously occupy a gate,
calling for substantial surrounding infrastructure. On both ends, so
even if the locals on the far side are ignorant low-tech yutzes you
set up and man their terminal yourself.

If nobody is using a gate, nobody knows what it is or how to use it,
then "religious veneration" only goes so far for explaining why the
thing hasn't been left to topple and be buried by a thousand years
of geology in action.


Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small towns,
may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of story they
want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories that evolve from
our finding one of an actively used netowrk of Stargates.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *


William December Starr

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 7:58:43 PM6/20/02
to
In article <aemdu3$net$1...@shell.accesscom.com>,
ianbu...@yahoo.com (Ian Burrell) said:

> Obviously some alternate reality. In this reality, an Air Force
> repairman dropped a wrench into a Titan II silo. The wrench caused a
> fuel leak, the fuel exploded, the explosion blew off the silo door,
> but the nuclear warhead was recovered intact.

Said warhead having been blasted clean out of the silo and into the
surrounding countryside (though not all the way off of base property),
I believe. I think I remember reading in the news articles about some
in-the-clear radio chatter that was picked up by some civilians near
the base shortly after the incident. It went something like (and I'm
approximating like mad from ancient, fallible memory here) this:

"Base, Ground Three. I think we've... okay, yeah, we've found it."

"Ground Three, Base, specify. You've found what?"

"Base, Ground Three, I, uh, I don't think I should say on this circuit."

"Uh, okay Ground Three, understood. Stand by."

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

SkyeFire

unread,
Jun 21, 2002, 12:28:23 AM6/21/02
to
In article <aenjg8$f30$5...@reader1.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
<erky...@eblong.com> writes:

>
>> Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.
>
>Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
>chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.

But does it do that because it's *covering* the gate, or *inside* the gate?
We've seen a gate laid flat on the ground put into use, and the "surge" of the
initial wormhole formation disintigrates whatever it touches. And, IIRC (gonna
have to go back and re-watch now -- the sacrifices I make for Usenet), they
don't keep the Iris closed because the "surge" would destroy it -- instead,
when they have an unauthorized incoming traveller, they let the wormhole form,
then slap the Iris closed over the top of it.
My pet theory is that burying works because you have material passing all
the way "through" the inactive gate -- the safeties trip out because there's
something besides air blocking the formation of the wormhole. One has to
wonder what would happen if those safeties were bypassed by someone...
Unfortunately, the counter-example to my pet theory is the Antarctic
wormhole, which was disabled by welding a permanent iris onto it.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 21, 2002, 1:17:35 AM6/21/02
to
Here, SkyeFire <skye...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <aenjg8$f30$5...@reader1.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> writes:

>>
>>> Burying doesn't prevent someone from arriving, by the way.
>>
>>Yes it does -- it prevents the wormhole from forming at all. The last
>>chevron won't lock if the other end is missing or buried.

> But does it do that because it's *covering* the gate, or *inside*
> the gate?

Covering, I'm pretty sure, but I haven't seen a definite citation.

> We've seen a gate laid flat on the ground put into use,

It was facing up, though.

> and the "surge" of the initial wormhole formation disintigrates
> whatever it touches. And, IIRC (gonna have to go back and re-watch
> now -- the sacrifices I make for Usenet), they don't keep the Iris
> closed because the "surge" would destroy it -- instead, when they
> have an unauthorized incoming traveller, they let the wormhole form,
> then slap the Iris closed over the top of it.

No, that's definitely not true. They close the iris before the
wormhole forms. It contains the splash (and it's not very clear if
there's any good explanation for that, but it's observable).

> My pet theory is that burying works because you have material passing all
> the way "through" the inactive gate -- the safeties trip out because there's
> something besides air blocking the formation of the wormhole. One has to
> wonder what would happen if those safeties were bypassed by someone...
> Unfortunately, the counter-example to my pet theory is the Antarctic
> wormhole, which was disabled by welding a permanent iris onto it.

Hrm. Maybe they welded it the necessary quarter-inch farther in.

