Solaris is distinctively different from most science fiction films with their emphasis on special effects and whiz bang action. Instead, its focus on introspective characters and the use of unconventional techniques to tell its story give it an edge over other art films of the period. Desson Howe of The Washington Post wrote: "the third feature in Tarkovsky's brief, shining career will deliver you from the mundane to the sublime...His pictures, and his sounds....tell more than just the immediate story; they rejuvenate the mind." Other renown critics also praised Solaris like Jonathan Rosenbaum who said, "Tarkovsky's eerie mystic parable is given substance by the filmmaker's boldly original grasp of film language and the remarkable performances by all the principals.
This article also brings to mind the overlying business strategy of innovation versus copying. The former strategy has largely been the domain of stateside universities and companies, whereas the latter has been the province of east-Asian companies. Look at automotive design, the microchip, etc., to see various trends in R&D vs. distribution. Of course the U.S. is no longer the world's sole innovator, but that is due to companies like Dell.
This also brings to mind an historical speech between Nixon and Khrushchev:
"Well then we will say America has been in existence for 150 years and this is the level she has reached. We have existed not quite 42 years and in another seven years we will be on the same level as America. When we catch you up, in passing you by, we will wave to you." CNN.
If the USSR was high, it was because they stood on the shoulders of the Western World.
Remember that many of these "hackers" are reformed, and thus attempting to sell their services. They aren't really "notorious" hackers and are often out of touch with the hacker community.
This is to be expected from a mainstream publication that intends to present "hacking" in a mainstream light. I say, read at your own risk.
Well, there are several issues to be considered here before Mr. Kurlantzick gets ahead of himself.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon. In many areas of the world--especially Laos--it has not undergone mainstream proliferation. Many Laotians do not have access to the internet, and contrary to this article's claims, many of them are still illiterate. Those who can read can only read the Lao language. Until the Internet has mainstream acceptance among the mainstream of Laotians, there will be little revolutionary activity. This will take time, of course, because revolutions aren't born overnight. As says the historian Howard Zinn, "so far, human history has consisted only of short runs."
This, of course, assumes that people want to revolutionize. Erich Fromm's _Fear of Freedom_ suggests that "individuals, and therefore societies, have an innate tendency to revert to systems of political and cultural restraint rather than to take advantage of opportunities for freedom or emancipation--and that they may actually seek out governments to control them rather than face the prospect of individual freedom." That Laotians do not revolutionize is not an inherent limitation of the internet but rather an inherent aspect of human nature.
Orwellian is wrong. Kafkaesque is apt. But I'd suggest "Proustian" as a more relevant literary analogy.
Cites the OED:
"A. POWELL Infants of Spring viii. 123 A lack of interest for individuals in what might be called the Proustian sense was perhaps characteristic, too, of the whole of the Arts Society."
I'm sure most of the posts here will deal with the technical feasability of putting men on mars and the creation of a permanent presence on the moon, but I have some political concerns.
Why the sudden interest in space travel, and why specifically Mars? We already know much about our Universe; we should explore others. What can a man--an expensive man--learn about Mars that telescopes and machines can't? Why are we dedicating a forecasted $20 billion to a space project when domestic woes abound?
Mars being a well-known planet, is this simply an attempt to appeal to the public?
We all know that the original space race was one of the most spectacular examples of corporate welfare in American history. Millions of *public* tax dollars were appropriated to put a man on the moon. What did this give the public? Very little, save for some diluted scientific knowledge and a boost in patriotism. What did this give private companies? Well, for starters, corporations have reaped billions from the spin-off products. (The same can be said for the Internet, another publically-funded establishment.) You could say this about aviation, medicine or any field that the U.S. is competitive in. Public funds have routinely been appropriated to aid private companies.
The whole of America's economy is dependent upon the military. Noam Chomsky has a theory for this, called the "Pentagon System," and I can't believe no one here has mentioned it. A basic economics class will discuss this top-down military-generated economic growth.
Chomsky best explains this system in Understanding Power, but here's an excerpt from a speech he conducted with Corporate Watch:
After the Second World War, it was well understood in the business world that they were going to have to have state coordination, subsidy, and a kind of socialization of costs and risks. The only question was how to do that. The method that was hit upon pretty quickly was the "Pentagon system" (including the DOE, AEC, NASA). These publicly-subsidized systems have been the core of the dynamic sectors of the American economy ever since (much the same is true of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, etc., relying on different public sources). And that certainly leads right to Microsoft.
So how does Microsoft achieve its enormous profits? Well, Bill Gates is pretty frank about it. He says they do it by "embracing and extending" the ideas of others. They're based on computers, for example. Computers were created at public expense and public initiative. In the 1950s when they were being developed, it was about 100% public expense. The same is true of the Internet. The ideas, the initiatives, the software, the hardware -- these were created for about 30 years at public initiative and expense, and it's just now being handed over to guys like Bill Gates.
It's just another example of corporate welfare, and our entire country is dependent upon it. Don't fool yourselves with this "free-market" rhetoric/ Milton-Freedman-University-of-Chicago bullshit.
Before 1886, it was a felony in most states for corporations to give money to politicians or otherwise try (through lobbying or advertising) to influence elections.
I've never heard such propaganda in my life. Not ONE of Reed's arguments is borne out by reality. Whom does Morgan Reed think he's fooling?
I have a message for you, Morgan Reed, you supercilious sycophant. YOU'RE the one ignorant of the government's workings. Familiarize yourself with 1896's Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (a landmark case in its own right) before you wax poetic about the "democracy" in this country and the alleged ignorance of Slashdot readers.
Corporations have been in bed with governments since the inception of the United States.
Back in 1772 the Dutch East India company petitioned parliament to reduce the tariff on tea to the new contient. The American traders couldn't compete with the less-expensive teas, and what occured is known today as . . . the Boston Tea Party.
