@zslane: Now we're back to my bridge example. A bridge is a technological artefact, but it doesn't need power to stay up. Ergo, not all technology needs power.

@zslane: Since we know natural gravity doesn't need a power source, there's no need to assume artificial gravity does either.

@Devin Teague Connelly: That's the one that made me angry. I've not seen 2012.

@Krakenstein MK-II: I'd have more issues with Jurassic Park. Starting with, what did all those animals eat?

@Ceropegius: I have one that sticks to my aquarium. I think the practical application is more impressive than the silly jewellery.

@Golem100: Not affecting mood rings and mood mouse mats is one of the signs that you are a zombie.

@zslane: They do acknowledge their artificial gravity exists. It's mentioned in dialogue, in the TV series anyway. It's much the same with the ship's engines: those are acknowledged without being explained, too. Mostly because it wasn't relevant to the narrative.

@zslane: OK, we don't have much disagreement left. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that all SF shows need artificial gravity; I just think making Serenity without it would changed the character of the show to the point where it was no longer the same show. When I pull at that thread, the whole scenario unravels.

@hdgotham (Hannah Wilson): I like the gimmick. I like the combination of low humour and intelligence. A bit like Charlie Brooker in the UK. He kinda captures the reaction we have to stupid stuff, where you just want to beat the stupid people about the head, but he also backs it up with trenchant analysis of why it is…

@zslane: On the bridges: it sounded like you were arguing that everything artificial needed a power source. A bridge is an example of something artificial that needs power to create, but not to sustain. If that's not what you were arguing, then I miss your point about "by definition artificial gravity devices need a…

Sherlock.

@zslane: Bridges are artificial, and don't need power, so that's a poor definition. More specifically, if you spin a structure and use centrifugal pseudo-force for gravity, that doesn't take power either.

@Ignerd: I can only think of the opening sequence, where it's not actually sound, but the POV moving through the radio envelope. (Which I don't think is to scale.)

@zslane: The same way the moons do. Why must artificial gravity need a continuous power supply? Ordinary gravity doesn't.

@Charlie Jane Anders: I read the whole thing, and although a nice story I didn't think it was ground-breaking. At most a development of the kinds of ideas in Permutation City et al. Or even The Matrix trilogy.

@frankenstoen: Religion is a reason that is hard to dispel. Especially remembering that many human missions were religious in nature.

@afgncaap: Yep. I was going to mention that. Although to be honest, I prefer the sequel, "Anvil of Stars".

"Then we're stupid and we'll die." - Blade Runner

@Graviton1066: I found it too cloyingly sentimental. Also too predictable. I could see a few good ideas, but they were overwhelmed by things which didn't make much sense.

I'd not heard of any of those "memes" before. I guess they are mostly American.