But how many priceless documents have been lost over the millenia? Some of da Vinci's works may be lost to time.
Yes, but not everything that has been lost over the past thousands years has been masterpieces: most of it was probably crap.
I once saw an interview with a historian who said something along the lines that the task facing historians today and the task facing historians of tomorrow were completely different: those of today are faced with the problem of scarcity of documentation (is there any documentation at all relating to what you're researching, can it be found, is that which exists representative, is it true, etc); whereas the latter, due to our present obsession with preserving absolutely everything, will be faced with the enormous task of trying to find and trying to find out how to find anything relevant and worthwhile in reams (used loosely) and reams of data.
It is obviously impossible to say how many masterpieces of whatever that has been lost. However, surprisingly many has survived. If the Greeks had thought the Iliad a boring piece of soap opera, it probably wouldn't had survived. It is true that some have not perhaps been entirely appreciated within their own culture and have been preserved thanks to other ones: e.g., we know Shakespeare's play as they were originally written largely thanks to German scholars; Aristotle's work is known thanks to preservation by the Arab/Muslim society. It is of course quite possible that there were other oeuvres, contemporary to these or not, of equal quality and importance which are lost to us now due to under-appreciation, but somehow I doubt it.
Even at the risk of losing a masterpiece or two, would our present compulsive preservation of every last skerrick of just about everything necessarily be bad thing to lose?
The only reason it happens is because they don't have to get JOBS.
You know, I really think that might depend mostly on the job.
I am married to a mathematician. After receiving his PhD he went to work within academe... and drowned in all that 'peripheral' work which is only ever mentioned en passant but which has a tendency to take up the lion's share of your time, work and leisure equally: preparation of lectures and seminars; markings of essays, course work and exams; tutorials; therapeutic talks with students; etc etc. The only time, if any, for research was during vacations. (And he wasn't alone in that: most of his collegues only ever seemed to get some research done when away from work.)
However, some 12 months ago he quit academe for private business... and has since almost finished one paper and is starting to think about the next one. Research-wise, that probably makes these past 12 months some of his most productive ever.
So... there are jobs and jobs. Possibly: if you hate what you're doing (job-wise) or if what you're doing is taking up all of your time or is completely draining all your emotional/physical/mental/whatever resources, then it's probably damned hard to focus and do any kind of research.
However, be that as it may, I also think it is a little bit over-simplistic to disparage anyone for coming up with a brilliant idea while just lazing around not gainfully employed. I read somewhere that Goedel came up with some of his best ideas while at a sex romp in the Austrian alps. That doesn't make those ideas any worse, now does it?!
JRR was quite surprised that anyone liked his work
OK, I don't know very much about Tolkien: in fact, I base my opinion almost entirely on a Tolkien documentary that has been shown on the Australian TV channel SBS twice. Nevertheless I wonder a little: was Tolkien really that surprised? Are we sure we can't put at least some of that 'surprise' down to some sort of English 'oh-I'm-just-an-Oxbridge-don-only-did-this-in-my-c ellar-it's-nothing-in-particular-old-chap kind of attitude? (I.e. less 'surprise' more 'compulsive self-deprecation'.) Apparently his publishers thought they were going to 'lose at least 1,000 pounds' on the book and so I'm sure they were pleasantly surprised by the success of the book. But Tolkien himself? I don't know. And I don't know whether 'being surprised' necessarily implies whom he imagined his target audience to be... if indeed he even imagined such a thing at all. Nor am I sure that saying something along the lines of 'I wrote this book for myself/to please myself' is necessarily synonymous with 'I didn't think anyone would read it'.
Further: didn't he, at least in part, set out to write his 'Hobbit books' with the intention of providing England/Britain (in particular) with a 'new' mythology (as he thought society had lost too much or all of its original sagas and myths due to industrialism and its consequences and that this, in turn, created a mythological void that needed to be filled)? And wouldn't that at least imply that he wished/desired people to read and appreciate his books? Surely you would agree that a myth isn't just some esoteric little yarn known by a chosen few?!
I admit the 'personal experience' comment was a cheap shot I couldn't resist. However (in descending order of generality):
I think there exists, in general, a really misconceived notion of reading 'personal experience' and autobiographical details (and their meaning) of the author into works of fiction: works of fiction should primarily be seen works of fiction not works of self-analysis and metaphorical gossip; if we're lucky a work of fiction may provide enjoyment as well as insight into human nature and the human condition, but whether that insight is based on the author's personal experience or not is completely irrelevant: Othello isn't necessarily a worse play just because Shakespeare wasn't a Moor and hadn't strangled his wife;
I also think that people are prone to read far more into, in particular, LOTR than is actually there and even more than Tolkien might have wanted them to (cf. for instance, his saying that he didn't want people running around speaking elvish with people running around speaking elvish while arguing that they are the true keepers of the Tolkien heritage -- or at least they did in this SBS documentary which seemed just so sad); and
My argument concerned the LOTR trilogy, not Silmarillion nor unfinished works. (Which I have read so I really wouldn't know anything about them: I have tried to read Silmarillion, I really have, but I have failed. Miserably. It is just unreadable. Really.)
Finally and parenthetically: being a spell-check nazi and all, I will take this opportunity to cry mea culpa: I blush at my typos in the original post: I know fully well how to spell 'erroneously' and 'elves'. Really I do. OR at least my computer does.
'Star Wars and The Matrix [...] cater[] to a broad audience.' You don't think LOTR caters to a large audience? Have you seen the box office figures for these films?!? Or is it that you (eroneously) believe that the LOTR films were conceived as some sort of small art-house films?
'Tolkien wrote his works for a narrow literate audience[.]' I don't know whether I would agree with this statement and irrespective of whether it's true or not the book(s) certainly sold way above the confines of such a 'narrow' audience. (I would, however, agree that its audience would be 'literate' -- it's a bit hard to read if one isn't.)
'[...] based on his personal experiences' -- I seriously doubt that Tolkien, who really seems to have been a rather level-headed sort of chap, had any 'personal experiences' with elfs and ents and wizards.
' [...] the fact it wouldn't fit in just one book made it a trilogy.' Errr... you know, books come in all shapes and sizes: there isn't a physical standard format size that a literary oeuvre must 'fit' into or else risk being truncated (shrink to fit into one) or drawn out (enlarged to fill several).
IANAL, but it looks like one could win a case against SCO for copyright infringement and get little or no money.
