It's easy to see why they abandoned that series, though -- it was jinxed. I heard it was supposed to be a trilogy, plus either six or nine subsequent movies, but apparently no one dared attempt a third film after George Lucas was run over by a speeding cheeseburger-mobile in 1979, and Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan were both killed in a freak Tauntaun accident...
As someone who's read Theodore Dalrymple, PC "David Copperfield," and so on, I'd say that even when they complete it, it won't help. The English government (and the Scottish one, from what I understand) is desperate to restore some form of order, but doesn't have the will to shred some of its bureaucracy and increase police patrols in the orthodox Giuliani fashion. Stuffing the country to the gills with thoughtscreens hasn't been an adequate substitute for that, so I doubt that stuffing it with war droids will be either -- although in both of these cases, countries both more cruel and more competent than Great Britain will probably take to the new technologies with abandon. (I'm looking at China, of course...)
Defining religion as believing in things and science as examining things is a misleading approach. By your logic, Behaviorism, Communism, and Fascism are religions, and Catholicism is a science. (Catholic theology includes a number of conditions which, if true, refute the Catholic religion -- two contradictory infallible statements being the most obvious case.) I would agree with all of these propositions, as it happens, but I don't think that's what you intended people to come away from your post with. I agree that thinking doesn't have much of a lobby; but those who are not part of the rational-thought lobby include the people who most energetically assert that they are.
Also remember that "religion" is a very big word, with very blurry borders. Is Nietzche a religion? Is atheism? Is Buddhism? (Some of the greatest Indian Buddhists would say that it is not.) If being a religion requires being mutually exclusive with other religions, Greek paganism was not a religion (most of the time), China and Japan have never had religions (not even Mahayana Buddhism or State Shinto would qualify), and even Christianity's status as a religion is somewhat dubious -- look up the beliefs of the Taiping sometime.
This is the kind of thing that gives the formal study of English grammar a bad name. I don't know (or particularly care) what Strunk and White say on the subject, but I had no problem understanding that the modifier attached to the most recent noun; indeed, I can't imagine why anyone would ever have thought otherwise. From what I remember of Latin (two years in high school, one in college, plus amateur familiarity with medieval and early-modern Latin materials), modifying clauses of this sort generally attach to the nearest noun there, too. I think it's sometimes different in the stylized Latin of the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, but surely no one imagines that a somewhat creolized Germanic language obeys the grammatical rules of a highly stylized version of an Italic language with recognizable non-Indo-European influences?
(Yes, I sometimes like to pretend that the 18th Century never happened.)
And for a particularly good illustration of that problem: just try to understand the more complex arguments on this page. (The kitty-pidgin Nicene Creed is too painful to link to.) No, no one's writing term papers in Kitty Pidgin; but what Kitty Pidgin is to IRC-speak (SMS?), IRC-speak is to formal English.
To continue the theme of sounding Orwellian: All languages are expressive, but some are more expressive than others.
Additionally, consider that languages and dialects differ in their expressiveness, and IRC-speak (or whatever they're calling it these days) is not among the most expressive. You have to leave that idiom to express ideas like this post's or its parent's; so someone who can't leave the idiom can't vocalize certain kinds of thoughts short of the Greenspun's Tenth Rule case.
Anyone who's tried to do philosophy in formal Modern English appreciates how terrible of a language it is for the purpose compared with Greek or German; and IRC-speak is a language that makes Modern English look expressive...
In my experience, math is almost completely irrelevant to computers; logic is what you need to know. Speaking personally, my one year of undergraduate-level Catholic theology and Aristotelian logic has been more useful to me in computer programming than anything in my four years of undergraduate-level mathematics, with the sole exception of set theory.
The Boskop skull shown in the Discover article is strongly dolichocephalic with a high forehead and no significant jaw protrusion, similar to the East African (Ethiopian, Somali) / Iberian (pre-Roman Iberian; Basque; Georgian (Caucasus, not United States); Classical Greek; Welsh) type of skull. I'd be interested to see whether any DNA analysis of Boskop remains revealed Y-haplogroup R1b and mtDNA haplogroup H...
Also don't forget the saying that "there are some ideas so stupid, only an intellectual can believe them." Perhaps the Boskops invented birth control, or decided that the real cause of crime was society?:)
It's true that war is not about preserving the lives of your own soldiers; there is a word for the context in which an army's first concern is preserving the lives of its own soldiers, and that word is "peacetime." In addition to this, though, the Pentagon needs to concentrate on sparing civilians; the US military has made no attempts to minimize "collateral damage" -- civilians killed in the process of fighting off attackers -- over the course of the Iraq War.
