'Manipulation' is the main theme of the book, to me. The adults manipulate the children, but they also manipulate each other. Then the children start to manipulate the adults. Near the end, Valentine pretty much lays out that manipulation is an inherent part of the social fabric. The warfare tactics are just different examples of how the adult manipulate Ender's to learn and create.
The emotional core of the book revolves around Ender's relationship with himself and with Valentine. Those tend to be the most moving portion of the book.
I suspect people like the theme of being suspicious of authority - "they may trick you into committing genocide in the name of doing good." For the generations personallyl involved with US military interventions abroad, this can be a most resonate message. I think it's a pretty good book, not great. Better than most of Heinlein's. Certainly not as good as Dune.
She did a terrific job in "Relic Hunter" and really deserved a shot at "Tomb Raider" movie. Her physique and personality would make a great fit for Wonder Woman.
showed many ways for the wire to be hidden and smuggled in. For this application, being hard to read is actually a GOOD property. Only those who knows the right wire and have the right hardware can access the data.
Surely it is not a shock to you that a Republican administration would favor a corporate view point by appointing corporate voice on such a panel. Such cases of appointing the fox to guard the hen house is much more common among Republican administrations. It is hardly partisan to point out that the current administration is acting consistently with its historically stated policies. If you voted for this adminstration, you should have expected to see such appointments.
B. Galatica - cardboard characters - predictible plots. Not funny nor tragic.
For war plots in space, I prefer "Space: Above and Beyond", a grittier and rawer view with some emotional power.
Firefly had unusually interesting characters and setting which MADE the show. However, it's stil not as interesting as "Blakes' 7" where you're never quite sure what each character will do, how far they will go. The only TV show that totally surprised me with its ending.
Clearly, he was the smarter one from a purely economic point of view. Had he taken the dollar everytime, he'd stop getting a stream of $0.50 in the future.
This is the difference between the Prisoner's Dilemma game played ONCE vs. played repeatedly. The best strategy for ONCE is not the BEST when the game is repeated indefinitely. This is why TIT-FOR-TAT is almost an optimal strategy for purely rational reasons.
With the Nike example, you have just demonstrated a rational thinking process. It's not that rationality is too restricted, it's just that economics often only focus on material wealth and discounts the importance of abstract idea and social relations. As another example, the Northwest Coast indians actually burnt perfectly good blankets and goods to show off their wealth at their potlatch gatherings. This is becuase they had a severe population shortage at the time and attracting more indian settlers to their village was more important then the goods. So it's quite rational once you see the whole picture.
In this case, one of the consenting party is doing harm to him/herself and society while fully aware of the medical consequences.
Secondly, if free market exchange truely increase wealth for both parties, why is there the need for a huge marketing and advertising industry?
Think about perfumes. Why is one thimble $500 while another $5? The cost difference has NOTHING to do with manufacturing costs to be sure.
While there are very useful applications of the free market mechanisms, it cannot be a panacea. I recommend "Manufacturing Consents" by Chomsky for another perspective.
1) High growth tech company don't usually pay dividends. So stock holders never get any cashflow from the company.
2) If stock price stays flat, no options get excercised and the stockholders have zero net gain/loss.
3) If the stock takes off, options get exercised and there are now a LARGER # of shares outstanding. The % equity value of the original stockholders have decreased. In other words, part of the appreciation have been tapped by the options. What annoys the original investors is that they often cannot easily foresee this from the old accounting treatment. That is why there is a push to expense the option as they are being issued.
4) If the stock tanks, many companies have abused the options procedure by resetting to a lower exercise price (usually for the CEO). In other words, they are being rewarded with higher priced options by trading in their lower priced ones WHILE the company earnings are suffering! This is decidedly NOT sharing in the interests of the stockholders.
There IS a culture war going on -- for the past 25 years. And the far right has been winning while the Democrats have been ceding the field. Witness the changed connotations of the word: "Liberal" and "Conservative."
There is no Vast Right Wing comspiracy - they have been perfectly above board. That's why we can understand so well Wolfowitz's motivations. They have successfully built a network of foundations, think tanks, media outliets, and political consultancies to steer the public discourse.
People with different perspectives need to build a comparable machine to effectively promote their viewpoints so that no one party can force their agenda upon the nation. This is the work for another 25 years, not just 1 election cycle.
Ron Suskind wrote an illuminating article in this issue about how GWB's religious faith drives his deliberations (or lack thereof). Well worth a read.
