because we all know that there is sufficient respect for international law and the sovereignty of foreign nations to remove any real reason to fear the powerful gaining new powers...
Bush: that reminds me... I saw this documentary the other day, and we really have to get ahold of this One Ring
Having conned some con artists, myself (in other contexts), I am always amazed at how blind they are to the game. I mean, isn't it cliche that those who can't be trusted are always suspicious, because they expect the world to have motives like they do?
I once conned someone ten minutes after he conned me, in exactly the same way, to teach him a lesson, and he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Apparently the cartoons of my youth were right -- evil defeats itself through fatal flaws of its own design. Lack of vision: courtesy of greed.
If people would identify themselves as parents or not, when addressing their comments. I know many have; I just think that it would be helpful to the original poster.
I am not a parent, but I have five sisters and brothers who are, and it seems obvious that having a child changes your perspective of the world more than a little. It's easy to hit the man with all that "Trust your kids; you can't stop them anyway; I got into stuff and I'm fine" talk, but let's treat the man's concern as legit and try to see it from the concerned parent's perspective.
I've seen kids go through bad stuff and come out smelling like a rose, and I've seen good kids go a little off track and go down in a bad, bad spiral. (I was a youth counsellor) It's tough to tell ahead of time which is gonna be which, and saying "I turned out ok" is like saying my uncle had a VW Bug and it ran great (or didn't) so they all must.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion.
My $.02: telling them that they can't hide stuff from you only works if you then resist the tendency to be intrusive. Imagine that a friend says to you: promise that you'll answer my next question truthfully. If you trust the person, you may agree without hearing the question. But if the friend abuses it and asks about stuff that isn't his or her business, forcing you to either lie or cough up things meant to be secret, you won't allow that level of trust again. It's like borrowing money -- should come with two guarantees: I guarantee to pay you back if you guarantee not to worry about it and lord it over my head. Mutual respect.
If you create a system of mutual respect with your kids, they will feel terrible if they betray it. If they believe that you don't trust them, they will live up to that expectation, too.
No comparison! Just two/three bad examples from one region.
Haven't thought about the "we put him in power so it's our responsibility to take him out" slant. Actually, haven't heard it. Not the kind of ideology the admin wants to back when they still want to be able to install U.S.-friendly dictators rather than risk a true democracy in many developing countries. Still, it's the same sad tale. They don't want these people gone until they cease to be of use.
Ok, I'll cop to your Rwanda argument.:) And actually, precious resources often make things worse for countries who are unable to defend those resources. Against the U.S., against their neighbours, and against corporations who use military means (conflict diamonds, oil, teak, rubies...). And of course, it doesn't settle religious/ethnic zealotry.
Iraq, 1991: American troops stand by and watch ethnic minorities get slaughtered by Saddam's forces, yet when they finally decide to move in, Iraqi forces back off completely, demonstrating that they were acting with what they understood to be either American acquiescence or resignation, and that earlier efforts would have made the difference.
Iraq, 2003: American troops stand idly by (guarding the oil ministry) while ancient Mesopotamian antiquities are looted -- something the admin had been warned about months before the attack.
Hell, let's not forget that Saddam only invaded Kuwait when he felt (through the slip of a U.S. ambassador) that he had assurance that America would stay out of the way.
You can't fight every battle. I do think it matters which ones you pick. I'll go farther and say that it matters why you pick the ones you do.
The Rwandans didn't have oil. Too bad for them, huh?
No, you just equated an entire profession with having no sense of honour, pride, or self-worth. So I provided you with a notable counter-example. Did I miss-read you? It's easy to paint with a broad brush, but doesn't make for a particularly good argument. Neither does responding to someone's post by telling them that they have no honour, pride, or self-worth, which, if I'm not mistaken is how you responded to the poster before me.
Of course, these are all aspects of freedom, and I actually agree with your response (if not your wording) to the previous poster. "Freedom" is valued much these days as an end and not a means. What are people in the west doing with their freedom? Are they buying more cars and choosing their favorite brand of dish detergent, or are they contributing something positive to the world? Of course, it's their freedom to piss that time and opportunity away, but they may find that if they do, that freedom they have doesn't last (and more importantly, may be illusory -- back to the real topic -- how much dissent are we permitted? You don't find out by testing the "constraints" of consumerism)
And defining freedom only in terms of negatives (what I can't be forced to do) instead of positives (what I am empowered to do) sounds like where things are at in North America, but they can't stay that way for very long.
