Most countries are not like that. The US is a weird place when it comes to nationalistic indoctrination. In the countries I've lived in (apart from the US) it's the insecure who cling to nationalism, as if somehow the great deeds of others who marched/fought/wrote/taught under the same flag rubs off on them, making them greater than they are if they never had that flag to stand under, and not the default position. Don't think the rest of the world is so bizarrely patriotic as the US, as most of the world has seen where patriotism leads. Patriotism is useful as a rallying call for the weak and oppressed, but a vicious weapon for the powerful. At some point in the life of a country or people, nationalism must be retired if clear heads are to prevail to decide the future path of said country or people.
The death penalty is more expensive than just housing people until they die. Lots of studies have shown that. Unless you want to get rid of due process, that is... Wouldn't it make more sense to train them up and get a useful person out of prison after their sentence is served?
"Life" might, but not "life that we require to survive, either directly or indirectly, given our current (and hard-to-change) industries & lifestyles". It gets a bit harder to figure this stuff out if we stick to the point.
Translation: "Money! Blarghle blargh blargh I don't know how the world works beyond my own bank balance".
Hint: Things are not all easy to solve. Agriculture can't be fixed by air conditioning. Dykes don't work everywhere they'd be needed. You are saying it's better to have disasters and recover from them (apart from the people who die or suffer), than to think and do what can be done to stop them from happening.
Your ridiculous straw-men simply don't hold up to scrutiny. You haven't offered any facts, simply your guesses as to what will happen and how it can be fixed. Complaining about scientists when that's your retort is hilarious.
Probably because one can't discuss religion without making some massively irrational statements. That's the whole issue: religion is based on assumptions, and when one tries to use those assumptions in the real world, in the presence of others, they will be called into question. And quite rightly so.
The less likely a couple's children are to die before they grow up, the more children they have. An increase in food, health, education, and so on means birth rates will decrease, not explode and take over the world.
He's got an internet connection, so he's one of the wealthy minority, who's probably not too happy for being reminded that people of his class have been raping the country for generations, and finally someone is attempting to do something about it, albeit not with great success.
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in. But screw science, right? Whatever feels good or seems good must be good. You're an island, and everything else will figure out a way to work, and there won't be any periods of instability while hundred-year-old industries and economies adjust to large changes in climate. Right?
Sweden != Switzerland. And Switzerland is having a problem with gun crime. So you're about as wrong as you can be, which is not surprising for a gun nut.
Cambridge university received massive amounts of funding for that research, by the way. His point still stands - there is plenty of research paid for by governments around the world which has no seemingly-obvious practical applications, but which ends up creating whole industries in which countless people work, which help improve our daily lives immeasurably. Just because you can't see it doesn't magically make it worthless. In fact, your post was more of an admission of your lack of knowledge than a condemnation of the system of government-sponsored research wasting money.
Maybe that's how you saw it. It's clearly not a satire about Europe dealing with its own history, as that obviously played no part in the storyline. It was entirely to do with how militarism leads to ridiculous notions as portrayed in the film. We don't need satire to learn from history, but it is vital to learn from the present, which is what this film was about: The US's insanity when it comes to killing things.
And isn't that saying something? The fact it was clearly comparing the US's militaristic tendencies with 1940s Germany? You're getting too caught up with the aesthetics and missing the substance entirely. Just because the uniforms look European and the propaganda seems European doesn't mean that the film isn't directly comparing the US's nonsensical attitude towards violence and military-worshipping to that of Europe during the second world war, a period in time Europe has left far behind it, even so far as to remove most borders within that continent, and raising the standard of living to the highest the world has ever seen.
Exactly: European history. In the US it's today. Heck, the US has gotten worse since this movie came out. The glorification of the military, the conflation of country and military, etc. It's blindingly obvious to anyone from outside the US, and to anyone inside the US who's willing to look.
Then you should watch some of his other movies, specifically his Dutch outings, and see that he's pretty fantastic at subtle. It might be that he was so subtle in Starship Troopers that you missed it entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Most countries are not like that. The US is a weird place when it comes to nationalistic indoctrination. In the countries I've lived in (apart from the US) it's the insecure who cling to nationalism, as if somehow the great deeds of others who marched/fought/wrote/taught under the same flag rubs off on them, making them greater than they are if they never had that flag to stand under, and not the default position. Don't think the rest of the world is so bizarrely patriotic as the US, as most of the world has seen where patriotism leads. Patriotism is useful as a rallying call for the weak and oppressed, but a vicious weapon for the powerful. At some point in the life of a country or people, nationalism must be retired if clear heads are to prevail to decide the future path of said country or people.
