> Only during the start, we don't see how recruitment works later on but there's a lot of new recruits by the end of the novel. If the society expanded the military I do not remember any reference to that. They had to replace military men quicker than normal as many of them died. But either way running a skeleton crew in normal peacetime, is not militaristic, and defending yourself from a genocidal and implacable foe is not either.
Furthermore, the novel outright states that military men are no better, no more disciplined, no more intelligent than any other men.
> The militarism in Starship Troopers doesn't leave a lot of room for individualism, grunts have a lot of autonomy in how to fight, but their purpose is to contribute to the state and authority is highly string.
I don't understand that at all. The grunts in Starship Troopers are practically spit in the face of every earthbound military that has ever existed. Rico goes on and on about how even in the middle of a war, in the middle of an assault, he can just decide to retire, to not participate in the war any longer. It is individualism taken to a laughable extreme.
From a militaristic view, In the novel. 1) Military service is, like you point out, highly discouraged. 2) Only taken up by the incredibly smallest minority, basically the society has the smallest military ever assembled in any society weather real or imagined. 3) The only group of people entirly disenfranchised in the this society are the military. The novel revolved around a person in this military, but the society it selves has relegated them to an unimportant and even somewhat denigrated role. Yes, the military is moderately glorified, like the character is somewhat glorified, but what the novel really glorifies is individual human rights.
> a world a fascist would like to create. In the way that all totalitarian regimes state that they are only taking away these rights, killing these people, or redistributing this wealth so that latter we can have this incredibly free society where no one has to be forced to do anything, SURE. But it could be argued since any depiction of a utopia is a depiction of a world that a fascist (or anyone else for that matter) would like to create.
He makes a movie where the heros are fascists, the problem is that they are still very clearly heros. So the movie is basically just nazi propaganda with "Slavs" replaced by "Arachnids", and "Jews" replaced by "non-citizens", and "Aryans" replaced by "Citizens". Their is nothing antifascist about that.
I always thought it was a great film, and in particular complimented the novel well. While Heinleine's novel featured a society that was incredibly anti-militaristic, and anti-fascist these were not important themes for the action adventure aspect of the storyline. The fascism is more or less necessitated by the dumbing down that any movie would need to do. Verhoeven makes it seem like some masterstroke, but it really was the easiest route to a movie.
One thing I have never understood is how many people claim it has nothing whatsoever to do with the novel. Yes, 99% of the novel is cut, but 99% of the novel is just a ongoing monologue about how much freedom this society grants the individual and how good that is and how bad totalitarianism is. Something that never could of made it into any film worth watching. In the story bugs attack earth, attack back and get ambushed, then capture brain bug. That is the storyline
No you wouldn't. As a rule, a pretty concrete rule that is right is 99.9% of all cases. Republicans control The land with a few dense population pockets going to Democrat rule. Since Republicans control about 98% of the geography of the US they get loads of elected officials.
This has far more to do with technological progress. At the end of the day people hate food service workers. Many people hate tipping, and no one at all trusts them with our food. Raising wages or not, a restaurant could charge more if it removed minimum wage workers and replaces them with robots.
They could raise prices 5-10% and due to tipping no longer being an issue, it evens outs. Or people would just flat up pay more not to have to wonder if someone spit in their burger.
There is a very small number of specific protected classes, philosophy, as long as you do not classify it as a religion, is not one of them, similarly politics is not as well. Unless you are directly firing someone because they voted wrong, and just generally firing them because they are aligned to the wrong party, it is legal.
This is the worse hypocrisy the government has ever institutionalized, but there it is. They need to either make it legal to discriminate agaist someone because of any reason you want to give or make it illegal to discriminate for any reason other the measurable job performance.
OK, yes the medical regulations first world nations have does do loads of harm. Preventing a working but not proven cure from getting used does harm, but in general people have decided that more harm is done by allowing anyone to claim anything and give any random treatment. That provem with for example allow said doctor to use his cure to cure the 450 patients, is that the second that was allow 1000 other people would suddenly pop up with 1000 different "cures" would would completely drown out the the one doctor who actually could of theoretically helped them.
shekal raised prices on old drugs to fund new drug development that is already saving lives. The drug industry charges such outrageous prices because they give away 99% of their stock to the poor, and because most other countries either ignore their patents or pay them cents on the dollar. They fund the research for the entire world, so yes they pay outrageous amounts of money, but until another country can create a system where they can research new cures and treatments while selling them for pocket change, and giving them away to the needy, I would not bash the States.
Publicly took credit for bomb threats, swatted repeatedly, has now killed a man. And he gets paid to do some of these. It sounds like it would probably take 10 minutes to track this guy down, and like he would of been on the FBI's radar long ago.
