"Vast, vast, VAST majority of voters?" Aren't you overlooking the fact the Obama was elected by a sizeable majority expressly promising health care reform? Aren't you ignoring the many polls that show nearly every part of the health care act is, in fact, very popular with nearly all voters polled? You're spreading Republican misinformation as if it were fact.
I'll give a counter-generalization: Women, by and large, don't even think about whether a machine makes them look more "feminine." Men, on the other hand, are apparently obsessed with the question of whether a device makes them look "masculine." I know women with Android phones and I know women who drive huge ugly trucks. I have yet to meet a man who would even consider driving a VW New Beetle, because "it's a girl's car."
The snipes at the liberal arts in this thread perfectly illustrate why engineers make excellent unthinking soldiers. If you're trained to think that all questions of value, philosophy, politics and ethics are merely the irrational quibbles of unintelligent people, then you'll never learn the subjects, or how to evaluate them critically. And if you believe that thinking about or engaging with politics is a waste of time, you will tend to uncritically accept that whatever prejudices you were raised on are "common sense," "the plain truth," or "God's revealed wisdom."
What do you think "entertainment" is? People see movies because they like stories, and stories are always about people in conflict over difficult moral choices. Even the most brainless, pure fun movie has a good guy who makes the difficult moral choice who is conflict with the bad guy who does what is easy and selfish. People talk about the "messages" in movies because that's what stories are really about. "Show business" -- or, as we used to call it, "art" -- is largely about morality.
I challenge you to try to write a story that has no "message." You'll be amazed at how boring and entertainment-free it is.
If you think the US has a bad reputation now, wait until we send robot killing machines to kill defenseless Third World civilians. It might be morally preferable to send robot soldiers to destroy enemy materiel, or even professional armies. But the bulk of our current and future wars are against civilian terrorists who blend in with civilian populations. We already kill Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis with drone aircraft. Also keep in mind that what drives terrorist tactics is asymmetric conflicts where the enemy knows he can't possibly match American conventional firepower, so he resorts to unconventional attacks against civilians.
I think some people imagine that robot armies will reduce war to a charmingly H.G. Wells sport of robot-on-robot death-match. The reality is these weapons will be used solely to control and terrorize civilians who will have no means of defending themselves.
I call bullshit on the first scene. It was clearly demonstrated in "A Piece of the Action" that Kirk can't drive a stick shift without riding the clutch and lurching all over the road.
Seriously, though, the real implausibility here is what Museum of Obsolete Technology in the 23rd century would let a kid drive and wreck a nearly 300-year-old classic car?
By your argument, ANY attempt to correct misinformation is in itself an emotional clinging to a world view. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we'd have to say that every statement -- including yours above -- is simply an expression of bias and emotion. Nothing we say has anything to do with reality -- in fact, the words "reality" or "fact" are emotionally loaded words that try to put a bias on particular world views.
That way lies madness.
In the "Russian history section," they mention "Alexander Karensky." The correct spelling is "Kerensky." Kerensky was the leader of the Russian provisional government in 1917 that momentarily controlled the country between the overthrow of the Czar and the Bolshevik coup in November, 1917.
Ha!
The software will predict the actions of paramilitary groups, ethnic factions, terrorists and criminal groups...
Since the end of the Cold War, our opponents have behaved in ways that defy what we would consider normal logic, pursuing actions that we find almost inconceivable...
Note especially the text I bolded. This assumes that "normal logic" predicts actions that conform to American cultural and ideological biases.
This is not about predicting truly unpredictable behavior. This is about predicting behavior that is perfectly logical from the viewpoint of the people doing it. US planners can't admit that the behavior is logical, because that would be granting rational legitimacy to opposing US government policy, and that would mean admitting that the US is not always right.
This project would never have been thought of if we tried to understand our opponents instead of demonizing them. This project is only necessary because the US is committed to pretending that only irrational people oppose US policies.
If, for example, Americans understood how Muslims feel about the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina being defended by infidel soldiers, they wouldn't be so quick to call bin Ladin and al Qaeda irrational.
US writers like Thomas Friedman and Victor Davis Hansen try to diagnose militant Islam as "irrationality" and "immaturity," because they refuse to consider that anyone might have rational reasons for opposing US military and commercial power, or for trying to defend their traditional culture and religion from US cultural influence.
Note that I am not saying that America's enemies are "right." This is not about right or wrong; this is about competing political and cultural interests.
Whatever money is going into this project would be better spent on hiring more State Department people who speak foreign languages and understand foreign cultures.
Lets make a similar math book for all the boys who aren't interested in math. It should feature GI Joe's using math to kill each other, aliens, and anything gross or violent. For the older boys lets throw in some soft core porn to get their eyes on the page (males are after all more visual, right?). You're looking for books by Robert Heinlein, sir. You'll find them in the science fiction section of our store under "H."