What about punitive damages?! They are awarded not as remedial restitution but as a civil (as opposed to criminal) punishment for the offending party and also, presumably, pour encourager les autres. Such damages can be quite substantial.
Boies first came to prominence in the Microsoft case. Athough the case was initially 'won' it was overturned on appeal.
In all fairness to Boies, I think you are overstating your case just a tad.
As far as I can remember but is too lazy to look up right now, the Microsoft case wasn't so much 'overturned' on appeal as it was remanded back to a district court for a new trial. Due to Judge Jackson's publicly stating that Bill Gates was a lying bastard (I'm paraphrasing) the Court of Appeal (cannot remember which one) felt that Microsoft may not have recieved a fair and unbiased trial. It therefore ordered a retrial. However, in the meantime George W. Bush had not only won the election but also been inaugurated. His administration decided to settle the case rather than pursue litigation. (Incidentally, during the Reagan/Bush I administrations the joke was that the Justice Department never met a business practice it didn't like. It may seem the Bush II Justice Dep. sought/seeks to operate along the same line.) This outcome may be seen as 'losing' the case. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. However, the outcome can hardly be blamed on Boies.
Parenthetically, I disagree with the Court of Appeal assessment of what might constitute an obstacle or impediment to a fair trial: if a judge conclude after hearing the testimony of a person, that said person is a lying bastard then that is a conclusion based on fact, as opposed to a judge 'concluding' before any testimony that a person is lying bastard, which would seem be based on prejudice (or possibly prior personal knowledge, in which case the judge should recuse him/herself). The latter case obviously imperils an unbiased trial, but the former case? I don't think so. Why should it? The judge has heard the evidence and drawn a conclusion. In that way it appears to me no different than any other conclusion, based on fact, that the judge has to make in a particular case. It may not be very flattering for the person in question, bu massaging of egos is not necessarily the prime objective of litigation.
I cannot possibly imagine how stupid you'd have to be to actually believe it[.]
Although it is absolutely hilarious to read about the hoops and hoaxes Nigerian scammers are put through, the flip side is really depressing: when you read these stories and realize how stupid the scammers are you realize, as corollary, how almost insanely stupid the scammed have to be.
What exactly does Sarah Gordon claim to be the psychology of a virus writer?
In the older BBC article the first paragraph has her saying that virus writers differ 'in age, income, location, social/peer interaction, educational level, likes, dislikes and communication style', whereas the newer article has her saying that 'most virus creators are typical for their age'.
Has Sarah Gordon changed her mind between articles? (And if yes, should that be pointed out?) Or is the Beeb misquoting her? Or is she refering to 'virus-hackers' in the first article but 'non-hacker virus writers' in the second?!?
People can be typical. And they can be non-typical. But they can typically not be typical and non-typical concerning the same issue at the same time. Or is it just that in the first article she means that virus writers differ from each other? Or what?
If nothing else, SCO could sue Lucasfilm for using Linux in a very inappropriate way....digitally creating Jar Jar Binks[.]
Whereas I agree with you that the creation of Jar Jar Binks is (or should be) a criminal offense and should be punished, judging by the article SCO is not the company to do it.
I refer especially to this part of the article:
"So instead of buying pricey specialized computers from the likes of Silicon Graphics, the techies at Imageworks simply load Linux onto hundreds of cheap Intel-based PCs to crank out dazzling effects for movies like Lord of the Rings, Seabiscuit and Spider-Man."[Emphasis added.]
As is evident from this quotation, what SCO is targeting is (a) dazzling effects: I am sure you agree Jar Jar Binks simply does not fit into that description; and (b) watchable films: it is old and well-established law (I am too lazy to look up the appropriate cases) that any non-exhaustive list is considered to include non-mentioned items but only if they can be considered to be in the same vein/category as those mentioned -- I've heard it called the 'cow and snake' rule -- i.e., a list ennumerating cows, goats and sheep is not considered including also snakes: cows etc. are domesticated animals; snakes are not (no, pets don't count). As you can see, the article mentions only three watchable films. As Star Wars films containing Jar Jar Binks are not watchable, they cannot be considered to be part of that group.
You mean kind of like LOTR Director Peter Jackson carrying around his own personal video camera during filming specifically for the DVD Extras??
Yes, exactly like that. But with this important difference: that compared to the Star Wars prequels, a private home video of PEter Jackson's toenails would appear interesting and full of character development.
PErsonally, I strongly feel that when it comes to the Star Wars prequels, the phrase 'outtakes' should have been applied, and appropriate measures carried out, to everything coming between the titel and the end credits.
The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last has written a scathing review, The Matrix: Exposed of the 'The Matrix: Revolutions'. Typical quotation: '"Revolutions" reveals that underneath the philosophy, allegory, and intellectual pretension of "The Matrix" is a great big wad of nothing.'
His article points to the site Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics which Last claims will have a field day with the latest Matrix installment. ISMP rated Matrix: Reloaded RP = Retch.
Unfortunately, the idea is completely unrealistic today.
Seeing that the idea turned out to be completely unworkable when Plato himself tried to implement his system on Sicily, I dare say the idea was totally unrealistic right from the start.
Personally I think that the state should be ruled by a group of philosophers (in Plato's terminology), basically by scientists and other specialists (engineers, generals for Defence Ministry, etc.). The emphasis should be made on the consensus-based decision-making, but voting should still be an option. These rulers should be well-educated and raised to be honest. The selection should be done in an objective and transparent way.
First of all, scientists and specialists are not the impartial and unprejudiced uber-folk they are cracked up to be. For better and worse, they are human too, with all of the foibles and idiosyncrasies characteristic of humans whatever their specialist status. If you knew a fair number of them or if you knew anything about scientific history you would know this. (For an enjoyable read on the subject, cf. e.g., Steven Jay Gould's Bligh's Bounty and In A Jumbled Drawer in Bully For Brontosaurus or Thomas Kuhn's -- I think -- musings on paradigm shifts in science.) Sometimes they are perhaps 'better' than non-specialists, but sometimes they are decidedly 'worse' and sometimes they are just plain 'awful'. And as for their upbringing. I doubt there are very many people who were brought up to be dishonest; they may end up that way in the end, but do you really think that they were raised that way? And how are you going to ensure that a suitable upbringing is being applied anyway? By some 'Gattaca-like' analysis and selection coupled with some Spartan-like mandatory boarding schools for future leaders?
