I live in London and don't recognise your picture of spiralling crime at all. I don't have figures for London alone, but nationally figures for most forms of crime have fallen in the past two years (for example, burglary is down by 21%, despite our lack of guns to defend our homes). The only statistically significant increase in violent crime was 'stranger violence', which increased by 29% (this doesn't include mugging, which fell by 7% if you exclude school-age bullying). 29% is a sizeable increase, but the commonest location for these incidents is the pub. Arming violent drunkards doesn't sound to me like a recipe for crime reduction.
I don't buy the idea that it's a hoax. The comparison with Sokal seems bogus: Sokal's paper, while deliberately opaque in the manner of the field it was parodying, was literate. If it had been, littered with, spurious punctuation and Random Capitalisation, it wouldn't have worked.
ISTM that a would-be Internet Draft hoaxer would not use a semi-literate style guaranteed to cause 90% of their readers to dismiss them as a flake within a few pages.
An effective hoax would elicit one of two responses: amused admiration if you 'get it', or 'hey, this might work!' if you don't. If this paper *is* a hoax, it has failed.
As a Brit, I can't help comparing the public reaction to that after the death of Diana. A hell of a lot ordinary people seemed to feel genuine grief over it. I puzzled over this: I didn't feel that way myself, and neither did anyone I knew, but there was no denying that a lot of people appeared to be deeply affected.
Fast forward a year. The media prepared their anniversary pieces, expecting a rerun of collective sadness. It didn't happen. People weren't interested. You can still sell magazines by putting Di on the front, but nobody's crying any more. What does this tell you?
Unless you've been very lucky, you'll have experienced real grief at some point in your life. You'll probably also have experienced self-indulgent maudlin sentimentality. They look rather alike at the time, but grief lasts rather longer. Have a good cry watching 'Titanic' if that's what you enjoy, but chances are you'll be laughing not long after.
I can believe that many people felt genuine grief when JFK was shot: he represented hope for many, and for many his death said something ugly about their country. But I'm willing to bet that most of those crying over JFK Jr now will be indifferent once the media circus has moved on.
Slashdot Mirror
If you parsed it that way, you must also believe that he claimed all Republicans pick their noses. I'm surprised you didn't complain about that too.
Try whois:
Organization:
Man-v-Machine
Greg McKeown
31 Landscape Rd, Mt Eden
Auckland, 1 1
NZ
Phone: 64-9-6301351
Fax..: 64-9-6309292
Email: gregm@man-v-machine.com
Registrar Name....: Register.com
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: MAN-V-MACHINE.COM
Created on..............: Mon, Jul 24, 2000
Expires on..............: Wed, Jul 24, 2002
Record last updated on..: Wed, Oct 18, 2000
Administrative Contact:
Man-v-Machine
Greg McKeown
31 Landscape Rd, Mt Eden
Auckland, 1 1
NZ
Phone: 64-9-6301351
Fax..: 64-9-6309292
Email: gregm@man-v-machine.com
The technical and zone contacts are the same. Their website mentions a partnership with the University of Auckland.
I live in London and don't recognise your picture of spiralling crime at all. I don't have figures for London alone, but nationally figures for most forms of crime have fallen in the past two years (for example, burglary is down by 21%, despite our lack of guns to defend our homes). The only statistically significant increase in violent crime was 'stranger violence', which increased by 29% (this doesn't include mugging, which fell by 7% if you exclude school-age bullying). 29% is a sizeable increase, but the commonest location for these incidents is the pub. Arming violent drunkards doesn't sound to me like a recipe for crime reduction.
I don't buy the idea that it's a hoax. The comparison with Sokal seems bogus: Sokal's paper, while deliberately opaque in the manner of the field it was parodying, was literate. If it had been, littered with, spurious punctuation and Random Capitalisation, it wouldn't have worked.
ISTM that a would-be Internet Draft hoaxer would not use a semi-literate style guaranteed to cause 90% of their readers to dismiss them as a flake within a few pages.
An effective hoax would elicit one of two responses: amused admiration if you 'get it', or 'hey, this might work!' if you don't. If this paper *is* a hoax, it has failed.
I think the guy has a tinfoil helmet.
As a Brit, I can't help comparing the public reaction to that after the death of Diana. A hell of a lot ordinary people seemed to feel genuine grief over it. I puzzled over this: I didn't feel that way myself, and neither did anyone I knew, but there was no denying that a lot of people appeared to be deeply affected.
Fast forward a year. The media prepared their anniversary pieces, expecting a rerun of collective sadness. It didn't happen. People weren't interested. You can still sell magazines by putting Di on the front, but nobody's crying any more. What does this tell you?
Unless you've been very lucky, you'll have experienced real grief at some point in your life. You'll probably also have experienced self-indulgent maudlin sentimentality. They look rather alike at the time, but grief lasts rather longer. Have a good cry watching 'Titanic' if that's what you enjoy, but chances are you'll be laughing not long after.
I can believe that many people felt genuine grief when JFK was shot: he represented hope for many, and for many his death said something ugly about their country. But I'm willing to bet that most of those crying over JFK Jr now will be indifferent once the media circus has moved on.