Awesome! Thanks, P-C.

I think there's value in saying "Hey, I'm sure you didn't mean to sound homophobic there, but slash doesn't mean porn" to give the authors a chance to correct themselves.

I don't know if that was what was happening elsewhere (which is a silly place for it to happen), but what happened on Scalzi's blog was someone throwing a snitfit and calling him a homophobe. Which? Doing too much work to get offended. And I don't think that thinking slash means porn has anything to do with homophobia. I totally fail at that. I think it means they're oversexualising a fanfiction definition, that's all.

what happened on Scalzi's blog was someone throwing a snitfit and calling him a homophobe.

I didn't see it that way at all - I thought the whole conversation was pretty civil on all sides, compared to your average comment thread.

I'm guessing you didn't get as far as this comment:

Really? Hello homophobic people.
You want to raise money for a Lupus Foundation but you don’t want the gay to come in the way.
This is insulting and disgusting.
I understand no NC17, but that would be for any kind of fiction.
I would be sure to let everyone know how homophobic you all are...

What does the "a lot of flack from the fannish community" consist of? Is that the civil conversation? I thought you meant more umbrage was taken than that. I agree that it's not much of anything other than pointing stuff out.

Unrelatedly, my shoe straps are breaking. I feel like a slob.

slash doesn't mean porn

Not being a reader of fanfic, I thought slash did indeed = porn

No, it's perfectly possible to have a story about a same-sex relationship which is not explicit.

My problem is when people insist that a story be labeled explicit simply because it contains a same-sex relationship. Which still happens, yes.

(Also, in terms of the "fannish community" being up in arms, I don't think I've seen anyone discussing the Scalzi thing.)

So, slash = same sex, romantic relationship. May or may not be explicit?

right.

Got it.

OMG this day has been so freakin' slow. This does not bode well for the rest of the week.

Internet is back up, but I'm headed out of here in 10 minutes.

Ever wonder why newer airliners are almost all slower than the old Boeing 707? This explains why: MIT Team Designs Airliner That Uses 70 Percent Less Fuel

At the time, airplanes like the iconic Boeing 707 were designed to fly at speeds where the early jet engines were most efficient.

“They really favored high speed, they liked to go fast,” says Drela of the early jet engines. “The faster they go, the less fuel they burn to go a certain distance.”

...

“The 707 look originated from the demands of the low-bypass engine,” says Drela, referring to the types of engines used by airliners in the ’60s and ’70s. The original 707 flew for a few years with what is known as a turbojet engine that was also used on fighter jets of the time and was even less efficient.

On modern high-bypass engines we see at the airport today, those big fan blades in the front push most of the air past the engine to provide thrust. And since most of the air bypasses the engine, only a small amount is actually is being used for combustion inside the engine which means less fuel is used. These high-bypass engines are dramatically more efficient and quieter than the older turbojet and low-bypass engines that started on airplanes such as the 707 and Douglas DC-8.

“The new engines are actually much closer to propeller engines than the old jet engines, paradoxically,” says Drela. “If you look at a propeller-driven airplane, the optimum wing sweep is zero.”

So as some passengers lament over the fact that a modern airliner is 70 to 100 miles per hour slower than the original 707, the optimum design for fuel efficiency is to fly even a little bit slower, about another 50 miles per hour.

eta: Early jet engines were twice as efficient at 600 mph than at 500 mph. Which is why the early 707 was so much more efficient than the Comet.