Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

Sunday, September 18, 2016

#DragonCon Report 2016, Military SF Tech

"There's an awful lot of high tech in military science fiction. Some of it is solidly based on current science/tech. Some of it is highly futuristic. What is the future of military technology, and how much of what we read is possible--or even probable? Additional Panelists: Marcus Christiansen"

Speakers include: Michael Z Williamson, John Ringo, Charles Gannon, and Mac Edelheit




And I have some nice toys in my Sad Puppy and Dragon Award Nominated Novel Honor at Stake by clicking this link.

And ... enjoy.

Monday, June 13, 2016

#E32016 - Almost Nothing new #XboxE3

We're bringing you a special edition of the blog. Why? Because E3 is going on, and all the new games are coming. And because hashtags are fickle things.

Xbox One has finally showed us their true colors: almost nothing new. NO, really.

First, if I hear the word "diversity" one more time, I'm going to throttle the PR flak who wrote the script. Seriously, stop with the buzzwords. Or at least make new ones.

As I watched the E3 Microsoft press conference, it occurred to me that this was filled with very little content all around. Bringing back Gears of War? Bringing Gwent -- a card game within the game of Witcher 3 -- into it's own card game?

Whose bright idea was this?

Even the brand new Xbox "slim" is basically an excuse to push Windows 10 on people. Seriously, what the heck is going on with Windows 10 that they feel the need to push this on everyone in the universe? And far, far too much time was dedicated towards this concept. We accept that they have admitted that their console sucks and they have to expand it to PC. Next?

They even brought out yet another entry in the Dead Rising franchise. If you don't know it, it's basically an excuse to slaughter zombies en mass in a variety of creative ways. But Dead Rising 4 is set at Christmas, so that's different right? It's not like Batman: Arkham Origins or The Division did the same thing.

Oh wait, they did.

Battlefield 1 looks interesting. But yet another sequel

And again, yet still, they're trying to push their "Microsoft studios" television stupidity, like with Quantum Break. If you don't know what Quantum Break is, you don't want to know. Consider yourself lucky.

Here's possibly my major problem: Recore, the most original idea they had at the press conference, wasn't even expanded on.


Looks cute, doesn't it? Looks like it should be fun, right?

Good, because that's all that they showed us at E3.

And then there's Scalebound.


I will grant that this looks amazing. But I'll admit that I've been burned before.

If you want, you can look up a game called Sea of Thieves, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

There is also Halo Wars 2.  While I'm a fan of the Halo Franchise, can we stop with the sequels now? Please? Pretty please? Or at least do something strange and EXPAND on all of these things? Maybe?


At least it may have a story.

But yes, that's it. That's most of the good stuff from the hour of the press conference. Yikes, that was a waste of time.

Yeah, they spent more time telling us about specs, and very little time showing us what the specs can do. The most we got is what I showed you above.  The graphics are nice and shiny. But aside from shiny graphics -- which should be a GIVEN by now -- very little felt like this was an improvement on Xbox 360.

Verdict: It was okay. Generally uninspiring,  The CGI trailers were awesome .... but we needed a lot more gameplay, we needed more content. And I suspect that we're going to save 90% of the actual content in the individual press conferences from individual studios.

I am not inspired, but that may require more elaboration on the games already brought up. A lot more.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

TONIGHT ON The Catholic Geek: The Science of Science Fiction

The Catholic Geek: The Science of Science Fiction


Karl Gallagher returns to discussion where science fiction is more fiction than science and vice versa. Host Declan Finn will try to keep up. Karl K. Gallagher is a systems engineer, currently performing data analysis for a major aerospace company. In the past he calculated trajectories for a commercial launch rocket start-up, operated satellites as a US Air Force officer, and selected orbits for government and commercial satellites. Karl lives in Saginaw, TX with his family. So yes, he is a rocket scientist.

Monday, July 20, 2015

The joy of street corners, and politics all the way down

So, I was sort of quiet this weekend, wasn't I? I didn't even have a blog post discussing the next radio show.