It's an excellent point, and another reason to do our best to keep the internet free, but the danger of repetition must not be forgotten. We hear so much about "limited attention spans" -- well, how many people are going to search for the truth when what was traditionally trusted (the evening news) isn't exactly telling us lies, but is only telling us one side of the tale?
Remember that conditioning relies heavily on repetition, and conditioning is what in Orwell's 1984 allows the police state to maintain control.
I mean, if the war is presented in terms of either pepsi or coke, how many people will think root beer? The greatest conspiracy of all would be if those two were actually owned by the same people. They'd have spent so much time forcing the choice on us like it was the only one... sounds a little like our media, doesn't it?
Let's not forget about the military. It's good for business, and it creates business. Wish there were more oil-rich countries to invade every ten years, bomb, then make them pay to rebuild. Those poor countries -- you can't force the bill on them. They just declare bankruptcy... or whatever it is countries do.
Did you know that when ants raid termite colonies, they make sure that they don't destroy the colony entirely? They take all the stored nectar, take some slaves, and then bugger off and then wait for the colony to rebuild. I ain't sayin nothin. Just doing a little daydreaming.;)
For a person slagging short-attention spans and sound bites, I wouldn't be putting forward the notion of comparing presidents by "days of military action". For gods' sakes man, does it matter what they were fighting for?!
If you think that the media is just another block of corporations, you're missing an incredibly important aspect of our freedom. Having the corner on, say, toasters, is not the same thing as owning every newspaper in town (common in my country, Canada), and tv stations besides. The ability to stifle critical dissent becomes a real possibility, and -- if you read Noam Chomsky you'll understand the extent this applies to America (and I'm sure Canada, too) the ability to shape and mold the issues themselves.
Example. American high school teacher that I know through a friend asks her class immediately before the invasion -- Gulf War II -- how many of them feel fairly certain that Saddam has nuclear capability. Most of the class did. Nuclear. Now, we know that Saddam didn't have nukes. Biological or chemical maybe, maybe. But nuclear, no way. That program was destroyed years ago and there was no evidence to the contrary. How easy is it to do what you want in a democracy if your citizens are kept ill-informed?
As for the government being the corporations, it's not unheard of in alien lands (like Canada) to have government-owned corporations, to protect interests that can't be trusted to those who see money as the bottom line. Let's face it: an executive can run a business like a sinking ship if that golden parachute is waiting, and we simply cannot afford , as a country, for that to happen to health care, our police, our prisons, and our utilities (though that last is being tinkered with). Some things are a public trust, and what is wrong with running them as a service (to break even) than for a profit? Now for obvious reasons that couldn't be the case with the media -- but that again shows why it is, and has to be, a class apart.
Let me point out what is really wrong with this Time magazine history-rewrite. They deleted the article from the table of contents. It's the difference between walking out of a store with an unpaid-for good in your hands, obviously forgetful and in a rush, and having that same article stuffed into your bag. That is Orwellian.
This is bound to increase voter "turnout" which could be a good thing, but
i) how seriously will people take such a vote? Maybe a little vetting via bad weather and a walk to the local school is not such a bad thing, and ii) how will this new, higher-percentage of the voting public reflect the public at large? Yes, there are terminals available at many public librairies, but it doesn't take a sociologist to realize that there's still going to be a class bias perpetuated if having a computer means easy access to the vote.
A higher percentage of voters is no good if only the needs of some groups in society are being reflected.
Hey, kinda like using VR to learn complex skills -- downhill skiing, piloting an aircraft, etc -- and then going out and doing the real thing. Mixed with the principles of biofeedback -- seeing your progress as you learn to manipulate muscles you never used to know how to control (like your heart).
So if we want to know if people have latent telekinetic ability, we should put them in a telekinetic simulation and get them used to stretching those muscles, and then put them back in the real world once they know how to flex. Of course, the simulation would have to be designed on the actual principles of the phenomenon in the real world, or it wouldn't provide any kind of useful practice or instruction.