Of course, it would also help if they also ensured that the US doesn't begin future wars without plans to win them in the worst case -- as opposed to just hoping for the best.
This might be taken more seriously, or at least might seem less silly to non-fanatics, if they weren't naming their spaceships for popular SF vehicles. What's next, the VSS Falcon? VSS Serenity? (Oh, wait, NASA did that one.) VSS Galactica? (Although I would object a bit less to a VSS Ebon Hawk or a VSS Marvelous Dragonfly, as at that point they'd obviously not be trying to hide it.)
And, heck, might this mothership's name have originally had an "Online" at the end of it? (We'll know that's a yes if they build a Galaxies or Homeworld...)
That you don't have a problem with marijuana use -- and I'm sure you're familiar with the kinds of people who are supplying the stuff to the US at present -- does not make your argument very convincing. Facebook is public space (one of the reasons I don't have an account on it); I see no reason to object to fishing expeditions there.
And I'd like to know why Cheech and Chong were never arrested after they confessed in a public forum to use of marijuana. Lack of will to enforce (and, as necessary, to reform and revise) laws is never a good sign for a civilization; how familiar are you with the history of China? It's a short and very slippery slope from not punishing those who confess small crimes like drug use, to not punishing those who confess large crimes like torture; and by that point the Mandate of Heaven is in very serious trouble. And where the Mandate goes, the people go. Stories of civilizational collapse and so on are fun, but the reality is death and cruelty and suffering.
Have you ever heard of Alboin of the Lombards and his skull cup? This is my personal favorite example of why anarchy is not a healthy thing, and a strong government with the public good at heart is a good idea. Ours no longer has the public good at heart -- but the answer is to reform it, not to overthrow it.
Not really. Ever heard of Operation Gomorrah? The whole of UK Bomber Command went out one night with the objective of destroying the city of Hamburg; they succeeded in starting enormous firestorms, but only killed about 20,000 civilians (speaking of which...) of a population of several hundred thousand, lost a large number of bombers in the process, and didn't significantly degrade Hamburg's industrial and munitions output. (And I don't need to tell you that Goebbels had a field day with it. Much of the stubborn resistance of Germany, and of Japan -- especially towards the end of the war -- was the conviction that defeat meant annihilation, a conviction strongly reinforced by things like strategic bombing or, say, the Morgenthau Plan. Defeat _did_ mean annihilation for the war criminals at the top of the military hierarchies; but they would have had an awfully hard time keeping control had the populace not had reason to go along with them.)
The US strategic-bombing campaign, which focused on industries and raw materials where the UK was explicitly targeting civilians, was a more productive one; but even then, the main result of the US-UK emphasis on strategic bombers was to leave ground forces deprived of CAS -- which the Nazis and Soviets had in abundance, while the inventors of dive-bombing, the US military, had to use P-38s, P-47s and P-51s instead of having purpose-built tactical bombers.
In the end, wars are won best by beating the enemy, especially their infantry. Read the works of H. John Poole, a retired Marine gunnery sergeant (a very prestigious rank in the Corps), for more detail on this. (As to counterinsurgency, it's a solved problem if you know how to do it -- see David Galula's _Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice_.
But the program discussed here sounds useful, but has some dangerous systemic biases. The US attitude towards civilian casualties (illustrated by a quote in Poole's Tactics of the Crescent Moon) is a disturbingly cavalier one; drones of this sort used for attack, with no weapon more precise than the Hellfire thermobaric missile, would further encourage that attitude. Drones as reconnaissance, though, would be great; it's hard to equip infantry with advanced imaging equipment and keep it in service, and you can often see things from above that are less obvious from ground level...
If beautiful women don't have children, being beautiful is evolutionarily maladaptive, and will be selected out. Margaret Sanger's not working out so well...
George Orwell wondered why it was that only English-speaking intellectuals hated, rather than loved and were proud of, their home civilization. If he had taken the time to look at other distinctive traits of English-speaking cultures, he would have figured out why: no other civilization has a despised subculture for smart people. Anime is mainstream in Japan; enormous, borderline-crackpot philosophical theories are mainstream in Germany; Fernand Braudel, who wrote The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (including footnotes) from memory while he was imprisoned by the Nazis, would be among much more similar minds at Google than at Citigroup.
Note also that if Hodgman really thinks that jockdom wins wars, he hasn't heard of the Battle of Leuctra, to say nothing of the Vietnam War.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to see why they abandoned that series, though -- it was jinxed. I heard it was supposed to be a trilogy, plus either six or nine subsequent movies, but apparently no one dared attempt a third film after George Lucas was run over by a speeding cheeseburger-mobile in 1979, and Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan were both killed in a freak Tauntaun accident...
For some reason, I have a bad feeling about that.
