Conference noted::sf

"Arcana Caelestia":  "arcana" = esoteric knowledge, usually not immediately
evident; hidden or obscure knowledge.  "Caelestia" refers to the havens,
stars, or more modern perhaps, space.  It is an archaic way of saying
approximately "esoteric celestial knowledge."

Steve Kallis, Jr.

P.S.:  Depending on whether you're wearing a SF or F hat, the implications
       are far different.

SK

(John) Michael Crichton is his real name.

As John Lange, he's written a number of thrillers:

	BINARY			GRAVE DESCEND		SCRATCH ONE
	DRUG OF CHOICE *	THE LAST TOMB		THE VENOM BUSINESS
	EASY GO			ODDS ON	     		ZERO COOL

	* aka OVERKILL

As Jeffrey Hudson, he wrote a mystery:

	A CASE OF NEED  (1968)

Under his real name, he also wrote EATERS OF THE DEAD (quasi-fantasy) and
THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY. I think he has something else published under his
real name, but I can't recall.

He's also been a movie writer and director:

	WESTWORLD (w/d)		COMA (d)	RUNAWAY (w/d)

--- jerry

re .0

"Arcana Caelestia" was chosen as the title for this notes file by its 
founder and first host, Bob Wyman.

Dave C.

 I believe the other Crichton novel was "Congo".

				John

    ANOTHER MOVIE HE WROTE AND DIRECTED WAS LOOKER

    
    
    I'm surprised there's not more about Andromeda Strain here!
    
    Although I read it a long time ago, I remember it as one of the
    fastest paced books I've ever read!  It's long but you can almost
    read it in one sitting!  Very realistic and plausible, too.  Very
    detailed yet never boring.  I though the explanations for the
    biological, chemical, and space-oriented 'events' were great.  
    
    I really loved this book and thought the movie was great too.
    
    Bob
    

	 (re: .-1)

	 I read  the book a long time ago, and I sure agree it's fast-paced.
	 I  actually  read  it  straight through almost without stopping - I
	 remember being very tired the day after.

	 I haven't  seen  the  film  though - would anyone happen to know if
	 it's available on video? And in that case, on which label?

	 Per-Olof

    
    If you do get a chance to see the film, don't miss it!!  It goes
    just as fast as the book!  Very well done.  Very beleivable, especially
    if you've already read the book.
    
    The second time I read it I almost did it in one sitting too!  I
    remember being up till about 3 a.m. and having only the conclusion
    left for the morning (I knew how it ended!)
    
    bob
    

    Has anyone read Crichton's new book "Eater's of the Dead"? One of my
    customers tells me it's very good.
    
    Andrew

    re:.10
    
    EATERS OF THE DEAD is hardly new, it was first published in the
    mid-70's. It's basically a re-telling of the Beowulf epic.
    
    --- jerry

    Just read the Andromeda Strain for the first time.  I have to say that
    it is well written.  It seems the author is well trained in Biology. 
    On the other hand, I am not impressed by his knowledge in physics.  I 
    couldn't help laughing when he came up with the explaination of how the 
    organism obtains its energy, I couldn't help laughing.  Admittedly, the 
    author is more rigorous, than 99.99% of the SF in the market, and the 
    story is very enjoyable.
    
    Eugene

    I read "The Andromeda Strain" and "Terminal Man", and was disappointed
    with both. Crichton builds up a lot of tension with an imaginative
    starting point, then ... just ends it. That was particularly true of
    "The Andromeda Strain". "Well, I've milked this as much as I can. Gotta
    end it sooner or later, I wonder how. Oh, yeah! That'll do it! OK,
    what'll we work on next?"
    
    - Richard

    re .13:
    
    > Crichton builds up a lot of tension with an imaginative starting
    > point, then ... just ends it.
    
    _Sphere_ really takes the cake in this regard. It had the most
    disappointing ending I have ever read. What's even worse I could almost
    tell that he was painting himself into a corner and would have to come
    with some bad "deux ex machina" solution.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Yes, SPHERE was probably among the top-ten worst novels I've ever
    read.  This just came out in paperback last year. It stinks on ice.
    
    - MM
    

    It's a pity he didn't research a bit better!  At 1000 ft the "hero"
    would almost ceretainly have frozen to death when he exited via
    the window and swam to the air lock. (in about 3 seconds!)
    
    let alone hold his breath at this depth.  A better research would
    have also hinted that going form 30 atmospheres of exotic gasses
    and trying to hold his breath at this depth would have killed him
    also!
    