David Given

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 2:20:30 PM6/20/02
to
In article <ae6900$8js$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
[...]
> Here's how I see it: "The Thirteenth Floor" had the potential to be
> "only" a quite good, but rather "quiet," film, and it completely met
> that potential. "The Matrix," on the other hand, had the potential to
> be something really incredible, but mostly blew it.
>
> So of you measure the films on the basis of what they delivered,
> "Thirteenth Floor" wins easily, but if you get into a "how high were
> my hopes raised, how much of that 'Oh *wow*' enthusiasm-tingle did I
> have in my belly at any point during the show" analysis, "The Matrix"
> scores much higher.

I haven't seen _Thirteenth Floor_, but in terms of sheer
blow-your-mind-away reality-twisting sensawunda you should see _Dark
City_. Beautifully made, well written, decently acted, gorgeous special
effects used *appropriately*[1]... it basically took on the same themes
_The Matrix_ did but did a so much better job of it it's not funny.

[1] Why don't *we* have space stations like that?

--
+- David Given --McQ-+ "A character is considered to be a letter if and
| d...@cowlark.com | only if it is a letter or digit (§20.5.16) but is not
| (d...@tao-group.com) | a digit (§20.5.14)." --- Sun Java language
+- www.cowlark.com --+ specification

David Given

unread,
Jun 20, 2002, 1:42:14 PM6/20/02
to
In article <aenqt3$kb7$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
[...]

> Note that a lot of my memory of the episode in question seems to be
> wrong, also. Thanks to people who have posted corrections.
>
> Mmm, Stargates. I just like the looks of the things.

One day when I am Very Rich and own a nice mansion somewhere, I want a
stargate in the garden. Just as a piece of sculpture; it needn't work
(but that would be a bonus).

...

I like _Stargate_. The authors actually seem to care about things like
consistency and science and so on. They don't always get it right,
particularly on the science, but they at least make the effort. There's
no particle-of-the-week syndrome. When they discovered the beta gate, it
*stayed* discovered. The various planets they make contact with pop up
now and again. The minor characters actually seem to have lives of their
own (they killed [1]! You bastards!). The production values are subtly
low-key but polished when they need to be (although the space scenes CGI
tends to be a bit poor).

The later seasons are beginning to degrade a bit, but the second and
third seasons are excellent.


SPOILER

[1] Doctor Rothman, Daniel's assistant. Got attacked by a proto-goa'uld
and had to be shot for his own good, the bastards. I *liked* Rothman.

BTW, what happened to wossname the archaeologist from the high-tech
planet when they got caught up in a sort of cold war thing? He had to be
rescued because eventually both sides wanted to shoot him, and I gather
he got taken on at Cheyenne.

machf

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 2:33:09 AM6/22/02
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:20:30 +0100, d...@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) wrote:

>In article <ae6900$8js$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>[...]
>> Here's how I see it: "The Thirteenth Floor" had the potential to be
>> "only" a quite good, but rather "quiet," film, and it completely met
>> that potential. "The Matrix," on the other hand, had the potential to
>> be something really incredible, but mostly blew it.
>>
>> So of you measure the films on the basis of what they delivered,
>> "Thirteenth Floor" wins easily, but if you get into a "how high were
>> my hopes raised, how much of that 'Oh *wow*' enthusiasm-tingle did I
>> have in my belly at any point during the show" analysis, "The Matrix"
>> scores much higher.
>
>I haven't seen _Thirteenth Floor_, but in terms of sheer
>blow-your-mind-away reality-twisting sensawunda you should see _Dark
>City_. Beautifully made, well written, decently acted, gorgeous special
>effects used *appropriately*[1]... it basically took on the same themes
>_The Matrix_ did but did a so much better job of it it's not funny.
>

I wanted to watch "Dark City", but it was never shown in thetres around
here. And when they aired it on cable, well, it didn;t get much promotion
either, I think they aired it at 3am or something and I didn't know
until a friend told me several days later...

From what I could see when they were running the trailers in U.S. channels
(which at the time could still be watched here on cable), it reminded me a
bit of "The Tunnel Under the World"... Of course that made me want to watch
it.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jun 22, 2002, 7:07:38 PM6/22/02
to
In article <Xns923195847BCA...@130.133.1.4>, Michael S.
Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

[Stargate]

> And if you're
> halfway into the gate, it can't shut off, because the Ancients
> sometimes believed in safety features.

