Sooo...let me get this straight. It is consistent with some 'narrative' you have constructed that the government goes, hat in hand, to taxpayers (Is it just one taxpayer?
Or a small group? Not real clear on how you suppose that works.) begging for money to upgrade the OS on a few million Fed computers...and the
taxpayers say "No!"? Because Trump? Because stupid? Because conservative? Ummm....your narrative isn't real clear on this. My sole experiential datum is that they've never asked ME about it.
But this apparently does happen, and has something to do with how superior you are to somebody else, right?
Amazingly, this happens despite the fervent desire of MS to sell more OSs, and the ability of our FedGov to pay for anything it wants in every other area by
(apparently) using imaginary money in amounts generated by magical mathematics. I am at a loss to explain this, though it does suggest the possibility that since your
little hypothesis entirely lacks predictive or explanatory power, it might indeed be nothing more than the lazy, stupid, politically-motivated narrative it appears to be.
Only a Jeff Sessions-level intellect could come up with "The dumb conservatives have cut government spending so drastically that..." well, fuck, I can't really get past
that without drifting off into some alternate universe...
(sry bout the Sessions crack. Nobody deserves that kind of vituperation)
Actually, it's "ogle", one 'g'. I also like "oogle" because of the visual onomoatopeia, which is pretty rare. (Though "I was ooglin' some boobs, man." only needs four dots to make a clear picture of the stated action.) Also, "oggle" makes me think of bouncing boobs around...with your EYES.
Now I forgot what point I was going to make about generational shifts, hippies, hipsters, gentrification, coolness, social justice, privilege and Burning Man. Tell ya what, just throw those together with random approval/disapproval values and it'll be more or less what most posters seem to be doing anyway.
Awesome. A very basic, junior high-level understanding of commerce and human society and presented here it reads like a dissertation.
And this is what so frustrates the Left-their materia, their clay, the insensate mass of plebian class victims of which their just and noble revolution will be constructed instead know that there's nothing wrong with commerce or prosperity. They can't be convinced it's inherently wrong to "do a deal an fat up de pocket mon". The great and self-evidently GOOD leveling project never really has a chance.
People should be viewed as capable of contending, striving, achieving, advancing their own well-being...even people less educated than yourself, even people of different color or culture...with good rules* this can benefit everybody and result in a peaceful and prosperous society. The "everybody should have the same" crowd doesn't really think that, and are usually willing to appoint themselves executors of a plan to achieve said result. Others are not eager for this to happen. Not that the unappealing nature of leftist solutions is in any way a defense for the corrupt crony klepto-capitalism "our" "political" "leaders" have been bribed into creating.
*-this "good rules" thing seems to be the sticking point, the stumbling block, the fly in the ointment and," ultimately, the nub of my gist.
Safe communication means safe means for propaganda, avenues for radicalisation and recruitment, and for coordination and planning. And that's plenty harmful.
If you really want to know how important secure communication is considered, ask the military, the diplomatic service, and most companies.
I'm all for good old detective work, given a suspect. But the trick is to get a suspect in the first place. Monitoring communication helps enormously in becoming aware of suspects.
"Safe communication means safe means for unsuppressed countering of government propaganda, avenues for free expression of disagreement with government actions, avenues for planning concerted action against a corrupt and sold-out government, and for effective planning and recruitment."
Fixed it for you. Or do you trust this government? The government that writes paid-for legislation for Disney and Time-Warner? The government that allows pharmaceutical companies to write legislation that gets rubber-stamped 100 times out of a 100? The government that promises 'transparency' and then absolutely CRUSHES anyone who exposes unconstitutional practices or blows the whistle on corruption? The government that promises enlightened reform of drug laws and then (literally) laughs at the prospect of maybe NOT ruining people's lives for minor offenses. The government that pads the coffers of ADM and Simplot with farm subsidy giveaways, and when trotting out Ma and Pa Kettle isn't adequate to quell the outrage at the corruption, ties the gifts to food stamps...for the poor, for the single mother, for the CHIIIILDREN....*sniff*
This is the government of, by and for, DEA scum, corporate thieves and the purchasers (not creators) of intellectual property.