    
    Bob

        re -.1
        
        I agree that _Sphere_ wasn't memorable.  In fact,
        although I believe I read it, I don't remember much at
        all!
        
        However, I believe that water pressure at depth (in terms
        of atmospheres) can be calculated as follows: 
        (feet/33)+1.  So, 2 atmospheres at 33 feet, 3 at 66, etc. 
        At 1000 feet, we get about 31 atmospheres.  (I suspect
        the factor is not precisely 33 feet, so it might actually
        be 30 atmospheres.)  
        
        If you inflate your lungs with gas at the same (or *very*
        close to the same) pressure to the external environment,
        then you *can* hold your breath if you enter that
        external environment, at least until your body makes you
        try to breath via CO2 buildup.  Of course, you had better
        not try to hold it if you ascend more than a few feet;
        you'll rupture your lungs as the gases expand.
        
        I don't know what the temperature of water is at 1000
        feet, but it is not frozen (what's the freezing
        temperature of salt water?).  We're not talking liquid
        nitrogen, here, are we? I believe that the human body can
        withstand exposure to sub-freezing temperatures for at least
        a few seconds without freezing critical parts.  How long
        is the character exposed?
        
        Don G.

     If I remember my school physics right water is at its most dense
    at 4C. I think it's farly safe to assume that this the lowest possible 
    temperatue at 1000ft, since the world would have had to have frozen
    over for there to be ice at this depth.
    	4C is COLD but you could survive in it. The russians go swimming
    in melt water in moscow. His only problem would be surviving the
    shock of immersion in the cold water.
    
    - Andrew -

re: .18

>     If I remember my school physics right water is at its most dense
>    at 4C.

The complete statement would be that pure water at 1 atmosphere of pressure 
is densest at 4 degrees C.

Salt water can get much colder than this.  Note that throwing salt on ice 
melts it.  I vaguely (mis)remember 0 degrees F. to be the coldest 
temperature you could get with salt and water (again, at 1 atmosphere of 
pressure).

    re .19:
    
    > I vaguely (mis)remember 0 degrees F. to be the coldest  temperature
    > you could get with salt and water (again, at 1 atmosphere of 
    > pressure). 
    
    Right, in fact, that is the _definition_ of 0F; equal weights of snow and
    salt. At the time of Mr. Fahrenheit, it was the lowest temperature
    achievable in the laboratory.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

Re .20
    
>    Right, in fact, that is the _definition_ of 0F; equal weights of snow and
>    salt. At the time of Mr. Fahrenheit, it was the lowest temperature
>    achievable in the laboratory.

And 100�F was defined as being normal body temperature -- which shows just 
how accurate the Fahrenheit scale is!!  :-)

Peter B.

    �And 100�F was defined as being normal body temperature -- which shows
    �just  how accurate the Fahrenheit scale is!!  :-)
    
    And Fahrenheit did this work how many years ago with what type of
    equipment?  And he was off by 0.4 degrees.

    Regardless, the percentage of salt in the water is much less than
    Dr. Farenheit acheived in the lab. While the coldest portions of
    the ocean are probably a little less than 0 centigrade, it is not
    much. And remember, humans are not such a pure solution either.
    If water were compressible and the result was ice of similar density,
    than ice would sink. It does not. Humans won't freeze at any depth.
    Neither do fishes who have dissimilar, but not *that* dissimilar,
    ion concentrations.
    
    There is a most interesting fish that *can* be frozen: killifish.
    They can be thawed without problems. They have a kind of natural
    antifreeze that prevents crystallization from occurring.
    
    A second thing is that since ice is *less* dense than liquid water,
    increased pressure should have an effect. Would higher pressure
    make it *more* difficult to freeze water? This is not true of many
    other liquids.
    
    steve popkes

    Re .22:
    
    100 - 98.6 = 1.4.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    Re: .24
    
    100 - 98.4 = 1.6

re: .25

The only number I've ever heard is 98.6, so where you get 98.4 is a mystery
to me.  Can you cite a reference?

Wook

    
    Standard temperature of the human body in �F in the British Isles.
    
    Maybe you have a slightly different measuring of �F in the States :-)

    References....a thermometer :-)
    
    it's one of those things I learnt at school along with 0�C = 32�F
    etc...

"Normal" body temperature is an accepted(?) average of the population
at hand.  Individual temperatures vary widely.  I have two normal body
temperatures: something near 98.6 and something near 97.4.