Not just "sometimes", but apparently a lot of the safety devices are
part of the DHD - since the SG teams are controlling it manually, they
sometimes do things that would violate safety protocols.

Matt McIrvin

unread,
Jun 23, 2002, 11:42:53 AM6/23/02
to
In article <ta68hugutrcqrsiv2...@4ax.com>,
machf <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:20:30 +0100, d...@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) wrote:
>
> >I haven't seen _Thirteenth Floor_, but in terms of sheer
> >blow-your-mind-away reality-twisting sensawunda you should see _Dark
> >City_. Beautifully made, well written, decently acted, gorgeous special
> >effects used *appropriately*[1]... it basically took on the same themes
> >_The Matrix_ did but did a so much better job of it it's not funny.
> >
> I wanted to watch "Dark City", but it was never shown in thetres around
> here. And when they aired it on cable, well, it didn;t get much promotion
> either, I think they aired it at 3am or something and I didn't know
> until a friend told me several days later...

My wife and I rented and watched _The Matrix_ and _Dark City_ on the
same day. Afterward I surprised a lot of people on Usenet by
expressing disappointment with _The Matrix_; some of that came from the
fact that _Dark City_ had handled the same themes so much more
interestingly (though I think we watched _The Matrix_ first). Neither
is a logical science-fiction story, but we got the sense that the
writers of _Dark City_ were actually aware of this and tried to succeed
more on the level of poetry.

Having seen large chunks of it again, I will allow that _The Matrix_ is
one of the most gorgeous movies ever made and has wonderful fantasy
martial-arts action (thanks to the brilliant Yuen Woo-ping). But the
plot doesn't make a lick of sense, and it *could* have; this is the
frustrating thing.

--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:18:46 PM6/26/02
to
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small towns,
> may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of story they
> want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories that evolve from
> our finding one of an actively used netowrk of Stargates.

Do they have any idea of how large the network is?

--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:20:53 PM6/26/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
> mothership. Carter turns to the Nox woman and says "I thought
> your people were pacifists?"
> "We are. I hid the weapon, I did not fire it."
> "That's a pretty fine line you didn't cross."
> "Yes, it is."

Isn't that similar to the joke about the fighting Quaker?

"Brother, I would not wish to hurt you, but you are standing where I'm
about to put my fist."

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 8:20:53 PM6/26/02
to
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
> made a point about the new iris being made of "trinium", one of the
> unobtanium type alloys they've run across and found a use for. There
> was also mention trying to obtain enough naqadah (the really-strong
> unobtanium that they keep running across) in order to build an even
> stronger iris.

Sounds like some of the writers have read the _Skylark_ series.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 26, 2002, 9:13:34 PM6/26/02
to
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in
news:m38z516...@khem.blackfedora.com:

> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small
>> towns, may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of
>> story they want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories
>> that evolve from our finding one of an actively used netowrk of
>> Stargates.

> Do they have any idea of how large the network is?

They have a maximum based on the number possible symbol
combinations, but lots of the addresses don't work. Whether they
ever worked, of course, is unknown.

For that matter, IIRC their current system is based in part on an
old "address book" combined with a correction for stellar drift
that Daniel Jackson figured out in the pilot. It wouldn't be
inconceivable that his solution was an approximation, and/or that
the address book wasn't complete.

Klyfix

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 12:20:16 AM6/27/02
to
In article <m38z516...@khem.blackfedora.com>, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com>
writes:

>
>schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small towns,
>> may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of story they
>> want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories that evolve from
>> our finding one of an actively used netowrk of Stargates.
>
>Do they have any idea of how large the network is?

We know that it actually extends outside the Milky Way galaxy,
although without some funky powersource like something the
Asgard have the SGC can't fully use it.

V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
A rodent with mad skillz, uh, no.