Okay, it's YOUR government, I get that, but as a citizen of the US, I feel it SHOULD also be mine, and increasingly, that it isn't. Maybe a government that feels it needs to keep every citizen under surveillance recognizes that it really is NOT serving "all of the people", and is concerned that more and more of us are figuring this out.
Google is a huge part of the surveillance machine. If you oppose surveillance, aren't you morally bound to stop enriching a big part of the problem? Is this what you signed up for? To help them build the apparatus of tyranny?
Maybe a mass wave of resignations among the 9 would effect positive change? Maybe we are all responsible to do our part to stop this monstrosity?
I am afraid to post this comment. I am sure that I will get categorized as a dissident for it. I would say a lot more, but my freedom of speech is chilled.
Your concern seems to derive more from a a hard-on for Google than any real fear of tyranny....but you did say your cowardice trumps your cluelessness, so that's all good then.
Now tell us how it's all the fault of one half (the "Republitards" or "Rethuglicans" . I'm guessing.) of our monolithic political party, in (imaginary) opposition to the "Good Guys" and you could score the idiocy/cowardice/hypocrisy trifecta! This will qualify you for a "Perfectly Average Internet Poster" Award.
Impending tyranny is a valid concern, of course, as the oligarchs, plutocrats and terminally cynical politicians who comprise what passes for an 'elite' in the 21st century cannot be trusted to be satisfied with becoming filthy rich from the public trough, in perpetuity, but rather, will kill off the herd for an extra nickel a head ("'Less in the future?' What does that even mean? More is MORE! I'm biting off this nipple and taking it home!"*).
But to explain the mechanism of your enslavement would run us well into 'tl, dr' territory, and why bother with that when there are so many tasty bumper-sticker-sized thought-o-bits to be consumed? You just continue ranting about the brand name on the shovel being used to bury you...
Yes, Amazon is "the real predator" here. Not the folks who charge the same for providing electronic bits as they do for purchasing, printing, inventorying, and distributing the physical product.
That statement clearly shows who you are representing in this argument. The publishers are overcharging for electronic versions of their IP. They jumped at the chance offered by Apple, to justify this rape of the consumer. While you would be correct to point out that Amazon does nothing from altruistic motive, that's irrelevant. In this case, they felt they would profit from a situation where there was unfettered (or less fettered) competition, possibly even *gasp* between publishers themselves!. Apple, also not acting altruistically, just jumped on the opposing position, which the publishers (rightly) saw as the best opportunity for the continuation of these windfall profits.
"But wait!" (you will say) "You can't expect the publishers to act against their own interests, can you?" Well, no. But if eBooks went away entirely, or at least proved to be an insignificant part of the publishing industry, I think they'd be pretty happy about it. Their own actions speak to this, as they would rather discourage the purchase of eBooks (by insisting on profit in the mega-multiples compared to production cost) than compete against their own based-on-paper business model.
The disruptive technology of eBooks is causing these various actors to behave in non-intuitive ways, which gives YOU the opportunity to put forth FUD, confusing arguments, and false dilemas on behalf of (apparently) the publishers.
The publishers will learn. Eventually, many millions of lobbying $$ down the road, there will be legislation protecting the practice of charging $10.00 for something that costs them $1.50 to provide, since it costs them $x+$1.50 to produce the paper version. But until then, if it walks like collusion, and quacks like collusion and results in higher prices than necessary or justifiable to consumers, some parts of the government will actually perform their jobs and try to prevent it.
Though his corporate overlords probably give him most of the talking points, the deviousness, straw men, subject-shifting, red herrings and misrepresentation of terms show that this shill has thrown himself into the project. He deserves his pieces of silver.
This reads an AWFUL lot like talking points handed out by publishers' PR departments (vetted by, and with contributions from, legal). I mean, that's what I would say if people called me on unwarranted 600% markups on a product. And if all the other publishers wanted to mark up the automated transfer of digital files so that the cost to the consumer was the same as for the purchase, printing, warehousing, and distribution of paper books...why no "collusion" there! That's just coincidence!
And do you really expect people to not see that the only "harm" averted here is to those publishers' windfall profits? Amazon's ONLY crime was attempting to force the admission from the publishers that they could indeed sell eBooks for CONSIDERABLY less than the price of paper editions and still profit therefrom. Apples has nobly (/snarkasm) saved them from such an admission.