Further, selecting them in an 'objective and transparent way' -- how? And by whom? By voters? In an election? Or do you perchance know of a better way to select/elect people? Maybe you think you do, after all, democracy has many flaws. So far, however, it has turned out to have the least flaws; to quote Winston Churchill: It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Finally, let us imagine a hypothetical case in a society in ruled by your 'philosophers'. Let us imagine that we have a curvy road on which 100 fatal accidents occur every year. According to the appropriate road accident experts straightening the road would bring the death rate down to 50. We assume that they are right. Straightening the road would mean draining a swamp where the road would go. In the swamp lives a certain species of frog. Our frog experts inform us that this frog does not live anywhere else and that draining the swamp would render this particular kind of frog extinct. We assume that they are right. So now your society is faced with a choice: either let 50 people/year die or let the frog go extinct. We assume no other solutions are possible. How would your 'philosophers' solve this question? Consensus is out of the question as no compromise solution is possible. In other words, they would have to vote on the issue. Let me now suggest to you that we are already really close to doing what you suggest: we are already electing 'experts' but they are experts at choosing one thing over another rather than at the scientific reasons supporting that choice. Oh, and we prefer to call them 'politicians'.
[...] open source is nice, but it doesn't guarantee a fault-proof or secure voting system [...]
No, you're right: open source doesn't guarantee that. But no system can. What open source can guarantee, by its very openness and accessibility, is that any person (be it a voter or not) can perform a check. And can scream blue murder if an error is found. (And with today's media climate, my guess is that it would end up as the number one item on every news show in the region.) This a difference in kind, not degree, compared to a system in which voters can only suspect dupery, and make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they have standing to do so, but not actually verify it for themselves.
[...] suppose somebody installs wrong or malicious software on one of the machines?
This is not limited to open source; what makes you think it couldn't happen with proprietary source? And that would be virtually impossible to check for non-election officials too. Furthermore, there is a low-tech equivalent of this case: viz., wilful mis-counting of votes or wilful and erroneous denial of a person's right to vote (this is the place to cough Florida).
[...] to provide voting receipts which can be counted independently [...]
Then you either sacrifice the secrecy of the ballot or you don't prove anything... unless of course you're only interested in comparing the number of votes cast with the number of votes counted.
[...] and that does not exclude closed-source solutions.
No, it doesn't exclude them. It's just that in this particular case open source is better, that's all.
... tamper with paper ballots, but to do so on a large scale (e.g. large enough to affect statewide or national elections) would inevitably attract attention because one would need to gain access to, and modify or destroy, literally tons of paper.
I doubt that large scale tampering would be necessary and in today's political climate it would probably be self-defeating.
The number of votes separating the two candidates in the article was 3-4; the number of votes separating Bush and Gore in Florida was larger, but not huge in any way. This suggests that if anyone were to get rid of 'tons of paper' (i.e. a great many ballots) the election would end up so skewed that it would immediately attract attention... and suspicion.
The vast number of pre-election polls and exit-polls published in connection with almost any election now provides some sort of idea of how the election will go even before all the votes are counted. Imagine, if you will, a situation in which pre-election polls and exit polls have indicated virtually a dead heat: getting rid of oodles of ballots would be self-defeating. It would simply be too blatant.
No, I don't wonder about that at all. In fact, I fully expect people to disagree. But I also expect people to disagree in a relevant and coherent manner. You have managed neither.
Speaking down to people or being insulting does not convey inteligence or insight. As I understnd it, in a discussion, resorting to such means you lost. There are two things I can infer from your objections to my non-personal references to obesity and JH... [...]- Your arse is FAT and your hair is ugly!
My objection to your references to obesity and John Howard are, insofar as this discussion is concerned, based purely on their irrelevancy to the argument in my original post. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous post I find it dishonest (but perhaps you are merely deluding yourself) to use an array of derogatory and condescending remarks yourself ('not actually thinking for yourself'; 'turn off fox'; 'grab a book'; 'Settle down dear'; 'your ignor-ance') and then get all huffy just because I point out how pathetic I find your arguments. Finally, I don't know whether I particularly agree with your 'how-to-lose-an-argument' rule, but I note with some slight interest that under that rule, you are the loser in this discussion... although with or without that rule I already knew that you were, of course.
No Proven Dangers. At Least Not Yet.
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 3, Informative
According to an article originally published by The London Telegraph (online version here), The Burning Question, but which I read in Sydney Morning Herald on 23 October 2003, two separate studies have been unable to prove any ill-effects from following a high-protein diet. Both studies showed that the Atkins diet work. This somewhat distressing for one of them as it had been funded by the American HEart Association, a fierce critic of Atkins.
Being to lazy to sum up the article I paste the full text of the article (copied from SMH) here: The Burning Question
October 23, 2003
Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.
An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work?
Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects.
Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week.
They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years.
According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study.
These results are in line with those found in similar small studies now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and calories.
They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets.
As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting.
The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a collection of buzzwords.
Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a low-c
I always find it a bit difficult to get worked up about British Library. Yes, it's great that it has a copy of every letter printed since God-knows-when, but who actually gets to see them?!?
The way I understand that access to the Swedish Royal Library works -- and most other libraries in Sweden for that matter as well as every library I have been in contact with in Denmark and I don't suppose the situation is very different in Norway or Finland -- is that everyone has access to it. That is, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, you can just walk in and ask to see whatever has taken your fancy and voila, the staff will hand it over to you. Now, you may not be able to take it home with you, but you will be able to peruse it at the library premisses.
British Library, on the hand, seems to be the library equivalent of Fort Knox... or at least reminiscent of the library in Eco's The Name of the Rose. No public access there.
I understand that there is a trade-off between granting public access and preservation... but I think British Library errs on the side of protection and caution. My husband, who's an Australian who lived in Denmark for a while, says that as a Swede I just don't understand... it is one thing to provide public access in upright Scandinavia, it's a totally different thing altogether to provide it to Poms (that's Brits to you); in his opinon, granting Scandinavian-type access to British Library books would be tantamount to kissing them good-bye.
Resorting to "baffling", "pathetic" etc without trying (really) to read throgh the typos etc is just pointless, and more an expression of you ignoring the points which you agreed with, or your ignor-ance, if you like.
Ooooooh, someone is really getting his knickers in a twist. Yes, it must be terrible when what I assume is your usual m.o. -- imply that people are right-wing, accuse them of watching Fox, overwhelm them with some irrelevant preaching about the horrible state of the third world and watch them back down -- doesn't work for a change. And using arguments verging on ad hominem attacks and then turning around acting all hurt and upset because someone identified one's arguments as 'pathetic' ('baffling' is not normally considered a pejorative word, dear) is just plain dishonest.
