Didn't the start of the Berkely Free Speech Movement involve a
spontanoeous incident just like the one you have described?
afaik, a student was arrested for protesting against the CIA recruiting on the Berkely campus of the Uni of California.
Bystanders noticed, and just around the police car, which was subsequently unable to move.
Rather than finding it offensive, (and I am a fan of Heinlein),
I found the movie something of an extension of the dialogue on civic ethics presented in the book.
The book provided discourse on the moral requisites of enfranchisement.
The movie seemed to examine a darker side of this discussion, and perhaps unconciously created a scenario in which the predominant value system was military rather than civilian.
It was nearly as if Verhoevan was saying
"A society that exists under permanant threat of war is more likely to produce ideal (obediant) citizens".
I think I am beginning to see your point, but I'm afraid it still seems somewhat unclear.
Personally, I don't entirely think that humanity's refusal to switch to "alternative sources" is entirely based on economics.
I would, however, cocede that economics is a huge factor in making that choice.
I Think that maybe that the reason that we have not switched is because of the constraints placed upon us by "common sense", where common sense is
a kind of awareness in a state of inertia.
To put it more plainly -
Perhaps our intelligence tells us that
an energy crises is eminant.
And yet, we find this difficult to accept, because
we have been enculturated into a society that is heavily reliant on spending a geologies petrochemical legacy.
We should be preparing for the plausable
worst-case scenario
, but we our "inertia of awareness" factor
doesn't want to accept that the lifestyle we possess can change radically and swiftly.
Thus, our collective world-view, enshrined as common-sense is at least as much of a preventitive factor as is the economical element,
when it comes to our choices of energy sources.
Whatever the origens of oil are, it seems that there
is less of it becoming available.
Check out
the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
In any case, oil will never "run out".
It will just become too expensive to scavenge what
is left of it.
Yeah - most of the real art of comic writing
wont be found in the papers, I'll admit.
Of course, the genius involved on political cartooning is completely another case.
Doonesbury rocks!
Ah yes - "sequential art".
That was the phrase I was trying to remember,
when attempting to recall from the backblocks of my memory, that flatteringly graceful
description of the art form aka "comics".
I was careful, in my reply, to mind my spelling.
I didn't want to present such an obvious target, while commenting on literacy.
True, though, I believe, that reading comics requires a skill that comes naturally to some.
Some people take a while to get it.
In a sense, some people want the "instant gratification" of a digestible word-based description.
This prejudice of habit can stop one from taking the time to understand how the system of pictures
and texts "works".
The "magic" of comics is just different than that
of pure written text, but is also, I suspect,
psychologically more complex; possibly using more areas of the brain.
I'm sure many of we lovers of the medium of comics
will object to the "dumbed-down" comment"
Comic reading implies a different kind of literacy.
Not an illiteracy.
We know many people who don't read comics because, as they say, "we don't get it".
I pity the comic-illiterate, for the unique joy that they lose out on.
And I question the implication that comics are "dumb".
Many literary works of great sophistication, not to mention beauty, happen to be comics.
New Zealand: "The New Zealand intelligence service has admitted to bludgeoning Mr. Bruce Simpson to death with sticks. New Zealanders have expressed shock that their country actually posseses an intelligence service."
Joking aside, there is some good publically available information on NZ's intelligence services.
One NZ'ers investigation of the GCSB,,published in the book
Secret Power, revealed to the world the existence of the Echelon network.
Yeah - Its kinda interesting that they have phrased
their ethic in language borrowed from techies.
Mind you after reading
Revelations of the Golden Dawn
by R.A. Gilbert,
(link)
I have the impression that much of the trouble
that the order went through in their brief
existance seemed to be due to the secrecy surrounding the origen of their material.
So, the close source approach seems to be problematic in the field of other technologies
as well as programming.
Will expressing such an opinion in a public forum mean that I will wake up tommorow in the body of a frog?
Hope not.
I believe it is important to to point remind those taking part in this discussion, of the role of minix , a more primitive operating system believed to provide the basis of linux.
Minix is still used by the preindustrial rainforest dwellers of the Amazon, and the source is distributed amongst australian aborigine tribal elders, who only pass it on to those sharing matrilineal kinship affiliations.
Shamans of the Australian Wallumedegal clan are currently involved in legal action and sorcerous warfare against both the Knights Templar and the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross, due to questions of the mysterious origens of the linux code.
I'll see your quip, amd raise you a paraphrase.
First, from a peacenik who liberated a large country from an occupying power:
Whatever you do will have little consequence,
And it is extremely important to do it.
