On the contrary. It's instructive in that it shows us what you get when you apply a slide rule to a poet. Also noteworthy is that it wasn't the engineer's intent to stop this creativity, but it happened anyway.
You may be right about who they claim as an employer, but this makes me think they are at least partially under the DoD. This makes me think that State has some control, but the whole thing looks like a civilian/military compromise over who gets the goodies.
Your remark about wondering how much you were supposed to hear (in your original post) piqued my curiousity. Go back and read it as if someone else had posted it. If you wonder whether you're being told things you shouldn't be told, I wonder if the person who's telling you could have exposed themselves in some way (legal, professional, etc.) If I were acquainted with anyone such as your friend, I do not think I would refer to their line of work in any manner but that which is elliptical enough to obscure, but not so much as to draw interest. Besides, you know who tells their employees to refer to themselves as DoD employees, don't you?;-)
She's civilian, thus there is no *legal* way to find out who she is.
FOIA? Private detective? Journalism? Or do you mean there's no legal way for *me* to find out? I am glad you asked her about this, but I still think it's ill-advised to describe anyone involved in that sort of work in a public forum with a degree of specificity that would allow anyone determined enough to figure out who you're referring to. I know I wouldn't want myself described in such detail. Would you?
the DoD advisor I mentioned previously is also an aerospace engineer, an accomplished economist, and an occasional instructor at Yale. These people know the story, and they know it well.
Thanks for narrowing it down. They should now be able to pick her up up by tomorrow at the latest.
There can't be that many "female DoD asymmetrical warfare specialists" running around in D.C. So, do you think maybe you've hurt your "friend" by posting here? It can't be that hard to draw up a list and start excluding people. Maybe she'll have a polygraph session bacause of you. Maybe she'll be followed. Maybe her conversations will be recorded. Oh, and did you have a Win2K license for that dual-boot you set up for her?
Between the cries of "National Security!" and "Software Piracy!" you could potentially be in a great deal of trouble, along with your friend.
Unless she's been directed to feed you exactly what they want to disseminate "from the ground up." Even then, I hope you gave her the Win2K license.
You may find this surprising, but GW Bush is the most tech-savvy president we've had to date. Basically, up until he became president, I believe, he always built and maintained his own computers.
You're right. I *do* find it surprising. Now, if Uncle Dick were building machines for him, I might believe that. I have heard, however, that he changes the oil on Air Force One himself.
I have to thank you for the wonderful thought of a true Dunce like W. mastering the finer points of LUNs and IRQs. Maybe the acid test for mainstreaming Linux should be that it's ready for prime time when W. can install it unassisted?
I mean, come on. That's so anachronistic. When was that passed? 1875? 1910?
Bertrand Russell's life was saved when he sat at the rear of an aircraft to enjoy his pipe and the plane nose-dived into the water, slaying all the abstainers in the front compartment he had just been forced to leave.
- Christopher Hitchens, "Living Life Well: Alocohol, Tobacco, and Art".
1. the plaintiff did not try to obtain a copy from the local government. He only tried libraries and book stores.
Is this Texas town some Libertarian La-La land where the libraries are run by private, for-profit companies with no public accountability? It seems to me that getting a local code from a public library would count as "obatin[ing] a copy from the local government."
He's talking about a shortage, and says nothing about government creation of any such thing. What you're probably thinking about is the high price of gasoline in many European countries where it's heavily taxed to discourage its use and to encourage using other modes of transportation. Leave to the side the fact that the hardships he envisions for SUV owners would be largely visited upon the poor, as anyone who can afford an SUV and attendant insurance can afford $3/gal. If they can't afford that, they are living beyond their means and shoudn't have bought one in the first place. You just have to hope these people will collide with a large, immovable object instead of a AMC Gremlin.
FYI, those countries practice different varieties of Socialism, not Communism. If you say the problem is profiteering oil corps, but (I'm guessing here from the tone of your post) as a laissez-faire, free-markets-are-the-answer-to-everything type who disdains gov't intervention, where the hell do you expect any relief to come from? It can't be more drilling; they're profiteering, remember? If they're profiteering when available energy supply is x do you really think they won't do it when the supply is 2x?