Anyway, that's the first really creative theory I've heard yet!
Man, I spent two weeks on a giant blackboard trying to write a major paper on "Hume's Fork" -- trying to dig my way out of solipsism of the mind, and even solipsism of the present moment. What a friggin mess.
Yes, it would make the story pointless. The reason why the Wachowskis are getting slagged for slinging Philosophy 101 is because they're introducing ideas without following them to their logical conclusions like good philosophers, or at least good sci-fi writers.
Everything being an illusion *is* the simplest explanation. When Descartes came up with Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am, or a more accurate sentiment: something thinking exists), he was expressing the only thing he knew for sure. And he wanted to believe in commonsense reality. He wasn't, however, willing to take it for granted.
I wish we could say the same of the Wachowskis, who, whether they know their philosophy or not, seem to like to raise some big questions and then answer them with action on the one hand and a little glib mysticism on the other. It all looks good, mind you. But for those of us who have thought these things through... well, it certainly doesn't help inspire answers to those questions in the HERE and NOW.
But then, maybe the Wachowskis are all just in my mind... in which case I designed two horrible sequels to a brilliant first movie. Uh... could someone plug me back in? I feel like a steak.
Wow. All these posters take the time to make precise, articulate criticisms of specific aspects of the movie, yet how can they stand against the logic and lucidity of your post. Indeed, confirmation that this movie was "perfect" and left your mind "in a state of shock" truly demonstrates that the naysayers were ignorant or on crack. Thank you for injecting some intellectual content into this otherwise barren, movie-critical mass.
I'll add to that the fact that Dune had us set up from the beginning expecting a religious figure, a messiah, the Kwisatz Haderach. The Matrix, on the other hand, while talking fairly early on about "the One", does so while introducing even earlier the notion that the world they live in is false, and can be manipulated *because* it is false. All courtesy of technology. Very different expectations result. Dune was a religious tale with futuristic gear. We weren't led to think of the Matrix that way to begin with...
I find it very sad that, just the way the responses are layered this moment, your lucid response is followed (a la nesting) by an earlier response that basically says: "You guys don't get it. They *said* he was connected to the Source!"
Why is it those who scream loudest about having the answers to the Big Questions accept the first thing they're told?
Well said, and worth noting that we're all in that boat.
It's been said that only the worst sort of scientist would generalize from a sample size of one to all other possible cases, and yet that's what we do -- assume that because other people act and react the way we do, that there's a "person" on the end of that line. And let's face it -- the whole thing is a Matrix. Our mind doesn't get to perceive the world. It's locked in a brain like a building with no windows. On the outside are a couple of video cams (eyes), and some other sensors (for taste, touch, sound, etc). It's all indirect. (and that's assuming that any of the physical stuff is real) We don't think of bats typically as "seeing" -- sonar seems more indirect than that. But everything we receive is indirect. We are -- I am -- inside the dark building. As are you. At least, I think you're in there.:)
I thought it was a brilliant bit of storytelling to make the Matrix inhabitants in M1 "not matter" because they could be taken over by agents at any moment, and were basically batteries anyhow. I remember the body counts (literal counts, by rabid violence-watchers) of movies in the 80's and thinking that they could never have made the Matrix back then. They probably couldn't, but the plot helped what would otherwise have still seemed like mass murder.
Slashdot Mirror
Bueller. Coal. Ass. Diamond.
Nuff said.
Paranoid... sure...
because we all know that there is sufficient respect for international law and the sovereignty of foreign nations to remove any real reason to fear the powerful gaining new powers...
Bush: that reminds me... I saw this documentary the other day, and we really have to get ahold of this One Ring
close -- Futurama -- episode: "Anthology of Interest I", my personal fave.
Al Gore: You already know Stephen Hawking. Also with us is Nichelle Nichols a.k.a. Commander Uhura.
Nichols: Incoming transmission from MCI one rate department. It sounds like a limited time offer.
Gore: Tell them I'm in the tub! To my left you'll recognise Gary Gygax, inventor of dungeons and dragons.