It's not the government's place to preserve the publishers' windfall, at least until such protection has been duly lobbied/paid for.
tuppe nails it: Having a strategy...that failed to stop *sales* of a larger range; better value; standards following; more open; platform. There are strategies against that, but they decided to swim in money instead.
Yep.. I've always visualized Apple management storing their profits in cash in huge grain silos and "diving into it, swimming in it, and throwing it up and letting it hit me on the head" Scrooge McDuck style. aww yeh.
Yeah, 10% or the OS market is a lot of money but that's not the argument here, is it?
If 10% of all cars were convertibles, they wouldn't be considered "the standard", no matter how cool they are. If 10% of all voters were Libertarian, it wouldn't be considered the "standard" or "dominant" political party, even if they have principles and their opponent (clearly, over tens of thousands of instances) have shown they don't. And if 10% of computer users are knee-jerk Apple fanbois, that doesn't make those products the "standard" either.
Sorry, we're going to have to be able to hate Micro$oft while admitting that all Apple really does is provide an example that capitalism, in ubergeldlust mode, can wear may (ugly) masks.
While I'm sure the corrupt local politicians and businessmen (and a deeply cynical view of Italian government and business is seldom unrewarded) refused to listen to the predictions of the grizzled old volcano-hunter, dismissing his warnings as the ravings of a once-prominent vulcanologist who was just never the same after losing his leg to that albino volcano, fact is, they were correct in placing the chance of geological activity in a particular time frame as "unlikely".
Even if their forecast pleased certain business interests and politicoes, it is still true. They just went with the phrase describing the most likely outcome ("unlikely to occur.") over the less likely one ("Activity may occur."). We don't jail meteorologist for predicting thunderstorms and failing to include the unlikely outcomes: "50% chance of thunderstorms DURING WHICH YOU MIGHT BE STRUCK AND KILLED IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS WHICH I AM NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING."?, do we?
And this guy (Guy A, I guess) who got 'suppressed' and who actually predicted it with some accuracy-is he now responsible for telling people when an earthquake is not going to happen? And what happens when he eventually makes another prediction? What if they DO take him seriously, as some are saying should clearly have been done in the current instance, and shut down government, shutter businesses, and evacuate likely damage areas? And nothing happens for a week? For a month? Guy A can say "Well, if I get it right within a year, that's nothin' in geological terms, so still pretty good." all he wants, but he is going to experience a lawsuitquake of epic proportions.
So with Guy A beggared, and probably driven to drink*, and those other guys in jail, good luck getting a predictive statement out of a geologist ever again.
Reporter: So, when will this area be subjected to another earthquake? Geologist A: Absolutely no idea. None whatsoever. The data suggest nothing. Reporter: And what about you sir? Can you give us a forecast? Geologist B: Uh...I'm here with the Luthiers' Convention.
*-rolling urine-soaked in the gutters of Montmarte until approached by a mysterious grizzled old one-legged vuclanologist....**
They were correct. There "was probably not going to be" an earthquake within any time frame people would be interested in (i.e.: "During the period of my vacation?" or "During the period in which 60% of our yearly profit is generated?" ). Which way do you phrase it? Most likely first (probably not gonna happen), or least likely (yeah, it could happen this weekend)? Are meteorologsts jailed when they predict thunderstorms without appending "...AND YOU MAY BE STRUCK BY IT AND KILLED IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS WHICH I AM NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING!!!"??
It doesn't matter how it was phrased, or if the non-prediction suited some business interests or government functionaries...it was. still. true. , for any given short term period.
Now, whenever the "Coming up next, your Weekend Geological Activity Forecast!" segment comes up, they HAVE to say "There is indeed a chance of geological activity in the following areas...we'd tell you what the odds are, but you're clearly not interested in the actual numbers, nor what they mean. And if I'm to be held criminally liable for not warning you when there's a chance of earthquake or vulcanic activity, I'M WARNIN' YA NOW!!!"
Geologists need to come up with a euphemism for the activity of trying to figure out when this shit will happen. Something that implies "predicting" but means more ""prediction", but NOT in the sense the panicky, innumerate and litigious public thinks of it.".
Hey! I have an idea. Why don't the publishers try and sell books directly to the public at reasonable, (i.e.: much less than paper versions) prices!!