Besides, by consuming so much energy to get to and from your job, you are contributing to any shortage, real or perceived. So are people who choose to drive fuel-inefficient vehicles, like SUVs. They made that choice. Why shouldn't they live with the consequences? Why shouldn't you live with the consequences of choosing to live so far from your job? Should I pay more for gas because others use inefficient transportation?
I live less than two miles from my job. Enjoy your commute tomorrow.
Spelling mistakes just give out a strong impression of unprofessionalism and slopiness.
Dude, I know exactly what you mean. If they would just take the time to proofread their posts, they wouldn't spell simple words incorrectly, use "to" when they should've used "too", or drop a letter from a word.
Claiming to know what Kubrick intended makes you as full of hot air as anyone else. Read this interview with him. I think it'll do more than anything I can try to say to you.
OK. I thought the hexagonal stuff was off myself, so I agree with you there. But:
If I had the compunction, I could probably sit down with ANY book, no matter how simple or complex, and in a twisted way find reference and meanings that the author NEVER intended and NEVER even had.
Many people have that compunction. For them, it's not a contortion act to see "The Wizard of Oz" as an cautionary note regarding the US abandoning the gold standard in the late 19th century. For them, it's not a contortion act to see "Wild at Heart" as a weird re-telling of "The Wizard of Oz" (at least in places.) Why on earth would anyone bother to read in the first place if everything were as unambiguous as "See Spot run"?
homosexualities place in MacArthyism,
As opposed to its place in "Billy Budd", for example? On a lighter note, McCarthyism was all about fucking your buddies up the ass (so to speak,) so you *could* make that argument.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh when I see this sort of stuff on/. There are some smart people here, but many of them pursued educations that told them that there was only one right answer (as in solve this equation.)
Art doesn't work that way.
A sculpture is *not* an equation, even if you can mathematically describe it completely. If there's MTOWTDI in a language like Perl, stop and think about how much more subtle, nuanced, and flexible *any* natural language is. You can express things in simple English that no program would ever produce on its own. When would any program ever tell you something as simple as "I'm tired" if the programmer didn't tell it to in the first place?
Maybe this is a good way for both of us to think about it, and it gets my basic point across:
Your brain is a platform. Every brain is a platform. Art is code that compiles in your brain. The meaning is not in the whatever.c (the work of art itself,) but rather in the whatever.exe (the product of the process.) Exactly what is compiled depends on what you bring to the table (what you've read, seen, etc. or what libraries you have on your platform.) I can't think of any better way to try to get it across.
FWIW, I still think the hexagon thing is lame. I had an easier time reading "Journey to the Center of the Earth" as a trip through the digestive tract.
My favorite scene is where Bill draws the short straw and Dubya accompanies him to the asteroid's surface. Once they get there, Bill yanks the Bush/Cheney patch off of Dubya's pressure suit, kicks him out the hatch, re-enters the ship, and dusts off. I never get tired of Dubya nuking himself as he tries to dictate a memo into the detonator.
We also need to send Steven Seagal, Kevin Costner, Chuck Norris, Wesley Snipes, Charles Bronson, Mr. T., Der Ahhhnold, anyone who's ever been in a long-distance TV commercial, anyone who's been on Springer, everyone who's been on TV more than once, and the cast of Dawson's Creek.
Let them all nuke it as Tito watches from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I would say the author knows what it means to him or her, but not to anyone else. So, a text might have meaning for its author until same dies, then absolutely none until it's read by someone (i.e., there's a big difference between "had" and "has".)
What I'm trying to get at is that the meaning is not in the book (film, etc.) It's in the creation and reception. The meaning is in the people involved and nowhere else. If you know of a book but haven't read it, what can it possibly mean to you? I mean, you might say to yourself, "Joe recommened it and I like Joe," but this unread book can't mean anything to you until you read it and decide that it communicates something. Until then, nothing. And if literally no-one has read it and the author's dead...