Gygax: Greetings! It's a...[rolls dice.]...pleasure to meet you!
Gore: And our summer intern, Deep Blue. The world's foremost chess playing computer.
Deep Blue: Bishop to knight 4.
Gore: Not all missions can be solved with chess, Deep Blue. Someday you'll understand that.
Having conned some con artists, myself (in other contexts), I am always amazed at how blind they are to the game. I mean, isn't it cliche that those who can't be trusted are always suspicious, because they expect the world to have motives like they do?
I once conned someone ten minutes after he conned me, in exactly the same way, to teach him a lesson, and he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Apparently the cartoons of my youth were right -- evil defeats itself through fatal flaws of its own design.
Lack of vision: courtesy of greed.
If people would identify themselves as parents or not, when addressing their comments. I know many have; I just think that it would be helpful to the original poster.
I am not a parent, but I have five sisters and brothers who are, and it seems obvious that having a child changes your perspective of the world more than a little. It's easy to hit the man with all that "Trust your kids; you can't stop them anyway; I got into stuff and I'm fine" talk, but let's treat the man's concern as legit and try to see it from the concerned parent's perspective.
I've seen kids go through bad stuff and come out smelling like a rose, and I've seen good kids go a little off track and go down in a bad, bad spiral. (I was a youth counsellor) It's tough to tell ahead of time which is gonna be which, and saying "I turned out ok" is like saying my uncle had a VW Bug and it ran great (or didn't) so they all must.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion.
My $.02: telling them that they can't hide stuff from you only works if you then resist the tendency to be intrusive. Imagine that a friend says to you: promise that you'll answer my next question truthfully. If you trust the person, you may agree without hearing the question. But if the friend abuses it and asks about stuff that isn't his or her business, forcing you to either lie or cough up things meant to be secret, you won't allow that level of trust again. It's like borrowing money -- should come with two guarantees: I guarantee to pay you back if you guarantee not to worry about it and lord it over my head. Mutual respect.
If you create a system of mutual respect with your kids, they will feel terrible if they betray it. If they believe that you don't trust them, they will live up to that expectation, too.
No, I'd take muppets in space over Farscape.
Farscape is my handy illustration for the principle that there is a fan club for everything. The internet is another handy illustration.
What about another old motive? It didn't work! Test results my a**.
Same thing happened to a science fair project of mine...
No comparison! Just two/three bad examples from one region.
:) And actually, precious resources often make things worse for countries who are unable to defend those resources. Against the U.S., against their neighbours, and against corporations who use military means (conflict diamonds, oil, teak, rubies...). And of course, it doesn't settle religious/ethnic zealotry.
Haven't thought about the "we put him in power so it's our responsibility to take him out" slant. Actually, haven't heard it. Not the kind of ideology the admin wants to back when they still want to be able to install U.S.-friendly dictators rather than risk a true democracy in many developing countries. Still, it's the same sad tale. They don't want these people gone until they cease to be of use.
Ok, I'll cop to your Rwanda argument.
Iraq, 1991: American troops stand by and watch ethnic minorities get slaughtered by Saddam's forces, yet when they finally decide to move in, Iraqi forces back off completely, demonstrating that they were acting with what they understood to be either American acquiescence or resignation, and that earlier efforts would have made the difference.
Iraq, 2003: American troops stand idly by (guarding the oil ministry) while ancient Mesopotamian antiquities are looted -- something the admin had been warned about months before the attack.
Hell, let's not forget that Saddam only invaded Kuwait when he felt (through the slip of a U.S. ambassador) that he had assurance that America would stay out of the way.
You can't fight every battle. I do think it matters which ones you pick. I'll go farther and say that it matters why you pick the ones you do.
The Rwandans didn't have oil. Too bad for them, huh?
No, you just equated an entire profession with having no sense of honour, pride, or self-worth. So I provided you with a notable counter-example. Did I miss-read you? It's easy to paint with a broad brush, but doesn't make for a particularly good argument. Neither does responding to someone's post by telling them that they have no honour, pride, or self-worth, which, if I'm not mistaken is how you responded to the poster before me.