Crazy, I know, but I'll bet they'd have more success than they've had desperately (and apparently illegally) trying to keep the ridiculously inflated price points they cherish for the digital product.
Many others as well...The charming "SIx Fingers of Time". "The 7-Day Terror". with its formidable urchins and laugh-out-loud punchline. The well-structured "Primary Education of the Camiroi" with its graceful and hilarious reveal. Stories so good you can recite them at parties to appreciative audiences.
A teller of tall tales, and American as HELL.
I'd almost forgotten Lafferty, so yeah, underappreciated.
Yes. (I suggested Vance waaaaay up at the top of the thread somewhere...) MUCH under-appreciated.
The Demon Princes was so well-appreciated by my wife, that had my daughter been a boy, he'd have been named Kirth. A fine, fine writer.
And his approach to "deep themes" was that there really aren't any "deep themes", just human lives with their tragedies and joys, aspirations and failures, grand vision and pettiness and always, always, from the meanest hamlets of Earth to the Grand Concourse, the innkeeper will try to shortchange you, water your drinks and pilfer your valuables.
More 'traditional' than many of his others (even the early stuff like Jewels of Aptor, Babel-17 and The Einstein Intersection), a wildly creative novel, full of themes, memes and memorably fine writing.
My brother found me some porn he'd written for a friend who was in jail (reprinted in some LA alt-weekly IIRC) and it was pretty damn awesome too.
Slashdot Mirror
+1, anticipated my post
Which was gonna be something along the lines of "Wait. What the fuck does DACA have to do with the H1B program that provides all this foreign "talent"?" Answer: nothing at all. This is clearly political.
Now...since we know MS has gotten some nice considerations from government, and we can see this as a political attack on Trump, not an explanation of real business concern, WHO is MS paying back? And the answer is, the Dems. Of course, that can't be because "The Narrative"© clearly states that only the Republicans do favors for big companies and get political returns from it. So, more cognitive dissonance, lefties?
Well...HBO could add their signature touches to cat videos. I mean who could resist cats saying "Fuck!" and cats with big titties?
Sooo...let me get this straight. It is consistent with some 'narrative' you have constructed that the government goes, hat in hand, to taxpayers (Is it just one taxpayer? Or a small group? Not real clear on how you suppose that works.) begging for money to upgrade the OS on a few million Fed computers...and the taxpayers say "No!"? Because Trump? Because stupid? Because conservative? Ummm....your narrative isn't real clear on this. My sole experiential datum is that they've never asked ME about it. But this apparently does happen, and has something to do with how superior you are to somebody else, right?
Amazingly, this happens despite the fervent desire of MS to sell more OSs, and the ability of our FedGov to pay for anything it wants in every other area by (apparently) using imaginary money in amounts generated by magical mathematics. I am at a loss to explain this, though it does suggest the possibility that since your little hypothesis entirely lacks predictive or explanatory power, it might indeed be nothing more than the lazy, stupid, politically-motivated narrative it appears to be. Only a Jeff Sessions-level intellect could come up with "The dumb conservatives have cut government spending so drastically that..." well, fuck, I can't really get past that without drifting off into some alternate universe...
(sry bout the Sessions crack. Nobody deserves that kind of vituperation)
Actually, it's "ogle", one 'g'. I also like "oogle" because of the visual onomoatopeia, which is pretty rare. (Though "I was ooglin' some boobs, man." only needs four dots to make a clear picture of the stated action.) Also, "oggle" makes me think of bouncing boobs around...with your EYES.
Now I forgot what point I was going to make about generational shifts, hippies, hipsters, gentrification, coolness, social justice, privilege and Burning Man. Tell ya what, just throw those together with random approval/disapproval values and it'll be more or less what most posters seem to be doing anyway.
At least they're off my fucking lawn.
Awesome. A very basic, junior high-level understanding of commerce and human society and presented here it reads like a dissertation.
And this is what so frustrates the Left-their materia, their clay, the insensate mass of plebian class victims of which their just and noble revolution will be constructed instead know that there's nothing wrong with commerce or prosperity. They can't be convinced it's inherently wrong to "do a deal an fat up de pocket mon". The great and self-evidently GOOD leveling project never really has a chance.
