sauron's point of view...
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 2, Informative
At the end of the article Brin talks about seeing the world from Sauron's point of view. Two excellent books retell the story from the villain's point of view: Grendel by John Gardner (who like Tolkien was well versed in mythology; and Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire. (I recently read Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf and then reread Grendel, an excellent contrast of historical perspectives.)
People who say it's "just a fantasy --- lighten up" are missing the point of Brin's article, which asks "why this fantasy?" In particular, why a fantasy that embraces ideas like belief in the divine right of kings (or elves, or any elite) which were pushed aside for good reasons? I also thought his point about how Romanticism started out opposed to feudalism but ended up embracing the rule of mythical elites was also worth making.
I, of course, am planning on going to the opening of the two towers dressed as an elf anyway.
And for those of you who haven't read it: the article is funny, which makes up for a lot. for example Brin writes: "Witness the most amazing accomplishment of NASA -- managing to turn the exploration of space into a huge snore."
the fuel they use costs something around $10,000 per pound of cargo/payload
I can't resist plugging my favorite cost cutting measure:
only short vegetarian women should be allowed to be astronauts.
They not only weigh less, they eat less and breathe less and take up less space, so the total payload savings would be substantial. Brawn is not what's needed in space -- we only have big beefy astronauts because NASA draws so many from the military. If strong and agile is required, how about former gymnasts or maybe (champion rock climber) Lynn Hill?
Often, references are added at the insistence of reviewers and referees --- possibly to increase cites for the reviewers & friends. I wouldn't expect authors to go back and read those additional papers carefully, I certainly don't.
I think space will always be able to inspire humanity, on different levels as our understanding of the universe has evolved along with our technology. Powerful political and economic incentives that favor the grossly inefficient military spending worldwide are powerful to be sure (and it's not just in wealthy industrialized nations that military spending siphons off resources from other potential uses.)
Cornell economist Robert Frank draws an excellent analogy between military buildup and the prisoner's dilemma: it's better to for both countries to have low levels of armament than for both countries to have high levels of armament, but both countries would also prefer to be highly armed while their neighbor weakly armed. The outcome ends up in the worst possible situation, with resources being wasted by all parties --- both countries would be better off with a binding, enforcable arms treaty.
The key point is that we always face a choice between guns & butter (or guns & space stations, or guns and health care, etc.) If space exploration is going to inspire a new generation, it needs to be more than an extension of the arms race between countries.
... we have no way of proving we are not a simulation being run by a higher life form
We also have no way of proving that we are not chained inside a cave, mistaking shadows on the wall for reality, unable to turn to see the fire or the figures that cast the shadows, unable to leave the cave and go out in the sunlight.
In fact, seems like we're trying to get into the CAVE.
virtual reality == the decline & fall of western civilization (at least according to Plato).
it never occurred to me advertise myself as a geek
missed the dot com boom, eh?
seriously, 'geek' was originally a derogatory term,
but, along with 'nerd,' I think it has been reclaimed or redefined of late. I've even seen signs of dork-pride developing.
Does anyone beside me see the irony here? Game addicts are "lazy fucking slobs" who need to get their "fat asses off the sofa". Porn addicts, on the other hand, are NineNine's bread and butter. (Or at least his hobby.)
Vampires are flocking to Sunnydale, since the Hellmouth is the underwordly
equivalent of Silicon Valley, and the demon labor market is just too good to be true. Thus, we'll assume a yearly migration rate of about 10%, or
the same as for the humans.
It seems the author is forgetting about Angel --- Buffy spinoffs could make m, the rate of vampire migration negative. And should the exodus of VC's from Silicon Valley count as ex-migration of humans or of vampires?
organizations that capitalize on the intellectual assets and fervor of their members, rather than throwing money at problems and overengineering them.
I think that NASA during the Apollo era did both, actually, so it's hard to attribute the success of the Apollo missions to money or inspiration exclusively.
Dan Goldin, the former head of NASA, tried to promote a policy of "faster, cheaper, better". (He also used to send around memos saying "safety is our number one priority".) As an economist, I think he missed the tradeoff, in general you can either have "faster & cheaper" or "better & safer". I think Goldin (and the poster) underestimate the damage done to NASA by mission failures like the loss of the Mars probe. Shortly after the Mars mission failures, a panel reviewed the "faster, cheaper, better" policy and decided that the agency had in fact pushed fast and cheap too far.
I found this a tedious read, heavy handed and predictable. The Onion packed more humor into one fake headline:
"NASA delays shuttle launch out of sheer habit" than that essay manages in endless paragraphs. (disclosure: I worked at the NASA Ames Research Center.) annmariabell.com
I agree w/ Taco that the Chamber of Secrets is the weakest of the books, but I think that the second movie is actually better than the first because it doesn't get as bogged down in details and backstory.
As for the effects, the Quidditch chase scene was overlong, I thought, too much time spent racing between the girders. The phoenix was terrible, the small spiders leaving the castle looked like they were made out of plastic, and, worst of all, Dobby (a great character in the book) just didn't seem right.
Fun, but not fabulous.
The extended DVD of LotR, on the other hand, is great.
The author's point is not that the lack of patent protection is a necessary condition for economic growth but rather that patent protection is not a necessary condition for economic growth.
The contrast between the historical record and current rhetoric shows that it's "Do as I say, Not as I did" for both large corporations and industrialized nations.
Noam Chomsky has been making this point for years with regards to industrialized nation's support of "free trade".