As someone who's read Theodore Dalrymple, PC "David Copperfield," and so on, I'd say that even when they complete it, it won't help. The English government (and the Scottish one, from what I understand) is desperate to restore some form of order, but doesn't have the will to shred some of its bureaucracy and increase police patrols in the orthodox Giuliani fashion. Stuffing the country to the gills with thoughtscreens hasn't been an adequate substitute for that, so I doubt that stuffing it with war droids will be either -- although in both of these cases, countries both more cruel and more competent than Great Britain will probably take to the new technologies with abandon. (I'm looking at China, of course...)
*Sigh*. It's octopodes.
By "the modifier," I meant "the phrase. 'who just happens to be a devout Christian.'"
Defining religion as believing in things and science as examining things is a misleading approach. By your logic, Behaviorism, Communism, and Fascism are religions, and Catholicism is a science. (Catholic theology includes a number of conditions which, if true, refute the Catholic religion -- two contradictory infallible statements being the most obvious case.) I would agree with all of these propositions, as it happens, but I don't think that's what you intended people to come away from your post with. I agree that thinking doesn't have much of a lobby; but those who are not part of the rational-thought lobby include the people who most energetically assert that they are.
Also remember that "religion" is a very big word, with very blurry borders. Is Nietzche a religion? Is atheism? Is Buddhism? (Some of the greatest Indian Buddhists would say that it is not.) If being a religion requires being mutually exclusive with other religions, Greek paganism was not a religion (most of the time), China and Japan have never had religions (not even Mahayana Buddhism or State Shinto would qualify), and even Christianity's status as a religion is somewhat dubious -- look up the beliefs of the Taiping sometime.
This is the kind of thing that gives the formal study of English grammar a bad name. I don't know (or particularly care) what Strunk and White say on the subject, but I had no problem understanding that the modifier attached to the most recent noun; indeed, I can't imagine why anyone would ever have thought otherwise. From what I remember of Latin (two years in high school, one in college, plus amateur familiarity with medieval and early-modern Latin materials), modifying clauses of this sort generally attach to the nearest noun there, too. I think it's sometimes different in the stylized Latin of the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, but surely no one imagines that a somewhat creolized Germanic language obeys the grammatical rules of a highly stylized version of an Italic language with recognizable non-Indo-European influences?
(Yes, I sometimes like to pretend that the 18th Century never happened.)
And for a particularly good illustration of that problem: just try to understand the more complex arguments on this page. (The kitty-pidgin Nicene Creed is too painful to link to.) No, no one's writing term papers in Kitty Pidgin; but what Kitty Pidgin is to IRC-speak (SMS?), IRC-speak is to formal English.
To continue the theme of sounding Orwellian: All languages are expressive, but some are more expressive than others.
Additionally, consider that languages and dialects differ in their expressiveness, and IRC-speak (or whatever they're calling it these days) is not among the most expressive. You have to leave that idiom to express ideas like this post's or its parent's; so someone who can't leave the idiom can't vocalize certain kinds of thoughts short of the Greenspun's Tenth Rule case.
Anyone who's tried to do philosophy in formal Modern English appreciates how terrible of a language it is for the purpose compared with Greek or German; and IRC-speak is a language that makes Modern English look expressive...
Wait, WASPs are Republicans?
In my experience, math is almost completely irrelevant to computers; logic is what you need to know. Speaking personally, my one year of undergraduate-level Catholic theology and Aristotelian logic has been more useful to me in computer programming than anything in my four years of undergraduate-level mathematics, with the sole exception of set theory.
The Boskop skull shown in the Discover article is strongly dolichocephalic with a high forehead and no significant jaw protrusion, similar to the East African (Ethiopian, Somali) / Iberian (pre-Roman Iberian; Basque; Georgian (Caucasus, not United States); Classical Greek; Welsh) type of skull. I'd be interested to see whether any DNA analysis of Boskop remains revealed Y-haplogroup R1b and mtDNA haplogroup H...
Also don't forget the saying that "there are some ideas so stupid, only an intellectual can believe them." Perhaps the Boskops invented birth control, or decided that the real cause of crime was society? :)
A kioll once bit my sister...
I didn't know adoption was illegal in the United States.
No, it's even worse. Tinfoil hats block most radio signals, but they amplify signals on certain bands reserved for government use.
It's true that war is not about preserving the lives of your own soldiers; there is a word for the context in which an army's first concern is preserving the lives of its own soldiers, and that word is "peacetime." In addition to this, though, the Pentagon needs to concentrate on sparing civilians; the US military has made no attempts to minimize "collateral damage" -- civilians killed in the process of fighting off attackers -- over the course of the Iraq War.