Well ... did I ever mention I live on a corner?  A corner that does NOT have a two-way stop sign?

What happens when a body (of a sports car) meets a body (of a Jeep Liberty) driving through New York?  You get a nice game of pool.  The little white sports car is the cut ball. The blue Jeep is the 8 ball.

My house is the corner pocket.

For the record, DO NOT WORRY. Everyone here is fine.  The firemen came in and checked our foundations, etc.  We're good.  Unlike the last time, we didn't even lose any bushes.

Yes, this is the second time this has happened in the last few years. Yay.

Oh, yeah, IT TOOK OUT MY FIOS INTERNET CABLE.

Fun fun fun for the whole family.

But I managed to get online for the radio show anyway.

I'll be on and off for the next few days.  As I noted, I'll be driving to NJ for the Catholic Writer's Guild conference.

But, before I leave you with the radio show from yesterday, I must note that ANN MARGARET LEWIS WILL BE ON THE SHOW THIS SUNDAY!!!

If you're wondering "Who?" You must be new here. Come back on Wednesday. 3:-)




Check Out Military Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with We Built That Network on BlogTalkRadio

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Flashback Blog: Politics of The Pius Trilogy

This came up many, MANY moons ago. Now that I find myself hip-deep in politics all the time, I figure it's time to have this conversation again.




Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp -- now, also coming soon from Damnation Books).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel.

Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics? It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side.

Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Terrorists Are Stupid, Ft. Hood edition.


Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, also known as the Fort Hood shooter, faced testimony from his victims last week.

On November 5th, Maj. Hasan went through Ft. Hood with a handgun, equipped with a laser sight, and went on a shooting spree.

Not too long ago, I mentioned that Terrorists Are Stupid. I even reposted it as a note on Facebook.

The more I learn about Maj. Hasan, the more evidence I have.

For those of you who are not familiar with the technology, a laser sight is supposed to show you where the bullet is going to land. A commercial laser pointer will guide you to bullet points on your PowerPoint presentation. A laser gunsight will guide your bullet to the point on the target you want to shoot.

Part of his rampage included going through a processing center on the base. If it's laid out like other offices, I can only imagine it as shooting fish in a barrel. His path also took him through a soldier-readiness center (go there, get a checkup and sign your will before heading to a war zone). The Military Police had no bullets in their weapons, making one conclude that their rifles are only for clubbing people over the head (note to army: I hope someone has rescinded whatever stupid order armed your MPs with empty guns).

One of Hasan's first attempted victims was a Sergeant Alonzo M. Lunsford. Sgt. Lunsford was in the readiness center when Hasan stood, shouted “Allahu akbar,” and opened fire.

Sgt. Lunsford was shot five times, at least once in the face, requiring reconstructive surgery and has resulted in the loss of eyesight in his left eye. At least one of Hasan's bullets obviously hit him in the head.

Sgt. Lunsford is alive, at least in part, because Hasan is obviously an idiot.

Major Hasan “Chop,” terrorist idiot, killed thirteen people, and shot thirty-two others.

It is most likely my mindset for creative havoc that leads me to think: Only thirteen? Hasan “Chop” had the shooting equivalent of training wheels on his handgun, shot up a bunch of soldiers in the midst of paperwork, and he had no armed resistance, AT ALL, until the local police arrived. He could only kill a baker's dozen?

Pretend that you are a terrorist … if it makes you feel better, pretend I am a terrorist … you now have the ability to hit what you aim at. Your mission is to kill as many people as possible. You have surprise on your side. One victim you shoot in the head, emptying five bullets into him; would he have survived the first bullet?

From the point of view of a terrorist attack, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had “the right idea.” If a terrorist is doing it right, they should spread, well, terror. If al-Qaeda wanted to wage a campaign, they would have recruited a dozen other Major Hasans, and have a day of shootings.

I am not worried about inspiring al-Qaeda, by the way. If this idea can be thought up a guy in the back end of Queens, NY, who has never even seen a gun up close, I suspect that someone in the AQ hierarchy just MIGHT have thought of it by now.

