Slashdot Mirror
The Imagineer Who Came In From The Cold
"Why is it that the philosophy of technology has never really gotten underway? Why has a culture so firmly based on countless philosophical instruments, techniques, and systems remained so steadfast in its reluctance to examine its own foundations?" -- Langdon Winner.
ORLANDO -- Good question, one I'm trying to answer in a magazine article, and if that pans out, maybe a book. I came to Orlando because I couldn't imagine a better place to look. I asked for help on Slashdot the other day and got a great outpouring of help, links, ideas, questions (including a lunch invitation from a local Linux group) and a striking e-mail from a man who identified himself as a genuine gee-whiz Disney Imagineer.
Even by the reckonings of my own spectacular relationship with technology, this encounter was odd: a genuine, in-the-flesh Imagineer working (for the moment) in Orlando, who is a fanatic Linux geek and regular Slashdot reader. The Net is a world of surprises.
The Imagineer had e-mailed me after I posting my column asking for help in what I consider an open source writing experiment. The Imagineer reeled off the details of an impressive career. He is responsible for some pretty impressive stuff, none of which I can describe.
"Why Linux?" I couldn't help asking. "I'm bored with everything else," he e-mailed. This, I well understand by now, is an enduring geek strain: the eternal fight to fend off boredom.
The Imagineer loved talking about technology, he said, but he was sure I understood that The Mouse was "touchy" about unauthorized encounters with journalists. And yes, they did seem to know almost everything that went on in their world. He needed a promise of strict confidentiality.
So we met in the best clandestine manner - on a concrete bench halfway between Exxon's "Universe Of Energy" and the closed "Horizons" pavilion. The only people going by were the kids on their way to the "GM Test Track," and they couldn't have cared less about a couple of middle-aged men sitting on a bench trading official secrets. Strange, Enya-like New Age music poured from a cactus.
The Imagineer recognized me, as we had arranged, from my fading Yankees baseball cap. I spotted him by his ... well, I can't say how I spotted him.
The meeting reminded me of one of those scenes in the LeCarre Cold War thrillers where spies gathered across from "Checkpoint Charlie" and at other secret rendezvous' in pre-90's Berlin. The scene was strange to begin with: uplifting Millenial music, as many wheelchairs as strollers, and hundreds of each; Monorails whispering overhead, cars roaring froma nearby test track; a babble of diverse races, nationalities and origins. The space had the feel of a 50's vision of an Intergalactic space station. Nowhere is nostalgia for the future more evident than here.
So there we were, sitting across a manicured, empty stretch of EPCOT center, munching strawberry fruit bars, gassing happily back and forth about books we'd read and ideas we'd heard, disturbed only by a lengthy column of electric wheelchairs with flashing lights and red flags carrying the inhabitants of a Kissimmee, Fla. nursing home. They'd made a wrong term, the group leader advised us: they were seeking the World Of Imagination.
The Imagineer politely pointed across the vast concrete plaza, around the flood-lit spouting and dancing fountain. Then, for the third time, he went over the ground rules again: he would talk with me, but I couldn't describe him or his work in any way, and he wouldn't talk about Disney or its work in any detailed way.
This was okay with me, as I don't want to write about Disney World, the Disney Corporation or its inner workings. Writing about Disney is like writing about Microsoft - everybody has intense feelings, and they've been expressed so long and so often there's almost nothing new to add. But as for Walt himself, that's another story.
I assured The Imagineer that I wanted to write about technology, and to some degree, Disney's original visions of technology, especially trying to come up with the missing philosophy about the subject that people could use, maybe even desperately want.
"Walt Disney would have had a philosophy. He was a complete geek," said the Imagineer. "He just had this oh-mi-gosh quality about anything to do with technology. He especially got the hold technology has on people's imaginations, even though he hasn't fared all that well in history," the Imagineer added. If I wanted to see what he meant, he said, get on over to Tomorrowland in the Magic Kingdom and check out the "Carousel Of Progress." He said it was Walt's favorite exhibit. Disney had unveiled it at the 1964 World's Fair, and brought it to Disney World. It was the perfect expression of his view of technology. I said I'd check it out.
Disney has, in fact, suffered in the decades after his death, branded a middle-brow shlock-meister, mass-manufacturer of kitsch and junk, and a mean-spirited bigot and lousy employer.
"He died before he could complete some of his most beloved projects, and the company is so big it's disturbing to people, although there are many echoes of the original spirit. Lots of us work here because it's the best place for people like us to work. Where else would you go if you loved technology? But when it came to technology, no one could touch Disney, and no one ever really has. From animation to architecture, movies and design, he understood the beauty and power of technology at its purest; that's why all of these people come here from all over the world.
"Some of them literally have to crawl here, and lots of them spend every penny they have to get here. But nobody makes them. This is the place they want to be, no matter what the intellectuals say. Disney saw technology as something that could render imagined worlds. These worlds varied wildly, but at the core, he believed technology could fix the world, save it, solve it's problems.
"These parks are all rendered worlds. They use technology to invoke visions, past and future. Maybe it was naïve, but it was profoundly moral on Disney's part, maybe his most profoundly moral part. He thought EPCOT could light the way for the world. Now, there's a lot of blabber here about pan-global humanism and all, which everybody understands is about money, not brotherhood."
"Disney was a businessman, but not when it came to EPCOT. That was from the heart, at least his original idea for it, and that vision is still everywhere here, and in a lot of other places, if you know how to look for it."
And you do have to look for it. When Walt Disney announced his plans for Disney World in the mid-60's, he promise it would be more than an "entertainment complex." Most important, he told his friends, was a planned city of the future, a place where Disney employees could live, a real town that included commercial and residential areas, a thousand-acre industrial park, and a highly sophisticated transportation system. He died before this city - he called it EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow) could be built, and it was transformed by his successors into the corporate techno- World's Fair it is now.
Disney said his experiment - he sounds like Steve Jobs talking about Apple - was "the most exciting and by far the most important part of our Florida project, in fact the heart of everything we are doing in Disney World."
But not for long.
The Imagineer talked about how unbelievably important the Web was becoming, how it had exploded ("we didn't imagine it, none of us, not for a second") Silicon Valley, Microsoft, and about the difference between Gates and Disney, mostly in terms of their visions of technology (Gates didn't fare too well. "Walt Disney was a visionary. Bill Gates makes software.")
He talked about Linux and open source, and about hand-held computers and wireless modems, and about the explosion in "dot.coms" and "junk appliances." He was smart and funny, nothing like the Imagineer of my imagination, in a white smock with butterflies coming out of his ears.
I pointed out my surprise that EPCOT didn't yet reflect the Digital Age. Other than a mention or two at the AT&T pavillion, and some jazzy interactive exhibits for kids, the network barely came up at all. Was EPCOT being overtaken by technology in the same way Tomorrowland was left without any "Tomorrow" when the Space Age fizzled?
He nodded, and agreed and said that that was understood, and in the process of being corrected.
He repeated that nobody foresaw the explosion of the Web and the stuff around us took a long time to design and build. He talked for awhile about Disney and how Walt would have viewed the Web.
"He would have been obsessed with computing," said the Imagineer. "He would have loved the Net; Good Lord. Every kid who came here would be crawling along a Motherboard. He would have grasped its implications right away."
We talked on that concrete bench for a couple of hours. I was reminded again of what a strange place the Net is. I was talking to a person whose existence I normally wouldn't ever even have known of, let alone gotten the chance to meet through a website.