Scott Schwartz

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 12:21:10 AM6/27/02
to
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> writes:
> For that matter, IIRC their current system is based in part on an
> old "address book" combined with a correction for stellar drift
> that Daniel Jackson figured out in the pilot. It wouldn't be
> inconceivable that his solution was an approximation, and/or that
> the address book wasn't complete.

On one epsisode O'Neil got the Knowledge of the Ancients uploaded into
his head, and figured out how to dial a combination with more digits
than usual, which took him to the Aesir, who knew how to uninstall the
stuff before it killed him.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 12:14:55 PM6/27/02
to
Here, Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in
> news:m38z516...@khem.blackfedora.com:

>> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>>> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small
>>> towns, may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of
>>> story they want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories
>>> that evolve from our finding one of an actively used netowrk of
>>> Stargates.

>> Do they have any idea of how large the network is?

> They have a maximum based on the number possible symbol
> combinations, but lots of the addresses don't work. Whether they
> ever worked, of course, is unknown.

(search search)... 39 symbols; 9 chevrons to enter them into. Mostly
we see 7-symbol addresses where the 7th is fixed based on the dialing
location. There are indications that 8-symbol sequences are used for
intergalactic calls.

But according to the original movie, the Stargate team tried a lot of
addresses at random, all of which failed, before Jackson figured out
the key. So the address space seems to be very sparsely populated.

> For that matter, IIRC their current system is based in part on an
> old "address book" combined with a correction for stellar drift
> that Daniel Jackson figured out in the pilot. It wouldn't be
> inconceivable that his solution was an approximation, and/or that
> the address book wasn't complete.

They have at least one additional address book that they got from,
erm, I forget who.

David Allsopp

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 3:07:38 PM6/27/02
to
In article <affdlv$4hj$4...@reader2.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
<erky...@eblong.com> writes

>Here, Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in
>> news:m38z516...@khem.blackfedora.com:
>
>>> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>>>> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small
>>>> towns, may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of
>>>> story they want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories
>>>> that evolve from our finding one of an actively used netowrk of
>>>> Stargates.
>
>>> Do they have any idea of how large the network is?
>
>> They have a maximum based on the number possible symbol
>> combinations, but lots of the addresses don't work. Whether they
>> ever worked, of course, is unknown.
>
>(search search)... 39 symbols; 9 chevrons to enter them into. Mostly
>we see 7-symbol addresses where the 7th is fixed based on the dialing
>location. There are indications that 8-symbol sequences are used for
>intergalactic calls.

Err...that's ~6.25e13 9-element addresses. Seems fairly large.
--
David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base.
Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.

Heather Garvey

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 7:05:42 PM6/27/02
to
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>But according to the original movie, the Stargate team tried a lot of
>addresses at random, all of which failed, before Jackson figured out
>the key. So the address space seems to be very sparsely populated.

That's because they were using a dialing computer, not the
Stargate's DHD. I get the feeling that the DHD talks to the other DHDs
and gets regular positioning updates, because when they use the
dialing computer to run the Stargate, they had to adjust for the
interstellar drift since it was last used 2000+ years ago. Abydos was
a relatively near planet and thus the coordinates didn't suffer so much
from interstellar drift. Once they made the adjustments, the whole range of
active gates was once more available, no matter how far.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 7:55:24 PM6/27/02
to
ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote in
news:afg5o6$6m7$1...@flood.xnet.com:

> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>
>>But according to the original movie, the Stargate team tried a
>>lot of addresses at random, all of which failed, before Jackson
>>figured out the key. So the address space seems to be very
>>sparsely populated.

> That's because they were using a dialing computer, not the
> Stargate's DHD. I get the feeling that the DHD talks to the
> other DHDs and gets regular positioning updates, because when
> they use the dialing computer to run the Stargate, they had to
> adjust for the interstellar drift since it was last used 2000+
> years ago. Abydos was a relatively near planet and thus the
> coordinates didn't suffer so much from interstellar drift. Once
> they made the adjustments, the whole range of active gates was
> once more available, no matter how far.