Think of a stop sign on a deserted country road. It doesn't mean anything until someone pulls up to it and sees it. Then it either means "STOP" or it means "The man's puttin' his foot on my neck again," or something. But not until someone pulls up. Until then it's just a painted piece of metal out in the middle of nowhere. And yes, there's a big difference between a stop sign and a novel. But you wouldn't be looking for stop signs if you didn't know that you'd gain some possibly life-saving information when you saw one;)
Hmm, some good points here. I think part of the "telegraphing" of hidden meaning has to do with GR's copious heapings of paranoia. Hidden meanings are therefore part and parcel of that novel. You are correct about Weisenburger's sticking to the evidence at hand, though. Even w/o reading Wheat I think I have to give you that.
Maybe you're trying to make a distinction between decoding (Pynchon) and interpreting (Kubrick)? At any rate, the answer to "how much more is there than I got" should always be "some, at least". I'm sure you know that re-reading (or re-screening) some novels/films is a rewarding experience, as you tend to notice things you didn't the last time around. Things you've exposed yourself to between readings can change your understanding of a novel/film that has not itself been changed.
True. Anyone who thinks charging money for their music makes it "art" and giving it away freely debases it to the level of a "commodity" makes an excellent Napster advocate whether or not they know it.
He's referring to (I think they were called) Heaven's Gate. The UFO cult in San Diego who offed themselves. Remember the photos, the Nikes on the feet of those corpses in the beds?
I can't tell if this is OT or not, unless it's an obtuse commentary on the patheticness of the demographic audience spammers must believe is out there (and they are, sadly.) That's my guess, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that this is really important or anything.
On the contrary. It's instructive in that it shows us what you get when you apply a slide rule to a poet. Also noteworthy is that it wasn't the engineer's intent to stop this creativity, but it happened anyway.
You may be right about who they claim as an employer, but this makes me think they are at least partially under the DoD. This makes me think that State has some control, but the whole thing looks like a civilian/military compromise over who gets the goodies.
NSA, from what I've read, but I can't dig up a link right now. Also, I'm a big fan of the FAS. I think more transparency is good thing in most cases.
Your remark about wondering how much you were supposed to hear (in your original post) piqued my curiousity. Go back and read it as if someone else had posted it. If you wonder whether you're being told things you shouldn't be told, I wonder if the person who's telling you could have exposed themselves in some way (legal, professional, etc.) If I were acquainted with anyone such as your friend, I do not think I would refer to their line of work in any manner but that which is elliptical enough to obscure, but not so much as to draw interest. Besides, you know who tells their employees to refer to themselves as DoD employees, don't you? ;-)
She's civilian, thus there is no *legal* way to find out who she is.
FOIA? Private detective? Journalism? Or do you mean there's no legal way for *me* to find out? I am glad you asked her about this, but I still think it's ill-advised to describe anyone involved in that sort of work in a public forum with a degree of specificity that would allow anyone determined enough to figure out who you're referring to. I know I wouldn't want myself described in such detail. Would you?
the DoD advisor I mentioned previously is also an aerospace engineer, an accomplished economist, and an occasional instructor at Yale. These people know the story, and they know it well.
Thanks for narrowing it down. They should now be able to pick her up up by tomorrow at the latest.
Assuming that you're telling the truth:
There can't be that many "female DoD asymmetrical warfare specialists" running around in D.C. So, do you think maybe you've hurt your "friend" by posting here? It can't be that hard to draw up a list and start excluding people. Maybe she'll have a polygraph session bacause of you. Maybe she'll be followed. Maybe her conversations will be recorded. Oh, and did you have a Win2K license for that dual-boot you set up for her?
Between the cries of "National Security!" and "Software Piracy!" you could potentially be in a great deal of trouble, along with your friend.
Unless she's been directed to feed you exactly what they want to disseminate "from the ground up." Even then, I hope you gave her the Win2K license.
You may find this surprising, but GW Bush is the most tech-savvy president we've had to date. Basically, up until he became president, I believe, he always built and maintained his own computers.