I was on the right track with my earlier column, the Imagineer said. Technology was inherently tragic. "It's the only way to see it," he said. "At the core, some of us want to improve the world, and people look to us to improve it. No matter how hard we try, we only get so far. We spin our wheels. Unforeseeable things happen. It doesn't ever quite work out the way we expect. That's the first rule. That makes technology heroic and doomed at the same time, which is why it's tragic. Because it serves human beings, and they are tragic. They do horrible things, horrible things happen to them, and they're all going to die."
The Imagineer and I said our goodbyes, and exchanged e-mail addresses, and I walked the length of EPCOT's World Showcase Lagoon, winding between restaurants, stores, food carts, juggler and bands. The circuit reminded me of my talk with the Imagineer. He knew what he was talking about.Why We Won The Cold War.
The man standing in line next to me waiting to board AT&T's "Spaceship Earth" at the entrance to EPCOT asked me where the line began, and shuffled his nervous wife behind the ropes. It was, he said the first time he'd ever left the Ukraine, and Orlando was the first place he'd always wanted to come.
He looked up at the giant dome, whose roof was sparkling with a giant "2000" sign and various assorted Millenial electric twinkling, and climbed into the moving blue seats that take visitors up on a tour of the history of communications.
In EPCOT, all of humankind's experiences are sponsored by corporations. Communications is brought to you by AT&T (my favorite is "The American Experience," which is brought to us by American Express).
The old Russian and his wife exclaimed repeatedly as the train climbed quickly past Hebrews and Greeks, the invention of fire, papyrus, the printing press, paper and roads, and the destruction of Rome.
"This!," he exclaimed, poking his wife and speaking towards me as we headed down the other. "This is why you won."
I asked him what he meant.
"I don't know how or why, but there's more amazing stuff in this dome than in my whole country," he said. "The Communists just could never do it like Mr. Walt Disney."
The New Thing.A few minutes later, I found myself standing next to an elderly woman in a wheelchair, as a Parade of trans-global drum- beating puppeteers wound its way around the World Showcase Lagoon. It seemed the worst kind of Millenial Blather - "let's walk hand in hand towards a better world," intoned some remote Orwellian voice that seemed to be - and was, in fact - coming from the trees.
One of the puppeteers maneuvered his 10-feet tall, wooden and cloth, vaguely Asian-like butterfly figure down the parade route. He spotted the woman, who took the puppet's hands and welled with tears.
Surprised and moved by the look on her face, I sat down next to her. She was from Texas. She was frail, and even breathing seemed a struggle for her. I could only guess the toll the trip halfway across country had taken.
I thought of the book I'd bought which had referred to Orlando as the "new mecca, " the world's number one destination.
Maybe they were on to something.
Why had she come to Orlando, I wondered?
"The science, the technology. I'm going blind so I can't get on the computer, but I wanted to see the technology. I think it's here if it's anywhere. I want to see the new things. My mother dropped dead hauling water from a lake in Texas to our house - she had to do it every day, because it was before electric power and the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). I think often how long she might have lived if they'd had dams. So I told my son I wanted to see what they've done before I die. It's amazing, just amazing?"
In his book "The Whale and The Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology," Langdon Winner puzzled over why, in a culture riddled with ideologies and philosophies, there wasn't one for technology. In the United States, he wrote, we are a culture of technological somnambulists.
Samuel Florman, the civil engineer, wrote that there was, in fact, a philosophy of technology, and it was inherently tragic - technology represents the best of the human desire to understand and improve the world, and the relentless tendency of humankind to screw the world up. If we really grasp this and apply it, then we can perhaps relax a bit about whether technology is a good or bad witch. It's both, always.
That was the only way, Florman believed, that one could possibly come to terms with technics in a society literally engulfed by technology, but riddled with passionate moral and other disagreements about it.
From the 1939 World's Fair well beyond World War II, technology and engineering were golden - the country loved all of its new conveniences and wonders, from electric power to TV and cars, to toasters and the Space Age.
But the 60s ended America's unambivalent love of technology. Intellectuals in particular began blaming technology for ruining the environment, threatening catastrophic conflict and destroying classical culture and civilization.
Many have hated technology ever since, along with a broad and growing array of allies: nervous Boomer parents, exploitive politicians, unknowing journalists, professional religious fanatics and political moralists.
But the tragic view of technology eliminates this silly argument. It holds that while there is plenty of evil in the world, the essentially tragic fact is not so much the war of good with evil as the war of good with good. If anything, Disney's dreams and Utopian fantasies seem to support that idea.
Among other things, Orlando - at least the theme park part of it -- is a testament to the fact that these elites are, as they've always been, disconnected from the masses of people they profess to serve. The stream of people who come to Orlando dearly love, even worship, technology and - just like the Imagineer said - flock at all costs across great distances to get just a glimpse of the imagined worlds on display.
Next: Walt's Carousel of Progress and his lost model of the city of tomorrow.
I'm sure Jon didn't just rely on a baseball cap. Surely you used passwords as well.
"The penguin flies higher than the mouse"
"Yes, but who will be the leader of us all?"
do they still exist? I keep hearing cool things about previous fairs and was curious...
Jon, congratulations. Easily one of the best articles I've ever read on /. - have you thought of submitting it to the Whole Earth Review? This theme deserves wide discussion.
Cool.
I'd agree that there isn't a well thought out philosophy of technology, but I think that there are some elements of it already in existence. If you go to a sci-fi/trekker con, you'll find hordes of idealistic people who are obsessed with technological progress and space travel. On the other hand, I have a sister who ardently believes that technology is a virus that is strangling mother earth. Personally, I believe that technology and computers are so pervasive that its hard to consider them on their own. How do you separate them from their context? Technology is a tool. Can you really look at it without looking at WHY its used?
Hey, I liked the story. It was entertaining to read. I'm just trying to figure out what the author was really trying to say here. EPCOT center isn't what Walt wanted, but people love it anyhow?
The most impressive technological advance to come from Disney this century is by far and away that new Beta Tracker that Walt Disney Jr. and Bill Gates came up with!
Goodness, Since forwarding that message to all my friends and family, I have received hundreds of dollars and free trips to Disney... I tell you, the possibilities of that there Beta Tracker are limitless!
This article evoked all sorts of thoughts. First was that of the difference betweend Disney's vision and the commercial enterprise that Disneyworld is today. Would a man who rode around on a miniature train in his back yard condone a theme park bearing his name that sells frozen candy bars for $5?
It also brought to mind the question of the significance of all this technology. Specifically, the woman whos mother had died hauling water was very provoking. (Great writing, Jon!) Isn't the purpose of technology, in the end, to make life easier in general? To save effort such that it may devoted to other, more "human" pursuits? That leads to an inevitable question: does the world's lust for technology really ease human suffering?
See you, space cowboy...
"Strange, Enya-like New Age music poured from a cactus."
Don't you just *HATE* it when that happens?
--
rJames.org - illustration
> I have a sister who ardently believes that
> technology is a virus that is strangling mother
> earth...
You can put your sister's fear to rest. Modern science has shown that a virus is incapable of a strangling (or much of any other) action. However, it is an expert at embracing and extending.
Somewhat ironic, since Disney Corp had embraced and extended the ideas of the late Walt Disney.
The artificial village of Celebration is original spirit of Disney's Experimental Community of Tommorrow (EPCOT). It was supposed to a blend of some old-fashioned ideas (small town America) and very futuristic ones. Celebration/EPCOT has been a mixed success according some tell-all books that have appeared recently.