I don't particularly care about your typos and if you were to actually read my comments -- you know how to read don't you? or don't you? -- you would find that the only comments regarding your typing etc are made by you. Since you seem very aware of your typos I don't quite understand why you just don't correct them before submitting your post... but if you prefer to appear like a semi-literate git, hey, that's your choice and it's a free country... at least if it's Western it is!
I tried to point out the inequities in your opinion...
Maybe you should look up the meaning and usage of the word 'inequities' before using it next time.
Its perfectly possible to contend eastern culture is superior, but whats the point.
That would at least have had some relevance to the opinion in my original post, which the issue obesity, for instance, doesn't have. I notice, however, that you haven't even tried to make that argument. Personally, I would disagree, of course. I don't think that Eastern culture is superior and what's more, judging by the general level of your argumentation in this discussion, I don't think that you could even begin to make that argument.
Finally, let me make this perfectly clear: the fact that I have ignored some of your 'points' doesn't mean that I agree with them but that I have found them so far beside the point as to be a different discussion altogether. My main problem with your 'arguments' is not so much your opinions as such -- they are not particularly insightful nor intelligent but that's your problem not mine -- but the fact that they are, virtually all of them, beside my point: you don't counter my arguments, you avoid them by waffling on about obesity, AIDS patients and John Howard (you know, I was waiting for John Howard or George Bush to pop up somewhere in your posts: why leave any cliche unturned?). These may be worthwhile issues to discuss, but they are irrelevant in the context of my original post. Stick it to me if you like, but if you want me to respect you in the morning you had better be to the point and convincing: so far, boy, you have managed neither. And with three posts and counting that is truly pathetic. In my subjective opinion.
So young males are playing video games, and that is the source of your falling ratings?
Of course this is a largely a crap argument.
I think, however, that it might point to a new trend... with an almost unavoidable impact on ratings: I think that for whatever reason people don't stop playing games as they leave their teenage years/early twenties behind -- which it appears they used to do. It is quite possible that the added dimensions/attractions of on-line, or at least multi-player, gaming has contributed to this change, together with a better variety of games and better game play.
I think one may draw an analogy with animated films or comic books. It used to be that people watched animated films as children and then they grew up and didn't watch them anymore. That is no longer true: look at the popularity of anime films for instance. Or even Disney films which seem half-aimed at an adult audience today. Same with comic books: where once was Donald Duck and Superman, today you may find American Splendor.
Naturally, if people play games for a longer period of their lives, then the larger the group of people playing and the more hours spent playing. This increased time spent on gaming means less time spent watching television (given the same amount of hours leisure time). If they also spend more hours per day playing games (as opposed to merely hours per life-time) then they have even less time to watch television (given 24h per day). The only way television could compete with that natural phenomenon would be to broadcast better and more attractive programmes, i.e., not just as good as before but actually better. Given the plethora of 'reality' shows (does anyone actually watch Survivor?) at the moment, I don't think that has happened just yet.
If your baffled then you're probably not actually thinking for yourself - turn off fox - grab a book.
No, I'm baffled because your arguments are incoherent, beside the point, somewhat gratuitous and not particularly intelligent. I always think for myself. Your kneejerk argument that everyone who disagrees with you watches Fox -- I don't anyway so the shoe doesn't fit -- indicates that you don't. Constantly accusing people who don't agree with you of not thinking for themselves or not thinking at all is actually a rather shitty argument, having nothing to do with the point of contention and doing nothing at all to further the debate.
If you feel empowered by voting in a "party" *cough-grey-money?* democracy, good for you - I don't. I think something like citizens initiated referenda is far more empowering.
A right to vote involves not only the right to vote in regular elections but also the right to vote in referenda. Both elections and referenda are part of democracy. If I am disenfranchised I have neither the right to vote in elections nor in referenda. My right to vote empowers me. Judging by this argument you too feel empowered by right to vote... but only if it is in some referedum inititated by 'citizens'... and only if you don't have to admit straight out.
Western society squanders its medical advances - prevalent (cultural) obesity (gluttony) is an example. All the resources spent on attaining obesity and then all the medical facilities squandered on "treating" the "disease". Or how about being an AIDS sufferer in the west, but not wealthy? How about how expensive theese advances (drugs/procedures) are even to poor countries with seious problems. Thats not superior or advanced its obseen.
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my original argument, but I shall answer it anyway. That Western society somehow 'squanders' its medical advances is your subjective opinion, a value judgment you make, not some objective fact. Furthermore, your constant harping on about obesity is largely beside the point: no medical resources are 'squandered' on making people obese and what's more, obesity is, as far as I know, only really a problem in two Western countries, the U.S. and Australia. There are other countries 'in the Western world' beside those two... even if particularly Americans seem to have difficulty grasping that fact. To the best of my knowledge poor AIDS patients in Sweden (a Western country) will get the same treatment as rich AIDS patients do. That probably goes for the other Nordic countries as well. And Germany. And Austria. And Switzerland. And France. And without advances in Western medicine neither rich nor poor AIDS patients would have got much of a treatment at all. Without advances in Western medicine neither would super-poor African AIDS patients. I admit pharmaceutical companies could have moved quicker in allowing generic AIDS drugs in Africa. Nevertheless, they have moved now and without those Western medical advances those super-poor African AIDS patients would not have had access to any treatment at all because there wouldn't have been any treatment to have access to. Finally, your trying to imply that I have somehow claimed some moral superiority for Western medicine is neither advanced nor superior, it's obscene.
Ok so I mutter and mumble, type and spell poorly, that dosn't make me wrong.
You're right: it's actually your pathetic arguments that makes you wrong.
Subjectively I find your arguments truly baffling.
Do you feel empowered by you vote or do you feel thing go on the same no matter who's driving the boat?
Yes, I feel empowered by my right to vote. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one: men and women equally have fought and sometimes died for the right to vote; the right to influence power in their society; their right to empowerment. Maybe you feel that 'thing[s] go on the same no matter who's driving the boat'; it is called 'not-having-persuaded-enough-people-that-your-opin ion-on-how-to-drive-the-boat-is-the-right-one' also known as 'being in the minority'. Being in the minority is part of democracy too. That doesn't actually mean that your right to vote doesn't empower you. In truth, if your right to vote was taken away -- particularly if it was taken away because you belonged to a certain group, such as 'women', 'Jews', or 'stupid people' -- I'm pretty sure that you would feel less empowered than when you had it.