It seems from a basic design point that two rails should be easier, cheaper, and faster to build, while being safer. I can think of very few situations where balancing a train on a single rail is a better design decision than using two rails.
This comment seems to completely ignore the entire history of Mormonism.
Also, small cults that exist in a wider society are not self contained. Mormonism has ways of removing excess males and bringing in additional females.
If you provide passage to rich countries that will give you food, water, and housing for free X immigrants will always come, were X is the carrying capacity of the TRANSPORTATION.
There has always been war and there are billions of starving people every day. The only reason we have immigrants is because we have people pushing for immigration and many of them providing transportation. The wars and famine just get in the way of this and slow it down.
This seems like it would be a solved problem. Clearly, some law must some been written, I would guess, about a hundred years ago that prohibited teachers from advertising products/brands for profit to their students. I have never heard about a teacher being paid to be drinking a coke in every class, or for expounding the virtues of eating MacDonald's while studying. And I guarantee you that advertisers and many teachers would jump at that chance.
But that is ridiculous. I highly doubt that anyone at any time thought that Stanford's Modus operandi was to find the 1000 poorest people in the world every year and give them scholarships. A big hint to all the students would of been a lack of malnourished Africans. Scholarships, by their very definition, go to otherwise overqualified individuals who cannot quite afford tuition.
I don't see it. The main problem areas of The Hobbit trilogy were not particularly long. And where it really shines in my opinion were some of the more fleshed out added content. The 5 second part where an Elf falls in love with a dwarf because he made a joke about his penis was not necessitated by the trilogy, Their is loads of ways they could of included those elves, if anything they needed to spend more time fleshing out whatever relationship their was instead of providing the entire motivation in that one 5 second joke. Furthermore, Legolas did not need to be 10 times the warrior he was in the LOTRs, making him a superhero did nothing for the story, he could of taken just as long to kill 5% of the number of orcs that he did and it would of made for a better movie.
Slashdot Mirror
> Only during the start, we don't see how recruitment works later on but there's a lot of new recruits by the end of the novel.
If the society expanded the military I do not remember any reference to that. They had to replace military men quicker than normal as many of them died. But either way running a skeleton crew in normal peacetime, is not militaristic, and defending yourself from a genocidal and implacable foe is not either.
Furthermore, the novel outright states that military men are no better, no more disciplined, no more intelligent than any other men.
> The militarism in Starship Troopers doesn't leave a lot of room for individualism, grunts have a lot of autonomy in how to fight, but their purpose is to contribute to the state and authority is highly string.
I don't understand that at all. The grunts in Starship Troopers are practically spit in the face of every earthbound military that has ever existed. Rico goes on and on about how even in the middle of a war, in the middle of an assault, he can just decide to retire, to not participate in the war any longer. It is individualism taken to a laughable extreme.
Here is the problem I have with both those ideas.
From a militaristic view, In the novel.
1) Military service is, like you point out, highly discouraged.
2) Only taken up by the incredibly smallest minority, basically the society has the smallest military ever assembled in any society weather real or imagined.
3) The only group of people entirly disenfranchised in the this society are the military.
The novel revolved around a person in this military, but the society it selves has relegated them to an unimportant and even somewhat denigrated role. Yes, the military is moderately glorified, like the character is somewhat glorified, but what the novel really glorifies is individual human rights.
> a world a fascist would like to create.
In the way that all totalitarian regimes state that they are only taking away these rights, killing these people, or redistributing this wealth so that latter we can have this incredibly free society where no one has to be forced to do anything, SURE. But it could be argued since any depiction of a utopia is a depiction of a world that a fascist (or anyone else for that matter) would like to create.
So what you are saying is that it has been decades since you read the book and do not remember any of it in the slightest?
He makes a movie where the heros are fascists, the problem is that they are still very clearly heros. So the movie is basically just nazi propaganda with "Slavs" replaced by "Arachnids", and "Jews" replaced by "non-citizens", and "Aryans" replaced by "Citizens". Their is nothing antifascist about that.
I always thought it was a great film, and in particular complimented the novel well. While Heinleine's novel featured a society that was incredibly anti-militaristic, and anti-fascist these were not important themes for the action adventure aspect of the storyline. The fascism is more or less necessitated by the dumbing down that any movie would need to do. Verhoeven makes it seem like some masterstroke, but it really was the easiest route to a movie.
One thing I have never understood is how many people claim it has nothing whatsoever to do with the novel. Yes, 99% of the novel is cut, but 99% of the novel is just a ongoing monologue about how much freedom this society grants the individual and how good that is and how bad totalitarianism is. Something that never could of made it into any film worth watching. In the story bugs attack earth, attack back and get ambushed, then capture brain bug. That is the storyline
> a book that glorified a militaristic society?