You're right. I *do* find it surprising. Now, if Uncle Dick were building machines for him, I might believe that. I have heard, however, that he changes the oil on Air Force One himself.
I have to thank you for the wonderful thought of a true Dunce like W. mastering the finer points of LUNs and IRQs. Maybe the acid test for mainstreaming Linux should be that it's ready for prime time when W. can install it unassisted?
I mean, come on. That's so anachronistic. When was that passed? 1875? 1910?
Bertrand Russell's life was saved when he sat at the rear of an aircraft to enjoy his pipe and the plane nose-dived into the water, slaying all the abstainers in the front compartment he had just been forced to leave.
- Christopher Hitchens, "Living Life Well: Alocohol, Tobacco, and Art".
1. the plaintiff did not try to obtain a copy from the local government. He only tried libraries and book stores.
Is this Texas town some Libertarian La-La land where the libraries are run by private, for-profit companies with no public accountability? It seems to me that getting a local code from a public library would count as "obatin[ing] a copy from the local government."
Speak for yourself commie.
He's talking about a shortage, and says nothing about government creation of any such thing. What you're probably thinking about is the high price of gasoline in many European countries where it's heavily taxed to discourage its use and to encourage using other modes of transportation. Leave to the side the fact that the hardships he envisions for SUV owners would be largely visited upon the poor, as anyone who can afford an SUV and attendant insurance can afford $3/gal. If they can't afford that, they are living beyond their means and shoudn't have bought one in the first place. You just have to hope these people will collide with a large, immovable object instead of a AMC Gremlin.
FYI, those countries practice different varieties of Socialism, not Communism. If you say the problem is profiteering oil corps, but (I'm guessing here from the tone of your post) as a laissez-faire, free-markets-are-the-answer-to-everything type who disdains gov't intervention, where the hell do you expect any relief to come from? It can't be more drilling; they're profiteering, remember? If they're profiteering when available energy supply is x do you really think they won't do it when the supply is 2x?
Besides, by consuming so much energy to get to and from your job, you are contributing to any shortage, real or perceived. So are people who choose to drive fuel-inefficient vehicles, like SUVs. They made that choice. Why shouldn't they live with the consequences? Why shouldn't you live with the consequences of choosing to live so far from your job? Should I pay more for gas because others use inefficient transportation?
I live less than two miles from my job. Enjoy your commute tomorrow.
Spelling mistakes just give out a strong impression of unprofessionalism and slopiness.
Dude, I know exactly what you mean. If they would just take the time to proofread their posts, they wouldn't spell simple words incorrectly, use "to" when they should've used "too", or drop a letter from a word.
Sadly, they don't.
Claiming to know what Kubrick intended makes you as full of hot air as anyone else. Read this interview with him. I think it'll do more than anything I can try to say to you.
OK. I thought the hexagonal stuff was off myself, so I agree with you there. But:
/. There are some smart people here, but many of them pursued educations that told them that there was only one right answer (as in solve this equation.)
If I had the compunction, I could probably sit down with ANY book, no matter how simple or complex, and in a twisted way find reference and meanings that the author NEVER intended and NEVER even had.
Many people have that compunction. For them, it's not a contortion act to see "The Wizard of Oz" as an cautionary note regarding the US abandoning the gold standard in the late 19th century. For them, it's not a contortion act to see "Wild at Heart" as a weird re-telling of "The Wizard of Oz" (at least in places.) Why on earth would anyone bother to read in the first place if everything were as unambiguous as "See Spot run"?
homosexualities place in MacArthyism,
As opposed to its place in "Billy Budd", for example? On a lighter note, McCarthyism was all about fucking your buddies up the ass (so to speak,) so you *could* make that argument.
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh when I see this sort of stuff on
Art doesn't work that way.
A sculpture is *not* an equation, even if you can mathematically describe it completely. If there's MTOWTDI in a language like Perl, stop and think about how much more subtle, nuanced, and flexible *any* natural language is. You can express things in simple English that no program would ever produce on its own. When would any program ever tell you something as simple as "I'm tired" if the programmer didn't tell it to in the first place?