What would be the constituent parts of a technological philsophy? Morals, laws, human relations, captial relations? All of these are changed by technology.
What I am saying at heart is that our philosophy, our institutions, our society can all only follow what technology does. We can attempt to apply current social values to new technology but that is vanity and folly. If there is any enduring 'philsophy' we can apply it boils down to one phrase - The dynamic of change.
Z@mzm1.demon.nl
"Walt Disney was a visionary. Bill Gates makes software."
A perspective I can already see echoed in that nebulous 'article and maybe a book' Katz is talking about. But how fair is it really? Was Disney really a starry-eyed big kid who would've used Linux to run his MP3's if only both had been invented at the time? Was Gates really a snide poser whose vision of shoddy upgrade-driven software and world domination crystallized at the age of 3?
If we judge both men by their actions, we see they are remarkably similar. Disney did not invent the cartoon, nor the amusement park, nor the notion of breathless technofairs that cozen corn-hucking families of four in a glittering tin foil vision of the future. But Disney did formulate the concept that these familiar sideshows could be brought together for the common man, in one place by one company. To judge him purely by his actions, Disney believed in the common spark of delight, and he wasn't above turning that ageless need for pleasure into a buck or two for himself.
How does Gates really differ? The Imagineer wasn't entirely wrong: Gates makes software. That, and that alone, is the significant difference between Disney and Gates. Disney recognized the golden possibilities in bringing cartoons and technology into the average home. Gates realized the seas of green to be made bringing computers to Everyman's den, and fabricating software that Everyman would want to use.
We readily accept the statement above from the "Imagineer" because we work in the computer industry, and so we inherit a memory of the time when Gates clawed his way to the top. We remember that there were others who shared Gates vision, and others who could have just as easily assumed that monopolistic throne. So we give Gates no credit at all. He was one face in the crowd, distinguishable only by a pair of goofy glasses, a bad haircut, and a signed IBM contract stuffed in next to his pocket protector.
Disney worked in entertainment, and most of us are unfamiliar with that world. We accept readily, at face value, the claim that he was original and that he was first. The notion that he was a titan with unheard-of ideas seems reasonable to us within our limited sphere of experience. But ideas, great ideas, are always "in the air". From evolution to calculus, from airplanes to money itself, the ideas that transform society have only rarely been the original fruit of one brain. Did Disney pen the first cartoon? No. Did he tighten the screws personally on the first carnival ride? No. Did he hold the first bonanza of Future Tech. No. What he did, and what Gates did, was realize that there was money to be made in the combination of many elements that already existed around him. They were opportunists, both of them. They were also original thinkers. To suggest otherwise, whatever your personal hatred for Gates or Disney, is spiteful.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I really don't like to get into 'katz bashing' but what was the point and where was the substance?
The Disney Lands capture our changing image of the future. In the first part of the 20th century is was about fanstastic machines- super cars, spaceships, home robots, etc. as seen in the original Tommorrowland. Then when people became disillusioned with technology in the 1960s the future became ecology and psychology as captured in the Epcot Sphere ride. Now the future is digital- information and computers and the newer Disney thrill rides show this.
Usually (sorry, Katz, but its true) usually I gloss over Katz' stuff like so much blather. Sometimes theres a kernel of something interesting, but not always.
However, this one has caught my attention. First off, the writing was entertaining; but most importantly, it was (*surprise*) thought provoking.
I'll think on it some more and post my thoughts later. Just thought I should comment on the rare occasion Katz writes something good.
Wow, great research. Meet with a stranger, with unknown credentials...and then regurgitate all that was spoon fed to you as the gospel truth. I'm convinced.
Did it ever occur to you that this might be more of a reason for your "clandestine" meeting than any real monitoring by "The Mouse"? It sounds more like a couple of middle-aged guys who want an excuse to play spy (NTTAWWT).
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
You know, Jon Katz has plopped himself down at his keyboard and written something here. And he does so with fair frequency. And he does so *fairly well* IMNSHO.
It's always amazing to me how the criticisms of Katzie are rather inarticulate, often full of spelling errors, and obviously the rantings of someone who flunked English and can't stand to see another geek put more than 2 paragraphs on a page without getting the shakes.
If you don't like Katz, filter him out. Malda has instituted a fabulous set of preferences for doing just that sort of thing. If you can't figure out how to set this up, maybe you can go ask your copy of the Microsoft Dancing Paper Clip.
...and I do mean "underlying".
The last time I went to Disney World, there was a neat exhibit at EPCOT (which was only a few years old at the time) in the central pavilion, not big enough for a pavilion of its own. It was sponsored by Sperry. No, not Unisys (the bastard child of the Sperry-Burroughs merger), the mid-80's mainframe Sperry. At the time, a significant amount of Disney World's computing power ran on Sperry hardware, and my father (a Field Engineer who had been with the company since it was Sperry-Univac) got us VIP access. The exhibit was literally a window into one of the computer rooms that controlled Disney's technology.
Walt Disney World is like an iceberg in that the vast majority of it lies underneath the surface, where few people ever get to see. Personnel facilities, changing rooms for the "actors", maintenance tunnels, and the computers that operate the rides, shows, and everything else. I've heard that Disney took great pains to hide the underlying workings of his "Magic Kingdom" in order to avoid breaking the illusion he worked so hard to create.
I don't know how much Sperry hardware still exists in the warrens beneath central Florida (there may still be quite a bit of legacy hardware). I wonder if there is still an exhibit like Sperry's anywhere at WDW, that gives visitors a glimpse of that strange underworld. I also wonder how Disney would have felt about letting outsiders see the technological underpinnings of his magic.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Yes, they're still there. The current one is under construction in Hannover, in the northwest of Germany. Don't know when it's supposed to open though, spring 2000 I suppose.
Modern science has shown that a virus is incapable of a strangling (or much of any other) action. However, it is an expert at embracing and extending.
Viruses are most proficient at embracing and extending...themselves. Often at the expense of their hosts. True, they're not capable of doing much of anything on their own, being merely a snippet of genetic material w/ a protein coat and all. But that genetic material is stealthy! It sneaks into its host's cellular apparatus and gets the host to do all the work that the virus is incapable of by itself. Like making more viruses and maybe even strangling the host.
Now technology is, of course, not a virus. It has no genetic material and no protein coat. But sucessful ideas and complexes of ideas (like technology) are frequently compared to viruses. They're analogous to viruses. They seem to propagate throughout the human population in the same way that viruses do. By inducing their hosts to replicate them.
This is neither good nor evil. It just is.
Don't dis Disney and the Imagineers too much. At least they're giving smart people like Alan Kay, Dan Ingalls, and John Maloney money for working on stuff like Squeak. IMO that's excuse enough to put up with EPCOT etc. :)
So Katz is upset because the official vision Walt Disney had is not alive anymore. Allow me to ask: So what? This seems to be the fate of any successful enterprise: you have a good idea, you innovate, you grow, you grow some more. All of a sudden you find that you're no longer a little company that can turn on a dime but a conglomerate which is subject to corporate VPs strategies, shareholder values, (expected) growing profits, pressure from the stock market and who knows what else.
How is this different from Apple? How is this different from Netscape, Sun, Oracle, etc? How is this different from so many other technology companies who started out with a vision, a desire to change the world and a few years later found themselves struggling to meet wall street earnings estimates and foregoing all principlies/vision in the process?
The fact that Katz is actually complaining about this, just drives home the fact that many of his essays seem to be situated a bit far from reality.