People should be viewed as capable of contending, striving, achieving, advancing their own well-being...even people less educated than yourself, even people of different color or culture...with good rules* this can benefit everybody and result in a peaceful and prosperous society. The "everybody should have the same" crowd doesn't really think that, and are usually willing to appoint themselves executors of a plan to achieve said result. Others are not eager for this to happen. Not that the unappealing nature of leftist solutions is in any way a defense for the corrupt crony klepto-capitalism "our" "political" "leaders" have been bribed into creating.
*-this "good rules" thing seems to be the sticking point, the stumbling block, the fly in the ointment and," ultimately, the nub of my gist.
Safe communication means safe means for propaganda, avenues for radicalisation and recruitment, and for coordination and planning. And that's plenty harmful.
If you really want to know how important secure communication is considered, ask the military, the diplomatic service, and most companies.
I'm all for good old detective work, given a suspect. But the trick is to get a suspect in the first place. Monitoring communication helps enormously in becoming aware of suspects.
"Safe communication means safe means for unsuppressed countering of government propaganda, avenues for free expression of disagreement with government actions, avenues for planning concerted action against a corrupt and sold-out government, and for effective planning and recruitment."
Fixed it for you. Or do you trust this government? The government that writes paid-for legislation for Disney and Time-Warner? The government that allows pharmaceutical companies to write legislation that gets rubber-stamped 100 times out of a 100? The government that promises 'transparency' and then absolutely CRUSHES anyone who exposes unconstitutional practices or blows the whistle on corruption? The government that promises enlightened reform of drug laws and then (literally) laughs at the prospect of maybe NOT ruining people's lives for minor offenses. The government that pads the coffers of ADM and Simplot with farm subsidy giveaways, and when trotting out Ma and Pa Kettle isn't adequate to quell the outrage at the corruption, ties the gifts to food stamps...for the poor, for the single mother, for the CHIIIILDREN....*sniff*
This is the government of, by and for, DEA scum, corporate thieves and the purchasers (not creators) of intellectual property.
Okay, it's YOUR government, I get that, but as a citizen of the US, I feel it SHOULD also be mine, and increasingly, that it isn't. Maybe a government that feels it needs to keep every citizen under surveillance recognizes that it really is NOT serving "all of the people", and is concerned that more and more of us are figuring this out.
Google is a huge part of the surveillance machine. If you oppose surveillance, aren't you morally bound to stop enriching a big part of the problem? Is this what you signed up for? To help them build the apparatus of tyranny?
Maybe a mass wave of resignations among the 9 would effect positive change? Maybe we are all responsible to do our part to stop this monstrosity?
I am afraid to post this comment. I am sure that I will get categorized as a dissident for it. I would say a lot more, but my freedom of speech is chilled.
Your concern seems to derive more from a a hard-on for Google than any real fear of tyranny....but you did say your cowardice trumps your cluelessness, so that's all good then.
Now tell us how it's all the fault of one half (the "Republitards" or "Rethuglicans" . I'm guessing.) of our monolithic political party, in (imaginary) opposition to the "Good Guys" and you could score the idiocy/cowardice/hypocrisy trifecta! This will qualify you for a "Perfectly Average Internet Poster" Award.
Impending tyranny is a valid concern, of course, as the oligarchs, plutocrats and terminally cynical politicians who comprise what passes for an 'elite' in the 21st century cannot be trusted to be satisfied with becoming filthy rich from the public trough, in perpetuity, but rather, will kill off the herd for an extra nickel a head ("'Less in the future?' What does that even mean? More is MORE! I'm biting off this nipple and taking it home!"*).
But to explain the mechanism of your enslavement would run us well into 'tl, dr' territory, and why bother with that when there are so many tasty bumper-sticker-sized thought-o-bits to be consumed? You just continue ranting about the brand name on the shovel being used to bury you...
*-to put an indelicate but accurate point on it.
Yes, Amazon is "the real predator" here. Not the folks who charge the same for providing electronic bits as they do for purchasing, printing, inventorying, and distributing the physical product.