Many evangelicals think that God is in the West Wing. For them, making and changing decisions based on "reality" is inferior to a buring certainty and righteously. The $200 billion questions is whether GWB believes that he's channeling God himself or that he is MERELY pandering to the evangelicals.
You decide!
Either way, look for big changes in the courts if GWB is re-elected: more church services in schools, etc..
Just to prove that they are persons of CHARACTER, why don't the RNC and state committees publish their training manuals and playbooks after the election?
If you read the DNC training manual, it asked the staff to review local DNC tractic and remind the media of past RNC practices. So what's wrong or fraudulant about that? It's certainly a far cry from destroying voter registraion cards.
Do you really think that all of Corporate America are bastion of Democrats? Or MAY BE the Harvard MBAs know better which end is up on a toilet plunger?
If you read the article, you'll see that Business Week (hardly a leftist rag) opined that Hardard B-School is known for its apolitcal business-centric views.
Is there really a culture war? What are the sides? Think about that carefully.
"defeat the use of terrorism."
How is that possible? Terrorism is a tactic. It's like "defeating the future use of hand held weapons in a robbery". Very implausible.
Terrorist groups today carry out these attacks against civilian targets because they do NOT have the power to fight a regular arm forces. Whenever a small group wishes to hurt a major power that it cannot confront directly, they WILL resort to terrorist tactics.
Certainly, it is appropriate to act against states that sponsor terrorists. However, some state do NOT have effecive control of their entire conuntry. For example, Pakistan and Afghanistan have substantial areas that do not respond to central government authority. So what do you propose we do? Send troops to take over the region? Will we need to police ALL the regions of the world with weak central government? Do you see how impossible that is?
But MORE critical, in my mind, is the need to remove the conditions which feeds and grows these terrorist organizations in the first place. It disturbs me greatly that this issue is not discussed at all in the current election. It is going to require a clear understanding of how the USA (with its pre-eminent economic & military power) is viewed by the rest of the world. It's going to take a long term effort in communication and in actions to change those views.
Unfortunately, having a president who talks about leading a "crusade" and how "God wanted him to become President" is not going to be very convincing to the muslims of the world (1/4 of would population).
Unfortunately, the 'price' you are being which you feel drives your decisions are not accurate price for the life cycle costs of the energy you are consuming. The cost of air pollution from an energy production process is usually not included in the price you pay because it is easy for the corporate or government entity to pass it onto another entity or into the future.
Without a social movement which drives public policies, such 'externalities' will never be incorporated into the market price. All this it well known to the main stream neo-classical economicst. Only starty-eyed libertarians and supply-siders seems blissfully unaware of this.
Following you arguments, every body loses when we have seat-belt laws ? Do you wear seat belt when you drive?
When the crystal falls into a clear stream, it will indeed sparkle. If it falls into a muddy pond, its light will dim as well.
Kant, Wittgenstein, Hegel, and Sartre are indeed clear and transparent. "Critique of Pure Reason" also specifically addresses the distinction between mathematical truths vs. material facts.
You should try some McLuhan or Foucault to really twist your head inside-out.
"I still think Hong Kong had the best model, right before the ChiComs took over. Minimalist but competent government, simple 15% flat tax (complexity == corruption when it comes to laws), and at least near-American standard of living. Damned if I know how the system could be replicated."
Would you like to be colonized by a foreign power and threatened to be thrown back to the red menance if you ever complained to your colonial masters? That might do it.
HK people had economic freedom but no polical freedom under the British. That's why its not such a shocking change after 1997. In the mean time, British transferred whatever profit they could back to the UK before the hand-over. Does this sound like a good model for a country?
HK is a very special historical accident that would never have worked for an entire country. So quit dreaming about it!
"The West still has a political requirement to appear free and capitalistic, but is increasingly becoming more statist.
Sadly I have to agree here, but I disagree with the reasons. I'd blame an overabundance of lawyers (and the resulting defenses against them) and the natural tendency of bureaucracies to grow and their members to vote themselves more resources. Too many Republican politicians (including our President) have given up fighting these trends and are trying to co-opt them instead (the "No Child Left Behind" act, etc). It's driving right-wingers like me nuts. Remember the 1994 "Contract with America"? We lost, statism won."
Dubya is for no principle but getting himself elected. Those who think that he has any character beyond self-preservation are deluding themselves.