How does obesity fit in with your perceptions of advances in medicine when compared to the starving people of the world or the homeless in your country?
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument here. Are you seriously arguing that if there had been no advances in Western medicine there would be no starvation? Or no homeless people? Or should Western medicine somehow have come up with a cure for obesity and because it hasn't there is now starvation in other parts of the world and homelessness in the Western one? Or are you arguing that the resources that have been invested in advancing Western medicine should have been better invested in methods alleviating starvation and homelessness? I don't get it, I really don't. And why should I compare obesity and advances in Western medicine on the one hand with starvation and homelessness on the other at all? What have advances in medicine of any cultural kind got to with obesity anyway? Or starvation? Or homelessness?
As to your "rights" to do as you choose, if those right are virtuall impossible to exercise on a regular basis - do you really have them? as you suggest you cant really go/dress/do as you please because those who are suppoosed to protect you don't and wont investigate any more than filling out a report...
I agree with you that if the society I live in makes it virtually impossible for me to exercise rights that I am theoretically entitled to, one can credibly question whether I have those rights at all. But I disagee that that would somehow be the case regarding my right to walk around at strange, dark places at midnight. I think my society supports my right to do that; I think my society expects the police to do a lot more than merely filling our a report should any assault occur; I know I do. And I know that that wasn't what I was suggesting.
And I most humbly and earnestly hope, no matter which country you are from, that you are a PATRIOT* as all bets are off if someone sort of appropriate implies you're a terrorist.
This part of your argument I find the most baffling (and that is baffling indeed, trust me). Are you calling me a terrorist? Or not? And if yes, why would that be 'appropriate'?
US military did squat to protect us in the WWII or in the Cold War.
Who exacly are 'us'?
When Germany attacked Norway and Denmark during the WWII, the US was not a combatant party. Nor was it an ally to either country. It is therefore difficult to see what the US should have done in this situation. During the Cold War all three countries were parties in NATO, which I assume afforded protection; why else be a member? And as far as I am concerned, NATO did largely rely upon US military might for protection.
During both periods, Sweden liked to rely on its pretend-neutrality for protection. During the WWII, it pretended to be neutral vis-a-vis Germany (as the old jokes goes: it took Germany one week to invade Norway; it took one day to invade Denmark; and all it took to invade Sweden was a telephone call to Stockholm) and during the Cold War it pretended to be neutral vis-a-vis the US (thereby effectly relying on the American military for protection).
Finland was screwed by just about everybody and had to do all of its protection itself, although in defense of the US I would have to say that during the WWII, Finland and the US weren't, as far as I remember, allies. But more should have been done to support Finland in both those periods, that's for sure.
In summa, I hope you're Finnish; otherwise your statement isn't really true, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
I once saw an interview with a historian who said something along the lines that the task facing historians today and the task facing historians of tomorrow were completely different: those of today are faced with the problem of scarcity of documentation (is there any documentation at all relating to what you're researching, can it be found, is that which exists representative, is it true, etc); whereas the latter, due to our present obsession with preserving absolutely everything, will be faced with the enormous task of trying to find and trying to find out how to find anything relevant and worthwhile in reams (used loosely) and reams of data.
It is obviously impossible to say how many masterpieces of whatever that has been lost. However, surprisingly many has survived. If the Greeks had thought the Iliad a boring piece of soap opera, it probably wouldn't had survived. It is true that some have not perhaps been entirely appreciated within their own culture and have been preserved thanks to other ones: e.g., we know Shakespeare's play as they were originally written largely thanks to German scholars; Aristotle's work is known thanks to preservation by the Arab/Muslim society. It is of course quite possible that there were other oeuvres, contemporary to these or not, of equal quality and importance which are lost to us now due to under-appreciation, but somehow I doubt it.
Even at the risk of losing a masterpiece or two, would our present compulsive preservation of every last skerrick of just about everything necessarily be bad thing to lose?
Danish is not a language, it's a speech impediment. Denmark is not a country, it's just a place God forgot. The only good Dane
I am married to a mathematician. After receiving his PhD he went to work within academe
However, some 12 months ago he quit academe for private business
So
However, be that as it may, I also think it is a little bit over-simplistic to disparage anyone for coming up with a brilliant idea while just lazing around not gainfully employed. I read somewhere that Goedel came up with some of his best ideas while at a sex romp in the Austrian alps. That doesn't make those ideas any worse, now does it?!
Further: didn't he, at least in part, set out to write his 'Hobbit books' with the intention of providing England/Britain (in particular) with a 'new' mythology (as he thought society had lost too much or all of its original sagas and myths due to industrialism and its consequences and that this, in turn, created a mythological void that needed to be filled)? And wouldn't that at least imply that he wished/desired people to read and appreciate his books? Surely you would agree that a myth isn't just some esoteric little yarn known by a chosen few?!
I admit the 'personal experience' comment was a cheap shot I couldn't resist. However (in descending order of generality):
I think there exists, in general, a really misconceived notion of reading 'personal experience' and autobiographical details (and their meaning) of the author into works of fiction: works of fiction should primarily be seen works of fiction not works of self-analysis and metaphorical gossip; if we're lucky a work of fiction may provide enjoyment as well as insight into human nature and the human condition, but whether that insight is based on the author's personal experience or not is completely irrelevant: Othello isn't necessarily a worse play just because Shakespeare wasn't a Moor and hadn't strangled his wife;
I also think that people are prone to read far more into, in particular, LOTR than is actually there and even more than Tolkien might have wanted them to (cf. for instance, his saying that he didn't want people running around speaking elvish with people running around speaking elvish while arguing that they are the true keepers of the Tolkien heritage -- or at least they did in this SBS documentary which seemed just so sad); and
My argument concerned the LOTR trilogy, not Silmarillion nor unfinished works. (Which I have read so I really wouldn't know anything about them: I have tried to read Silmarillion, I really have, but I have failed. Miserably. It is just unreadable. Really.)
Finally and parenthetically: being a spell-check nazi and all, I will take this opportunity to cry mea culpa: I blush at my typos in the original post: I know fully well how to spell 'erroneously' and 'elves'. Really I do. OR at least my computer does.
'Star Wars and The Matrix [...] cater[] to a broad audience.' You don't think LOTR caters to a large audience? Have you seen the box office figures for these films?!? Or is it that you (eroneously) believe that the LOTR films were conceived as some sort of small art-house films?