Maybe this is a good way for both of us to think about it, and it gets my basic point across:
Your brain is a platform. Every brain is a platform. Art is code that compiles in your brain. The meaning is not in the whatever.c (the work of art itself,) but rather in the whatever.exe (the product of the process.) Exactly what is compiled depends on what you bring to the table (what you've read, seen, etc. or what libraries you have on your platform.) I can't think of any better way to try to get it across.
FWIW, I still think the hexagon thing is lame. I had an easier time reading "Journey to the Center of the Earth" as a trip through the digestive tract.
The last time I burned a CD was SuSE 7.1 last month. Before that? Probably Slackware sometime in 1942.
I never could get the ration coupons for CD-Rs during the war. Guess I just wasn't important enough. *sniff*
or possibly William J. Clinton,
My favorite scene is where Bill draws the short straw and Dubya accompanies him to the asteroid's surface. Once they get there, Bill yanks the Bush/Cheney patch off of Dubya's pressure suit, kicks him out the hatch, re-enters the ship, and dusts off. I never get tired of Dubya nuking himself as he tries to dictate a memo into the detonator.
We also need to send Steven Seagal, Kevin Costner, Chuck Norris, Wesley Snipes, Charles Bronson, Mr. T., Der Ahhhnold, anyone who's ever been in a long-distance TV commercial, anyone who's been on Springer, everyone who's been on TV more than once, and the cast of Dawson's Creek.
Let them all nuke it as Tito watches from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I would say the author knows what it means to him or her, but not to anyone else. So, a text might have meaning for its author until same dies, then absolutely none until it's read by someone (i.e., there's a big difference between "had" and "has".) What I'm trying to get at is that the meaning is not in the book (film, etc.) It's in the creation and reception. The meaning is in the people involved and nowhere else. If you know of a book but haven't read it, what can it possibly mean to you? I mean, you might say to yourself, "Joe recommened it and I like Joe," but this unread book can't mean anything to you until you read it and decide that it communicates something. Until then, nothing. And if literally no-one has read it and the author's dead...
;)
Think of a stop sign on a deserted country road. It doesn't mean anything until someone pulls up to it and sees it. Then it either means "STOP" or it means "The man's puttin' his foot on my neck again," or something. But not until someone pulls up. Until then it's just a painted piece of metal out in the middle of nowhere. And yes, there's a big difference between a stop sign and a novel. But you wouldn't be looking for stop signs if you didn't know that you'd gain some possibly life-saving information when you saw one
Hmm, some good points here. I think part of the "telegraphing" of hidden meaning has to do with GR's copious heapings of paranoia. Hidden meanings are therefore part and parcel of that novel. You are correct about Weisenburger's sticking to the evidence at hand, though. Even w/o reading Wheat I think I have to give you that.
;)
Maybe you're trying to make a distinction between decoding (Pynchon) and interpreting (Kubrick)? At any rate, the answer to "how much more is there than I got" should always be "some, at least". I'm sure you know that re-reading (or re-screening) some novels/films is a rewarding experience, as you tend to notice things you didn't the last time around. Things you've exposed yourself to between readings can change your understanding of a novel/film that has not itself been changed.
P.S. Thanks for getting back to me
Where do you draw the line between what the author might have been thinking and your own twisted imagination?
Please read this, then this, then get back to me. You'd be suprised at how much some authors get up to.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain
;-)
No comment
THEN and only then can it be reasonably claimed that this or that meaning exists in the work.
The meaning is in the reader's reading of the work. If no one reads it, how can it mean anything to anyone but the author?
After all, this is rocket science, not brain surgery.
True. Anyone who thinks charging money for their music makes it "art" and giving it away freely debases it to the level of a "commodity" makes an excellent Napster advocate whether or not they know it.
He's referring to (I think they were called) Heaven's Gate. The UFO cult in San Diego who offed themselves. Remember the photos, the Nikes on the feet of those corpses in the beds?
I can't tell if this is OT or not, unless it's an obtuse commentary on the patheticness of the demographic audience spammers must believe is out there (and they are, sadly.) That's my guess, anyway.