The most interesting points in the original article, imo, are not about coming up with a dollar value for EQ economic activity, but about what kinds of economic structures make for interesting games. For example, the author argues that users prefer games with some kind of scarcity of goods or resources. This is consistent with a world where people care mainly about relative outcomes and, interestingly, at odds with the way the overwhelming majority of economic models work. He also believes that users prefer games with a level initial playing field, not a good omen for project entropia.
Some of his other points were less compelling, like the claim that the popularity of a particular persistent world reflects users beliefs about what an ideal world would look like.
Finally, as an economist, I feel compelled to point out that the real cost of EQ is not the 10$ a month fee but the "opportunity cost" of the time you spend playing: it's the value of the next best use of your time. Don't forget to include the cost of those Simpsons re-runs you're not watching while playing online games!
Slashdot Mirror
I cast my vote for the eye of Sauron.
annmariabell.com
I, of course, am planning on going to the opening of the two towers dressed as an elf anyway.
And for those of you who haven't read it: the article is funny, which makes up for a lot. for example Brin writes: "Witness the most amazing accomplishment of NASA -- managing to turn the exploration of space into a huge snore."
annmariabell.com
I can't resist plugging my favorite cost cutting measure:
only short vegetarian women should be allowed to be astronauts.
They not only weigh less, they eat less and breathe less and take up less space, so the total payload savings would be substantial. Brawn is not what's needed in space -- we only have big beefy astronauts because NASA draws so many from the military. If strong and agile is required, how about former gymnasts or maybe (champion rock climber) Lynn Hill?
rocket economist
Often, references are added at the insistence of reviewers and referees --- possibly to increase cites for the reviewers & friends. I wouldn't expect authors to go back and read those additional papers carefully, I certainly don't.
"the human adventure is only beginning..."
I think space will always be able to inspire humanity, on different levels as our understanding of the universe has evolved along with our technology. Powerful political and economic incentives that favor the grossly inefficient military spending worldwide are powerful to be sure (and it's not just in wealthy industrialized nations that military spending siphons off resources from other potential uses.)
Cornell economist Robert Frank draws an excellent analogy between military buildup and the prisoner's dilemma: it's better to for both countries to have low levels of armament than for both countries to have high levels of armament, but both countries would also prefer to be highly armed while their neighbor weakly armed. The outcome ends up in the worst possible situation, with resources being wasted by all parties --- both countries would be better off with a binding, enforcable arms treaty.
The key point is that we always face a choice between guns & butter (or guns & space stations, or guns and health care, etc.) If space exploration is going to inspire a new generation, it needs to be more than an extension of the arms race between countries.
annmariabell.com
We also have no way of proving that we are not chained inside a cave, mistaking shadows on the wall for reality, unable to turn to see the fire or the figures that cast the shadows, unable to leave the cave and go out in the sunlight.
In fact, seems like we're trying to get into the CAVE.
virtual reality == the decline & fall of western civilization (at least according to Plato).
annmariabell.com
missed the dot com boom, eh?
seriously, 'geek' was originally a derogatory term, but, along with 'nerd,' I think it has been reclaimed or redefined of late. I've even seen signs of dork-pride developing.
Does anyone beside me see the irony here? Game addicts are "lazy fucking slobs" who need to get their "fat asses off the sofa". Porn addicts, on the other hand, are NineNine's bread and butter. (Or at least his hobby.)
It seems the author is forgetting about Angel --- Buffy spinoffs could make m, the rate of vampire migration negative. And should the exodus of VC's from Silicon Valley count as ex-migration of humans or of vampires?
annmariabell.com
Dan Goldin, the former head of NASA, tried to promote a policy of "faster, cheaper, better". (He also used to send around memos saying "safety is our number one priority".) As an economist, I think he missed the tradeoff, in general you can either have "faster & cheaper" or "better & safer". I think Goldin (and the poster) underestimate the damage done to NASA by mission failures like the loss of the Mars probe. Shortly after the Mars mission failures, a panel reviewed the "faster, cheaper, better" policy and decided that the agency had in fact pushed fast and cheap too far.
annmariabell.comI found this a tedious read, heavy handed and predictable.
The Onion packed more humor into one fake headline:
"NASA delays shuttle launch out of sheer habit"
than that essay manages in endless paragraphs. (disclosure: I worked at the NASA Ames Research Center.)
annmariabell.com
As for the effects, the Quidditch chase scene was overlong, I thought, too much time spent racing between the girders. The phoenix was terrible, the small spiders leaving the castle looked like they were made out of plastic, and, worst of all, Dobby (a great character in the book) just didn't seem right.
Fun, but not fabulous.
The extended DVD of LotR, on the other hand, is great.
The author's point is not that the lack of patent protection is a necessary condition for economic growth but rather that patent protection is not a necessary condition for economic growth.
The contrast between the historical record and current rhetoric shows that it's "Do as I say, Not as I did" for both large corporations and industrialized nations.
Noam Chomsky has been making this point for years with regards to industrialized nation's support of "free trade".
The most interesting points in the original article, imo, are not about coming up with a dollar value for EQ economic activity, but about what kinds of economic structures make for interesting games. For example, the author argues that users prefer games with some kind of scarcity of goods or resources. This is consistent with a world where people care mainly about relative outcomes and, interestingly, at odds with the way the overwhelming majority of economic models work. He also believes that users prefer games with a level initial playing field, not a good omen for project entropia. Some of his other points were less compelling, like the claim that the popularity of a particular persistent world reflects users beliefs about what an ideal world would look like. Finally, as an economist, I feel compelled to point out that the real cost of EQ is not the 10$ a month fee but the "opportunity cost" of the time you spend playing: it's the value of the next best use of your time. Don't forget to include the cost of those Simpsons re-runs you're not watching while playing online games!