Though that still means there are lots of combinations of symbols
that don't correspond to gates, or they'd have gotten wrong numbers
rather than "This gate is out of service.". It may be that you
need to understand the system to understand what the address space
is. E.g., a US telephone, ignoring local service, can in principle
connect with more or less all the ten digit numbers that begin with
1. (Except that it can't, since not every area code is yet in use,
and there are other restrictions.) You could waste a lot of time
trying four digit numbers, or ten digit numbers starting with 8.
And once you've discovered that, it might take you even longer to
discover that there's another address space of international
numbers starting with "011", with a more variable number of digits.

J.B. Moreno

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:01:59 PM6/27/02
to
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

> ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote


>
> > Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>But according to the original movie, the Stargate team tried a lot of
> >>addresses at random, all of which failed, before Jackson figured out the
> >>key. So the address space seems to be very sparsely populated.
>
> > That's because they were using a dialing computer, not the
> > Stargate's DHD. I get the feeling that the DHD talks to the
> > other DHDs and gets regular positioning updates, because when
> > they use the dialing computer to run the Stargate, they had to
> > adjust for the interstellar drift since it was last used 2000+

> > years ago. [...]


>
> Though that still means there are lots of combinations of symbols
> that don't correspond to gates, or they'd have gotten wrong numbers
> rather than "This gate is out of service.".

Nope -- it depends upon what the address represents. If (as seems
likely) most or all of the symbols correspond to a spatial
position/offset, then a wrong address isn't going to get "gate out of
service" but rather "no gate there" in most cases.

I.e. if part of the Earth's address indicates that it's the 3rd planet
from the sun, then dialing that number without compensating for the
drift, get's you some other system -- which may very well have a gate,
just not on the 3rd planet out.

--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 10:21:41 PM6/27/02
to
Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> writes:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:14:55 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
> >Here, Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
> >> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in
> >> news:m38z516...@khem.blackfedora.com:
> >
> >>> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
> >>>> Untended but sort-of-maintained gates, near but not in small
> >>>> towns, may be a dramatic necessity for the particular sort of
> >>>> story they want to tell. I'd still like to see the stories
> >>>> that evolve from our finding one of an actively used netowrk of
> >>>> Stargates.
> >
> >>> Do they have any idea of how large the network is?
> >
> >> They have a maximum based on the number possible symbol
> >> combinations, but lots of the addresses don't work. Whether they
> >> ever worked, of course, is unknown.
> >
> >(search search)... 39 symbols; 9 chevrons to enter them into.
>

> If my calculator punching is correct, that works out roughly to 2**47.
> I see subnetting in their future.

You missed, by an order of magnitude order of magnitude.

ln(9 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 123.7
ln(8 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 117.0
ln(7 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 109.5

Only 7 chevrons of 39 symbols is over 2**109

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 27, 2002, 11:01:14 PM6/27/02
to
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in
news:m3bs9w1...@khem.blackfedora.com:

> Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> writes:

>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:14:55 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
>> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:

>...


>> >(search search)... 39 symbols; 9 chevrons to enter them into.

>> If my calculator punching is correct, that works out roughly to
>> 2**47. I see subnetting in their future.

> You missed, by an order of magnitude order of magnitude.

> ln(9 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 123.7
> ln(8 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 117.0
> ln(7 ^ 39) / ln(2) = 109.5

> Only 7 chevrons of 39 symbols is over 2**109

Isn't the relevant number 39^9, not 9^39? (A local telephone
number has 10 possible symbols and 7 "chevrons" to fit them into,
and there are 10^7 possibilities, not 7^10). 39^9 is about equal
to 2^47-- or 2E14, or 200 trillion (in US nomenclature) if I
haven't slipped any decimals anywhere.

Though... are symbols allowed to repeat? I haven't paid close
enough attention to gate addresses to know.

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 1:39:23 PM6/28/02
to
In article <Xns923AE0332945...@130.133.1.4>, Michael S.
Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

> Isn't the relevant number 39^9, not 9^39? (A local telephone
> number has 10 possible symbols and 7 "chevrons" to fit them into,
> and there are 10^7 possibilities, not 7^10). 39^9 is about equal
> to 2^47-- or 2E14, or 200 trillion (in US nomenclature) if I
> haven't slipped any decimals anywhere.
>
> Though... are symbols allowed to repeat? I haven't paid close
> enough attention to gate addresses to know.