... you know, books come in all shapes and sizes: there isn't a physical standard format size that a literary oeuvre must 'fit' into or else risk being truncated (shrink to fit into one) or drawn out (enlarged to fill several).
'Tolkien wrote his works for a narrow literate audience[.]' I don't know whether I would agree with this statement and irrespective of whether it's true or not the book(s) certainly sold way above the confines of such a 'narrow' audience. (I would, however, agree that its audience would be 'literate' -- it's a bit hard to read if one isn't.)
'[...] based on his personal experiences' -- I seriously doubt that Tolkien, who really seems to have been a rather level-headed sort of chap, had any 'personal experiences' with elfs and ents and wizards.
' [...] the fact it wouldn't fit in just one book made it a trilogy.' Errr
As far as I can remember but is too lazy to look up right now, the Microsoft case wasn't so much 'overturned' on appeal as it was remanded back to a district court for a new trial. Due to Judge Jackson's publicly stating that Bill Gates was a lying bastard (I'm paraphrasing) the Court of Appeal (cannot remember which one) felt that Microsoft may not have recieved a fair and unbiased trial. It therefore ordered a retrial. However, in the meantime George W. Bush had not only won the election but also been inaugurated. His administration decided to settle the case rather than pursue litigation. (Incidentally, during the Reagan/Bush I administrations the joke was that the Justice Department never met a business practice it didn't like. It may seem the Bush II Justice Dep. sought/seeks to operate along the same line.) This outcome may be seen as 'losing' the case. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. However, the outcome can hardly be blamed on Boies.
Parenthetically, I disagree with the Court of Appeal assessment of what might constitute an obstacle or impediment to a fair trial: if a judge conclude after hearing the testimony of a person, that said person is a lying bastard then that is a conclusion based on fact, as opposed to a judge 'concluding' before any testimony that a person is lying bastard, which would seem be based on prejudice (or possibly prior personal knowledge, in which case the judge should recuse him/herself). The latter case obviously imperils an unbiased trial, but the former case? I don't think so. Why should it? The judge has heard the evidence and drawn a conclusion. In that way it appears to me no different than any other conclusion, based on fact, that the judge has to make in a particular case. It may not be very flattering for the person in question, bu massaging of egos is not necessarily the prime objective of litigation.
With a tangible interface comes a new essential peripheral: cleaning fluid. As an alternative: disposable rubber gloves.
What exactly does Sarah Gordon claim to be the psychology of a virus writer?
In the older BBC article the first paragraph has her saying that virus writers differ 'in age, income, location, social/peer interaction, educational level, likes, dislikes and communication style', whereas the newer article has her saying that 'most virus creators are typical for their age'.
Has Sarah Gordon changed her mind between articles? (And if yes, should that be pointed out?) Or is the Beeb misquoting her? Or is she refering to 'virus-hackers' in the first article but 'non-hacker virus writers' in the second?!?
People can be typical. And they can be non-typical. But they can typically not be typical and non-typical concerning the same issue at the same time. Or is it just that in the first article she means that virus writers differ from each other? Or what?
I refer especially to this part of the article:As is evident from this quotation, what SCO is targeting is (a) dazzling effects: I am sure you agree Jar Jar Binks simply does not fit into that description; and (b) watchable films: it is old and well-established law (I am too lazy to look up the appropriate cases) that any non-exhaustive list is considered to include non-mentioned items but only if they can be considered to be in the same vein/category as those mentioned -- I've heard it called the 'cow and snake' rule -- i.e., a list ennumerating cows, goats and sheep is not considered including also snakes: cows etc. are domesticated animals; snakes are not (no, pets don't count). As you can see, the article mentions only three watchable films. As Star Wars films containing Jar Jar Binks are not watchable, they cannot be considered to be part of that group.
PErsonally, I strongly feel that when it comes to the Star Wars prequels, the phrase 'outtakes' should have been applied, and appropriate measures carried out, to everything coming between the titel and the end credits.
The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last has written a scathing review, The Matrix: Exposed of the 'The Matrix: Revolutions'. Typical quotation: '"Revolutions" reveals that underneath the philosophy, allegory, and intellectual pretension of "The Matrix" is a great big wad of nothing.'
His article points to the site Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics which Last claims will have a field day with the latest Matrix installment. ISMP rated Matrix: Reloaded RP = Retch.
- Unfortunately, the idea is completely unrealistic today.
Seeing that the idea turned out to be completely unworkable when Plato himself tried to implement his system on Sicily, I dare say the idea was totally unrealistic right from the start.- Personally I think that the state should be ruled by a group of philosophers (in Plato's terminology), basically by scientists and other specialists (engineers, generals for Defence Ministry, etc.). The emphasis should be made on the consensus-based decision-making, but voting should still be an option. These rulers should be well-educated and raised to be honest. The selection should be done in an objective and transparent way.
First of all, scientists and specialists are not the impartial and unprejudiced uber-folk they are cracked up to be. For better and worse, they are human too, with all of the foibles and idiosyncrasies characteristic of humans whatever their specialist status. If you knew a fair number of them or if you knew anything about scientific history you would know this. (For an enjoyable read on the subject, cf. e.g., Steven Jay Gould's Bligh's Bounty and In A Jumbled Drawer in Bully For Brontosaurus or Thomas Kuhn's -- I think -- musings on paradigm shifts in science.) Sometimes they are perhaps 'better' than non-specialists, but sometimes they are decidedly 'worse' and sometimes they are just plain 'awful'. And as for their upbringing. I doubt there are very many people who were brought up to be dishonest; they may end up that way in the end, but do you really think that they were raised that way? And how are you going to ensure that a suitable upbringing is being applied anyway? By some 'Gattaca-like' analysis and selection coupled with some Spartan-like mandatory boarding schools for future leaders?Further, selecting them in an 'objective and transparent way' -- how? And by whom? By voters? In an election? Or do you perchance know of a better way to select/elect people? Maybe you think you do, after all, democracy has many flaws. So far, however, it has turned out to have the least flaws; to quote Winston Churchill: It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Finally, let us imagine a hypothetical case in a society in ruled by your 'philosophers'. Let us imagine that we have a curvy road on which 100 fatal accidents occur every year. According to the appropriate road accident experts straightening the road would bring the death rate down to 50. We assume that they are right. Straightening the road would mean draining a swamp where the road would go. In the swamp lives a certain species of frog. Our frog experts inform us that this frog does not live anywhere else and that draining the swamp would render this particular kind of frog extinct. We assume that they are right. So now your society is faced with a choice: either let 50 people/year die or let the frog go extinct. We assume no other solutions are possible. How would your 'philosophers' solve this question? Consensus is out of the question as no compromise solution is possible. In other words, they would have to vote on the issue. Let me now suggest to you that we are already really close to doing what you suggest: we are already electing 'experts' but they are experts at choosing one thing over another rather than at the scientific reasons supporting that choice. Oh, and we prefer to call them 'politicians'.