I'm afraid I don't know who said that
"Evil is when good men do nothing".
But he might agree that the quickest way for
all of us to get to hell might be via
all of us doing nothing, because we can't decide on the right thing to do.
Of course, it is often safer to sit back and defend the morality of doing nothing with a quip.
I must say - I am completely surprised by the level of vitriol against greenpeace, as I am by the stark
irrationonality of the accusations against them in this "discussion".
Now, I dont know much about them, but I know that
they neither commit or condone tree-spiking, or putting people other than themselves in harms way.
I also know that Paul Watson's greenpeace was a very different animal, and that is why he is no longer a member of it.
It betrays weak thinking, poor research, or simple bad faith to caste greenpeace in a poor light simply because of the actions or thinking of Watson, or any other former member.
Note well - Im not defending greenpeace.
I dont know enough about them
Just enough to know that all the bile coming out
in this discussion
is pointless and irrational.
Crys of "terrorist" are absolutely absurd.
And, besides, it makes me think...
Amongst ye accusers, how many of you have given up
a significant portion of your life, a few days even, in order to commit to an action that you
felt was for a greater good?
Even if you eventually felt that you were misguided?
Can anyone here who has been amongst the most vociferous critics of gp make a personal claim that they, themselves have made a worthwhile sacrifice in order to feel that they
had really contributed to humanity?
Some members of gp put their bodies and their
lives on the line.
What do you do?
Re:For your perusal: The GM Industry's reply.
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
I should perhaps make my point a bit clearer.,
when talking about people acting "in the public interest".
When a person, of their own accord argues for or against a topical issue, their sincerity can assessed, regardlless of the merit of their arguments.
A large firm, with a colourful background such as Monsanto, can not automatically be assessed to be
pushing their case in the best possible faith.
Note - I'm not insisting that all large companies
are by definition satanic.
But the mandate of the BOD must be taken into account.
They are not acting as saviours of the free world, or guardians of the environment.
They want to make money.
And, with all factors taken into consideration, fair anough.
Most activists, fighting for say, corporate responsibility, disarmament, safe food, whatever, can be considered more safely to be acting in good faith.
No matter what one thinks of the merits of their
arguments, their motivation is transparent.
They are acting for, what is their sincere opinion, the interests of humanity.
In the massive majority of cases, they stand to make no profit.
In reference to your assumption that they are
acting in "their own interests,
it should be noted that activists movements
that have significantly changed societies have
been manned by individuals who have seen no
benefit from their victories.
And often much sufferring.
Consider, the abolition of slavery, the battle for the rights of workers at the dawn of industrialism.
Both of which were opposed by the multinational corps of the day, as not being in the public interest.
I conject that it is safer to assume that sincerity of the activists than the good faith
of the large companies who stand to gain much profit in opposition to such activists.
Re:For your perusal: The GM Industry's reply.
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
I also find that there are two sides to the most
important debates of our times.
Often, one side is taken by citizens actining in the public interest, while the other side is taken by
those acting in the interests of profit and personal gain.
Rick Roush is a
hired gun for corporate interests.
While Shmeiser is a farmer, one time mayor of his community.
To quote from
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/11/new_beasties_ disc_ha.html
Update: Ian sez, "Hi, I'm not sure who posted re: Beastie Boys copy protection, but I just spoke with Mike D and their management and they wanted me to pass along that a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them; b) All EMI CDs are treated this way, theirs isn't receiving special treatment; c) They would have preferred not to have the copy protection, but weren't allowed to differ from EMI policy."
Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry,
the report appears to ask questions from a
philosophically disinterested perspective.
It does not say
"It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic
vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to
the question most important for the interests
of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.
Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because
of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.
We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific
philosophy and the comfort it has brought us.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos,
thalidomide, dirty air,... the list goes on.
Why should we cede automatic trust to those
who can make huge profits now, and never have
to pay more than a fraction of the cost
when things go abominably wrong?
I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters
The "poem solution" ignores the context of the letters.
Unless, the relief of the shepards is somehow alluded to in the poem
Most of the poster who are saying "it might not mean anything", are missing an important point -
The inscription meant something to the person who wrote it.
The aim of the Lawns is to find out what the
designer was thinking when he/she commisioned it.
Yes, you will find meaningful patterns if you read
Nostradamus.
For example, you will find out what he was thought
he was seeing.
You will discover things about the written language of his time-period, and probably make sound
conclusion about the nature of his literacy.
You may find out interesting things about his
of rythem in poetry.
Or, if you put him in the context of his time, even find out about prophetic poetry and religeous believes of his era.
