It's not what you don't know...
Nov. 11th, 2014 03:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengr... it's what you think you know that isn't so.
At Orycon (last weekend) for the first time ever I walked out of a panel in disgust.
I'm not going to name names, but it was on realistic X. I've been interested in X for a long time, and it *is* something that movies, TV and even a lot of SF books get wrong. It's also something I've been involved *very* technical discussions of online and off since the 1980s.Many of them involving actual scientists and engineers.
I went to the panel hoping to learn something new.
First strike, nobody on the panel had a technical background. Ok, I don't have much of one, so that's evidence it's not necessarily a show-stopper. But a lot of their talking was about how *other* writers do X well.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when one made a flat out statement that was wrong. I pointed out the error (something I've researched extensively and had checked by technical types). He informed me that *I* was wrong and things actually worked the way he said they did.
I waited a few minutes for form's sake, then got up and left. No point staying since I wasn't going to learn anything.
Oh yes, that wasn't the only thing that they were getting wildly wrong.
Heck, they actually mentioned s9ome things that were right, then hen questions came up totally ignored the fact that what they'd said previously applied to the question and proceded to try working out a wrong answer. *sigh*
Please, con-coms, *don't* assign topics about "realistic" *anything* to folks who don't have a background, or at least have *one* person who actually *knows* something about the topic.
And if it involves actual science, especially physics, you need somebody with "tech" background.
At Orycon (last weekend) for the first time ever I walked out of a panel in disgust.
I'm not going to name names, but it was on realistic X. I've been interested in X for a long time, and it *is* something that movies, TV and even a lot of SF books get wrong. It's also something I've been involved *very* technical discussions of online and off since the 1980s.Many of them involving actual scientists and engineers.
I went to the panel hoping to learn something new.
First strike, nobody on the panel had a technical background. Ok, I don't have much of one, so that's evidence it's not necessarily a show-stopper. But a lot of their talking was about how *other* writers do X well.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when one made a flat out statement that was wrong. I pointed out the error (something I've researched extensively and had checked by technical types). He informed me that *I* was wrong and things actually worked the way he said they did.
I waited a few minutes for form's sake, then got up and left. No point staying since I wasn't going to learn anything.
Oh yes, that wasn't the only thing that they were getting wildly wrong.
Heck, they actually mentioned s9ome things that were right, then hen questions came up totally ignored the fact that what they'd said previously applied to the question and proceded to try working out a wrong answer. *sigh*
Please, con-coms, *don't* assign topics about "realistic" *anything* to folks who don't have a background, or at least have *one* person who actually *knows* something about the topic.
And if it involves actual science, especially physics, you need somebody with "tech" background.