What's with the 'true democracy' thing?
There is direct democracy and indirect democracy. They are two, different ways of organizing a democratic system. Neither is 'truer' than the other.
- [...] open source is nice, but it doesn't guarantee a fault-proof or secure voting system [...]
No, you're right: open source doesn't guarantee that. But no system can. What open source can guarantee, by its very openness and accessibility, is that any person (be it a voter or not) can perform a check. And can scream blue murder if an error is found. (And with today's media climate, my guess is that it would end up as the number one item on every news show in the region.) This a difference in kind, not degree, compared to a system in which voters can only suspect dupery, and make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they have standing to do so, but not actually verify it for themselves.- [...] suppose somebody installs wrong or malicious software on one of the machines?
This is not limited to open source; what makes you think it couldn't happen with proprietary source? And that would be virtually impossible to check for non-election officials too. Furthermore, there is a low-tech equivalent of this case: viz., wilful mis-counting of votes or wilful and erroneous denial of a person's right to vote (this is the place to cough Florida).- [...] to provide voting receipts which can be counted independently [...]
Then you either sacrifice the secrecy of the ballot or you don't prove anything- [...] and that does not exclude closed-source solutions.
No, it doesn't exclude them. It's just that in this particular case open source is better, that's all. ... tamper with paper ballots, but to do so on a large scale (e.g. large enough to affect statewide or national elections) would inevitably attract attention because one would need to gain access to, and modify or destroy, literally tons of paper.
I doubt that large scale tampering would be necessary and in today's political climate it would probably be self-defeating.The number of votes separating the two candidates in the article was 3-4; the number of votes separating Bush and Gore in Florida was larger, but not huge in any way. This suggests that if anyone were to get rid of 'tons of paper' (i.e. a great many ballots) the election would end up so skewed that it would immediately attract attention
The vast number of pre-election polls and exit-polls published in connection with almost any election now provides some sort of idea of how the election will go even before all the votes are counted. Imagine, if you will, a situation in which pre-election polls and exit polls have indicated virtually a dead heat: getting rid of oodles of ballots would be self-defeating. It would simply be too blatant.
... and then wonder why someone disagrees?
No, I don't wonder about that at all. In fact, I fully expect people to disagree. But I also expect people to disagree in a relevant and coherent manner. You have managed neither.- Speaking down to people or being insulting does not convey inteligence or insight. As I understnd it, in a discussion, resorting to such means you lost. There are two things I can infer from your objections to my non-personal references to obesity and JH... [...]- Your arse is FAT and your hair is ugly!
My objection to your references to obesity and John Howard are, insofar as this discussion is concerned, based purely on their irrelevancy to the argument in my original post. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous post I find it dishonest (but perhaps you are merely deluding yourself) to use an array of derogatory and condescending remarks yourself ('not actually thinking for yourself'; 'turn off fox'; 'grab a book'; 'Settle down dear'; 'your ignor-ance') and then get all huffy just because I point out how pathetic I find your arguments. Finally, I don't know whether I particularly agree with your 'how-to-lose-an-argument' rule, but I note with some slight interest that under that rule, you are the loser in this discussionAccording to an article originally published by The London Telegraph (online version here), The Burning Question, but which I read in Sydney Morning Herald on 23 October 2003, two separate studies have been unable to prove any ill-effects from following a high-protein diet. Both studies showed that the Atkins diet work. This somewhat distressing for one of them as it had been funded by the American HEart Association, a fierce critic of Atkins.
Being to lazy to sum up the article I paste the full text of the article (copied from SMH) here:
The Burning Question
October 23, 2003
Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.
An academic nutritionist at the University of Cincinnati, Dr Bonnie Brehm, is at the cutting edge of research into the biggest question to hit her field in decades: does the Atkins diet work?
Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health effects.
Brehm and her colleagues, in contrast, have spent the past few years actually doing the research and will unveil their findings at the American Dietetic Association's annual meeting next week.
They have been studying the effectiveness of the Atkins diet in trials involving people classed as clinically obese, implying a weight of more than 92 kilograms (14 stone) in a person 175 centimetres (5 foot, 9 inches) tall. The latest results are in - and they appear to vindicate the late Dr Robert Atkins, whose diet books have sold 15 million copies over 30 years.
According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during the study.
These results are in line with those found in similar small studies now starting to emerge. As well as backing the claims made for the Atkins diet, these latest results seem to further undermine standard nutritional advice about the need to focus on cutting fat and calories.
They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated calorie-controlled, low-fat diets.
As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in trouble at next week's meeting.
The scientific world is becoming increasingly polarised over the diet, with researchers such as Brehm being given a tough time over their apparent support for what some scientists regard as the nutritional equivalent of crystal therapy. At the heart of the controversy is the science behind the Atkins diet - first published 30 years ago - and whether it is really anything more than a collection of buzzwords.
Conventional wisdom dictates that calories are the key to weight loss, and so those who lose weight must simply be consuming fewer calories than they burn up. Yet, according to Brehm, the obese people who lost weight on the Atkins diet ate and burned up essentially the same number of calories as those on the standard diet. What was very different was the proportion of body fat shed by each group, which mirrored their percentage weight loss. On the face of it, this backs the central claim of the Atkins diet: that a low-c
I always find it a bit difficult to get worked up about British Library. Yes, it's great that it has a copy of every letter printed since God-knows-when, but who actually gets to see them?!?
... or at least reminiscent of the library in Eco's The Name of the Rose. No public access there.
... but I think British Library errs on the side of protection and caution. My husband, who's an Australian who lived in Denmark for a while, says that as a Swede I just don't understand ... it is one thing to provide public access in upright Scandinavia, it's a totally different thing altogether to provide it to Poms (that's Brits to you); in his opinon, granting Scandinavian-type access to British Library books would be tantamount to kissing them good-bye.
The way I understand that access to the Swedish Royal Library works -- and most other libraries in Sweden for that matter as well as every library I have been in contact with in Denmark and I don't suppose the situation is very different in Norway or Finland -- is that everyone has access to it. That is, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, you can just walk in and ask to see whatever has taken your fancy and voila, the staff will hand it over to you. Now, you may not be able to take it home with you, but you will be able to peruse it at the library premisses.