Just because something is weirdass and enigmatic doesn't mean that there are no depths of meaning
in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't the start of the Berkely Free Speech Movement involve a spontanoeous incident just like the one you have described?
afaik, a student was arrested for protesting against the CIA recruiting on the Berkely campus of the Uni of California.
Bystanders noticed, and just around the police car, which was subsequently unable to move.
Rather than finding it offensive, (and I am a fan of Heinlein),
I found the movie something of an extension of the dialogue on civic ethics presented in the book.
The book provided discourse on the moral requisites of enfranchisement.
The movie seemed to examine a darker side of this discussion, and perhaps unconciously created a scenario in which the predominant value system was military rather than civilian.
It was nearly as if Verhoevan was saying
"A society that exists under permanant threat of war is more likely to produce ideal (obediant) citizens".
I think I am beginning to see your point, but I'm afraid it still seems somewhat unclear.
Personally, I don't entirely think that humanity's refusal to switch to "alternative sources" is entirely based on economics.
I would, however, cocede that economics is a huge factor in making that choice.
I Think that maybe that the reason that we have not switched is because of the constraints placed upon us by "common sense", where common sense is a kind of awareness in a state of inertia.
To put it more plainly -
Perhaps our intelligence tells us that an energy crises is eminant.
And yet, we find this difficult to accept, because we have been enculturated into a society that is heavily reliant on spending a geologies petrochemical legacy.
We should be preparing for the plausable worst-case scenario , but we our "inertia of awareness" factor doesn't want to accept that the lifestyle we possess can change radically and swiftly.
Thus, our collective world-view, enshrined as common-sense is at least as much of a preventitive factor as is the economical element, when it comes to our choices of energy sources.
Perhaps you should actually read and consider the contents of the aspo site before making assumptions about their logic.
Or perhaps you have more experience in the oil and related energy industries than the members of aspo?
Whatever the origens of oil are, it seems that there is less of it becoming available. Check out the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
In any case, oil will never "run out".
It will just become too expensive to scavenge what is left of it.
They should be damn well "rusticated" for their tast in music alone!
hmm...
Is that a Mexican Attorney General in your tinfoil lined bag?
Or are you just pleased to see me?
Yeah - most of the real art of comic writing wont be found in the papers, I'll admit.
Of course, the genius involved on political cartooning is completely another case.
Doonesbury rocks!
You mean the Jodorowski that does movies too, right?
As well as writing comics, also makes fantastic movies.
Ive seen El Topo and Santa Sangre.Why, he was, at one point, commissioned to direct Dune .
Ah yes - "sequential art".
That was the phrase I was trying to remember,
when attempting to recall from the backblocks of my memory, that flatteringly graceful description of the art form aka "comics".
I was careful, in my reply, to mind my spelling.
I didn't want to present such an obvious target, while commenting on literacy.
True, though, I believe, that reading comics requires a skill that comes naturally to some. Some people take a while to get it.
In a sense, some people want the "instant gratification" of a digestible word-based description.
This prejudice of habit can stop one from taking the time to understand how the system of pictures and texts "works".
The "magic" of comics is just different than that of pure written text, but is also, I suspect, psychologically more complex; possibly using more areas of the brain.
Funny you should say that.
Some of Dickens work as serialized in newspapers, just as comics now are.
Great Expectations was published that way.
I'm sure many of we lovers of the medium of comics will object to the "dumbed-down" comment"
Comic reading implies a different kind of literacy.
Not an illiteracy.
We know many people who don't read comics because, as they say, "we don't get it".
I pity the comic-illiterate, for the unique joy that they lose out on.
And I question the implication that comics are "dumb".
Many literary works of great sophistication, not to mention beauty, happen to be comics.
One NZ'ers investigation of the GCSB,
Yeah - Its kinda interesting that they have phrased their ethic in language borrowed from techies.
Mind you after reading
Revelations of the Golden Dawn
by R.A. Gilbert,
(link) I have the impression that much of the trouble that the order went through in their brief existance seemed to be due to the secrecy surrounding the origen of their material.
So, the close source approach seems to be problematic in the field of other technologies as well as programming.
Will expressing such an opinion in a public forum mean that I will wake up tommorow in the body of a frog?
Hope not.
I believe it is important to to point remind those taking part in this discussion, of the role of minix , a more primitive operating system believed to provide the basis of linux.
Minix is still used by the preindustrial rainforest dwellers of the Amazon, and the source is distributed amongst australian aborigine tribal elders, who only pass it on to those sharing matrilineal kinship affiliations.