Interestingly enough, the only company which seems to have endured (actually prospered) and held on to it's (somewhat greedy) princicples, seems to be Microsoft. Then gain (fincancially speaking), they are in a league of their own.
There really a large existing body of work concerning a philosophy of technology, whether you're in for the "Philosophy as it Should Be" (at the philosophy department of your local U) or "Philosopy as it Is" (the engineering department of your local tech company, the sales rep at your local quik-e-mart). I would actually be very interested in a reading list or beginners bibliography pertaining to either subject.
As it stands, here are a few resources I have found interesting and useful:
This is a damn good book chronicling a slice of the rise and fall of CAD/CAM mania in the 80's- There are a lot of visions that parallel Mr. Katz's vision of Uncle Walt's vision, and some of the realities that conflicted with/resulted from that sort of thinking. This is a reallly in depth study of philosophy type B (quik-e-mart)
This is an essay of the other type (phil. department) and it is heavy- It took me weeks of reading and re-reading to get a foggy notion of what was going on, and my notion is still probably pretty foggy ("Engineers don't need that liberal-arts garbage" thunders a someone at a curriculum planning meating in my distant past...) But It has really changed the way I think about the work that I do in a fundamental way.
(Drifting off of the topic, I would really, really, *really* like to see a "philosophy department philosophy of technology for the rest of us" somewhere- maybe even here at /.???)
Its the Ideology(tm)!
I'm sure there are security cameras covering every square inch @ Disney World. Don't they just need to have somebody look for a geek with a Yankees hat at the locations described at an approximate date and time (this weekend) to see you and the anonymous engineer?
I know this will probably get me flamed to hell..
,even a build your own virtual rollercoaster. Though it is not ahead of other similar complexes around the country, it's worth the $25.00 price of admission. I am very surprised your 'contact' at Epcot didn't mention the place.
but there is something a little dishonest about this article.
1. Yes there are lots of survellence cameras in Disney parks. Including right where John and his anonymous friend sat, so it will be relatively easy to check back and see who talked (faded yankee baseball caps are easy to spot). That being true, I wonder if the person he supposedly met had official blessing from Disney? There are plenty places outside of Disney World where they could have met without fear of being watched. (like tens of thousands of hotel rooms, lots of undeveloped forest....)
2. The TVA is in Tennesee, not Texas. There is a whole state and a really big river between them (Arkansas, and the Mississippi).
Meeting in Disney would be like meeting with a mole in the middle of the CIA HQ (or the Kremlin). It's considered exceptionally stupid and riskey.
As far as Disneys special town for employees. It is generally considered a complete failure. The Home Owner association rules are nothing short or Orwellian, the promise of high speed access to the Internet consists of slow dial up modems (maybe they've improved that, but I haven't heard anything). The shops and stores are so expensive that most people go to nearby discount centers for the goods. The quality of construction is suspect because of the finincial problems of the builders... I could go on, but none of this is news down in here in FL.
More importantly, Disney is not the only High Tech center in Orlando. Universal studios has excellent VR and 3D based entertainment. Disney has nothing, and I mean nothing to match the new Spiderman ride at Islands of Adventure. Even the Back to the Future ride, Terminator 3D and Twister, are far ahead of anything at Disney, with the exception of the 3D bug show at the Tree of Life in the Animal Kingdom park.
There is also DisneyQuest at the Downtown Disney park. There they have some excellent VR stuff in the way of Games and interactivity
There is a large and growing tech/entertainment population in Orlando, much of it outside the confines of the Magic Kingdom. So Mr. Katz, if you really want to do a tech piece on Orlando, get rid of your Mouse cap, and open your eyes.
And no, I do not work for Universal, Disney, or any other company in or around Orlando. This article simply doesn't seem genuine, thats all.
One last thing, I am not anti-Disney, nor anti- anything else. I like taking a vacation where I can count on the staff to be professional, courteous and the rooms clean and well maintained.
The article just doesn't add up.
I mean this is Disney World we are talking about, not the NSA! It's not like the guy is giving away secrets of the H-Bomb! Why is this Disney employee so afraid of revealing his identity?
regular people could watch real science being done.
:)
Hmm, I can imagine it now:
VO from announcer: And here we see Dr. Flurm engaging the particle accelerator. Watch as he types in the commands into his keyboard. This is an exciting moment particle physics!
Look! There it goes! Aaaaaand it's over!
Now let's look on the big screen to see if muon-decay was achieved...
Bored kid in the audience: What happened? This is stupid! Mom!!! I wanna go on Space Mountain!!
Etc.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I'm going to be going to Disney World (and a day at Universal) in December - I found your article really interesting, it will give me something to mull over as I stroll the lands at Epcot and the worlds surrounding.
One thing I was surprised you had not mentioned that fit rather well into the theme of technology being tragic, was the Animal Kingdom - I had heard that a fair number of animals had died when the first placed them there, in a way killing them in thier attempt to save them in a high-tech animal reserve. I do not know if that is true, can anyone comment on that?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are claiming that technology is "tragic" because unforseen, negative benefits flow from it. But this implies that technology has some kind of volition: it "wants" to do only good, but because it violates the Will Of The Gods, or The Natural Order, or whatever you want to call it (I'll call it "the Gods" from now on), the Gods hurl their lightningbolts at the transgressor, and reveal its folly. Technology doesn't care how it's used, so there is no inherent "tragedy".
You might as well say that *any* human artifact (religion, culture, nationalism) is tragic, because sometimes the Gods throw their lightningbolts at them too. But this is also wrong. Many things have been tried throughout history; those that have a net positive benefit (eg capitalism) tend to spread; those that have a net negative benefit (eg slavery) tend to disappear. Put 'em together: that's Progress. It's in those areas where the benefit is uncertain that are the most interesting; nationalism comes to mind. The books are closed on technology -- it's good, and more is better.
Do you think that old woman's mother would have argued with this? Would she have been disturbed that an "unnaturnal" metal cylinder was laid between the lake and her house? Or even that her new, longer expected lifespan would be a wee bit shorter because the pipe was made of lead? I don't think so.
Ironically, sometimes the thing that tells us our technology is harming us is -- more technology!
There was probably more interesting technology used in getting him to Orlando (i.e. jets, air traffic control, etc) than he'll find in the silly rides at Disney.
I'm pretty sure he just wanted to spend time in Florida during the cold months.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
> I would actually be very interested in a reading list or beginners bibliography
The standard entries are Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerbend. I think the most important philosopher of technology is Karl Marx. His political remedies stink, but his analysis of how the system and its technology and the people interact is on-the-mark.
To me, the most interesting modern guy is a French Marxist: Michel Foucault. There is an interesting website put together by Steve Dhalgren (it is not G-rated) entitled Doom Patrols. Coincidentally, his website also has an entry on Walt Disney. The URL:
http://www.dhalgren.com/Doom/ch04.html
The best Foucault's are Madness and Civilization (a history of the asylum) and Discipline and Punish (a history of the prison.)
Bukvich
Basically, technology is valueles by itself. "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right" and this in and of itself should prove that there is more than simply the "dynamic of change" here. It's a feedback loop. Of course advances in technology affect our laws and our perceptions of the world, but the converse is also true. Technologies that are deemed more "important", either by the military or by whomever else has the resources to support research, will get more funding which will fuel growth and affect how that "value-free" technology will be harnessed. The web itself started at DARPA.
>>What would be the constituent parts of a technological philsophy? Morals, laws, human relations, captial relations? All of these are changed by technology.