That statement clearly shows who you are representing in this argument. The publishers are overcharging for electronic versions of their IP. They jumped at the chance offered by Apple, to justify this rape of the consumer. While you would be correct to point out that Amazon does nothing from altruistic motive, that's irrelevant. In this case, they felt they would profit from a situation where there was unfettered (or less fettered) competition, possibly even *gasp* between publishers themselves!. Apple, also not acting altruistically, just jumped on the opposing position, which the publishers (rightly) saw as the best opportunity for the continuation of these windfall profits.
"But wait!" (you will say) "You can't expect the publishers to act against their own interests, can you?" Well, no. But if eBooks went away entirely, or at least proved to be an insignificant part of the publishing industry, I think they'd be pretty happy about it. Their own actions speak to this, as they would rather discourage the purchase of eBooks (by insisting on profit in the mega-multiples compared to production cost) than compete against their own based-on-paper business model.
The disruptive technology of eBooks is causing these various actors to behave in non-intuitive ways, which gives YOU the opportunity to put forth FUD, confusing arguments, and false dilemas on behalf of (apparently) the publishers.
The publishers will learn. Eventually, many millions of lobbying $$ down the road, there will be legislation protecting the practice of charging $10.00 for something that costs them $1.50 to provide, since it costs them $x+$1.50 to produce the paper version. But until then, if it walks like collusion, and quacks like collusion and results in higher prices than necessary or justifiable to consumers, some parts of the government will actually perform their jobs and try to prevent it.
As long as you stop short of autogenocide.
I sincerely hope he's getting paid.
Though his corporate overlords probably give him most of the talking points, the deviousness, straw men, subject-shifting, red herrings and misrepresentation of terms show that this shill has thrown himself into the project. He deserves his pieces of silver.
This reads an AWFUL lot like talking points handed out by publishers' PR departments (vetted by, and with contributions from, legal). I mean, that's what I would say if people called me on unwarranted 600% markups on a product. And if all the other publishers wanted to mark up the automated transfer of digital files so that the cost to the consumer was the same as for the purchase, printing, warehousing, and distribution of paper books...why no "collusion" there! That's just coincidence!
And do you really expect people to not see that the only "harm" averted here is to those publishers' windfall profits? Amazon's ONLY crime was attempting to force the admission from the publishers that they could indeed sell eBooks for CONSIDERABLY less than the price of paper editions and still profit therefrom. Apples has nobly (/snarkasm) saved them from such an admission.
It's not the government's place to preserve the publishers' windfall, at least until such protection has been duly lobbied/paid for.
You fucking shill.
tuppe nails it:
Having a strategy...that failed to stop *sales* of a larger range; better value; standards following; more open; platform. There are strategies against that, but they decided to swim in money instead.
Yep.. I've always visualized Apple management storing their profits in cash in huge grain silos and "diving into it, swimming in it, and throwing it up and letting it hit me on the head" Scrooge McDuck style. aww yeh.
Yeah, 10% or the OS market is a lot of money but that's not the argument here, is it?
If 10% of all cars were convertibles, they wouldn't be considered "the standard", no matter how cool they are. If 10% of all voters were Libertarian, it wouldn't be considered the "standard" or "dominant" political party, even if they have principles and their opponent (clearly, over tens of thousands of instances) have shown they don't. And if 10% of computer users are knee-jerk Apple fanbois, that doesn't make those products the "standard" either.
Sorry, we're going to have to be able to hate Micro$oft while admitting that all Apple really does is provide an example that capitalism, in ubergeldlust mode, can wear may (ugly) masks.
That's "SPATIAL domain"!
Uhh...you insensitive clod?
Italy just flipped you off.
While I'm sure the corrupt local politicians and businessmen (and a deeply cynical view of Italian government and business is seldom unrewarded) refused to listen to the predictions of the grizzled old volcano-hunter, dismissing his warnings as the ravings of a once-prominent vulcanologist who was just never the same after losing his leg to that albino volcano, fact is, they were correct in placing the chance of geological activity in a particular time frame as "unlikely".
Even if their forecast pleased certain business interests and politicoes, it is still true. They just went with the phrase describing the most likely outcome ("unlikely to occur.") over the less likely one ("Activity may occur."). We don't jail meteorologist for predicting thunderstorms and failing to include the unlikely outcomes: "50% chance of thunderstorms DURING WHICH YOU MIGHT BE STRUCK AND KILLED IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS WHICH I AM NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING."?, do we?