British Library, on the hand, seems to be the library equivalent of Fort Knox
I understand that there is a trade-off between granting public access and preservation
- Resorting to "baffling", "pathetic" etc without trying (really) to read throgh the typos etc is just pointless, and more an expression of you ignoring the points which you agreed with, or your ignor-ance, if you like.
Ooooooh, someone is really getting his knickers in a twist. Yes, it must be terrible when what I assume is your usual m.o. -- imply that people are right-wing, accuse them of watching Fox, overwhelm them with some irrelevant preaching about the horrible state of the third world and watch them back down -- doesn't work for a change. And using arguments verging on ad hominem attacks and then turning around acting all hurt and upset because someone identified one's arguments as 'pathetic' ('baffling' is not normally considered a pejorative word, dear) is just plain dishonest.I don't particularly care about your typos and if you were to actually read my comments -- you know how to read don't you? or don't you? -- you would find that the only comments regarding your typing etc are made by you. Since you seem very aware of your typos I don't quite understand why you just don't correct them before submitting your post
- I tried to point out the inequities in your opinion
...
Maybe you should look up the meaning and usage of the word 'inequities' before using it next time.- Its perfectly possible to contend eastern culture is superior, but whats the point.
That would at least have had some relevance to the opinion in my original post, which the issue obesity, for instance, doesn't have. I notice, however, that you haven't even tried to make that argument. Personally, I would disagree, of course. I don't think that Eastern culture is superior and what's more, judging by the general level of your argumentation in this discussion, I don't think that you could even begin to make that argument.Finally, let me make this perfectly clear: the fact that I have ignored some of your 'points' doesn't mean that I agree with them but that I have found them so far beside the point as to be a different discussion altogether. My main problem with your 'arguments' is not so much your opinions as such -- they are not particularly insightful nor intelligent but that's your problem not mine -- but the fact that they are, virtually all of them, beside my point: you don't counter my arguments, you avoid them by waffling on about obesity, AIDS patients and John Howard (you know, I was waiting for John Howard or George Bush to pop up somewhere in your posts: why leave any cliche unturned?). These may be worthwhile issues to discuss, but they are irrelevant in the context of my original post. Stick it to me if you like, but if you want me to respect you in the morning you had better be to the point and convincing: so far, boy, you have managed neither. And with three posts and counting that is truly pathetic. In my subjective opinion.
I think, however, that it might point to a new trend
I think one may draw an analogy with animated films or comic books. It used to be that people watched animated films as children and then they grew up and didn't watch them anymore. That is no longer true: look at the popularity of anime films for instance. Or even Disney films which seem half-aimed at an adult audience today. Same with comic books: where once was Donald Duck and Superman, today you may find American Splendor.
Naturally, if people play games for a longer period of their lives, then the larger the group of people playing and the more hours spent playing. This increased time spent on gaming means less time spent watching television (given the same amount of hours leisure time). If they also spend more hours per day playing games (as opposed to merely hours per life-time) then they have even less time to watch television (given 24h per day). The only way television could compete with that natural phenomenon would be to broadcast better and more attractive programmes, i.e., not just as good as before but actually better. Given the plethora of 'reality' shows (does anyone actually watch Survivor?) at the moment, I don't think that has happened just yet.
A right to vote involves not only the right to vote in regular elections but also the right to vote in referenda. Both elections and referenda are part of democracy. If I am disenfranchised I have neither the right to vote in elections nor in referenda. My right to vote empowers me. Judging by this argument you too feel empowered by right to vote
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my original argument, but I shall answer it anyway. That Western society somehow 'squanders' its medical advances is your subjective opinion, a value judgment you make, not some objective fact. Furthermore, your constant harping on about obesity is largely beside the point: no medical resources are 'squandered' on making people obese and what's more, obesity is, as far as I know, only really a problem in two Western countries, the U.S. and Australia. There are other countries 'in the Western world' beside those two
You're right: it's actually your pathetic arguments that makes you wrong.
Yes, I feel empowered by my right to vote. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one: men and women equally have fought and sometimes died for the right to vote; the right to influence power in their society; their right to empowerment. Maybe you feel that 'thing[s] go on the same no matter who's driving the boat'; it is called 'not-having-persuaded-enough-people-that-your-opi
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument here. Are you seriously arguing that if there had been no advances in Western medicine there would be no starvation? Or no homeless people? Or should Western medicine somehow have come up with a cure for obesity and because it hasn't there is now starvation in other parts of the world and homelessness in the Western one? Or are you arguing that the resources that have been invested in advancing Western medicine should have been better invested in methods alleviating starvation and homelessness? I don't get it, I really don't. And why should I compare obesity and advances in Western medicine on the one hand with starvation and homelessness on the other at all? What have advances in medicine of any cultural kind got to with obesity anyway? Or starvation? Or homelessness?
I agree with you that if the society I live in makes it virtually impossible for me to exercise rights that I am theoretically entitled to, one can credibly question whether I have those rights at all. But I disagee that that would somehow be the case regarding my right to walk around at strange, dark places at midnight. I think my society supports my right to do that; I think my society expects the police to do a lot more than merely filling our a report should any assault occur; I know I do. And I know that that wasn't what I was suggesting.
This part of your argument I find the most baffling (and that is baffling indeed, trust me). Are you calling me a terrorist? Or not? And if yes, why would that be 'appropriate'?
When Germany attacked Norway and Denmark during the WWII, the US was not a combatant party. Nor was it an ally to either country. It is therefore difficult to see what the US should have done in this situation. During the Cold War all three countries were parties in NATO, which I assume afforded protection; why else be a member? And as far as I am concerned, NATO did largely rely upon US military might for protection.
During both periods, Sweden liked to rely on its pretend-neutrality for protection. During the WWII, it pretended to be neutral vis-a-vis Germany (as the old jokes goes: it took Germany one week to invade Norway; it took one day to invade Denmark; and all it took to invade Sweden was a telephone call to Stockholm) and during the Cold War it pretended to be neutral vis-a-vis the US (thereby effectly relying on the American military for protection).
Finland was screwed by just about everybody and had to do all of its protection itself, although in defense of the US I would have to say that during the WWII, Finland and the US weren't, as far as I remember, allies. But more should have been done to support Finland in both those periods, that's for sure.
In summa, I hope you're Finnish; otherwise your statement isn't really true, is it?