So do you realize you're just doing the bidding of the Devil? For every $10 dollars they pay you, these neo-cons increase their savings by millions. Yes, you receive a small piece of the pie, but I hope you sleep well at night.
Slashdot Mirror
Solaris is distinctively different from most science fiction films with their emphasis on special effects and whiz bang action. Instead, its focus on introspective characters and the use of unconventional techniques to tell its story give it an edge over other art films of the period. Desson Howe of The Washington Post wrote: "the third feature in Tarkovsky's brief, shining career will deliver you from the mundane to the sublime...His pictures, and his sounds....tell more than just the immediate story; they rejuvenate the mind." Other renown critics also praised Solaris like Jonathan Rosenbaum who said, "Tarkovsky's eerie mystic parable is given substance by the filmmaker's boldly original grasp of film language and the remarkable performances by all the principals.
The be all and end all for any luggage concern: Tumi.
e arching&search=category&categoryid=13015&sub_site_ id=3
As the Robb Report calls it, "the Rolex of luggage."
http://www.tumi.com/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=s
This article also brings to mind the overlying business strategy of innovation versus copying. The former strategy has largely been the domain of stateside universities and companies, whereas the latter has been the province of east-Asian companies. Look at automotive design, the microchip, etc., to see various trends in R&D vs. distribution. Of course the U.S. is no longer the world's sole innovator, but that is due to companies like Dell.
This also brings to mind an historical speech between Nixon and Khrushchev:
"Well then we will say America has been in existence for 150 years and this is the level she has reached. We have existed not quite 42 years and in another seven years we will be on the same level as America. When we catch you up, in passing you by, we will wave to you." CNN.
If the USSR was high, it was because they stood on the shoulders of the Western World.
This is to be expected from a mainstream publication that intends to present "hacking" in a mainstream light. I say, read at your own risk.
Well, there are several issues to be considered here before Mr. Kurlantzick gets ahead of himself.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon. In many areas of the world--especially Laos--it has not undergone mainstream proliferation. Many Laotians do not have access to the internet, and contrary to this article's claims, many of them are still illiterate. Those who can read can only read the Lao language. Until the Internet has mainstream acceptance among the mainstream of Laotians, there will be little revolutionary activity. This will take time, of course, because revolutions aren't born overnight. As says the historian Howard Zinn, "so far, human history has consisted only of short runs."
This, of course, assumes that people want to revolutionize. Erich Fromm's _Fear of Freedom_ suggests that "individuals, and therefore societies, have an innate tendency to revert to systems of political and cultural restraint rather than to take advantage of opportunities for freedom or emancipation--and that they may actually seek out governments to control them rather than face the prospect of individual freedom." That Laotians do not revolutionize is not an inherent limitation of the internet but rather an inherent aspect of human nature.
Orwellian is wrong. Kafkaesque is apt. But I'd suggest "Proustian" as a more relevant literary analogy.
Cites the OED:
"A. POWELL Infants of Spring viii. 123 A lack of interest for individuals in what might be called the Proustian sense was perhaps characteristic, too, of the whole of the Arts Society."
What do you mean, "yet another way"? What are some of the other ways that people have been commodities for others?
Why the sudden interest in space travel, and why specifically Mars? We already know much about our Universe; we should explore others. What can a man--an expensive man--learn about Mars that telescopes and machines can't? Why are we dedicating a forecasted $20 billion to a space project when domestic woes abound?
Mars being a well-known planet, is this simply an attempt to appeal to the public?
We all know that the original space race was one of the most spectacular examples of corporate welfare in American history. Millions of *public* tax dollars were appropriated to put a man on the moon. What did this give the public? Very little, save for some diluted scientific knowledge and a boost in patriotism. What did this give private companies? Well, for starters, corporations have reaped billions from the spin-off products. (The same can be said for the Internet, another publically-funded establishment.) You could say this about aviation, medicine or any field that the U.S. is competitive in. Public funds have routinely been appropriated to aid private companies.
Is Bush attempting to recapture American technical dominance for private American industries? That would coincide with this article stating that CEOs Of Intel, HP Call Overseas Rivals Threat To U.S. IT Leadership.
Likewise, could this be in anticipation of resource accumulation, space-mining, etc.?
Imperialism on Earth can only go so far, but space, as they say, is the final frontier.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but what if C.S. Lewis's son, Daniel Day were to act in these movies?
Wouldn't that be something?
Chomsky best explains this system in Understanding Power, but here's an excerpt from a speech he conducted with Corporate Watch:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9805-micros oft.html
It's just another example of corporate welfare, and our entire country is dependent upon it. Don't fool yourselves with this "free-market" rhetoric/ Milton-Freedman-University-of-Chicago bullshit.
Before 1886, it was a felony in most states for corporations to give money to politicians or otherwise try (through lobbying or advertising) to influence elections.
I've never heard such propaganda in my life. Not ONE of Reed's arguments is borne out by reality. Whom does Morgan Reed think he's fooling?
I have a message for you, Morgan Reed, you supercilious sycophant. YOU'RE the one ignorant of the government's workings. Familiarize yourself with 1896's Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (a landmark case in its own right) before you wax poetic about the "democracy" in this country and the alleged ignorance of Slashdot readers.
Corporations have been in bed with governments since the inception of the United States. Back in 1772 the Dutch East India company petitioned parliament to reduce the tariff on tea to the new contient. The American traders couldn't compete with the less-expensive teas, and what occured is known today as . . . the Boston Tea Party.
So do you realize you're just doing the bidding of the Devil? For every $10 dollars they pay you, these neo-cons increase their savings by millions. Yes, you receive a small piece of the pie, but I hope you sleep well at night.