Just one last word about lawyers. No one like ambulance chasers. However, I would suggest that the Rule of Law is a major balwark against the capricious exercise of powers by the executive branch. It has probably done more to protect our civil liberties than all the guns that the NRA has kept in circulation. Do ponder that while you shot at the easy marks (lawyers).
"Math does not explain anything. On the contrary, it is the math that cries for a physical explanation."
Math indeed does not explain anything, but it also does not require any physical explanation. Mathematical propositions are true or false in their own realm which is entirely distinct from the physical realm. I recommend reading some Wittgenstein for more insights and clarity on this matter.
Although Slate and Salon are pretty good, no online site approaches the quality of a well edited weekly or daily such as: the Economist or the Christian Science Monitor. While their names may be misleading, they have the MOST in depth and minimally biased coverage of international issues bar none. (and they don't pretend to be fair and balanced either)
You're entirely correct that tax cut to individual do not translate into job creation directly. In fact, most economists agree that tax cut to the wealthiest part of the population will not increase demand siginifantly as they are more apt to save/invest it rather than spend it immediately. No demand means no new investment/production and no new jobs.
If one studies the neoconservative discussions, one finds that the primary driver is to starve the goverment. Remember the attempt during Contract with America to zero the budget of the Dept. of Education? (Funny how we're mandating tons of new testing in K-12 while not providing fundings for them now.) Thus, these supply side economic projections are just sugar coatings to sell the small government policies.
PS, it's true that those are 10 years figures. Even so, spending $35,000 per year for 10 years for the one new job is not my idea of an effetive use of public funds to create jobs.
"Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs through 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of 344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush administration fell 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the president's critics." from Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs
Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A06
From this article, it's easy to see that for $350 BILLIONS of tax cut, we purportedly got 1 million new jobs. Even if you accept that figure, that meant we spent $350,000 to create EACH single new job. Does THAT sound like an efficient way to simulate job growth to you?
Slashdot Mirror
civilized ?
Like the Spaniards 'helped' the Incans to save their immortal souls?
I'm not implying anyone is bad due to their religious believes. Just to remembers that:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
'Manipulation' is the main theme of the book, to me. The adults manipulate the children, but they also manipulate each other. Then the children start to manipulate the adults. Near the end, Valentine pretty much lays out that manipulation is an inherent part of the social fabric. The warfare tactics are just different examples of how the adult manipulate Ender's to learn and create.
The emotional core of the book revolves around Ender's relationship with himself and with Valentine. Those tend to be the most moving portion of the book.
I suspect people like the theme of being suspicious of authority - "they may trick you into committing genocide in the name of doing good." For the generations personallyl involved with US military interventions abroad, this can be a most resonate message.
I think it's a pretty good book, not great. Better than most of Heinlein's. Certainly not as good as Dune.
She did a terrific job in "Relic Hunter" and really deserved a shot at "Tomb Raider" movie. Her physique and personality would make a great fit for Wonder Woman.
showed many ways for the wire to be hidden and smuggled in. For this application, being hard to read is actually a GOOD property. Only those who knows the right wire and have the right hardware can access the data.
Surely it is not a shock to you that a Republican administration would favor a corporate view point by appointing corporate voice on such a panel. Such cases of appointing the fox to guard the hen house is much more common among Republican administrations. It is hardly partisan to point out that the current administration is acting consistently with its historically stated policies. If you voted for this adminstration, you should have expected to see such appointments.
B. Galatica - cardboard characters - predictible plots. Not funny nor tragic.
For war plots in space, I prefer "Space: Above and Beyond", a grittier and rawer view with some emotional power.
Firefly had unusually interesting characters and setting which MADE the show. However, it's stil not as interesting as "Blakes' 7" where you're never quite sure what each character will do, how far they will go. The only TV show that totally surprised me with its ending.
But Galatica is hardly innovative. Firefly was the only SciFi TV with some innovations at all in the past few years. Outlook is bleak indeed.
"The boy chose the 50c each time."
Clearly, he was the smarter one from a purely economic point of view. Had he taken the dollar everytime, he'd stop getting a stream of $0.50 in the future.
This is the difference between the Prisoner's Dilemma game played ONCE vs. played repeatedly.
The best strategy for ONCE is not the BEST when the game is repeated indefinitely. This is why TIT-FOR-TAT is almost an optimal strategy for purely rational reasons.
With the Nike example, you have just demonstrated a rational thinking process. It's not that rationality is too restricted, it's just that economics often only focus on material wealth and discounts the importance of abstract idea and social relations. As another example, the Northwest Coast indians actually burnt perfectly good blankets and goods to show off their wealth at their potlatch gatherings. This is becuase they had a severe population shortage at the time and attracting more indian settlers to their village was more important then the goods. So it's quite rational once you see the whole picture.
In this case, one of the consenting party is doing harm to him/herself and society while fully aware of the medical consequences.
Secondly, if free market exchange truely increase wealth for both parties, why is there the need for a huge marketing and advertising industry?
Think about perfumes. Why is one thimble $500 while another $5? The cost difference has NOTHING to do with manufacturing costs to be sure.
While there are very useful applications of the free market mechanisms, it cannot be a panacea. I recommend "Manufacturing Consents" by Chomsky for another perspective.
You're missing parts of the picture:
1) High growth tech company don't usually pay dividends. So stock holders never get any cashflow from the company.
2) If stock price stays flat, no options get excercised and the stockholders have zero net gain/loss.
3) If the stock takes off, options get exercised and there are now a LARGER # of shares outstanding. The % equity value of the original stockholders have decreased. In other words, part of the appreciation have been tapped by the options. What annoys the original investors is that they often cannot easily foresee this from the old accounting treatment. That is why there is a push to expense the option as they are being issued.
4) If the stock tanks, many companies have abused the options procedure by resetting to a lower exercise price (usually for the CEO). In other words, they are being rewarded with higher priced options by trading in their lower priced ones WHILE the company earnings are suffering! This is decidedly NOT sharing in the interests of the stockholders.
There IS a culture war going on -- for the past 25 years. And the far right has been winning while the Democrats have been ceding the field. Witness the changed connotations of the word: "Liberal" and "Conservative."
There is no Vast Right Wing comspiracy - they have been perfectly above board. That's why we can understand so well Wolfowitz's motivations. They have successfully built a network of foundations, think tanks, media outliets, and political consultancies to steer the public discourse.
People with different perspectives need to build a comparable machine to effectively promote their viewpoints so that no one party can force their agenda upon the nation. This is the work for another 25 years, not just 1 election cycle.
Ron Suskind wrote an illuminating article in this issue about how GWB's religious faith drives his deliberations (or lack thereof). Well worth a read.
Many evangelicals think that God is in the West Wing. For them, making and changing decisions based on "reality" is inferior to a buring certainty and righteously. The $200 billion questions is whether GWB believes that he's channeling God himself or that he is MERELY pandering to the evangelicals.
You decide!
Either way, look for big changes in the courts if GWB is re-elected: more church services in schools, etc..
Just to prove that they are persons of CHARACTER, why don't the RNC and state committees publish their training manuals and playbooks after the election?
If you read the DNC training manual, it asked the staff to review local DNC tractic and remind the media of past RNC practices. So what's wrong or fraudulant about that? It's certainly a far cry from destroying voter registraion cards.
an Harvard MBA or Hillsdale MBA ?
Do you really think that all of Corporate America are bastion of Democrats? Or MAY BE the Harvard MBAs know better which end is up on a toilet plunger?
If you read the article, you'll see that Business Week (hardly a leftist rag) opined that Hardard B-School is known for its apolitcal business-centric views.
So you tell me that their leader has no control over this country's fiscal policy?
Great case for kicking the whole bunch out. Thanks!
Is there really a culture war?
What are the sides? Think about that carefully.
"defeat the use of terrorism."
How is that possible? Terrorism is a tactic. It's like "defeating the future use of hand held weapons in a robbery". Very implausible.
Terrorist groups today carry out these attacks against civilian targets because they do NOT have the power to fight a regular arm forces.
Whenever a small group wishes to hurt a major power that it cannot confront directly, they WILL resort to terrorist tactics.
Certainly, it is appropriate to act against states that sponsor terrorists. However, some state do NOT have effecive control of their entire conuntry. For example, Pakistan and Afghanistan have substantial areas that do not respond to central government authority. So what do you propose we do? Send troops to take over the region? Will we need to police ALL the regions of the world with weak central government? Do you see how impossible that is?
But MORE critical, in my mind, is the need to remove the conditions which feeds and grows these terrorist organizations in the first place. It disturbs me greatly that this issue is not discussed at all in the current election. It is going to require a clear understanding of how the USA (with its pre-eminent economic & military power) is viewed by the rest of the world. It's going to take a long term effort in communication and in actions to change those views.