Sure, but these shape our technology too, from theory to application, from basic research to IPO. Granted there's no way to predict when the major paradigm shifts will happen (for example from a Newtonian to an Einstinian paradigm), it's still possible to guide and predict technology's impact on society over the long haul in broad strokes. We need models like EPCOT to guide us just as we need fiction like "1984" and "Brave New World" to show us the dangers inherent in certain technologies.
Philosophy is not static, and neither is our technology. I'd argue that we can understand the process of technology well by studying the philosophy of science (for ex. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn) and we can guide our visions of the future we want collectively by understanding our past visions of what we think our future will/should be. While that varies greatly from culture to culture, and that's nowhere near as rigourous an outline for a philosophy as the Critique of Pure Reason ;) I still say it's pretty accurate and a better heuristic than "the only constant is change".
Your philosophy of change is self defeating. What you appear to be saying is that "there is only one constant, and that is that there are no constants." You can't claim that your position is universal and constantly applicable, when say that everything is changing.
If your position is true, then your philosophical statement will change and not be true in the future.
Technology doesn't change morality and basic values. For example, you can kill someone by running over them with a horse, a car, an airplane, or a space shuttle. The technology of the transportation doesn't affect the underlying morality of using it to kill in this case.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Reading Katz's latest piece and remember some of hs previous comments on technology, it seems to me Katz is likely suffering from Tom Brokaw disease.
Brokaw, you will remember, recently wrote a gushing book about the generation that fought and won World War II. Anyway Brokaw laments that Americans no longer have the sort of social cohesion that facing destruction from fascism (and then communism) had. Well duh -- there's nothing like fear of mass destruction to unite people, but neither that fear nor the social cohesion it brings are things to be celebrated in and of themselves.
Katz's Russian couple reminded me of this. One of the major reasons the Soviet empire fell was because, ultimately, they couldn't control the technology. Soviet citizens used everything from photocopiers to VCRs to what have you to spread the message and Gorbachev was unwilling to take the steps necessary to stop this.
Of course in America we don't have that sort of problem so what do we do with our technology? Lots of us download pornography or we spend a weekend like I recently did converting my entire CD collection to MP3 or we play some computer game to fill up the time.
But we don't have any need for any "philosophy" of technology or some need to have some overarching Purpose(TM) except to enjoy our lives, and this seems to really bug people like Katz.
It's the end of the world as we know, and I feel fine.
I think that one of the greatest failures of modern society is reliance on science to answer metaphysical questions. You cannot look to science for the solution to existential questions. Morals, ethics and values cannot come from science. Your article, though very good, dances around the answers because it is more difficult to believe in a religion than to fault science for not being a religion. Have you read Umberto Eco's "Travels in Hyperreality"? A very good book about all things Disney-esqe. Good piece.
Katz claims to be looking for answers and insights, but that's a lie. The very title of his article shows he's already made up his mind. "The Tragedy of Technology" doesn't leave a lot of suspense about the expected results of his data gathering. It's as if I announced I was going to write an article about which Slashdot writers were good and which aren't, but before I even began reading their work, I announce the title of my article will be "Why Jon Katz sucks so damn bad". The decision has been made, the results will be forced to conform to the desired result, any actual thought or data gathering is a formality and a sham, as is Katz's piece of non-investigative reporting. What utter tripe. In the future, Katz, at least have the courtesy to PRETEND you're going to listen to facts, information, and arguments before you come to your conclusion.
...any hungry Morlocks down there?
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
But the tragic view of technology eliminates this silly argument. It holds that while there is plenty of evil in the world, the essentially tragic fact is not so much the war of good with evil as the war of good with good.
Technology is tragic only as much as human beings are tragic. Technology, whether it is a lever or a computer, is simply a human amplifier. Used well, it makes better. Used poorly, it makes worse. Unintended evils do accompany the use of technology, but unintended benefits appear as well.
A philosophy can take into account the role of technology in human affairs. It cannot, however, successfully become the foundation of that viewpoint. The Tragic view of Technology is simply the tragic view of Humanity. That tragic view is only one amoung many philosophical views. By pushing a tragic view of technology, one is simply projecting philosophy of humanity as tragedy.
IV
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
First of all, it's Disney *World* and technology.
Second of all, why not? Behind the scenes at Disney, you'll find a *ton* of geeks. EE's, ME's, CS grads, geographers, geologists, musicians, sociologists, psychologists, landscape artists, you name it!
The application of technology and ingenuity to the task of making people happy via rides, shops, shows, and experiences has always been an important part of society. Entertainment has *long* been one of the major players in technology.
For example, what about the inverted, super-duper, edge-of-your-seat coaster that you've been hearing about in advertisements (yes, I'm being general)? The gentlemen who developed the Matterhorn at Disney Land are responsible. The reason? Walt wanted a splash-down landing. It took them months of work to get the plans finalized, but they eventually unveiled a whole new technology-- tubular rails.
Applications of that? Aside from the roller coasters (which, IMNSHO, justify themselves), there are a number of mechanical applications. A number of automated assembly plants require robots that are placed on tracks-- the tubular rail idea is *extremely* useful here, especially in industries that require a decent amount of precision.
Or what about psychology? Disney states that the GM Test Track vehicles don't go above 60 mph. But the sensation is given that you are going at just under twice that speed. How so? Through all sorts of tricks, such as placement of the surrounding landmarks (think telephone poles, spaced progresseively closer together), and deceptive angles in the turns and twists in the road.
Applications? How about testing the reactions of people in high-speed situations? Perhaps designing cars with such psychological factors in mind (yes, I know, going 80 mph shouldn't be a worry for car companies, but they *do* worry about it).
While there *is* a great deal of technology that is involved in getting from New Jersey to Orlando, there is a huge amount of technology that goes into entertainment-- and frequently, entertainers get a head-start on the technology (no, not always). Why? Because they exploit every possible angle. At a certain point, academic research, or R&D gets to a point where the technology is "cheap enough" to work with-- no need for more optimization. But with entertainment, maximization of profit is the key element-- the optimizations here and there, coupled with higher degree of understanding of a concept, lead to a greater ability to use and implement any given technology.
Also: Bell Labs would be a great place to visit. But who is going to read about Bell Labs, except geeks like us? Katz may be giving us a heads up on this, but remember that he's still a writer. He still needs to pay his bills.
There was a review of two books about it on Salon a couple of months ago that was very thought-provoking. What makes Celebration any different than Levittown? Man, it's too frightening when individuals give up their power to a corporation (even if it is Disney) or abandon their innner cities for the blandness and conformity of planned communities and suburbs.
keeping active, helps you live longer.
If that old woman hauling water, had electricity,etc, there is a good chance she would
have died years earlier as a shut-in couch
potato.
My Aunt at 80, is more active and healthy than
some 60 year-olds, because she walked a mile
to do her shopping every other day.
http://www.tekknowledge.com/gonzo/articles/other/d isneyland.html
sorry it's in the old page format, but ah well...OTOH, there is a really good Disney story in an old book called "Mass Mediated Culture". It was unfortunately stolen from the SAIT library...I would loved to have xeroxed that one. Disney is so obsessed with everything being perfect that everything must be monitored. No sex in the bushes, no litter. It's more Big Brother than anything. I would never go there. I view Disney as an elitist company now - just check out their treatment of Winnie the Pooh. There's "Classic Pooh" for the high-noses with a higher price tag and "modern Pooh" which you can find at any K-Mart or Wal-Mart. Sad.
yes, it is tragic. but also inevitable.
It's "Big Company" syndrome. It seemsto be a
universal truth, that companies beyond a certain
size, are no longer capable of innovation. They
are too "Risk-averse" is the phrase.