I understand that 98.6 came to be accepted in the US because of a data
collection experiment held at the 1939 World's Fair, where zillions
of presumably (mostly) healthy people had their temperatures taken.
An apochryphal story, but it sounds like a World's Fair kind of thing to do....

- tom]

PS:  also, 98.6F is exactly 37.0C - perhaps the attraction of the round
number in Celsius is the distinction between 98.4 and 98.6

    
> PS:  also, 98.6F is exactly 37.0C - perhaps the attraction of the round
> number in Celsius is the distinction between 98.4 and 98.6

    That sounds more like it....
    
    It's the sort of expediency the Americans seem to resort to simplify
    things.
    
    (Please note the "seem" and I am generalizing !)

    You're thinking of 98.4 because of all the ice you carry
    around, CJ. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    
    I'm not *that* cold-blooded :-)

    This has been idle long enough...
    
    For Christmas my wife got me Jurassic Park. I found it very good and
    was unable to put it down until I was done. The main plot centers
    around Dinosaurs, Genetic Engineering, Supercomputers (slightly) and
    what can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong... ;^)
    
    I'm not particularly dino oriented but I found it very compelling and
    enjoyed it throughout. A person I know (through work) read the book on
    my recommendation (he's into dinos) and mentioned to a friend who's in
    the special FX industry that it would make a good movie. Rumor has it
    that Spielberg MIGHT in 3 years. Nothing like starting a good rumor ;^)
    I'll be in line opening weekend when/if they do.
    
    an 8 out of 10 IMHO

    I just finished it recently myself.  I thought it was pretty good, but
    every now and then there was an unnecessary howler that damaged the
    overall impression.  E.g., the graphs of dinosaur population have
    points representing noninteger values (e.g., 5 1/2 dinosaurs!).  Most
    of the computer stuff is just gibberish aimed at snowing the computer
    illiterate.  The access tunnel used in a critical escape scene opens from
    the outside but the not the inside?  The connection to chaos theory is
    tenuous to the point of being gratuitous.
    
    It will make a good movie, that's fer sure.
    
    len.
    

    Sounds a little like a variation on the "Westworld" theme.

IMHO, Crichton should have quit after "Andromeda Strain". This is a superb SF
thriller. "Sphere" on the other hand, is unmitigated crap. Over the years I
have read ANDROMEDA at least half a dozen times (seen the movie several more),
and always enjoy it. It was, in fact, the book that really turned me on to SF
back in 7th grade when I was techno-gadget crazy. It was the peak from which
he slid: "Terminal Man" was okay, but boring (the movie was worse). "Binary"
was excellent (it was also made into a "TV movie"), more of a spy thriller a la
Allistair MacLean and as exciting as ANDROMEDA, but "Zero Cool" was not nearly 
as good. I'll get JURASSIC when it's out in paper since everyone here gives it
a good review, but I've just about given up on Mikey. Incidentally, I think he
is a Harvard-trained medical doctor, so that's why his biology is strong. But 
the only physics bio majors know is EX-LAX!

    But if he quit after THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, we wouldn't have gotten
    EATERS OF THE DEAD or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, both of which are
    worthy reads.
    
    --- jerry

I wasn't aware of EATERS, I'll have to check it out. 

    I have two problems with the book. I will put these behind a spoiler
    warning because they will give away a lot if you have not read the
    book.

    Apart from the problems I liked the book very much and practically read
    it in one sitting. I agree that it will make a great movie.

    For action etc. 9 out of 10

    For scientific content I reserve my options.

    
    You *realy* want to know?

    else hit NEXT/UNSEEN...
    
    My two problems are:

    1. The main premise is that dinosaurs are warm blooded and that insects
    trapped in amber still contain dinosaur blood. But in cloning the
    animals they use DNA from frogs and other COLD-blooded animals to
    complement the DNA. Is this possible? Should the DNA not come
    from a more related source? And in using DNA from a totally different
    source, will it pass for instance the sex change capablity to the
    dinosaurs? Etc. Etc. Is there someone out there with a degree in
    biology to answer this?

    2. This is more in the area if computer control and the like. If I had
    a number of large and potentially dangerous animals behind electrified
    fences, I would make *damn* sure that the fences stayed electrified, no
    matter what. Leaving the this to only one (1), count them, one computer
    is just plain silly. Especially with the way one half of the US is
    sueing the other have for damages of some sort  8-). I woould have
    liked the book much more if the would have been a more (to me at least)
    plausible explanation for the dinosaurs to roam freely...

    Comments anyone?