Shamans of the Australian Wallumedegal clan are currently involved in legal action and sorcerous warfare against both the Knights Templar and the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross, due to questions of the mysterious origens of the linux code.
the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn refuse to comment.
First, from a peacenik who liberated a large country from an occupying power:
Whatever you do will have little consequence,
And it is extremely important to do it.
I'm afraid I don't know who said that "Evil is when good men do nothing".
But he might agree that the quickest way for all of us to get to hell might be via all of us doing nothing, because we can't decide on the right thing to do.
Of course, it is often safer to sit back and defend the morality of doing nothing with a quip.
I must say - I am completely surprised by the level of vitriol against greenpeace, as I am by the stark irrationonality of the accusations against them in this "discussion".
Now, I dont know much about them, but I know that they neither commit or condone tree-spiking, or putting people other than themselves in harms way.
I also know that Paul Watson's greenpeace was a very different animal, and that is why he is no longer a member of it.
It betrays weak thinking, poor research, or simple bad faith to caste greenpeace in a poor light simply because of the actions or thinking of Watson, or any other former member.
Note well - Im not defending greenpeace.
I dont know enough about them
Just enough to know that all the bile coming out in this discussion is pointless and irrational.
Crys of "terrorist" are absolutely absurd.
And, besides, it makes me think...
Amongst ye accusers, how many of you have given up a significant portion of your life, a few days even, in order to commit to an action that you felt was for a greater good?
Even if you eventually felt that you were misguided?
Can anyone here who has been amongst the most vociferous critics of gp make a personal claim that they, themselves have made a worthwhile sacrifice in order to feel that they had really contributed to humanity?
Some members of gp put their bodies and their lives on the line.
What do you do?
Dude!
I was eating breakfast!
I should perhaps make my point a bit clearer., when talking about people acting "in the public interest".
When a person, of their own accord argues for or against a topical issue, their sincerity can assessed, regardlless of the merit of their arguments.
A large firm, with a colourful background such as Monsanto, can not automatically be assessed to be pushing their case in the best possible faith.
Note - I'm not insisting that all large companies are by definition satanic.
But the mandate of the BOD must be taken into account.
They are not acting as saviours of the free world, or guardians of the environment.
They want to make money.
And, with all factors taken into consideration, fair anough.
Most activists, fighting for say, corporate responsibility, disarmament, safe food, whatever, can be considered more safely to be acting in good faith.
No matter what one thinks of the merits of their arguments, their motivation is transparent.
They are acting for, what is their sincere opinion, the interests of humanity. In the massive majority of cases, they stand to make no profit.
In reference to your assumption that they are acting in "their own interests, it should be noted that activists movements that have significantly changed societies have been manned by individuals who have seen no benefit from their victories. And often much sufferring.
Consider, the abolition of slavery, the battle for the rights of workers at the dawn of industrialism.
Both of which were opposed by the multinational corps of the day, as not being in the public interest.
I conject that it is safer to assume that sincerity of the activists than the good faith of the large companies who stand to gain much profit in opposition to such activists.
I also find that there are two sides to the most important debates of our times. Often, one side is taken by citizens actining in the public interest, while the other side is taken by those acting in the interests of profit and personal gain.
Rick Roush is a hired gun for corporate interests.
While Shmeiser is a farmer, one time mayor of his community.
I believe, collegue frink,
that you may have miscalculated the source of your suffering.
Same in NZ. One is compelled by law to give ones name.
To quote from_ disc_ha.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/11/new_beasties
Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry, the report appears to ask questions from a philosophically disinterested perspective.
It does not say "It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to the question most important for the interests of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.
Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.
We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific philosophy and the comfort it has brought us. ... the list goes on.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos, thalidomide, dirty air,
Why should we cede automatic trust to those who can make huge profits now, and never have to pay more than a fraction of the cost when things go abominably wrong?
I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters
The "poem solution" ignores the context of the letters.
Unless, the relief of the shepards is somehow alluded to in the poem
Most of the poster who are saying "it might not mean anything", are missing an important point -
The inscription meant something to the person who wrote it.
The aim of the Lawns is to find out what the designer was thinking when he/she commisioned it.
Yes, you will find meaningful patterns if you read Nostradamus.
For example, you will find out what he was thought he was seeing.
You will discover things about the written language of his time-period, and probably make sound conclusion about the nature of his literacy.
You may find out interesting things about his of rythem in poetry.
Or, if you put him in the context of his time, even find out about prophetic poetry and religeous believes of his era.
Just because something is weirdass and enigmatic doesn't mean that there are no depths of meaning in it.