There is no glottal stop in "don't" - it's pronounced "dont". The apostrophe indicates a contraction by the removal of an 'o'.
Really bad things like a slap on the wrist for shooting down a passenger jet while in someone else's territorial waters...
The death penalty is more expensive than just housing people until they die. Lots of studies have shown that. Unless you want to get rid of due process, that is... Wouldn't it make more sense to train them up and get a useful person out of prison after their sentence is served?
"Life" might, but not "life that we require to survive, either directly or indirectly, given our current (and hard-to-change) industries & lifestyles". It gets a bit harder to figure this stuff out if we stick to the point.
They didn't falsify data. They didn't lie.
It is. You just don't know it, because you don't get your facts from those who study the climate.
Translation: "Money! Blarghle blargh blargh I don't know how the world works beyond my own bank balance".
Hint: Things are not all easy to solve. Agriculture can't be fixed by air conditioning. Dykes don't work everywhere they'd be needed. You are saying it's better to have disasters and recover from them (apart from the people who die or suffer), than to think and do what can be done to stop them from happening.
Your ridiculous straw-men simply don't hold up to scrutiny. You haven't offered any facts, simply your guesses as to what will happen and how it can be fixed. Complaining about scientists when that's your retort is hilarious.
So because you don't know, it must automatically be nonsense. Wonderful logic, sparky.
They all replaced religion with a new religion featuring them as the figurehead.
Probably because one can't discuss religion without making some massively irrational statements. That's the whole issue: religion is based on assumptions, and when one tries to use those assumptions in the real world, in the presence of others, they will be called into question. And quite rightly so.
Clearly not, but there are plenty of countries with a lower GDP than the US who enjoy a better quality of life.
The less likely a couple's children are to die before they grow up, the more children they have. An increase in food, health, education, and so on means birth rates will decrease, not explode and take over the world.
He's got an internet connection, so he's one of the wealthy minority, who's probably not too happy for being reminded that people of his class have been raping the country for generations, and finally someone is attempting to do something about it, albeit not with great success.
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in. But screw science, right? Whatever feels good or seems good must be good. You're an island, and everything else will figure out a way to work, and there won't be any periods of instability while hundred-year-old industries and economies adjust to large changes in climate. Right?
They might be the ideal distribution system for OSS, but they're not used for that nearly as much as the other use you seem to not appreciate.
Amazing straw-man argument there. Seriously wonderful. I hope for your sake it's a new Olympic sport.
Sweden != Switzerland. And Switzerland is having a problem with gun crime. So you're about as wrong as you can be, which is not surprising for a gun nut.
And alternative energy can be used for a lot more than simply generating electricity... You're not looking to bright yourself.
Lister was probably pished again.
Cambridge university received massive amounts of funding for that research, by the way. His point still stands - there is plenty of research paid for by governments around the world which has no seemingly-obvious practical applications, but which ends up creating whole industries in which countless people work, which help improve our daily lives immeasurably. Just because you can't see it doesn't magically make it worthless. In fact, your post was more of an admission of your lack of knowledge than a condemnation of the system of government-sponsored research wasting money.
Maybe that's how you saw it. It's clearly not a satire about Europe dealing with its own history, as that obviously played no part in the storyline. It was entirely to do with how militarism leads to ridiculous notions as portrayed in the film. We don't need satire to learn from history, but it is vital to learn from the present, which is what this film was about: The US's insanity when it comes to killing things.
And isn't that saying something? The fact it was clearly comparing the US's militaristic tendencies with 1940s Germany? You're getting too caught up with the aesthetics and missing the substance entirely. Just because the uniforms look European and the propaganda seems European doesn't mean that the film isn't directly comparing the US's nonsensical attitude towards violence and military-worshipping to that of Europe during the second world war, a period in time Europe has left far behind it, even so far as to remove most borders within that continent, and raising the standard of living to the highest the world has ever seen.
Exactly: European history. In the US it's today. Heck, the US has gotten worse since this movie came out. The glorification of the military, the conflation of country and military, etc. It's blindingly obvious to anyone from outside the US, and to anyone inside the US who's willing to look.
Then you should watch some of his other movies, specifically his Dutch outings, and see that he's pretty fantastic at subtle. It might be that he was so subtle in Starship Troopers that you missed it entirely.