Of course, these are all aspects of freedom, and I actually agree with your response (if not your wording) to the previous poster. "Freedom" is valued much these days as an end and not a means. What are people in the west doing with their freedom? Are they buying more cars and choosing their favorite brand of dish detergent, or are they contributing something positive to the world? Of course, it's their freedom to piss that time and opportunity away, but they may find that if they do, that freedom they have doesn't last (and more importantly, may be illusory -- back to the real topic -- how much dissent are we permitted? You don't find out by testing the "constraints" of consumerism)
I like the comparison.
I don't see the flowers minding.
I kinda think the termites do.
Gandhi was a lawyer, my friend.
And defining freedom only in terms of negatives (what I can't be forced to do) instead of positives (what I am empowered to do) sounds like where things are at in North America, but they can't stay that way for very long.
It's an excellent point, and another reason to do our best to keep the internet free, but the danger of repetition must not be forgotten. We hear so much about "limited attention spans" -- well, how many people are going to search for the truth when what was traditionally trusted (the evening news) isn't exactly telling us lies, but is only telling us one side of the tale?
Remember that conditioning relies heavily on repetition, and conditioning is what in Orwell's 1984 allows the police state to maintain control.
I mean, if the war is presented in terms of either pepsi or coke, how many people will think root beer? The greatest conspiracy of all would be if those two were actually owned by the same people. They'd have spent so much time forcing the choice on us like it was the only one... sounds a little like our media, doesn't it?
Let's not forget about the military. It's good for business, and it creates business. Wish there were more oil-rich countries to invade every ten years, bomb, then make them pay to rebuild. Those poor countries -- you can't force the bill on them. They just declare bankruptcy... or whatever it is countries do.
;)
Did you know that when ants raid termite colonies, they make sure that they don't destroy the colony entirely? They take all the stored nectar, take some slaves, and then bugger off and then wait for the colony to rebuild. I ain't sayin nothin. Just doing a little daydreaming.
For a person slagging short-attention spans and sound bites, I wouldn't be putting forward the notion of comparing presidents by "days of military action". For gods' sakes man, does it matter what they were fighting for?!
If you think that the media is just another block of corporations, you're missing an incredibly important aspect of our freedom. Having the corner on, say, toasters, is not the same thing as owning every newspaper in town (common in my country, Canada), and tv stations besides. The ability to stifle critical dissent becomes a real possibility, and -- if you read Noam Chomsky you'll understand the extent this applies to America (and I'm sure Canada, too) the ability to shape and mold the issues themselves.
Example. American high school teacher that I know through a friend asks her class immediately before the invasion -- Gulf War II -- how many of them feel fairly certain that Saddam has nuclear capability. Most of the class did. Nuclear. Now, we know that Saddam didn't have nukes. Biological or chemical maybe, maybe. But nuclear, no way. That program was destroyed years ago and there was no evidence to the contrary. How easy is it to do what you want in a democracy if your citizens are kept ill-informed?
As for the government being the corporations, it's not unheard of in alien lands (like Canada) to have government-owned corporations, to protect interests that can't be trusted to those who see money as the bottom line. Let's face it: an executive can run a business like a sinking ship if that golden parachute is waiting, and we simply cannot afford , as a country, for that to happen to health care, our police, our prisons, and our utilities (though that last is being tinkered with). Some things are a public trust, and what is wrong with running them as a service (to break even) than for a profit? Now for obvious reasons that couldn't be the case with the media -- but that again shows why it is, and has to be, a class apart.
Let me point out what is really wrong with this Time magazine history-rewrite. They deleted the article from the table of contents. It's the difference between walking out of a store with an unpaid-for good in your hands, obviously forgetful and in a rush, and having that same article stuffed into your bag. That is Orwellian.
This is bound to increase voter "turnout" which could be a good thing, but
i) how seriously will people take such a vote? Maybe a little vetting via bad weather and a walk to the local school is not such a bad thing, and
ii) how will this new, higher-percentage of the voting public reflect the public at large? Yes, there are terminals available at many public librairies, but it doesn't take a sociologist to realize that there's still going to be a class bias perpetuated if having a computer means easy access to the vote.
A higher percentage of voters is no good if only the needs of some groups in society are being reflected.