    Wildrik

This is a mail I recieved re .38. I supplied a <FF> for him...

>From:	ZENDIA::REITH "Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02  03-Sep-1991 1124"  3-SEP-1991 17:33:17.59
>To:	ELIS::BUREMA
>CC:	
>Subj:	I'm not able to do <ff>s so...
>
>    I figured I'd answer your Jurasic Park note with mail.
>

>    Re: the Fence control...
>
>    The backup to the fence was the isolation of the island. Yes, you had
>    to round up the animal afterwards, but the computerized count and
>    locator was supposed to help there.
>
>    I'm not a biologist but I've been told that there are large sections of
>    dormant DNA and the splices could have been in there areas. DNA is DNA
>    as far as the amino acids are concerned. It really depends on how big
>    the missing sections were. Presumably, they at least knew the length of
>    the missing sections. They had several sources in an individual bug. 

>    Jim

Re.  Fence control

     If had been a research station I would have agreed, but this was to
     be a major tourist trap. Can you imagine what would happen if the
     control would fail on a crowded day...

Re.  DNA

     I thought the crucial point was that because frog and dinosaur DNA
     was so similar that it could be used. However the main premise was
     that dinosaurs are WARM-blooded. Frogs and other amphibians are
                        ====
     COLD-blooded. Also I'd be very wary of splicing in known DNA to
     ====
     replace unknown strands, because what where the unknown sections
     coding.

     Wildrik.

    re: .38
    Good point about the DNA - some think that the nearest living relatives
    of the dinosaurs are Chickens; that if you watch a chicken walk and run
    you have a good idea of how the dinosaurs would have looked on a scaled
    up version. That is, the predatory ones.  I have a couple of roosters
    that have jumped up and spiked me from time to time, and I can just
    imagine what those beady-eyed rascals could do if they weighed 400
    pounds or more.

    A popular theory currently going around town is that birds are a
    direct decendent from dinosaurs.  Much closer than amphibians,
    and possibly closer than present day reptiles.  But still this
    hypothesis is based on bone studies.  Since we have no DNA from those
    ages, who knows.  You could code up any number of variations base it on
    any anumal and still have animals with the same kind of bone construction
    as the original dinosaurs.  

    It's more than bones -- the archeopteryx contains both bones and clear
    feather impressions.  The controversy isn't whether or not birds are
    descendents of reptiles -- that's clearly borne out by the fossil
    record -- the controversy centers on what family spawned birds, and
    when.  
    
    There is another fossil that exhibits bird-like features (Drat! I can't
    remember its name!) that is much older than archeopteryx.
    
    					andrew

    FWIW, it is also generally accepted that Mammals are derived from
    Reptiles.  

    I think that the arguments are how far back in time are the divisions. 

    Both the Mammal-Reptile and the Reptile-Bird branch are being pushed back
    further and further, it seems with every major find from 150+m years
    ago.

    tony

0Article: 2931
From: [email protected] (Wayne Hughes)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Another _Jurassic Park_ mistake
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:28:54 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
 
The following correspondence appeared in the recent issue of _Nature_
(A.C. Christensen and S Henikoff, Nature 358, 271 (1992)).  We can
add this observation to the fairly lengthy list of mistakes already
made by Michael Crichton in _Jurassic Park_. (Reproduced without 
permission.)
 
  We have discovered a startling similarity between a dinosaur DNA  
  sequence reported in the novel _Jurassic Park_ and a partial 
  human brain cDNA sequence from the Venter laboratory described
  in _Nature_ (Adams, M.D. et al., Nature 355, 632-634 (1992)).
  The dinosaur sequence consists of duplication, with 117 base
  pairs from the first member of the repeat aligning with the
  human sequence, HUMXT01431, at the 95% level of identity with
  only two gaps.  The extraordinary degree of nucleotide sequence
  conservation between organisms as distantly related as dinosaur
  and human suggests strongly conserved function.  Expression of
  HUMXT01341 in human brain raises the possibility that the 
  dinosaurs were smarter than has been supposed, arguing against
  the hypothesis that their extinction resulted from lack of 
  intelligence.

  Our discovery also seems to raise the interesting legal question
  as to whether the copyright on _Jurassic Park_ takes precedence over 
  the pending patent on the human sequence.  However, it appears that
  neither group is entitled to legal protection for its sequence,
  because both sequences also align with cloning vector pBR322,
  raising the possibility that both groups inadvertently sequenced
  vector DNA.

