Talk:Niven's laws

Murphy's Law
Is this just a rehash of Murphy's Laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.115.20 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No -- these are those "laws" that the author Larry Niven has really and truly, verifiably said. --Rpresser 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Due to axing of &#091;&#091;Category:eponymous laws&#093;&#093; this entry is now category-less. I suggest someone familiar with creating deep categories place this in a category named Larry Niven (as is done for Isaac Asimov), allowing the many other entries regarding Niven to also be grouped in the same place. --Belg4mit 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
Are we OK with copyright, reproducing these laws verbatim ? -- Beardo 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. However, Niven has published expanded versions of these laws (at least once, probably on multiple occasions), so one might argue that the laws on this page are just "excerpts".  But I think that's not a good argument.  On the other hand, there's a link to the full laws with 2002 commentary at the bottom of this page.  On the gripping hand, if I delete the laws, someone will surely add them back. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But if I cut most of the laws for apparent unfair use, and someone reverts me without putting a good rationale in the edit summary, that someone will have violated policy. I was bold. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to you! I think a cynic might say that your deletions are just another proof that "it is easier to destroy than create", but if that's the case, I was too lazy even to destroy.  So what does that say about me? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein), Larry Niven's various "Laws" have never been sold as a separate commercial property, and a full listing of his "Niven's Laws" could not be considered to violate his intellectual property rights. Indeed, any such listing online could and would be considered promotional in that by promulgating his ideas - not his work-for-sale but his ideas - it serves to advise prospective readers of the value of Mr. Niven's works in print and for sale.  Cutting "most of the laws for apparent unfair use" is therefore not only without justification but actually vicious stupidity adverse to the best interests of the writer himself. -- Tucci78 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument. Are you a copyright lawyer?  Can you cite the relevant statute?  I can tell you aren't a wikilawyer, or else you would know that calling other editors "viciously stupid" is considered impolite on Wikipedia. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By education and training, I'm a physician. By most recent (about fifteen years) experience, I'm a medical writer, and this experience has required extensive attention paid to copyright law as well as Title 21 U.S. Code and a number of health care industry guidelines which in practice have acquired the status of law in usage if not under some government goon's gun. A copyright lawyer would play the "good case/bad case" game with you.  You want that?  As for "viciously stupid," considering the ethical standards prevailing among Wikipedia editors - particularly regarding the anthropogenic global warming fraud and the Climategate revelations - there is no genuine standard of politeness to be found on "Wiki-bloody-pedia," and to hell with pretenses to the contrary. Tucci78 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given your background I'll accept that you know the law. With regard to ethical standards, however, I don't understand your argument.  Even if I were to stipulate that global warming is a fraud, it is still clearly true that those Wikipedia editors who show a strong editing bias in favor of the AGW hypothesis really do believe it to be true.  So while their edits might violate WP:NPOV, that has nothing to do with violations of WP:CIVIL.  In my life, I have known many people with strong opinions -- communists, anarchists, libertarians, atheists, Jews, Christians, nihilists, Birchers -- and have found that there are polite people in each of these camps.  Therefore, no matter how strong your beliefs are, you can still be polite and civil if you choose to be. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 00:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The "strong editing bias in favor of the AGW hypothesis" (which insofar as I have been able to determine quit being an "hypothesis" well before 1990, subsiding into Cargo Cult Science in the '80s and thence into pure fraud not long thereafter) is not so much a matter of what the censoring scum of Wikipedia "really do believe...to be true" but rather has risen to a quasireligious political attack upon balance and the obligation to present factual reality as it manifests in the phenomenal universe. Indeed, when you use the word "believe" with reference to the AGW fraud as manifest in Wikipedia, you demonstrate that there is a prevailing belief system here, and not adherence to the principles of scientific method in any real way whatsoever.  Science does not operate on the basis of belief. I have played the "polite" game with these petty tyrants and they have exploited "polite" to perpetuate the peddling of flagrant bigotry and the extirpation of reasoned and professional conduct in expatiation upon the anthropogenic global warming blunder and many other matters in which their peculiar notions of political correctness have been - in their opinions - challenged.  In this particular case - anent copyright law and the practices of fair use - as in others, we see not only stupidity but stupidity militant powered by peculiarities of individual and group prejudices which are intensely hostile to the archival and retrieval of information both useful and reliable on the Internet. Which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, is it not? -- Tucci78 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow.
I understand most of them, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what "Everybody talks first draft" is supposed to mean. Not that I'm missing some sort of deep meaning, but I can't even decide if the sentence is grammatically sound. Is anyone able to clarify, or is it supposed to be some sort of zen koan? - Googling was no help. -- 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Niven has said in many places that while he was learning how to write, he had to tell each story out loud to anyone who would listen -- in particular he dedicated something to his brother Mike for listening so patiently. Perhaps "everybody talks first draft" means that every writer must do something similar: work out the structure of the story by talking it to somebody. Rpresser (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's quite clearly a self-referential phrase indicating that extensive revision is necessary to hone a story to perfection. --Belg4mit (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't agree, sorry. I feel it means that when you talk, it's the unedited thoughts that come out - teh first draft. Only when you write do you get a chance to edit your thoughts. chrisboote (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use AllWiki
Many of the links provided within the laws approach Allwiki style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranorter (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone hates optical discs
From the Analog (November 2002) edition of Law 2: "Never fire a laser at a mirror." But that's exactly how Compact Disc and its successors operate. Was there a hidden agenda against optical disc data storage in this wording, or was it intended to read "never fire a laser weapon at a mirror"? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