I don't think so, because when they dial on a DHD, the ones they press
light up.

This page has some addresses - there are only 6 chevrons per address,
the 7th is the point of origin, which is unique to each stargate.

http://www.rdanderson.com/stargate/glyphs/glyphs.htm

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:12:43 PM6/28/02
to
Lee DeRaud <lee.d...@boeing.com> wrote in
news:kcbphuoj22m83p60b...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:39:23 -0700, Lee Ann Rucker
> <lru...@mac.com> wrote:
>...


>>This page has some addresses - there are only 6 chevrons per
>>address, the 7th is the point of origin, which is unique to each
>>stargate.

> Only *six* chevrons? That's less than a 32-bit IP address. :-)

And you see what happens-- at various points in the series, Earth has
had two stargates, but the network isn't capable of distinguishing
between them. There's a mechanism for determining the dominant gate,
but IIRC you can't send anything to the other one (though you can use
it for dialing out). Maybe the Ancients had some sort of NAT setup
to fix that that our heroes haven't rediscovered.

Sean Eric Fagan

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:23:54 PM6/28/02
to
In article <Xns923B90A23E16...@130.133.1.4>,

Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>> Only *six* chevrons? That's less than a 32-bit IP address. :-)

We don't know (although I think it likely) that you can't repeat symbols
(although being able to do so only increases the number of targets to 3.5
billion).

We also don't know that each 'gate can talk to every other 'gate -- I think,
but couldn't swear to it, that some 'gates have symbols not found on other
'gates. This would vastly increase the number of targets, although you would
have to start making multi-hop trips.

>There's a mechanism for determining the dominant gate,
>but IIRC you can't send anything to the other one (though you can use
>it for dialing out).

In the episode "Absolute Power," Daniel Jackson says he has a way of disabling
the Russian's stargate. I do not know if we can take this as proof, however,
given what happened in that episode ;).

Chris Clayton

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:40:58 PM6/28/02
to

Lee DeRaud wrote:


> Lee Ann Rucker wrote:
>
> >I don't think so, because when they dial on a DHD, the ones they press
> >light up.
> >
> >This page has some addresses - there are only 6 chevrons per address,
> >the 7th is the point of origin, which is unique to each stargate.
>

> Only *six* chevrons? That's less than a 32-bit IP address. :-)

Not only that, if one slot is taken up by a gate-specific symbol, then
that implies that there's no more than 39 stargates. Or so it seems
to me.

--
Chris Clayton
cla...@di.org

Klyfix

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 3:59:42 PM6/28/02
to
In article <Xns923B90A23E16...@130.133.1.4>, "Michael S. Schiffer"
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> writes:

Well, if I'm not mistaken (it's been a while) when O'Neal got shot
full of Ancients Knowledge (second season ep "The Fifth Race")
and rigged up the Stargate to take him to the Asgard there was
an _eighth_ chevron.
Umm, wasn't there?

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:12:36 PM6/28/02
to
Chris Clayton <ccla...@ford.com> wrote in
news:3D1CBBCA...@ford.com:

Unless there's one symbol that differs on each stargate. But that
doesn't work, since DHDs and gates have been moved from system to
system before IIRC.

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:59:04 PM6/28/02
to
In article <Xns923B9AC9EF19...@130.133.1.4>, Michael S.
Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

The DHD on the website I found doesn't have the "Earth" symbol (the
inverted V with a circle on it), which implies it's added
automatically.

Lee Ann Rucker

unread,
Jun 28, 2002, 4:59:46 PM6/28/02
to
In article <20020628155942...@mb-fk.aol.com>, Klyfix
<kly...@aol.comedy> wrote:

> Well, if I'm not mistaken (it's been a while) when O'Neal got shot
> full of Ancients Knowledge (second season ep "The Fifth Race")
> and rigged up the Stargate to take him to the Asgard there was
> an _eighth_ chevron.
> Umm, wasn't there?

Yes, that's the long-distance indicator.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages