and pandering to the sexuality of 14 year old boys (lots of discussion of penises and the only female character is a child prostitute).
I disagree with your interpretation of that Character's description. It was included (imho) in order to show the chaos in the world. That reprehensible acts were tolerated and common place. This world was playing fast-and-loose with its fate, in every resepect, and this was a symptom.
Those parts of the story were very disturbing -- i liked it. I especially liked her treatment of it, neither the author nor the protagonist passed overt judgment on it (outside of snowman's own conscience).
When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill
Did you consider that those 15 might have voted against because they disagreed with some other stealth rider? Maybe they disagreed with the Funding Bill (they wanted MORE maybe...?)
While fine and dandy, maybe you should just discover the leading Group fighting AGAINST the Patriot Act (and its ilk) and fund them directly.
That wont work. You'll only succeed in flipping between the two parties, a 'shared time' in the president's office is (already) quite agreeable to them both.
You *MUST* have viable 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties. If not, you'll not be able to influence the parties to begin to represent you....
why? becauses the mechanics of your government is WOEFULLY broken. Designed for a different era, the ability for your government to form a represnentative and effective body is impossible.
You havent elected someone outside of the Republicrats in 100 years. The first-past-the-post electoral college nonesense is absolute stupidity. Try some meaningfull finance reform (1 federal vote equals $? funding for every vote you get above X% of popular vote... (your 2 big parties have are being bought-off by the plutocrats -- and this big money has destroyed democratic access))
Your falling into the trap of thinking that wealth is finite, or at least constrained at its current levels. This is simply not true. The amount of wealth in the world can (and does) grow. Ah yes, the infinte growth idea.
If you think the planet can feed, clothe, house and entertain the rest of the planet like Americans do now you're sadly mistaken.
This "EverGrowth" idea, born of cold-war Consumerist thinking is going to run us into a very serious ecological brick wall.
it might me pollution, it might be natural resources, it might be water, it might be global dimmming, it might be alot of things but the kind of Capitalist Consumer Society required to build this "EverGrowth" scenario is, frankly, a fucking disaster-waiting-to-happen.
There are ways to defeat this. Closed trade policies are the quickest. By adopting protectionist policies the U.S. can effectively isolate itself from these new markets, likewise India could do the same in an effort to protect it's new found wealth. The governments role SHOULD be to protect equal OPPORTUNITIES for trade between India and the U.S. (thus encouraging growth in both countries), rather than attempting to protect the RESULTS of that trade.
Well, if "equal OPPORTUNITIES" also means the free-flow of people (as capital at present), equal labour standards, equal environmental standards, equal infrastrucutre, equal governmental-support/subsidy/regulation, etc etc etc then maybe you might be dealing with some "equal opportunities".
Unless youve got some basic world-wide standards for the things that the Economy exists *within* then youve got an unequal situation. As long as the greedmongers are able to keep these considerations *out of the scenario* then youve got the opportunity for them to be priced-out.... if you think that turning the world's future over to the profiteers is going to Raise the Underdeveloped nations out of poverty and into our level of consumption, you are very very very misguided.
If the US public wasnt so snowed over the absolute infallibility of Capitalism (the product of cold-war Capitalist Propaganda) then maybe you might consider that an absolutely uncontrolled Plutocratic government might be selling you a bill-of-goods.
The people who really benefit from this high-profit-at-the-cost-of-a-sustainable-economy are not "your average" Westerner.
These people will pick up and abandon our communities -- because they have the resources. Things looking a little grim and dicey in Seattle? Move to India. Long-term-outlook a little shakey in Atlanta? Get a 10,000' home in Vietnam.
I dont begrudge these other places becoming less impoverished, its that -- ONCE AGAIN -- the public is being taken for a ride by the greedheads while selling them a bill of goods.... who is going to pay the US National debt when everyone is A) Unemployed and B) broke?
Well, here is why you dont understand my line of argument. I am saying "cost" is not simply dollars and cents. Advertising *costs* your community mind-share. Instead of thinking of something worthwhile (whatever it may be) a great deal of public discourse in the West is ProConsumer propaganda. This *costs* your community dearly....have you ever considered this? Have you ever heard someone bemoan Consumerism....you might not agree, but you have *heard* of this idea no?
I see SPAM like any other commercial communication. Because you feel you *pay* for SPAM, you feel you can make it illegal. I consider all commercial-communcation equally repugnant (including spam, print, tv, billboards, etc).... and we all do really pay for it as much as we pay for spam. I recognize the distributed ownership of the mail-relay infrastructure gives you the impression that its a cost($) that you privately bear, but you *also* carry the cost($) of advertising in every other form.
Before you tell me I am wrong, please tell me you recognize my argument (even if you feel it is flawed) so we might move this conversation forward....
If a hijacker ever takes control of a plane again in US airspace, everybody innocent on board is considered already lost, and the government is going to not think twice about shooting the whole thing down to prevent it from being flown into a target.
While a seemingly pragmatic assumption, that assumption should be fucking illegal. If *I* was on the plane, I would be very interested in the opportunity that the hijackers *JUST MIGHT NOT* fly us into other people (property is just not worth caring about frankly....) and not sacrifice me to a possibility.
This kind of comprimised thought-process is self-defeating....
A) take gun from air-marshal. B) kill air-marshal. C) threaten passengers. D) enter cockpit. NEW: E) Disable softwall-thingy F) take plane wherever I please.
From the link: This warning applies to no one more than Americans-the richest, most successful, largest and most powerful players and the ultimate insiders in the construction of the global economy. In terms of military and economic power no nation has ever loomed larger in human history. Imperial Rome dominated a large region around the Mediterranean Sea. America dominates the globe. American views will be central in the shaping of globalization, but the structure of globalization is also one of the factors that will limit the arbitrary use of America's enormous power vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
Multinational companies, and the planet's Plutocracy is not American or Canadian or British or Korean or anything else. This band of ultra-mega rich are citizens of the globe. It just happens that this moment in the planets history (last 500 years) North America (USA) has seen the growth of large population on a previously sparsly populated land. This place the USA finds itself in is not manifest destiny, but happenstance of history. When the time is convenient, these people will abandon the USA to doom when it means keeping themselves at their present level of ultra-privilage.
An America playing in a global economy is very different and much better from the perspective of the rest of the world than an America engaging in a contest for one-country bilateral national economic dominance.
Who says? The author is assuming to know what the rest of the World's Leaders want. In fact, the architects of the Global Market are *not* democractic governments, but the MutliNational corporations themselves. They set the agenda (buy influence with lobbyists), they attend the summits, write and finance the development of the Deals themselves. To say that any nation's government *wants* Globalization is untrue -- its happening because The Plutocrats can finance its creation.
An America trading with the rest of the world, investing in the rest of the world, transferring technology to the rest of the world, and educating many from the rest of the world is far better for both those inside and outside of America than is an America that retreats into its traditional isolation.
This is the bit that threw me off the most. To suggest that the USA has *EVER* been a "traditional isolationist" is flately wrong. The *reality* is been fighting wars abroad for most of its existence.... Wars of Empire. This author is actually confusing the jingoist Apple-Pie mythos of "America" with the god-damned reality. Wondering about the USA's foreign-policy history vis-a-vie this rumoured isolationism? He should start by reading Zinn and Chomsky (a fellow MITer for christ's sake)
This imbalance of economic and military power between the United States and the rest of the world has arisen because of decisions made in Japan and Europe. Japan simply does not play the geopolitical military game. Kosovo is not its concern. It looks only at Asia and even there lets the United States deal with China and North Korea. The European Union has a population big enough and the economic resources large enough to create a modern military force equal to that of the United States. Yet with the end of the Cold War and any immediate military threat to itself, it has decided not to spend its economic resources on military activities. It is inwardly focused on the peaceful effort of building an integrated Europe. *****Large military budgets are seen as irrelevant to the success of failure of European integration because if there are military problems in Yugoslavia, the United States will be there.***** What happens in North Korea is of little interest to Europe and there is no willingness to be engaged in dealing with North Korea, since Europe is confident that America will keep such dangers under control and out of its neighborhood. America outspends the rest of NATO militarily by more than a 2 to 1 ratio. What looks sensible if one is heavily armed lo
I have no problem with the ads you mentioned (billboards, TV, radio, junk mail, etc.) Why not? Because the person who sends it pays all the cost.
how is that now? Television stations are/were supported through taxes of various sorts. Radio is the same. Both are broadcast on public airwaves. Billboards are the worst afront to the public, you cant 'turn them off', far more 'evil' if you ask me. Lets not forget that "costs" are not just $. The world is not SOLEY run on $.
The spammers cost society more money than the US national debt -- every year You cant be serious. These people are essentially embezzeling money from every corporation and individual who has email. You don't think that deserves jail time?
No. I think most only violent criminals should be sent to jail.... your pseudo-offence, equating sending unsolicited commercial email to embezzelment is a nice one -- excellect propaganda -- but untrue. Like copyright infringment is not piracy, spam is not 'embezzelment'.
(noise, aggravation, sprawl, cost, policing, local/regional/federal government spending on roads/highways, health-care cost associated with accidents, ill-health due to lack of exercise, sprawl which causes plant/animal habitat loss....
The Personal Automobile is the #1 Problem on the planet. We dedicate more resources to living a Car-Centric life than anyone realizes -- its the planet's largest industrial effort.
Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison
You cant be serious. You want this person jailed? While i admit spam is obnoxious, I wouldnt suggest it an offence to warrant incarceration.
Unsolicited commercial messages are streamed at you constantly, billboards, tv, radio etc etc. I dont want to get in a debate about how terrible spam is (uses resources 'we' pay for yadda) but really, is it *that* different? To warrant JAIL TIME? Really now, I think this crowd needs a little perspective.
Well pal, "Give me a '59 Alfa Romeo any day.", this isnt exactly a matter of personal-satisfaction or fashion. Have you ever heard of *pollution*? fuck, the shortsighted selfishness people are capable of is astounding. Do you have want humanity to have a future? Stop thinking of yourself and consider the bigger picture for a second....
#1 problem with Motorcycles: Weather, you cant just switch to motorcycles (from cars) and leave all else the same -- it wont work.
Forget the concept of personally-owned powered transport altogether. Cities should be *DESIGNED* to a human scale, NOT designed around the automobile... this requires you to *OWN* an expensive(gas/insurance/maint) vehicle that is dangerous to The Planet, Other Vehicles, The Drivers and Pedestrians. Not to mention HUGELY EXPENSIVE for your federal/regional/local governments (roads/police/highways/biways/parkinglots) sprawl itself is expensive to your community (more expensive BY FAR to build massive, spread out cities)
If cities were designed to be *walked* in, and not designed to be *driven* in, we would be 50% of the way to forgetting our oil-slavery. The other half, will be ending sprawl, proper/viable public transportation, and a few other minor issues.
Moving to hydrogen powered, cleaner personal-automobiles is still going to lead us to destroying the environment. Manufacturing automobiles is the largest industry on the planet, *THAT* production consumes resources (glass/oil/rubber/steel).... not just the gas-at-the-pump. The sprawl, fat-suburbanites, car-accident-road-deaths and in-humane city design are all BY-PRODUCTS of this car-centric stupidity.
I dont want just *different* cleaner cars, i want *no cars*.
Slashdot Mirror
I read snowcrash and was a little disappointed that these Corporate Fuedalism ideas werent explored, instead we followed our Indian Jones in VR.
What was the Stephenson book that dealt with Corporatism?
and pandering to the sexuality of 14 year old boys (lots of discussion of penises and the only female character is a child prostitute).
I disagree with your interpretation of that Character's description. It was included (imho) in order to show the chaos in the world. That reprehensible acts were tolerated and common place. This world was playing fast-and-loose with its fate, in every resepect, and this was a symptom.
Those parts of the story were very disturbing -- i liked it. I especially liked her treatment of it, neither the author nor the protagonist passed overt judgment on it (outside of snowman's own conscience).
When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill
Did you consider that those 15 might have voted against because they disagreed with some other stealth rider? Maybe they disagreed with the Funding Bill (they wanted MORE maybe...?)
While fine and dandy, maybe you should just discover the leading Group fighting AGAINST the Patriot Act (and its ilk) and fund them directly.
But the majority of FBI agents are hard working, family people who worry about personal rights also
except the rights of those that the police personally feel are the "bad guys" after all, "not everything every police agency does is above board".
A million Europeans, rotting in socialist paradise time-bombs does not make a good example, no matter how good their intentions.
HAHAH! Yes, and Canada too!
Spoken like a true jingo -- good work!
That wont work. You'll only succeed in flipping between the two parties, a 'shared time' in the president's office is (already) quite agreeable to them both.
You *MUST* have viable 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties. If not, you'll not be able to influence the parties to begin to represent you....
why? becauses the mechanics of your government is WOEFULLY broken. Designed for a different era, the ability for your government to form a represnentative and effective body is impossible.
You havent elected someone outside of the Republicrats in 100 years. The first-past-the-post electoral college nonesense is absolute stupidity. Try some meaningfull finance reform (1 federal vote equals $? funding for every vote you get above X% of popular vote... (your 2 big parties have are being bought-off by the plutocrats -- and this big money has destroyed democratic access))
Start thinking about runoff/Condorcet/approval or some other voting method. Then consider a manner of proportional representation....
How about your library records -- read any seditious books lately?
Hey guys, this is the internet... how about a link to a .torrent of 1984
Global Dimming do some googling.
Your falling into the trap of thinking that wealth is finite, or at least constrained at its current levels. This is simply not true. The amount of wealth in the world can (and does) grow.
Ah yes, the infinte growth idea.
If you think the planet can feed, clothe, house and entertain the rest of the planet like Americans do now you're sadly mistaken.
This "EverGrowth" idea, born of cold-war Consumerist thinking is going to run us into a very serious ecological brick wall.
it might me pollution, it might be natural resources, it might be water, it might be global dimmming, it might be alot of things but the kind of Capitalist Consumer Society required to build this "EverGrowth" scenario is, frankly, a fucking disaster-waiting-to-happen.
There are ways to defeat this. Closed trade policies are the quickest. By adopting protectionist policies the U.S. can effectively isolate itself from these new markets, likewise India could do the same in an effort to protect it's new found wealth. The governments role SHOULD be to protect equal OPPORTUNITIES for trade between India and the U.S. (thus encouraging growth in both countries), rather than attempting to protect the RESULTS of that trade.
Well, if "equal OPPORTUNITIES" also means the free-flow of people (as capital at present), equal labour standards, equal environmental standards, equal infrastrucutre, equal governmental-support/subsidy/regulation, etc etc etc then maybe you might be dealing with some "equal opportunities".
Unless youve got some basic world-wide standards for the things that the Economy exists *within* then youve got an unequal situation. As long as the greedmongers are able to keep these considerations *out of the scenario* then youve got the opportunity for them to be priced-out.... if you think that turning the world's future over to the profiteers is going to Raise the Underdeveloped nations out of poverty and into our level of consumption, you are very very very misguided.
If the US public wasnt so snowed over the absolute infallibility of Capitalism (the product of cold-war Capitalist Propaganda) then maybe you might consider that an absolutely uncontrolled Plutocratic government might be selling you a bill-of-goods.
EXACTLY!
The people who really benefit from this high-profit-at-the-cost-of-a-sustainable-economy are not "your average" Westerner.
These people will pick up and abandon our communities -- because they have the resources. Things looking a little grim and dicey in Seattle? Move to India. Long-term-outlook a little shakey in Atlanta? Get a 10,000' home in Vietnam.
I dont begrudge these other places becoming less impoverished, its that -- ONCE AGAIN -- the public is being taken for a ride by the greedheads while selling them a bill of goods.... who is going to pay the US National debt when everyone is A) Unemployed and B) broke?
costs me NOTHING.
Well, here is why you dont understand my line of argument. I am saying "cost" is not simply dollars and cents. Advertising *costs* your community mind-share. Instead of thinking of something worthwhile (whatever it may be) a great deal of public discourse in the West is ProConsumer propaganda. This *costs* your community dearly....have you ever considered this? Have you ever heard someone bemoan Consumerism....you might not agree, but you have *heard* of this idea no?
I see SPAM like any other commercial communication. Because you feel you *pay* for SPAM, you feel you can make it illegal. I consider all commercial-communcation equally repugnant (including spam, print, tv, billboards, etc).... and we all do really pay for it as much as we pay for spam. I recognize the distributed ownership of the mail-relay infrastructure gives you the impression that its a cost($) that you privately bear, but you *also* carry the cost($) of advertising in every other form.
Before you tell me I am wrong, please tell me you recognize my argument (even if you feel it is flawed) so we might move this conversation forward....
If a hijacker ever takes control of a plane again in US airspace, everybody innocent on board is considered already lost, and the government is going to not think twice about shooting the whole thing down to prevent it from being flown into a target.
While a seemingly pragmatic assumption, that assumption should be fucking illegal. If *I* was on the plane, I would be very interested in the opportunity that the hijackers *JUST MIGHT NOT* fly us into other people (property is just not worth caring about frankly....) and not sacrifice me to a possibility.
This kind of comprimised thought-process is self-defeating....
A) take gun from air-marshal.
B) kill air-marshal.
C) threaten passengers.
D) enter cockpit.
NEW: E) Disable softwall-thingy
F) take plane wherever I please.
From the link:
This warning applies to no one more than Americans-the richest, most successful, largest and most powerful players and the ultimate insiders in the construction of the global economy. In terms of military and economic power no nation has ever loomed larger in human history. Imperial Rome dominated a large region around the Mediterranean Sea. America dominates the globe. American views will be central in the shaping of globalization, but the structure of globalization is also one of the factors that will limit the arbitrary use of America's enormous power vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
Multinational companies, and the planet's Plutocracy is not American or Canadian or British or Korean or anything else. This band of ultra-mega rich are citizens of the globe. It just happens that this moment in the planets history (last 500 years) North America (USA) has seen the growth of large population on a previously sparsly populated land. This place the USA finds itself in is not manifest destiny, but happenstance of history. When the time is convenient, these people will abandon the USA to doom when it means keeping themselves at their present level of ultra-privilage.
An America playing in a global economy is very different and much better from the perspective of the rest of the world than an America engaging in a contest for one-country bilateral national economic dominance.
Who says? The author is assuming to know what the rest of the World's Leaders want. In fact, the architects of the Global Market are *not* democractic governments, but the MutliNational corporations themselves. They set the agenda (buy influence with lobbyists), they attend the summits, write and finance the development of the Deals themselves. To say that any nation's government *wants* Globalization is untrue -- its happening because The Plutocrats can finance its creation.
An America trading with the rest of the world, investing in the rest of the world, transferring technology to the rest of the world, and educating many from the rest of the world is far better for both those inside and outside of America than is an America that retreats into its traditional isolation.
This is the bit that threw me off the most. To suggest that the USA has *EVER* been a "traditional isolationist" is flately wrong. The *reality* is been fighting wars abroad for most of its existence.... Wars of Empire. This author is actually confusing the jingoist Apple-Pie mythos of "America" with the god-damned reality. Wondering about the USA's foreign-policy history vis-a-vie this rumoured isolationism? He should start by reading Zinn and Chomsky (a fellow MITer for christ's sake)
This imbalance of economic and military power between the United States and the rest of the world has arisen because of decisions made in Japan and Europe. Japan simply does not play the geopolitical military game. Kosovo is not its concern. It looks only at Asia and even there lets the United States deal with China and North Korea. The European Union has a population big enough and the economic resources large enough to create a modern military force equal to that of the United States. Yet with the end of the Cold War and any immediate military threat to itself, it has decided not to spend its economic resources on military activities. It is inwardly focused on the peaceful effort of building an integrated Europe. *****Large military budgets are seen as irrelevant to the success of failure of European integration because if there are military problems in Yugoslavia, the United States will be there.***** What happens in North Korea is of little interest to Europe and there is no willingness to be engaged in dealing with North Korea, since Europe is confident that America will keep such dangers under control and out of its neighborhood. America outspends the rest of NATO militarily by more than a 2 to 1 ratio. What looks sensible if one is heavily armed lo
I have no problem with the ads you mentioned (billboards, TV, radio, junk mail, etc.) Why not? Because the person who sends it pays all the cost.
how is that now? Television stations are/were supported through taxes of various sorts. Radio is the same. Both are broadcast on public airwaves. Billboards are the worst afront to the public, you cant 'turn them off', far more 'evil' if you ask me. Lets not forget that "costs" are not just $. The world is not SOLEY run on $.
The spammers cost society more money than the US national debt -- every year
You cant be serious.
These people are essentially embezzeling money from every corporation and individual who has email. You don't think that deserves jail time?
No. I think most only violent criminals should be sent to jail.... your pseudo-offence, equating sending unsolicited commercial email to embezzelment is a nice one -- excellect propaganda -- but untrue. Like copyright infringment is not piracy, spam is not 'embezzelment'.
Why dont you *FIX* that problem by getting some stickers or something for the outside of your window...?
(noise, aggravation, sprawl, cost, policing, local/regional/federal government spending on roads/highways, health-care cost associated with accidents, ill-health due to lack of exercise, sprawl which causes plant/animal habitat loss....
The Personal Automobile is the #1 Problem on the planet. We dedicate more resources to living a Car-Centric life than anyone realizes -- its the planet's largest industrial effort.
Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison
You cant be serious. You want this person jailed? While i admit spam is obnoxious, I wouldnt suggest it an offence to warrant incarceration.
Unsolicited commercial messages are streamed at you constantly, billboards, tv, radio etc etc. I dont want to get in a debate about how terrible spam is (uses resources 'we' pay for yadda) but really, is it *that* different? To warrant JAIL TIME? Really now, I think this crowd needs a little perspective.
thats profound.
How many people think the vonnneumann story was just a ruse; perpetrated by the editors to mention linus' birthday without looking like a fan-boy?
think about it. Vote below.
Well pal, "Give me a '59 Alfa Romeo any day.", this isnt exactly a matter of personal-satisfaction or fashion. Have you ever heard of *pollution*? fuck, the shortsighted selfishness people are capable of is astounding. Do you have want humanity to have a future? Stop thinking of yourself and consider the bigger picture for a second....
Not true, its used in evt electric mopeds.
Besides, what is the the wieght of these wheels in relation to the total weight of the bus && passengers...
#1 problem with Motorcycles: Weather, you cant just switch to motorcycles (from cars) and leave all else the same -- it wont work.
Forget the concept of personally-owned powered transport altogether. Cities should be *DESIGNED* to a human scale, NOT designed around the automobile... this requires you to *OWN* an expensive(gas/insurance/maint) vehicle that is dangerous to The Planet, Other Vehicles, The Drivers and Pedestrians. Not to mention HUGELY EXPENSIVE for your federal/regional/local governments (roads/police/highways/biways/parkinglots) sprawl itself is expensive to your community (more expensive BY FAR to build massive, spread out cities)
If cities were designed to be *walked* in, and not designed to be *driven* in, we would be 50% of the way to forgetting our oil-slavery. The other half, will be ending sprawl, proper/viable public transportation, and a few other minor issues.
Moving to hydrogen powered, cleaner personal-automobiles is still going to lead us to destroying the environment. Manufacturing automobiles is the largest industry on the planet, *THAT* production consumes resources (glass/oil/rubber/steel).... not just the gas-at-the-pump.
The sprawl, fat-suburbanites, car-accident-road-deaths and in-humane city design are all BY-PRODUCTS of this car-centric stupidity.
I dont want just *different* cleaner cars, i want *no cars*.