_________________ Well played, sir.
 * Perhaps it's about the dangers of waving non-eyesafe handheld lasers in the presence of reflective surfaces? --TiagoTiago (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Niven's corollary to Clarke's third law
Does anybody have a source for this? Don't get me wrong, I fully believe he said it, but it would be nice to know the context in which it originated, as Clarke's three laws does for the original third law (and the other two). Alas Wikipedia has poisoned the googles with uncited references to this law. --Quintucket (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You misquoted! You've got the words technology and magic reversed. It goes something like - Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be magic. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary source required for "Niven's" rebuttal to Clarke's third law
Some will say that it is "common knowledge" that Niven wrote that. However, it was once also "common knowledge" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones, which has been proved to be false.

What I am requiring here is a proof that Larry Niven actually wrote that: all links on Google that mention that statement attribute it to Niven, but none of them mentions the title of the book that contains it. It seems to me that someone posted bollocks on Wikipedia, which others unknowingly spread around. Posting a link to another site attributing that statement to Niven will not constitute proof: the only proof is a primary source: a book, written by Larry Niven himself, containing that statement. Failing to provide that, I will remove the statement as complete bollocks. Devil Master (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since such a source has not been found, I boldly removed it. Devil Master (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Devil Master but that is NOT how Wikipedia uses sources. If a RS reliable source states the term comes from Niven even if it give no reference we use that, plain and simple. For example, Richard Bleiler in his 1999 Science fiction writers: critical studies of the major authors from the early nineteenth century to the present day in the snippet I was able to get off of google books states "With this novel, Niven seems to have added a corollary to Arthur C. Clarke's proposition that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" — specifically, that any sufficiently advanced technology can also be indistinguishable from nature itself." but the snippet doesn't give the name of the novel.  But the snippet would be enough to credit Niven with such a quote (though getting the name of the novel would be better).  The quote could be from a novel out of print or it could be a paraphrase rather than an exact quote.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

the fact that this is "how wikipedia works" is itself, greatest of respect, exactly how this sort of bollocks gets propagated & ends up back in wikipedia. an actual quote from niven himself, from a book or overheard & reliably recorded at a conference or a signing or in an interview, is what we want here.

who the fuck is richard bleiler in this? just because he's made something up that he's half-remembered ("seems to have..."? no, not good enough) & put into a book that some other person has then published... that doesn't get us any nearer the correct attribution which the entry here is so desperately in need of.

"...but the snippet doesn't give the name of the novel. But the snippet would be enough to credit Niven with such a quote..."

is that the foundation stone of wikipedia now? because it's been published? well, I'll tell you what- I'll make some stuff up about niven & his works, & get it published, & then I'll be right back with some more bollocks, m'kay? duncanrmi (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Richard Bleiler is a "American bibliographer of science fiction, fantasy, horror, crime, and adventure fiction. He was nominated for the Bram Stoker Award for Best Non-Fiction in 2002 and for the Munsey Award in 2019. He is the son of Everett F. Bleiler." and therefore would quality as a verifiable, reliable source by wikipedia standards. Thankfully, someone ebooked the work and I have the name of the novel (Ringworld) and more detailed quote from Bleiler which adds "To the primitive, superstitious Ringworlders, the lasers and flycycles of Puppeteer technology are indistinguishable from magic, and the Ringworlders conceptualize the giant ring that looms over their sky as an "Arch" raised by the divine Builders, as a  "sign of the Covenant with Man." (pg 566) The tools where there to see if the source was useful rather going on what amounted to a Know Nothing rant.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Think Of It As Evolution In Action
I've been quoting this as an example of Just Let The Stupid Die (druggies and other 'tune-out' idiots) since I first saw it in "Oath Of Fealty", back in the 80's. By me, it should be one of 'Niven's Laws'. But they're his laws, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freonfreakone (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Niven's Law (re: Clarke's Third Law)
Current article text has "However, it has also been credited as being from Terry Pratchett."

Has it? Who was it that credited the statement "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology" as being from Pratchett?

Guyal of Sfere (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

richard bleiler, probably.... :-)

duncanrmi (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)