Which is why disney has pseudo-separate corporations like miramax.
Walt succeded because he gave people what they wanted. Nobody went to see a Disney film because they were the only films compatible with their local theater. Nobody goes to Disney World because Six Flags' parking lot doesn't accept their cars.
Don't you think that's a little naive? Do you understand how difficult it is to produce a successful cartoon film if you are not Disney? The Big Mouse crushes competition, crushes toy deals with Mickey Dees, etc. That is why the media makes a fuss if a successful film is not sponsored by disney. Read about disney's tactics thru google - your eyes will open.
Last summer we were at Disney. I saw the Lost Model and thought it was reall cool, and how great that would be to see, if it was a real city!
I had NO idea that it was actually Walt's proposed Epcot! That would have been something to see.
For those that want to see the model, go to Tomorrow land. You need to take the ride which used to be called the People Mover. It has a new name now which I forget. It's entrance is right across from the entrance of the Carousel of Progress.
When the tram goes into Space Mountain, the model is on the left (if you are facing foward) and the soundtrack makes mention of it.
--mark
The Zylog Z-80 processor.
My dad has been at Disney West (aka Disneyland, the Tragic Kindom, the Crapiiest Place on Earth) for 25 years building, repairing, designing, modernizing, etc. anything electronic on the campus.
Anything and everything at the place is run on Z-80 processors. They are cheap, they are easy to program for.... all the animatronics, all the float controllers, the fireworks launchers, the sound systems for the rides, the ride controllers (except some of the newer rides like Star Tours and Indy, where the Z-80 couldn't handle it)... all of these are run by DOS machines holding the programs and then talking to the Z-80's running the stuff.
factoids -
there is no more analog tape at disneyland on continuous loop for things like ride music, etc.. Its all stored solid state - not harddrive... EPROMs. very^very expensive.. but it never breaks... they never have to fix it. new stuff is digitally recorded and burned in just a few steps. (this was under old management when doing shit right meant it was done right, even if expensive)
Been on Whiplash errrr Splash Mountain? Why is it so fast? Why do things scream by at mach 9? Well, it was supposed to be 25% larger... to save money, they asked "can't we just build it smaller? Everything 1 foot long will now be 9 inches! Save money!" They told them that water moves faster in smaller spaces, but they didn't listen. The ride was delayed weeks because they did everything but install 4-wheel disk breaks to slow down the boats.
They don't clean the scenes of Haunted Mansion. They haven't for over 30 years.
There is a LED counter on the president of Disneyland's (i forget his name now.. and no, its not Eisner... i mean the Pres (VP?) of Disneyland) desk of exactly how many people are in the park. Average worth of each patron is $85 with tickets, parking, food, and Disney chatchka.
Fantasimic was due to Mrs Eisner. They were going to either do a big show thing or a coaster... they went with the show thing. Buttons popped up saying "Could'a had a coster" on them... they were later banned.
___
"I know kung-fu."
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
This piece raised some thought-provoking ideas. But as with most of Katz's work, he manages to come up with some interesting topics and overall viewpoints, but then flubs it in the execution. He should find himself an editor, or even a ghostwriter, who can make his pieces much more incisive. His big-picture perspective, combined with an eye for human interest items, such as the old Texan woman in this story, seem to provide some readers with enough of the warm fuzzies that they don't care about, or notice, the overall wooliness of his rambling pieces. It's no coincidence he writes so much for Slashdot. His work would be ripped to shreds by a professional editor. (I'm assuming no-one at Slashdot actually edits his work.) In fact, I saw a Katz piece in the magazine Brill's Content (I think?) a while back, and remember thinking that it was more focused than his usual work. I'd love to know how much editing went on in that case; or perhaps he just had a word count to fit within, so was forced to self-edit for a change. It's no surprise that a writer whose lack of analytical skill radiates from every paragraph receives a mixed reception from the Slashdot audience, many of whom prize analytical ability above all else.
Measure your wealth in hours, not just dollars.
But I hope this guy doesn't lose his job, or worse.
... well, I can't say how I spotted him.
So we met in the best clandestine manner -
(wince)
I can't bear to repeat all the location-specific data you then provide here, utterly negating any hope of anonymity.
The Imagineer recognized me, as we had arranged, from my fading Yankees baseball cap. I spotted him by his
(shakes head) You don't need to! Now they only need to spot *you*!
Didn't somebody in the last article say something about 'cameras everywhere'? With all the information you've provided in your article, I'll bet they (whomever 'they' may be, and depending on whether they care or not), could pinpoint the 'offending' employee after an hour or two of browsing some archival footage.
Age, Gender, location and numerous environmental specifics were provided to aid them in their search.
Whoops!
Heck. If he *does* get fired, it'll make a great follow-up story...
**>>BELCH
That is a really cool ride for technology buffs. And I'm sure Katz would like the Swiss Family Robinson tree house too. Disneyland is fun for the whole family!
Click here to find out why Katz isn't universally liked.
I am not a huge fan of Walt Disney nor do I care for Katz, but every indication I have had is that Walt had a vision which he sincerely believed in. He strove for excellence, not just the bottom line. Gates on the otherhand, strikes me as artless. He is certainly a smart and very driven man, but I've yet to see any evidence of him as a real visionary. I believe he is driven not so driven by a firm destination, but rather a desire sit on top of everyone else, regardless of how many people he must step on to stay there. In short, an opportunist and a bully.
Please name something that Gates has really BROUGHT forth into this world. MSDOS? BASIC? Windows? And no, I'm not talking about mere invention. I am of the belief that merely inventing a concept is relatively minor part, a first step. Though I'm not a huge fan of say Steven Jobs, I respect him for MAKING the GUI (amongst other things) happen even though PARC technically invented it. Just as I respect Ford, and many others. They made definite contributions to this world by force of personality, willingess to take risk, vision, perseverence, and other such qualities. If Gates ever had such a sparc, it was in his early days (e.g.: Altair) and long since gone. The lack of significant improvement in his product line, his business practices, and his desire to do the most expediant thing speak directly to this.
Good article, but it doesn't have anything to do with Orlando. I grew up in Orlando and spent most of my life there until moving recently to Tampa, Florida. This article falls into the trap of myth that drives many Orlando residents insane:
1. Disney is not *in* Orlando. It is in Kissimmee, at least 20 miles to the south. Disney has been spending a lot of effort in recent years to detach itself from Orlando; one such effort is an ongoing attempt to build a monorail station directly in Orlando International Airport.
2. Disney *is* not Orlando. No mention in this article that Oracle has a major headquarters in Orlando and that AT&T has had a tech presence there for years. Or that while the public libraries have internet access, just outside the library door a man is sleeping on the street.
Orlando isn't just about Disney isn't just about tech. There's a big dark side there. One good example is that while some form of mass transit (other than the rapidly improving Lynx bus system) is needed due to the massive traffic burden on Interstate 4, there is still resistance to a maglev-style light rail on the part of much of the senior community. The city seems to be built on this blend of tech-fetish and conservative progress-loathing - a culture that's a blend of techie youth, tourism and retiree conservatism.
This is a good article, but it painfully falls back on common perceptions rather than realities. Contrary to popular belief, Orlando citizens don't walk out onto their back porch and look up at Cinderella's castle - and Disney wouldn't want it that way.
Rob Warren
http://www.iag.net/~aleris
Good point. In order for Disney/land/world to really be 'meaningful' through the ages, it would have to be run and maintained by a sort of visionary priesthood, willing and able to make sacrifices when neccessary, guided by the desire to Enlighten, Inform and Entertain.