Just my $.02
That is absolutely the funniest thing I've heard in weeks!
Hey, kinda like using VR to learn complex skills -- downhill skiing, piloting an aircraft, etc -- and then going out and doing the real thing. Mixed with the principles of biofeedback -- seeing your progress as you learn to manipulate muscles you never used to know how to control (like your heart).
So if we want to know if people have latent telekinetic ability, we should put them in a telekinetic simulation and get them used to stretching those muscles, and then put them back in the real world once they know how to flex. Of course, the simulation would have to be designed on the actual principles of the phenomenon in the real world, or it wouldn't provide any kind of useful practice or instruction.
Anyway, that's the first really creative theory I've heard yet!
Man, I spent two weeks on a giant blackboard trying to write a major paper on "Hume's Fork" -- trying to dig my way out of solipsism of the mind, and even solipsism of the present moment. What a friggin mess.
Yes, it would make the story pointless. The reason why the Wachowskis are getting slagged for slinging Philosophy 101 is because they're introducing ideas without following them to their logical conclusions like good philosophers, or at least good sci-fi writers.
Everything being an illusion *is* the simplest explanation. When Descartes came up with Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am, or a more accurate sentiment: something thinking exists), he was expressing the only thing he knew for sure. And he wanted to believe in commonsense reality. He wasn't, however, willing to take it for granted.
I wish we could say the same of the Wachowskis, who, whether they know their philosophy or not, seem to like to raise some big questions and then answer them with action on the one hand and a little glib mysticism on the other. It all looks good, mind you. But for those of us who have thought these things through... well, it certainly doesn't help inspire answers to those questions in the HERE and NOW.
But then, maybe the Wachowskis are all just in my mind... in which case I designed two horrible sequels to a brilliant first movie. Uh... could someone plug me back in? I feel like a steak.
Wow. All these posters take the time to make precise, articulate criticisms of specific aspects of the movie, yet how can they stand against the logic and lucidity of your post. Indeed, confirmation that this movie was "perfect" and left your mind "in a state of shock" truly demonstrates that the naysayers were ignorant or on crack. Thank you for injecting some intellectual content into this otherwise barren, movie-critical mass.
Well said!
I'll add to that the fact that Dune had us set up from the beginning expecting a religious figure, a messiah, the Kwisatz Haderach. The Matrix, on the other hand, while talking fairly early on about "the One", does so while introducing even earlier the notion that the world they live in is false, and can be manipulated *because* it is false. All courtesy of technology. Very different expectations result. Dune was a religious tale with futuristic gear. We weren't led to think of the Matrix that way to begin with...
I find it very sad that, just the way the responses are layered this moment, your lucid response is followed (a la nesting) by an earlier response that basically says: "You guys don't get it. They *said* he was connected to the Source!"
Why is it those who scream loudest about having the answers to the Big Questions accept the first thing they're told?
The miniaturization isn't hype -- this is another step toward those (literally) scrolling displays.
But as for the term, I must agree. This certainly isn't "nanotechnology". Nano has become what (shudder) "mega" was in the 80's.
Well said, and worth noting that we're all in that boat.
:)
It's been said that only the worst sort of scientist would generalize from a sample size of one to all other possible cases, and yet that's what we do -- assume that because other people act and react the way we do, that there's a "person" on the end of that line. And let's face it -- the whole thing is a Matrix. Our mind doesn't get to perceive the world. It's locked in a brain like a building with no windows. On the outside are a couple of video cams (eyes), and some other sensors (for taste, touch, sound, etc). It's all indirect. (and that's assuming that any of the physical stuff is real) We don't think of bats typically as "seeing" -- sonar seems more indirect than that. But everything we receive is indirect. We are -- I am -- inside the dark building. As are you. At least, I think you're in there.
I thought it was a brilliant bit of storytelling to make the Matrix inhabitants in M1 "not matter" because they could be taken over by agents at any moment, and were basically batteries anyhow. I remember the body counts (literal counts, by rabid violence-watchers) of movies in the 80's and thinking that they could never have made the Matrix back then. They probably couldn't, but the plot helped what would otherwise have still seemed like mass murder.