Article: 3428
From: [email protected] (DOUGLAS A. LEVY, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.education,clari.tw.science,clari.news.interest.quirks
Subject: 30-million-year-old termite DNA decoded
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 15:08:03 PDT
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Scientists reported Thursday they have analyzed
the oldest genetic material ever -- DNA from a termite that crawled in
the Caribbean some 30 million years ago.

	The work shakes up theories about termite and cockroach evolution and
busts the previous record for the oldest DNA studied, held by scientists
at Wayne State University in Detroit, who reported the analysis of DNA
from a 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf in 1989.

	However, other scientists said they were working on different ancient
specimens, and DNA from fossils 200 million or more years old could be
sequenced in the near future.

	Asked about the significance of his work on the termite, Ward Wheeler
of the American Museum of Natural History in New York cited the mere age
of the specimen.

	``It is the oldest DNA to date characterized, which is kind of cool
in and of itself,'' Wheeler said. However, what they found also means
scientists can fill in gaps in theories of evolution.

	``We can reconstruct extinction. We really need this molecular
information from fossils to understand what happened in the past,''
Wheeler said by telephone.

	The report by Wheeler and colleagues David Grimaldi, Rob DeSalle and
John Gates in the journal Science suggests theories about termite
evolution need revision.

	By comparing the ancient fossil termite DNA to DNA of modern termites
and other species, the scientists concluded that termites did not evolve
from cockroaches as previously thought.

	While the tissues that made up the termite's body when it lived have
long since decayed, fossils may contain some of the organism's genetic
material, preserved by years of mineral deposits, Wheeler said.

	Tiny thread-like coils of DNA -- deoxyribonucleic acid -- make up
genes, which carry the information to make a living being. Genes are
single units of heredity and are responsible for determining physical
characteristics.

	The termite DNA was preserved in amber, a resin that encased the
termite, virtually freezing it in time by sealing out oxygen, bacteria
and anything else that could break it down.

	That the DNA of 30 million years ago can be sequenced in the same way
DNA from living creatures can be sequenced makes it possible to analyze
ancient species using the most modern technology.

	``The same chemistry of DNA that happens now happened years ago ...
That's what DNA looked like 30 million years ago,'' Wheeler said.

	Other scientists are working on mapping DNA from even older fossils.
Brian Farrell of Cornell University and the University of Colorado at
Boulder said he was decoding DNA from 200-million-year-old fish fossils.
 
	But Farrell said the effort was not to find the oldest DNA.

	``It's a snazzy molecular biology trick, but you have to ask what you
can learn from it. The glamour of any discovery wears off pretty quickly
unless it explains something,'' he said.

Article: 2851
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.interest.history
Subject: Oldest armored dinosaur found in China
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:08:03 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A squat, 10-foot-long, armor-plated
creature with a club tail that walked in northwestern China 170
million years ago is the oldest armored dinosaur yet identified, the
Dinosaur Society announced Monday. 

	The researchers said the dinosaur was smaller and lived about
80 million years earlier than its previously identified relatives.
Other club-tailed, armored dinosaurs grew to about 26 feet long. 

	The discovery emerged from fossils found by geologists
searching for oil in 1980 near the Tien Shan Mountains in China. The
find is to be reported in an upcoming Chinese scientific journal
Vertebrata Pal Asiatica. 

	Curator Dong Zhiming of the Institute of Vertebrate
Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing collected the skull,
armor plates and bones and identified them as one of a class of
dinosaurs known as ankylosaurs. Ankylosaurs lived on every continent
between 144 million and 65 million years ago, but the new species was
older, living during the Jurassic period, between 213 million and 144
million years ago, the researchers reported. 

	``It opens windows onto a lost Jurassic world and onto the
origins of one of the most successful of dinosaurs,'' said Don Lessem,
Dinosaur Society founder. 

	The Dinosaur Society, an organization formed by dinosaur
scientists and others to support dinosaur research, said the new
creature would be named ``Jurassosaurus nedegoapeferkimorum.'' The
name is derived from the first letters of the last names of each of
the actors starring in an upcoming Steven Spielberg film about
dinosaurs, ``Jurassic Park.'' 

	Spielberg donated $25,000 to support dinosaur study in China.

    Re: ``Jurassosaurus nedegoapeferkimorum.''
    
    To be popularly known as "Ned," in all probability.  (Sheesh, what a
    mouthful.  I wonder if they'll get flak from the nomenclature
    committees.)
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Wait'll we find out what "nedegoapeferkimorum" means in Etruscan. ;-)
    
    -b