It would be like visiting some of the temples in Japan; donations are encouraged and happily accepted and baubles are always for sale, but it is all done with grace and humor, and the temples themselves are kept imaculate and undefiled, for the enjoyment of all.
Not bad, Mister Katz. Much more honest and entertaining than some of your previous fare.
**>>BELCH
It's so pathetic that certain /. users have little more to do than analyze Jon Katz's writing. Here's a zany suggestion: read the article, take from it what you will, and shut up! Given the vast quantity of worthelss crap that seems to pass as news stories here ("New patch for Linux QIC tape driver available!!!!", etc.), I for one find it refresh to read something that gets me thinking. I've enjoyed everything Jon Katz has ever written. He writes with obvious passion and interest, and I appreciate his willingness to reinvent himself. I just hope to God he doesn't read the crap that you people write about him, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to contribute after doing so. So, until I see your next published work, or until you're interesting yourself, may I kindly suggest you STFU? Or at the very least get a girlfriend? That will at least to give you something else to nitpick pathetically: "I really didn't like the way you just kissed me. It was lacking a certain panache that I've seen in some of the more professional kisses on television, or at least in motion pictures. I suggest you get yourself an acting coach, or at least practice a little more, the next time you kiss me. In the future, also, you may wish to tell me verbally how you plan to kiss me, so we can determine if it will be the best possible approach. Also please stop using special characters in your kisses, or at least filter them out, they're so amateurish. Oh, Deep Space Nine is on! YES!"
I have worked with Disney Imagineers on past projects like the Tower of Terror in Orlando. They are bleeding-edge technologists and paranoid about project secrecy. They always want you to solve a unique new technical problem but never give you enough project detail to go on.
No one tries to improve the present through pursuing worse technology. Katz claims that your new gewgaws will screw the pooch anyway, so it doesn't matter what you pursue.
... at an extremely advanced age.
You should find an older person & ask what it was like before the polio vaccine became available, & if they think vaccination is "tragic." I predict her answer won't be, "Very tragic; now a few thousands of us won't have a character-building obstacle, namely, a non-responsive body, thrust upon us." I, for one, hope to die a slow, painful, lingering death
Okay, Katz. Usually, I'm able to ignore your always overdramatic, often self-righteous, and perhaps hypoxic pieces of verbage. But this latest one has urged me to action. Okay, so you couldn't get a job as a science fiction writer. Get over it! You only embarass yourself when you attempt to masquerade such things as journalism, when, in effect, you are merely trying to create a fanciful story rooted in the painfully trite and overdone theme of Disney as Orwellian. If you want to write this stuff, fine. Sell it as a story, not as journalism. If the Slashdot moderators want to consider it truth, well, then we have a problem. I don't know how you hoodwinked them, but kudos...
It sounds like they haven't updated Epcot at all since I first went there around '88ish. But the vision of Epcot depended on the gosh-wow factor, removing the negatives of technology, and pretending that it would cure all the ills of society. You can't sell a gleaming vision of the future if the technology is just around the bend. Even as a kid, the vision lost its magic when it got too close to home, too understandable (we had a monorail in Vancouver already, but we still had traffic jams). The technology that's overtaken Epcot is in communications, and that's the exact technology which is changing so fast that any "vision" will become reality within a few short years. Communication is also much more difficult to build an exhibit about than, say, energy sources or transportation or even agriculture. So how can they build a gleaming model of some future utopia if the technology it rides on is so close, but all the problems it purports to solve are still very much with us and a long way from resolution?
If you're going to DW, don't forget to visit the Disney/MGM Studios area. I found an excellent live example of how Disney plays fast and loose with the truth to eke out a little more cash, and they didn't even hide it terribly well to the critical eye.
Last time my family went to DW (95ish), I went to the D/MGM "animation studio", where (supposedly) real live animators actually worked and you got to see all the equipment they used. Well, none of them were in that day. While the desks certainly looked lived-in, something about the artfully arranged Pocahontas sketches made me suspicious - after all, the movie was about to come out, shouldn't it be done by now?
Then they took us around to the tracing and painting tables, and the camera. And that's when my BS detector really went off. I knew from newsgroup postings by Disney employees that from Little Mermaid onwards, all the tracing and coloring had been done by computer. The tables and figurines has visible dust on them. The camera was poorly shielded from extraneous light.
I couldn't figure out why they would rather show the masses the classical animation methods, when they could easily wow the crowds with newfangled whiz-bang digital technology, and be honest about the process to boot. And then I saw the $1000 sericels ("print" cels, not used in production) in the gift shop.
The tour was still worth it, even if not all the laughs came from the pre-recorded Robin Williams guidethrough.
There was an excellent article in the Calgary Sun by Eric Margolis that echoed this. The way to defend communism and its ideals in the modern way was always through bloodshed. Congrats on Gorbachev. We needed him badly. Reagan and Bush should take none of the credit.
Yes, it is true.
To quote from ther June 4, 1998 edition of the Los Angeles Times, from an article entitled "Hippo Dies at Disney Animal Theme Park":
"A hippopotamus has died of bacterial pneumonia at Disney's Animal Kingdom, the latest in a series of deaths of animals at the new theme park in Lake Buena Vista. Nearly 30 animals, including cheetahs, an otter, a rhino and another hippo, died at the park before it opened in April."
Here's the URL, you need to register for Hunter (LA Times search bot), but it's free (much like NYTimes registration): http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli?DBLIST=lt
I definitely remember the press coverage on this when it happened.
I disagree, I believe you have misinterpreted the claim "Technology is tragic". As you say, Technology itself can't be tragic, technology itself, as yet, doesn't give a damn how it is used, it has no way of fulfilling the requirement of attempted good followed by failure due to weakness.
However I believe the point is that the combination of technology and humanity is tragic.
How many of you programmers out there have started out writing some great piece of software, only to eventually give up because of a design issue you couldn't forsee?
How many dams were built by dependable, intelligent engineers trying to make the quality of life of people around them better, only to have the resulting weakening of the downstream flow cause masses of wildlife to die through a string of consequences no-one saw coming?
How many cryptographers around the world are wondering at this very moment whether their lifes work is letting child pornographers get away with hideous crimes?
It is this very relationship, our inability to predict the consequences of our technology, our nothing-but-good intentions in its design and construction, and the pain we suffer and give to others apon failure, that is Tragic.
Every day, every hour, our capabilities expand. Our ability to perform tragedies has well exceeded Shakespeares', and there is no indiction of any letup any time soon. With the generation of masses of nuclear weapons, we and our technology, for the first time ever, presented the opportunity for a Tragedy that would cost the lives of every one of us.
This has only become easier since then. I sincerely hope that we learn to minimise the Tragedy from our symbiotic relationship with technology, for otherwise, we die.
You can't win a fight.
> take from it what you will, and shut up!
Now there's an enlightened attitude! I read the article, took from it what I wanted, and commented on some of what I took from it - as you did to my comment. Seems fair.
I hope Katz *does* read what's written about him. He might use some of it to improve his writing. My comment wasn't intended as a mindless flame of Katz, but rather because everything he posts generates a slew of this kind of discussion, with incoherent flames (such as your message) on both sides, and I was commenting on why that might be the case - and by implication, why it's not likely to change, unless Katz gets an editor.
Only wealkings must rely on "authority", since that merely means they are too lazy to check out the ideas on their own.