However, let's take a closer look. Because, even if al Qaeda decided to wage such a campaign, it would be proof that terrorists were ineffectual bunglers, who only manage to kill people if they get lucky.

Maj. Hasan shot forty-five people, and killed thirteen. He couldn't even assassinate one-third of the people he shot at.

He fired over one HUNDRED rounds of ammunition and only HIT forty-five people?

Let's do some basic math.

13 (Killed) + 32 (Wounded) = 45 (Shot).

13 (Killed) / 45 (Shot) = 28.8% (Of victims died.)

Hasan had all of the advantages on his side, and had a rather pathetic “success rate.” If success for a terrorist is mass casualties and widespread panic, Hasan is a complete and utter failure.

A twenty-three-year-old college student with a history of mental illness did a “better job” at Virginia Tech, and he was an utter nutbar: 58 shot; 33 dead; 25 injured. That caused fear and trembling all over the place, and was a cause of conversation for weeks, at least on college campuses.

When I applied to be an Air Force historian, I was told that I would have weapons training, even though I would be a civilian employee. One can assume that someone doesn't get to being a Major in the U.S. Military without something like basic weapon's training, no matter the position.

And yet this wannabe terrorist couldn't even outperform a schizophrenic college student at Virginia Tech.

Hasan's rampage was an attack waged by an idiot, full of sound and gunfire. He had all the advantages one could have, and still managed a paltry outcome.

However, for all that, thirteen people still died.

Which leads to the same conclusion I had at the end of my last “Terrorists Are Stupid” article.

Even idiots can get lucky.

Monday, October 4, 2010

The Politics of A Pius Man.

Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel. Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics. It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side. Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.



In New York I'm a right-wing, blood-thirsty maniac because ... I think a blanket gay marriage license is a bad idea. Mainly because, in the first wave issued in the Northeast, there were a large segment that took the newly issued licenses, and went to their local church and demanded to be married –whether or not the church in question allowed gay marriage.

In the South, I'm a blood-thirsty left wing psychotic because … I think “marriage” is a religious term. Atheists go to a justice of the peace and enter into civil unions, NOT marriages. A civil union is a state function. Issue licenses for civil unions to BOTH atheists and gays, then the latter group can take it to a church that allows gay marriage, and they can all live happily every after and leave my church the hell alone. I'm not interested in burning gays at the stake, and I don't care if one is gay, straight or “flaming,” have a nice day.



In New York, I'm an evil righty because … I supported G.W. Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general.

In REALLY red states I'm an evil Leftist because … I would have supported Clinton going into Iraq. And I wanted someone to go into the Sudan before Darfur became a buzz word. And I hated almost everything else President Bush ever did.



In New York, I am conservative because … I think abortion and contraceptives are generally a Bad Idea.

In Pat Robertson's district, I am a bleeding heart Liberal …. because I'm not going to say “You had an abortion, therefore you are immediately going to Hell! MUAHAHAHA”


In New York, I am a psychotic Conservative … because I think the government should get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.

In the more bleeding red states, I am an evil Liberal … because I'd want a Republican government to get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.



My politics boils down to, “There are things I don't like, wouldn't recommend, but I'm not issuing automatic condemnations.”  Politically, I'm somewhere in the middle. Which, in politics, means I'm in the middle of the crossfire.

So, what does this mean about A Pius Man? Don't be mistaken, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious basic on the facts I have researched. However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.

And the politics of the characters in A Pius Man?



Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I'm happy.”

Scott “Mossad” Murphy. He works for Israel, usually among Palestinians. Moved from America to join the Mossad after 9-11. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I'd sooner talk terrorists to death. It's more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they're willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.”

Giovanni Figlia. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world's population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”

Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn't be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”

Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I'm a Jesuit who is trying to transfer into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”

Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I'm too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”

Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”

Hashim Abasi: Oxford Educated in global politics. Egyptian police officer. His name translates into “Stern Crusher of Evil.” His father died while tinkering with a vest for a suicide bomber. He mentions having a wife, but it sounds like she was stoned to death. No one asks what his politics are.



The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be... interesting.