Slashdot Mirror
"Vast, vast, VAST majority of voters?" Aren't you overlooking the fact the Obama was elected by a sizeable majority expressly promising health care reform? Aren't you ignoring the many polls that show nearly every part of the health care act is, in fact, very popular with nearly all voters polled? You're spreading Republican misinformation as if it were fact.
I'll give a counter-generalization: Women, by and large, don't even think about whether a machine makes them look more "feminine." Men, on the other hand, are apparently obsessed with the question of whether a device makes them look "masculine." I know women with Android phones and I know women who drive huge ugly trucks. I have yet to meet a man who would even consider driving a VW New Beetle, because "it's a girl's car."
The snipes at the liberal arts in this thread perfectly illustrate why engineers make excellent unthinking soldiers. If you're trained to think that all questions of value, philosophy, politics and ethics are merely the irrational quibbles of unintelligent people, then you'll never learn the subjects, or how to evaluate them critically. And if you believe that thinking about or engaging with politics is a waste of time, you will tend to uncritically accept that whatever prejudices you were raised on are "common sense," "the plain truth," or "God's revealed wisdom."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Religion is stupid.
Monty Python's Life of Brian: Religion is stupid.
Monty Python and the Meaning of Life: Religion is stupid.
What do you think "entertainment" is? People see movies because they like stories, and stories are always about people in conflict over difficult moral choices. Even the most brainless, pure fun movie has a good guy who makes the difficult moral choice who is conflict with the bad guy who does what is easy and selfish. People talk about the "messages" in movies because that's what stories are really about. "Show business" -- or, as we used to call it, "art" -- is largely about morality. I challenge you to try to write a story that has no "message." You'll be amazed at how boring and entertainment-free it is.
I have a hard time accepting evolution in general due to the wild leaps it makes.
But positing the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supernatural being who controls the entire universe isn't a wild leap?
If you think the US has a bad reputation now, wait until we send robot killing machines to kill defenseless Third World civilians. It might be morally preferable to send robot soldiers to destroy enemy materiel, or even professional armies. But the bulk of our current and future wars are against civilian terrorists who blend in with civilian populations. We already kill Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis with drone aircraft. Also keep in mind that what drives terrorist tactics is asymmetric conflicts where the enemy knows he can't possibly match American conventional firepower, so he resorts to unconventional attacks against civilians. I think some people imagine that robot armies will reduce war to a charmingly H.G. Wells sport of robot-on-robot death-match. The reality is these weapons will be used solely to control and terrorize civilians who will have no means of defending themselves.
I call bullshit on the first scene. It was clearly demonstrated in "A Piece of the Action" that Kirk can't drive a stick shift without riding the clutch and lurching all over the road. Seriously, though, the real implausibility here is what Museum of Obsolete Technology in the 23rd century would let a kid drive and wreck a nearly 300-year-old classic car?
By your argument, ANY attempt to correct misinformation is in itself an emotional clinging to a world view. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we'd have to say that every statement -- including yours above -- is simply an expression of bias and emotion. Nothing we say has anything to do with reality -- in fact, the words "reality" or "fact" are emotionally loaded words that try to put a bias on particular world views. That way lies madness.
In the "Russian history section," they mention "Alexander Karensky." The correct spelling is "Kerensky." Kerensky was the leader of the Russian provisional government in 1917 that momentarily controlled the country between the overthrow of the Czar and the Bolshevik coup in November, 1917. Ha!
Those features sound suspiciously like Mac OS X's Services menu and Web Clip widget. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...
Two money quotes from TFA:
Note especially the text I bolded. This assumes that "normal logic" predicts actions that conform to American cultural and ideological biases.
This is not about predicting truly unpredictable behavior. This is about predicting behavior that is perfectly logical from the viewpoint of the people doing it. US planners can't admit that the behavior is logical, because that would be granting rational legitimacy to opposing US government policy, and that would mean admitting that the US is not always right.
This project would never have been thought of if we tried to understand our opponents instead of demonizing them. This project is only necessary because the US is committed to pretending that only irrational people oppose US policies.
If, for example, Americans understood how Muslims feel about the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina being defended by infidel soldiers, they wouldn't be so quick to call bin Ladin and al Qaeda irrational.
US writers like Thomas Friedman and Victor Davis Hansen try to diagnose militant Islam as "irrationality" and "immaturity," because they refuse to consider that anyone might have rational reasons for opposing US military and commercial power, or for trying to defend their traditional culture and religion from US cultural influence.
Note that I am not saying that America's enemies are "right." This is not about right or wrong; this is about competing political and cultural interests.
Whatever money is going into this project would be better spent on hiring more State Department people who speak foreign languages and understand foreign cultures.Obviously you've never read Orwell's literary criticism.