The character known as "The Imagineer" clearly had some good observations to share, ones I found to be insightful and entertaining.
In the end, that's what matters most: Not what "they" think or who "they" are, but how I allow "their" ideas to influence what "I" think.
Disney's people broke just about _all_ the ground in cel animation. Hell, Disney was doing 'layers' like you get in Photoshop in 1937!!! I'm talking about the famous Multiplane Camera- just about every aspect of this multimillion dollar monster required massive innovation in every way.
To behave as if Disney was equivalent to a Gates is very stupid. He was the guy pushing for all this. That said, the Disney cartoons (especially the comics!) put across a _very_ strange worldview, and the ones intended for foreign countries actually have capitalist propaganda put into them (really!) or at least had- dunno if Disney still makes those comics. Particularly at the height of the Cold War, Disney comic books were outright 'a war effort' trying to subvert other societies. That's fair to mention. But don't be dissin' the incredible dedication and technological innovation of pre-WWII Disney! (or indeed after- Disney pioneered the Xerox photocopying process _for_ _cels_, as used in 101 Dalmatians and Robin Hood, and pioneered a version with _grey_ lines for The Rescuers).
I visited Epcot Center a number of years back, knowing nothing of Disney's original vision for Epcot Center. Partway through my first day there I noticed something very odd. Most of the pavilions were of the people-mover variety which I have been known to characterize as "slow rides to nowhere for people with IQs in the single digits." Then there was the Universal Products pavilion The Living Seas. I was staggered by that place. Gigantic donut-shaped Lexan salt-water tank several stories high. You walk right through the middle of it.
I later asked someone who was presumably in the know, why this pavilion was such a technological triumph and all the others were kiddie rides. It was explained to me that Disney's original conception of Epcot was of a permanent World's Fair, with each company putting its major technological triumphs on display. Not just dioramas, but real technology. However, there was a disagreement about how that was to be done. Disney wanted the companies to pay for the big displays, and the companies wanted Disney to pay for them. When it became clear that the companies were the stuckees, only Universal came through and did it right; everyone else built dioramas and people movers.
Heh... Usually when someone writes a big long acronym, I look at it for a second, then move on to the next post. I figured the cost of being such a smartass was to not have your posts read. :)
And its not like I'm stupid... Apparently, my brain doesn't work in proper fashion to decrypt these things.
(I can't do jumbles or pronounce french words, either... Coincidence? I think not.)
>>>>>>>>> Kvort
-Don't mind me, I'm personality-deficient and mentally-impaired.
It has been quite a few years since I've been to orlando, but I don't know if I agree with the "Crawling on the motherboard" thing. You should visit the computer museum in Boston, MA for something like that.
Disney is about Fantasy, not reality - Going to disney world to seek out technology is like seeking out a piece of coal in a diamond mine. You are not supposed to see the fantasy, not the hidden gears of technology that drives it. The reason you see it at all is because you are activity looking for - trying to avoid the builtup facade of reality around you. The geek in us asks "How?" instead of "Why?"
The reason Disney is not the bleeding-edge technological paradise you are looking for is because it is not required. What Disney lacks, it makes up for in imagination.
The last World's Fair was held in Lisbon, Portugal and the theme was oceans. I rode there from Santiago, Spain on a bicycle only to find it was setup with massive parking lots and 0 bike racks. It was definitely corporate, with a huge "super bock" statue (bock is the budweiser of Europe). It was altogether pretty fantastic. They built tons of infrastructure which still stands today. Tons of money was poured into the struggling economy of Lisbon. Each country had it's own booth, and told of it's personal relationship with the oceans. Iceland dazzled me, Japan frazzled me (pushing the limits of multimedia), and the US tried to sell me a little dolphin wearing an NOAA t-shirt! Ciao!!!
I don't want to hear about Bill Gates anymore. The topic is worn, weary, and old.
1. You don't know Bill personally, and until you know him I don't wanna read something about who he can be compared to because it is unauthoritative.
2. I have an old computer that runs Linux. there are no Microsoft products on here. I don't care about Microsoft or Bill Gates. They just aren't relavent.
3. Then why don't I just skip the Microsoft and Bill Gates articles? Simple. I am weary of the extreme immaturity of most wire-heads when it comes to Bill Gates. The simple truth is power cannot exist in a vacuum, and Mr. Gates was clever enough to see a space and exploit it. There are too many jokes about Bill Gates being the Anti-Christ, mispelling Micro$oft, calling it the 'Evil Empire,' etc.
In conclusion, I guess all that I have to say is this, kids: "Apply a little bit of maturity when discoursing about Microsoft and Bill Gates."
The biggest difference I can see in society is that of mass-production. It seems that in the past, most workers were more directly connected to the results of their efforts than they are now. Just a thought.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
When I have kids, and someone throws a baby shower for me, I'm going to make sure they know NOT to get me anything with cartoon characters OF ANY SORT on it, and I'll try to keep the kids away from the stuff as long as possible. I don't care if it's Mickey Mouse, Big Bird, or Pokemon.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Not only was Walt Disney innovative as mentioned above, he was also an extreme perfectionist.
:)]
For the story of Bambi, he had a pair of fawns (motherless, I think) brought to the studio, and kept in a pen out back. Disney artists spent days studying the fawns and making sketches. From there they went on to film documentaries of deer in the wild.
The studio spent *nine* *years*(if I recall correctly) making _Sleeping_Beauty_. It was designed to be more formally drawn, with the backgrounds done to the tiniest detail. The voice actors wore costumes and acted out their parts.
[It's fascinating what one can learn from the short documentaries at the end of Disney commemorative editions...they even had film footage of the fawns. There are a lot more, but I'm sleepy. Go rent them yourself
Yes, Disney himself had a much different outlook on releases from his studio. He simply did not permit imperfection from his studio's creations.
Capitolism does not have a net positive benefit (redundancy is greybeard's, not my own). In fact, Capitolism tends to have more problems than your grammar or katz's thesis. It is, however, what works best (so far) in certain situations. Maybe technology is like this. It is what works best (so far) in certain situations. What's good? What's bad? Read a Pirsig book. What works? Talk to an engineer.
Paper Pusher
Keep making the connection between Disney and Microsoft... here are some articles that may assist you: http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=480100 173&CONTEXT=927615702.1359151130&hitnum= 33 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0310/5905042a.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=7387941&serve r=db96q5&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 2 http://www.iamaw.org/news/releases/dec_23.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=8659436&serve r=db96q3&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 8 http://falcon.laker.net/webpage/disdolby.htm http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-97052 1-011506.html http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/welfare/eisne r.htm http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=489116 424&CONTEXT=929330231.75628573&hitnum=1
Paper Pusher
Jon, Do you need a philosophy for a hammer? Technology is a tool and should be dealt with as such. Late, Hardy P.S. Sometimes you just gotta leave those hard to reach chips at the bottom go...
The section which describes the Ukranian reminded me of a piece from Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact magazine from the late 70's or early 80's by G. Harry Stine whose title I've long since forgotten (a science fact piece?).
In it, he describes taking a visiting engineer from behind the Iron Curtain to Disneyland for an afternoon's diversion. The man became increasingly agitated as the afternoon wore on. When Harry finally asked why, the man said,
One man's high technology is another man's toy, and vice versa.
One would hope Katz is smart enough to be fudging those details in this account. More likely a UNIX hat...
-- Ender, Duke of URL
Sounds just like a Worlds Fair. I think there can only be one a year by some world approval body, but there are others unofficial.
And yes, Hannover is in Germany.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here