And this guy (Guy A, I guess) who got 'suppressed' and who actually predicted it with some accuracy-is he now responsible for telling people when an earthquake is not going to happen? And what happens when he eventually makes another prediction? What if they DO take him seriously, as some are saying should clearly have been done in the current instance, and shut down government, shutter businesses, and evacuate likely damage areas? And nothing happens for a week? For a month? Guy A can say "Well, if I get it right within a year, that's nothin' in geological terms, so still pretty good." all he wants, but he is going to experience a lawsuitquake of epic proportions.
So with Guy A beggared, and probably driven to drink*, and those other guys in jail, good luck getting a predictive statement out of a geologist ever again.
Reporter: So, when will this area be subjected to another earthquake?
Geologist A: Absolutely no idea. None whatsoever. The data suggest nothing.
Reporter: And what about you sir? Can you give us a forecast?
Geologist B: Uh...I'm here with the Luthiers' Convention.
*-rolling urine-soaked in the gutters of Montmarte until approached by a mysterious grizzled old one-legged vuclanologist....**
**-this is why I never RTFA.
They were correct. There "was probably not going to be" an earthquake within any time frame people would be interested in (i.e.: "During the period of my vacation?" or "During the period in which 60% of our yearly profit is generated?" ). Which way do you phrase it? Most likely first (probably not gonna happen), or least likely (yeah, it could happen this weekend)? Are meteorologsts jailed when they predict thunderstorms without appending "...AND YOU MAY BE STRUCK BY IT AND KILLED IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS WHICH I AM NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING!!!"??
It doesn't matter how it was phrased, or if the non-prediction suited some business interests or government functionaries...it was. still. true. , for any given short term period.
Now, whenever the "Coming up next, your Weekend Geological Activity Forecast!" segment comes up, they HAVE to say "There is indeed a chance of geological activity in the following areas...we'd tell you what the odds are, but you're clearly not interested in the actual numbers, nor what they mean. And if I'm to be held criminally liable for not warning you when there's a chance of earthquake or vulcanic activity, I'M WARNIN' YA NOW!!!"
Geologists need to come up with a euphemism for the activity of trying to figure out when this shit will happen. Something that implies "predicting" but means more ""prediction", but NOT in the sense the panicky, innumerate and litigious public thinks of it.".
Hey! I have an idea. Why don't the publishers try and sell books directly to the public at reasonable, (i.e.: much less than paper versions) prices!!
Crazy, I know, but I'll bet they'd have more success than they've had desperately (and apparently illegally) trying to keep the ridiculously inflated price points they cherish for the digital product.
Bester's "The Stars My Destination" was voted (rightly enough) Best Sci-Fi Novel EVER in a poll a few years ago.
Can't argue with that, really. I could make other suggestions, personal favorites, but it's a fair cop.
Is there such a word as "snarkasm"??
There should be.
Many others as well...The charming "SIx Fingers of Time". "The 7-Day Terror". with its formidable urchins and laugh-out-loud punchline. The well-structured "Primary Education of the Camiroi" with its graceful and hilarious reveal. Stories so good you can recite them at parties to appreciative audiences.
A teller of tall tales, and American as HELL.
I'd almost forgotten Lafferty, so yeah, underappreciated.
Yes. (I suggested Vance waaaaay up at the top of the thread somewhere...) MUCH under-appreciated.
The Demon Princes was so well-appreciated by my wife, that had my daughter been a boy, he'd have been named Kirth. A fine, fine writer.
And his approach to "deep themes" was that there really aren't any "deep themes", just human lives with their tragedies and joys, aspirations and failures, grand vision and pettiness and always, always, from the meanest hamlets of Earth to the Grand Concourse, the innkeeper will try to shortchange you, water your drinks and pilfer your valuables.
Did I mention charming, too?
Nova.
More 'traditional' than many of his others (even the early stuff like Jewels of Aptor, Babel-17 and The Einstein Intersection), a wildly creative novel, full of themes, memes and memorably fine writing.
My brother found me some porn he'd written for a friend who was in jail (reprinted in some LA alt-weekly IIRC) and it was pretty damn awesome too.
Coming from someone who likes to be pandered to by the likes of Atwood, Stephenson will just have to take this as a compliment.