The original novel did not glorify the arachnids, at all.
No you wouldn't. As a rule, a pretty concrete rule that is right is 99.9% of all cases. Republicans control The land with a few dense population pockets going to Democrat rule. Since Republicans control about 98% of the geography of the US they get loads of elected officials.
This has far more to do with technological progress.
At the end of the day people hate food service workers. Many people hate tipping, and no one at all trusts them with our food.
Raising wages or not, a restaurant could charge more if it removed minimum wage workers and replaces them with robots.
They could raise prices 5-10% and due to tipping no longer being an issue, it evens outs.
Or people would just flat up pay more not to have to wonder if someone spit in their burger.
> Release a tax bill that is good for poor people
"He is just rewarding his supporters and and punishing his opposition."
> Release a tax bill that is good for rich people
"Elitist Scum. We told you he could not be trusted,"
Why would anyone define broadband as anything other than any internet that is not dialup?
There is a very small number of specific protected classes, philosophy, as long as you do not classify it as a religion, is not one of them, similarly politics is not as well. Unless you are directly firing someone because they voted wrong, and just generally firing them because they are aligned to the wrong party, it is legal.
This is the worse hypocrisy the government has ever institutionalized, but there it is. They need to either make it legal to discriminate agaist someone because of any reason you want to give or make it illegal to discriminate for any reason other the measurable job performance.
640KBikes ought to be enough for any [campus] body.
OK, yes the medical regulations first world nations have does do loads of harm. Preventing a working but not proven cure from getting used does harm, but in general people have decided that more harm is done by allowing anyone to claim anything and give any random treatment. That provem with for example allow said doctor to use his cure to cure the 450 patients, is that the second that was allow 1000 other people would suddenly pop up with 1000 different "cures" would would completely drown out the the one doctor who actually could of theoretically helped them.
shekal raised prices on old drugs to fund new drug development that is already saving lives. The drug industry charges such outrageous prices because they give away 99% of their stock to the poor, and because most other countries either ignore their patents or pay them cents on the dollar. They fund the research for the entire world, so yes they pay outrageous amounts of money, but until another country can create a system where they can research new cures and treatments while selling them for pocket change, and giving them away to the needy, I would not bash the States.
Publicly took credit for bomb threats, swatted repeatedly, has now killed a man. And he gets paid to do some of these.
It sounds like it would probably take 10 minutes to track this guy down, and like he would of been on the FBI's radar long ago.
How is a monorail transporting a single person shared transit?
It seems from a basic design point that two rails should be easier, cheaper, and faster to build, while being safer.
I can think of very few situations where balancing a train on a single rail is a better design decision than using two rails.
I find the same thing where I work. Ask around, and everyone would rather be at home than at work.
This comment seems to completely ignore the entire history of Mormonism.
Also, small cults that exist in a wider society are not self contained. Mormonism has ways of removing excess males and bringing in additional females.
If you provide passage to rich countries that will give you food, water, and housing for free X immigrants will always come, were X is the carrying capacity of the TRANSPORTATION.
There has always been war and there are billions of starving people every day. The only reason we have immigrants is because we have people pushing for immigration and many of them providing transportation. The wars and famine just get in the way of this and slow it down.
Reprocessing nuclear fuel to power cars and make into plastics/roads/cloth?
This seems like it would be a solved problem. Clearly, some law must some been written, I would guess, about a hundred years ago that prohibited teachers from advertising products/brands for profit to their students. I have never heard about a teacher being paid to be drinking a coke in every class, or for expounding the virtues of eating MacDonald's while studying. And I guarantee you that advertisers and many teachers would jump at that chance.
But that is ridiculous. I highly doubt that anyone at any time thought that Stanford's Modus operandi was to find the 1000 poorest people in the world every year and give them scholarships. A big hint to all the students would of been a lack of malnourished Africans. Scholarships, by their very definition, go to otherwise overqualified individuals who cannot quite afford tuition.
So the "controversy" here is that Stanford is using financial aid to attract the most intelligent kids to the university?
If it is a different address it is just a different person. There are probably 10s of thousands of people with your name.
I don't see it. The main problem areas of The Hobbit trilogy were not particularly long. And where it really shines in my opinion were some of the more fleshed out added content. The 5 second part where an Elf falls in love with a dwarf because he made a joke about his penis was not necessitated by the trilogy, Their is loads of ways they could of included those elves, if anything they needed to spend more time fleshing out whatever relationship their was instead of providing the entire motivation in that one 5 second joke. Furthermore, Legolas did not need to be 10 times the warrior he was in the LOTRs, making him a superhero did nothing for the story, he could of taken just as long to kill 5% of the number of orcs that he did and it would of made for a better movie.
And we still missed out on many songs.