Of course, it would also help if they also ensured that the US doesn't begin future wars without plans to win them in the worst case -- as opposed to just hoping for the best.
I know. "We have some very good information from a warlock"?
If Sherlock Holmes and Jack Chick had graves, they'd both be turning over in them.
This might be taken more seriously, or at least might seem less silly to non-fanatics, if they weren't naming their spaceships for popular SF vehicles. What's next, the VSS Falcon? VSS Serenity? (Oh, wait, NASA did that one.) VSS Galactica? (Although I would object a bit less to a VSS Ebon Hawk or a VSS Marvelous Dragonfly, as at that point they'd obviously not be trying to hide it.)
And, heck, might this mothership's name have originally had an "Online" at the end of it? (We'll know that's a yes if they build a Galaxies or Homeworld...)
That you don't have a problem with marijuana use -- and I'm sure you're familiar with the kinds of people who are supplying the stuff to the US at present -- does not make your argument very convincing. Facebook is public space (one of the reasons I don't have an account on it); I see no reason to object to fishing expeditions there.
And I'd like to know why Cheech and Chong were never arrested after they confessed in a public forum to use of marijuana. Lack of will to enforce (and, as necessary, to reform and revise) laws is never a good sign for a civilization; how familiar are you with the history of China? It's a short and very slippery slope from not punishing those who confess small crimes like drug use, to not punishing those who confess large crimes like torture; and by that point the Mandate of Heaven is in very serious trouble. And where the Mandate goes, the people go. Stories of civilizational collapse and so on are fun, but the reality is death and cruelty and suffering.
Have you ever heard of Alboin of the Lombards and his skull cup? This is my personal favorite example of why anarchy is not a healthy thing, and a strong government with the public good at heart is a good idea. Ours no longer has the public good at heart -- but the answer is to reform it, not to overthrow it.
They do indeed have a pro-global-warming bias. Check out the apologetics on their wiki.
Seriously, it's called Mafia Wars. The dev team was just getting into character.
Not really. Ever heard of Operation Gomorrah? The whole of UK Bomber Command went out one night with the objective of destroying the city of Hamburg; they succeeded in starting enormous firestorms, but only killed about 20,000 civilians (speaking of which...) of a population of several hundred thousand, lost a large number of bombers in the process, and didn't significantly degrade Hamburg's industrial and munitions output. (And I don't need to tell you that Goebbels had a field day with it. Much of the stubborn resistance of Germany, and of Japan -- especially towards the end of the war -- was the conviction that defeat meant annihilation, a conviction strongly reinforced by things like strategic bombing or, say, the Morgenthau Plan. Defeat _did_ mean annihilation for the war criminals at the top of the military hierarchies; but they would have had an awfully hard time keeping control had the populace not had reason to go along with them.)
The US strategic-bombing campaign, which focused on industries and raw materials where the UK was explicitly targeting civilians, was a more productive one; but even then, the main result of the US-UK emphasis on strategic bombers was to leave ground forces deprived of CAS -- which the Nazis and Soviets had in abundance, while the inventors of dive-bombing, the US military, had to use P-38s, P-47s and P-51s instead of having purpose-built tactical bombers.
In the end, wars are won best by beating the enemy, especially their infantry. Read the works of H. John Poole, a retired Marine gunnery sergeant (a very prestigious rank in the Corps), for more detail on this. (As to counterinsurgency, it's a solved problem if you know how to do it -- see David Galula's _Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice_.
But the program discussed here sounds useful, but has some dangerous systemic biases. The US attitude towards civilian casualties (illustrated by a quote in Poole's Tactics of the Crescent Moon) is a disturbingly cavalier one; drones of this sort used for attack, with no weapon more precise than the Hellfire thermobaric missile, would further encourage that attitude. Drones as reconnaissance, though, would be great; it's hard to equip infantry with advanced imaging equipment and keep it in service, and you can often see things from above that are less obvious from ground level...
If beautiful women don't have children, being beautiful is evolutionarily maladaptive, and will be selected out. Margaret Sanger's not working out so well...
George Orwell wondered why it was that only English-speaking intellectuals hated, rather than loved and were proud of, their home civilization. If he had taken the time to look at other distinctive traits of English-speaking cultures, he would have figured out why: no other civilization has a despised subculture for smart people. Anime is mainstream in Japan; enormous, borderline-crackpot philosophical theories are mainstream in Germany; Fernand Braudel, who wrote The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (including footnotes) from memory while he was imprisoned by the Nazis, would be among much more similar minds at Google than at Citigroup.
Note also that if Hodgman really thinks that jockdom wins wars, he hasn't heard of the Battle of Leuctra, to say nothing of the Vietnam War.