Unfortunately, having a president who talks about leading a "crusade" and how "God wanted him to become President" is not going to be very convincing to the muslims of the world (1/4 of would population).
Unfortunately, the 'price' you are being which you feel drives your decisions are not accurate price for the life cycle costs of the energy you are consuming. The cost of air pollution from an energy production process is usually not included in the price you pay because it is easy for the corporate or government entity to pass it onto another entity or into the future.
Without a social movement which drives public policies, such 'externalities' will never be incorporated into the market price. All this it well known to the main stream neo-classical economicst. Only starty-eyed libertarians and supply-siders seems blissfully unaware of this.
Following you arguments, every body loses when we have seat-belt laws ? Do you wear seat belt when you drive?
When the crystal falls into a clear stream, it will indeed sparkle. If it falls into a muddy pond, its light will dim as well.
Kant, Wittgenstein, Hegel, and Sartre are indeed clear and transparent. "Critique of Pure Reason" also specifically addresses the distinction between mathematical truths vs. material facts.
You should try some McLuhan or Foucault to really twist your head inside-out.
without which the Europeans might not have conquered the Americas....
"I still think Hong Kong had the best model, right before the ChiComs took over. Minimalist but competent government, simple 15% flat tax (complexity == corruption when it comes to laws), and at least near-American standard of living. Damned if I know how the system could be replicated."
Would you like to be colonized by a foreign power and threatened to be thrown back to the red menance if you ever complained to your colonial masters? That might do it.
HK people had economic freedom but no polical freedom under the British. That's why its not such a shocking change after 1997. In the mean time, British transferred whatever profit they could back to the UK before the hand-over. Does this sound like a good model for a country?
HK is a very special historical accident that would never have worked for an entire country. So quit dreaming about it!
"The West still has a political requirement to appear free and capitalistic, but is increasingly becoming more statist.
Sadly I have to agree here, but I disagree with the reasons. I'd blame an overabundance of lawyers (and the resulting defenses against them) and the natural tendency of bureaucracies to grow and their members to vote themselves more resources. Too many Republican politicians (including our President) have given up fighting these trends and are trying to co-opt them instead (the "No Child Left Behind" act, etc). It's driving right-wingers like me nuts. Remember the 1994 "Contract with America"? We lost, statism won."
Dubya is for no principle but getting himself elected. Those who think that he has any character beyond self-preservation are deluding themselves.
Just one last word about lawyers. No one like ambulance chasers. However, I would suggest that the Rule of Law is a major balwark against the capricious exercise of powers by the executive branch. It has probably done more to protect our civil liberties than all the guns that the NRA has kept in circulation. Do ponder that while you shot at the easy marks (lawyers).
"Math does not explain anything. On the contrary, it is the math that cries for a physical explanation."
Math indeed does not explain anything, but it also does not require any physical explanation. Mathematical propositions are true or false in their own realm which is entirely distinct from the physical realm. I recommend reading some Wittgenstein for more insights and clarity on this matter.
Although Slate and Salon are pretty good, no online site approaches the quality of a well edited weekly or daily such as: the Economist or the Christian Science Monitor. While their names may be misleading, they have the MOST in depth and minimally biased coverage of international issues bar none. (and they don't pretend to be fair and balanced either)
You're entirely correct that tax cut to individual do not translate into job creation directly. In fact, most economists agree that tax cut to the wealthiest part of the population will not increase demand siginifantly as they are more apt to save/invest it rather than spend it immediately. No demand means no new investment/production and no new jobs.
If one studies the neoconservative discussions, one finds that the primary driver is to starve the goverment. Remember the attempt during Contract with America to zero the budget of the Dept. of Education? (Funny how we're mandating tons of new testing in K-12 while not providing fundings for them now.) Thus, these supply side economic projections are just sugar coatings to sell the small government policies.
PS, it's true that those are 10 years figures. Even so, spending $35,000 per year for 10 years for the one new job is not my idea of an effetive use of public funds to create jobs.
"Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs through 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of 344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush administration fell 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the president's critics."
from Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs
Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A06
From this article, it's easy to see that for $350 BILLIONS of tax cut, we purportedly got 1 million new jobs. Even if you accept that figure, that meant we spent $350,000 to create EACH single new job. Does THAT sound like an efficient way to simulate job growth to you?
Is "voodoo economoics" any way to run a country?
How is cellphone any worst for transmitter disease than the landline phone used inside the hospital?
How can one read a pager with out using one's hand?
This article makes no sense.