The interviewer isn't the liveliest, and there's a bit of a spoiler about The Rhesus Chart near the end where the interviewer reads questions from Twitter. But still interesting.
]]>In the old days, before organized (by the Greeks or Romans?) sports, one may have supported their "team" by heading over to the neighboring tribe to slit a few throats and abduct some women. Go team!
Granted, that kind of tribalism is still with us. But one wonders, if those jihadis making a ruckus in Iraq had decided to become, say, football fanatics/soccer hooligans instead of death cultists, things might be marginally better off for the world. Hmm... that might be debatable.
]]>Anyhow, after checking your travel dates more carefully, it seems that the vile exercise will already be well underway by the time you arrive in Florida, and the lads from Nippon will be long gone. Your eyes and the makers of rusty sporks are safe, although it sounds like your better half may be a bit disappointed to miss the Samurai Blue.
Well, if the heady blend of athletics and corporate greed aren't your thing, then you'd probably not be interested in popping down to Miami the night you arrive to catch game 6 of the NBA finals...
]]>Remember what Rumsfeld (crap, I forget his Merchant Princes code-name! 'Mega D-bag'?) said , "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want..."?
Well, seems like the world now has to enforce certain norms with the global-cops it has, not the ones it wants. Right now, only the USA has the wherewithal and the (unfortunately all-too-often) inclination to act as 'World-Police'
If you don't like that state of affairs, what are the alternatives?
Relax global norms? Use chemical weapons in a civil war? A-OK! Set the drones loose over Pakistan and Yemen? Sure, why not?
Have no global cop? Leave it up to the neighbors? OK, Japan, Saudi Arabia, time to start building your own nukes if you don't like what Iran and North Korea are getting up to, etc.. If your neighbor is acting crazy, don't go crying to your uncle - you're on your own.
Want better cops than you have now? Who do you propose? Those up and comers from the Far East? Seems like they're gaining the wherewithal, if not the inclination yet. Do you trust them to do a better job?
OK, get Europe to be the global enforcer of norms. Seems like some from Europe feel morally superior to the US, maybe they can do a more honest job. But get back to us after they learn how to work together economically (not working out so well at the moment), much less work together on foreign policy and military matters. Oh yeah, they'd also have to choose to pay the piper for it as well - no more tiny budgets for military matters, you've got to spend big if you want your morality/philosophy to replace the current corrupt cop.
How about the UN? Well, you've got 5 countries who can block anything and everything, and several of them don't like each other much. So that's not going anywhere anytime soon. Honestly, if you don't like the way the USA/Russia/China handles things, maybe there should be a push to create a whole new global organization, outside the UN, something that cant be blocked by the 5 veto holders. Maybe that could get things done! (but not likely - you'd probably just have a hundred-plus vetoes instead of 5)
So, ranting and raving isn't going to change much of anything. What are some creative solutions to the current 'World Cop' problem?
]]>Are you hoping it happens in one fell swoop? Better pray (or program) for that godlike singularity AI that'll make us naughty primates behave, I guess.
If not, it'll have to be done incrementally, right? By banning certain weapons, tactics, behaviors, etc., that seem beyond the pale. And isn't that right to consider some things, like nuclear weapons, too awful to use?
If chemical weapons are on the table, why not anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, white phosphorus, autonomous drones, etc.?
Seems like we need to try restricting these things one by one if we ever hope to get to a less barbaric society (that seems to be what our ancestors thought after WWI).
But what use is a ban (or any restrictive law, say against murder), if it's not enforced in an effective way?
What's the point in merely saying, "don't rob anyone, it's bad!" or "if you rape someone, your salary will be garnished!"? Laws and rules need to be enforced, often with force (hence the word 'enforced' I suppose). Without the threat of force or reciprocal violence, how do you think transgressors can be compelled to heed them?
]]>There has long been an international campaign to ban the use of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions (The International Campaign to Ban Landmines).
I've seen arguments here that chemical weapons are hardly different from conventional weapons - what does the civilian care weather he/she's been gassed, shot, blasted, or firebombed (like the kids in Aleppo)?
Cant the same be said for landmines as well? So is trying to ban mines a worthless pursuit? Should all weapon systems be available for use, other than the N and B in NBC?
On the other hand, if some weapon systems should be forbidden (chemicals, mines, autonomous drones, etc.), how will such a ban be enforced? Any entity desperate or ruthless enough to be inclined to use such forbidden weapons will not likely be dissuaded by nebulous threats, such as sanctions or the possibility of some future prosecution.
Are we therefore to consider such weapon bans useless? Or do we accept that their use would very likely require a forceful (meaning military) response? Or is there indeed a better way to enforce these prohibitions (since the usual alternatives - sanctions and international courts - seem to be toothless)?
]]>Because you're filthy rich and can afford 99.99% realistic robo-sex/companionship, while simultaniously avoiding disease, paparazzi, police, crazy pimps, etc...
PS - as I'm an idiot, can anyone tell me how to do the "quote in italics" thingy?
]]>I know! I think it's time for Charlie to submit to the Beast from Seattle, and offer up Glasshouse as a Daily Deal. That way, I can pick up an e-copy for $1.99, and he can bump up his readership numbers for said novel in the US at the same time.
Two birds with one stone, eh? ;-)
]]>Did any of your other series begin as originally stand-alone stories?
What's the tipping factor that convinces you to explore a subject with further works? Maybe especially in regards to the Laundry stories after TAA? Is it the quantiy and/or quality of interesting ideas that come up while working on a story? Or something else?
]]>I was wondering how much of the background to the Laundry-verse you had already had in mind when you wrote TAA.
After reading the later books, especially The Jennifer Morgue, I couldn't help but wonder, why didn't the Blue Hades and/or the Cthonians in the alternate dimension didn't put a stop the the alternate-Nazis before things got out of hand and the Nazis there destroyed the whole universe?
Also makes me wonder why they hadn't already exterminated the mischief-making primates long ago in the "real" universe...
]]>